Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Biased voting from canvassing on Slovenian WP[edit]

Agree. Mile takes good photos and many achieve FP with support from the regulars here. So I don't see why it is necessary to inflate one's FPC count by canvassing among friends. I suggest you withdraw that image, stop canvassing, and ask your biased friends to either vote neutrally at FPC or not vote at all. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There is another point of view of this situation. Maybe someone (not the author) is doing conchupancia here with the aim of messing up someone's reputation, however, this is too conspiratorial theory --The Photographer 13:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The canvass was done by Mile. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar posts for many of the previous FPC where his mates turn up to support him. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I can see now. I'm sorry --The Photographer 13:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have looked at several previous FP nominations at Slovenian WP and they all include a link and request by Mile to come to Commons to vote. -- Colin (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry guys, this isnt your home, its Wikimedia Commons. Dont make it Wikicomedia. I dont have much time, i spent it for last time. --Mile (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Christian: why should i remove, I think its perfect shot. I dont make friends here like others, i did know Poco and Case will come after Colin minus vote. I am reading between the lines. I also doubt poeple here know more than custos in a museum, who is qualified and prof in lighting. Especially per-pering votes, which tells nothing, and are made by one who doesnt put any picture, and one who make daily touristy panoramas. I havent saw nothing similar of them in a museum. --Mile (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Mile: If it a perfect shot, then why canvas so obviously on the Slovenian wiki? You are a good enough photographer to make FPs without cheating. You are just making defensive reactions avoiding to acknowledge the real problem. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is why i know Case will come out. Can you vote like this !? I give you plus, because one gave you minus ? "Support Per Martin and cart; also for the same reason Mile opposes. Daniel Case (talk)". I dont have problem at Year finals, because many 1000 are voting, i have more problem with some here. And i like to be more critical at voting, since a lot of "waste" come out as FP here. --Mile (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mile: If you have an issue with a specific user and how they vote, discuss it with them. You are again avoiding the actual problem here, which is your biased canvassing. In what way should canvassing help on the problem of the FPC generating a lot of waste? Do you think there is less waste, when you canvas for support votes? -- Slaunger (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Slaunger: we will see that with time, since i havent seen one Venera which would look so good and photogenic like here. People will tell, not few medicore per-perers. So i think this shot had biased negative voting. I try to correct that. --Mile (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Mile has interpreted the phrase "per Colin" as meaning that these people were inclined or encouraged to vote the same way as me, rather than just randomly happening to agree with me. I'm certainly not in communication with either Daniel or Poco, and both of them vote differently to me regularly / I oppose their nominations regularly. Mile clearly thinks that his (wrong) assumption of bias needs to be corrected by blatant abuse of the voting. This isn't just one image, but many nominations get canvassed at Slovenian WP, which gives him a 2-3 support advantage on Commons. I think that if Mile does not accept he has made a misjudgement here, and agree to stop canvassing his Commons nominations, then some kind of FPC ban for a period is going to be called for. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

FPC is not a competition and for this raison Mile haven't any "advantage" over others commonists. FPC is a section to learn and improve the individual photoquality while we are filling commons of hight quality images, however, the Mile's problem is that we are filling Commons with a number of images wrong evaluated beyond the nonsense of this game. I think all Mile's FP and poty finalists should be withdrawn and re-evaluated. I am sure the story would have been different without these votes. --The Photographer 15:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree it is not a competition, that's not what I meant by "advantage". I don't really support the idea of removing existing candidates. But this game has to stop now. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Colin, so who is checking objectivity ? Oppose votes and pers ? Who is protecting me against it ? I've told before, unless we get anonymus voting this a no-go. Objectivness, friendship, e-mail friends... Photographer i cant speak with you, since you are now sponsored with Colin help. Thats is good, but just take care what you write. --Mile (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mile, you make a lot of bad faith allegations without any evidence. That's really not allowed and will lead to a full block unless you stop. I oppose plenty of The Photographer's nominations and he opposes quite a lot of mine. There's no cosy support-support relationship there as there appears to be with your Slovenian FP friends. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Colin: This isn't just one image, but many nominations get canvassed at Slovenian WP, which gives him a 2-3 support advantage on Commons. /.../ There appears to be /a relationship/ with your Slovenian FP friends.The Photographer: I am sure the story would have been different without these votes.
Please explain in detail how many nominations "get canvassed" and how much "different" would "the story" (POTY, I presume) would be without Slovene voters. Because I found many PetarM's FPCs from 2016 without any votes coming from Slovenia:
And there are quite a few 2016 nominations with only one (mine) "Slovene" vote:
I believe you should really stop spreading this from this FPC to other Mile's nominations. Yes, PetarM was pinging few user at SL:WP to inform them about the Venus from Milo voting and this was wrong. But for his previous FPCs, you exaggerate a lot. MZaplotnik (edits) 17:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@MZaplotnik: Please, Could you show only a vote Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose of you in all PetarM's FPCs? --The Photographer 18:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
MZaplotnik, I'm not interested in whether there are some nominations where Mile didn't canvass or where sometimes canvassing didn't add many votes, or working out whether this changed the Pass/Fail. What matters is that he's canvassing regularly on Slovenian FP and this is bringing voters to Commons who (like yourself) pretty much only vote support for Mile and don't generally vote on others. Yours, romanm and Sporti's votes are obviously biased, and Verde78 are suspicious but may have another explanation. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Three examples:

In regard to my votes on these pages, yes, they were brought to my attention due to their mention elsewhere, but I voted only for those that I considered of a high enough quality to merit the designation of a FP. If that helps the process in any way, I don't mind having my votes stricken at the mentioned votings. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Eleassar, while your participation at FPC does seem limited only to Mile's nominations, and to just a few votes, you are also one to vote oppose: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Ljubljana Cathedral Altar and Cupola ceiling. This, together with your comment about striking votes, makes me believe you wish not only to be fair but to be seen to be fair. And that is an honourable thing. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Colin, what are you saing ? They must not vote ? They should not vote all together ? Picture is failry FP, and i wasnt 2014 member on SL.Wiki, but since 2015. --Mile (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Colin i think you are hunting a ghost, year or two ago you were connecting me with user from Serbian Wikipedia. --Mile (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Colin: I think there is a difference between the case that triggered this and the three previous cases you refer to directly above. The case triggering this discussion was a case where a clear pre-bias was made in the solicitng of votes. Assuming the machine translated "The picture is very good, the lighting is good and gives expression sculpture. Mal support to Commons would be good." is just approximately correct. Mile is not only trying to recruit unbiased voters here, but he is seeding such voters with a pre-defined opinion. That is completely unacceptable!!! And I am appaled he does not realize so himself. In contrast in the three cases you mention above, the canvassing consists in the two first cases of a very neutral informative note that there is a vote at Commons on the same picture more or less. There are no explictly biased or appraising words from PetarM in these two cases. And for the third, I cannot see any canvassing taking place. So, I think you are trying to make this worse than it actually is. Obviously, once all the Slovenian users support the nominations on the Slovenian wiki, it is of course to be expected that most solicited votes from there will also vote support here on Commons. I do not think we have a policy on Commons that explicitly prohibits unbiased soliting of opinions from sister projects - we are interconnected after all, but in any event you risk it will backfire, and if the canvassing is biased, it will backfire severely.
Recently we discussed on this very page if this page should be used to place a notification if FPC users were reported on any of the drama boards. It was agreed that it was OK, if the referring note was made in a completely neutral language to avoid pre-bias. That is also canvassing. The FPC community members have a highler likelihood of wanting to defend a fellow FPC user on the drama boards than to go against them. If we still stand by that decision, I do not see the big difference and the big problem as long as the canvassing is done with a 100% unbiased wording.
Biased wording was an issue in the FPC triggering this, but I fail to see a similar past pattern. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree this one case was worse in explicitly asking for support. (btw, the third example contains a link back to the active Commons FP). And Mile admits he did this because of some perceived bad faith voting here on Commons, for which there is no evidence. But the previous canvassing is resulting in voters who nearly universally come here to support Mile and are not interested in determining "the finest on Commons" but on supporting Mile (or Slovenian photographers). It is clear therefore that linking to the Commons nomination while making a Slovenian one is giving Mile some easy votes from his fellow Slovenian Wikipedians. There is no need for this. Mile can gain his FPs without this by his own talent. I don't accept the "We have no policy against this on Commons" argument, Slaunger, because that doesn't really have any weight. We have no policy against a lot of undesirable things. Commons tends to avoid making policy and for good reason as it is very hard to come up with a rule that is fair/useful in all cases. Here the pattern is clearly undesirable. It is not desirable to have users at FP who's purpose turning up that day is to support a friend or a nation's photographers. I think the solution here (aside from any block/ban) is to require Mile to nominate FPs on both sites at separate, non-overlapping periods, and for there to be no cross linking. This removes the doubt that votes have been encouraged from the other site. I cannot think of a good reason why this should not be acceptable to Mile, nor can I think of any other user who actually does this kind of cross promotion on other FPs. And his Slovenian voters reminded that FP here is for all of Commons, and that bias towards or against individuals, nationalities, genders, etc, etc, is not acceptable. By all means have a preference for birds, or castles, or portraits, but not this. -- Colin (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Colin. You are right, there was a link in the third nomination, sorry about that. Also a fair thing to bring up that there are many aspects of Commons life we do not have policies for. But I still quite do not get, is it then not also canvassing to put a neutral note on this talk page if an FPC user is reported on one of the drama boards. And why is that OK, if a neutral note from one wiki to another is not OK? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this is why it is so hard to determine a policy/rule that covers all situation. Canvassing per se isn't always bad. But I note that the proposal you mentioned was not supported by me (though I acknowledged the problem of FPC-regulars not being aware of other Commons issues that may affect them) nor was it supported by a large number. The "proof of the pudding is in the eating". I'm sure if Jee's proposal resulted in a lot of biased votes/comments at AN/U then it would be called into question too. en:Wikipedia:Canvassing (although not policy here) has some good advice/definitions. It isn't just about whether the note is neutral but whether the audience of your note is likely to vote one way or another. Since we know that posting links at Slovenian FP encourages only support votes at Commons FP from Slovenian FP participants, it is clear that this form of canvassing is unacceptable and should stop. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is really sad to me finding out that you, Mile, have to call for help this way to try at any cost to get the FP star. While you are a talented photographer you are also a cheater. And please, don't try to deviate the attention affirming things like Daniel, Colin or me are targeting you. On the other side it is really curious to see that in my last 3 FPCs that were or are going to be promoted all supported but you. I'd like to keep assuming good faith but that's really hard after seeing the set of tools you put in place here. Poco2 20:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Poc; Poco, you are there top on the list of Unsorted, i wish you spent more time with this, stop nominating each minute when last is over, and more to work on software to improve your shots. Most od 10-12am point and shoot panos are far from FP for me. Improve your skills. --Mile (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, we are here discussing about what to do with your cheating, it is not about me, Colin, Daniel or Jimbo! Poco2 21:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @PetarM: You asked me "why should i remove?", don't you see the reaction of all regulars? You can decide yourself to go in the same direction of the community, we search the finest images. Are you sure your image is? If you do not trust us maybe you should not participate here.
    As far I see with the links provided by Colin, the canvassing has been done not only by Mile but by at least 3 or 4 other users, one may thought that Mile simply followed an established and current practice. It alleviates things a little regarding Mile, but it is still a problem. And I also saw that the canvassings were every times during nominations in an other project, maybe should we demand in our rules that the images nominated here to to be not nominated anywhere else during the process. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC) this is unfeasible as we can not watch all projects! Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It will be hard for us to not suspect the votes of some users in the future nominations of Mile. How to deal with this? not count the votes of thoses users during 6 month when they votes on Mile's nominations? That could be a solution, but we have to decide precisely here who are thoses users and to notify them about that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer A valid requirement to vote in FPC could be that the user has obtained at least a quality image and uploaded at least 5 images (quality or not) in the last month. --The Photographer 22:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
QIC is different, and some people might not be interested in it. I think requiring at least 2 submissions to either FPC, QIC or VIC would be sufficient, though I'll note that would have made me ineligible to vote for a while. That might not have been a bad thing, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, activity requirements don't make sense. For admins we want to make sure they keep up to date with policies, but here we just need to make sure voters are qualified to judge a photo on its merits, which doesn't go away with time. -- King of ♠ 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • A simply requirement: please use your own vote. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed, and as a two-thirds majority of supports is needed, the next potential votes the Slovene community on Mile's nominations will be a heavy handicap to bear for Mile. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Solution: make it anonymus. Nothing other will be good enough. --Mile (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


I know it's disagreeable to renew discussion of this incident, but has any action been proposed? If so, please link the thread here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, no I don't think an action is needed, or that it have been proposed , I think Mile well understood the community don't appreciate this "canvassing", and that supports coming from Slovene community will attract now too much attention, and will be sanctioned in a way (oppose votes) or another. We are all happy to see Mile's photos, nominations and contributions. Now let's see the future. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Commons to my is a familiar like environment and it's difficult see people lying and cheating with nonsense. If no action is taken, quite possibly this situation will be repeated. He has not only given signs of the least repentance and especially for his disrespect and mockery towards some members here. I think FPC temporal banning to Mile could work --The Photographer 18:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This discussion is a kind of "warning", if the problem is repeated with Mile's nominations it will be time to think at about potential reactions on our part. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Earlier, I had detected many similar unexpected voting patterns and warned (friendly) those involved. Sometimes, these can be a flow of votes from a particular language community, sometimes an unexpected over-activity from a group from IRC or list where probably a nomination is discussed. If the votes are invalid (from new login or less than 50 edits), we can disqualify such edits. In other cases, it is difficult to take an action due to lack of solid evidence. But we can be alert and use this talk page to attract more eyes. And an oppose vote will well serve as it is double weighted. (I was away when this happened and wondered why I missed those early incidents. I usually scrutiny all votes from newcomers when I've enough time. Request more people to do so.) Jee 03:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with The Photographer that Mille has not indicated any acceptance of wrongdoing, coupled with a lot of bad faith assumptions about the oppose votes he gets. To me this suggests Mille has not learned and may well continue canvassing some of his nominations (he didn't canvass them all). I don't think there is any reason why Mille should nominate images at Solvenian WP FP and at Commons at the same time, with cross links, therefore I request he stops this practice. It has clearly led to extra support from his home wiki. In future he should nominate separately with no advertisement. This isn't much of a limitation since nobody else at Commons FP does that. Where this isn't followed, then a notice can be placed on the FPC nomination and we can decide if action is required then. Mille is a good photographer and deserves to get FPs, and can do so fairly like everyone else. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not a problem, i wont put on FP list (SI,EN,COM) on same week, i can wait for a week-two. I dont rush, it was more a habbit. --Mile (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Further games[edit]

Sadly, Mile has not learned a lesson and continues to play games on Commons. This time over copyright. At Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bankote portrait pattern (Intaglio printing).jpg several users asked him to name the country/currency in order to determine the copyright status. He refused, saying "who told you i had to name the money, thats is why de minimis exist. Name it." Challenging users to identify the country first. He eventually relented and added a category. However, on the Deletion request his throwing insults with "Are you OK ?" (which is not concern for my health and happiness, but a claim that I've lost my mind). Opinions? Cheating at FPC and then obstructing copyright investigations... time for AN/U and a block? -- Colin (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

His English is very poor (as far as I know); and in my experience, people having language difficulty always run into troubles compared to others. So better ignore the tone to some extend. (A DR is not a vote like FPC; the closing admin only care the merits of arguments. So better leave it after expressing our opinion.) Jee 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think English language difficulties are to blame here. There's no need for rudeness and obstruction. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
See for example his comments here. It is very difficult to follow. Jee 16:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I can understand rudeness in any language, and so can Mile. -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My edit at 08:16, before you came in : p.S. Its not American, its Chinese rinminbi. I was more answer to INeverCry, since you werent there yet. After what i ask Help desk, reply was its de minimis. I wasnt sure if something which goes under de minimis should be Categorized as whole money. Since "not identifiable" statement. So question; can i identify money if i go de minimis is normal. I didnt get the answer but now find out its not de minimis, so deletation can be done. I also removed FP nominee before i know that, since some doubts were there. I dont want to loose time with you. And you would like to block. For me, all fine. You keep with blocking procedure. --Mile (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Mile, I wrote "You still haven't categorised the image to indicate what banknote and what country it is from" and this was true when I wrote it. Stop playing this game, it just makes you look bad. At FPC you are required, on the File Description Page, to identify the subject (you still haven't said it is a One Yuan note) and to properly categorise it. This information is also required for the DR. The "de minis" argument does not require you to be secretive about the identification, nor for you to be rude to me about timestamps and who said what when. A "PS" comment on FPC does not count for FPC or DR. You seem to know what "categorised" means, so Jee's argument that you don't understand doesn't hold. You are simply being insulting, and obstructive. -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I will take some semi-pause, removed from comments etc, since some was already problematic there with comments on other FP nominee, become to spamming photo for nonsense there... so, will stay out of comments for some time. Come and go once per week-two will be enough. --Mile (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't understand how it happens. If not action is taken to fix this issue, the user will continue playing games here. My English level is not excellent, however, I can see how he is playing and shielding using how an argument his English broken. --The Photographer 16:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias is normal in voting[edit]

I don't get why there is such an outrage. I personally don't like the picture we are discussing about out of aesthetic reasons and had I seen that before I would have voted against it (and I would probably be challenged to provide less subjective explanation for that). Nevertheless, Petar's pictures are of good technical quality, have good composition and fulfil other objective FP's standards. We are voting about whether or not the picture fulfils FP standards here. I am sure that my fellow Slovenian Wikipedians, who supported the picture, are experienced users - romanm for example is with us since 2004 - and sincerely considered whether or not the picture complies with the standards.

On the other side, some of the oppose votes were blaming that the vote is unfair. How is voting "oppose" because there are unfair "support" votes any better? All of the "cascading" users have voting right and there is no rule that would prohibit one from recruiting voters. Just have a look at elections - Trump won because he recruited greater mass of people in the crucial states that believed he would make a better president and he had all right to do that. In Austria, Van der Bellen won the election because he recruited enough people that were afraid of what would have happened if a far-right politician would won the election.

Please keep Wikimedia Commons a friendly space. Mile is contributing valuable material and such debates surely do not motivate him for further contributions. I, Rude and others already stopped sharing our pictures on Wikimedia Commons for similar reasons. --Miha (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to point out the irony (or appropriateness?) of comparing Mile to Trump, if you would have a look at Consensual Review in COM:QIC. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to overlook anything we know about someone's politics or even bigotry when voting on their photos, and I believe I have done so, but voting against a photo on the basis of bigotry, if that's what's happening in this instance (and it wouldn't be the first time; his user talk page discusses but does not name the reasons for a block, but many of us remember and drew conclusions from his scurrilous and baseless attack on an African-American athlete) surely cannot be accepted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible new FP section or... ?[edit]

Photo that brought about these thoughts.

This idea started at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lezyne Carbon 10 collage.jpg so I'm copying the first part of it here since this is a better place for such discussions:

"Your photos of hardware and mine are at the opposite ends of a spectrum. Yours are precise, tight and almost clinical while mine are all about mood, space and light. We need both. I would say these exact representations are sort of the 3D equivalent of all the photographs of "Static non-photographic media". Photos of those need to be exact and depict the artwork in a objective manner. With all the new possibilities that focus stacking and better cameras bring, we are seeing more and more of these outstanding photos. It would be unproductive to say no to all of these contributions just because it is hard to make them artistically pleasing and we don't know where to put them. I think it is time for a new sub-section of FP:COM, something like "Commons:Featured pictures/Technical". I would be very happy to review photos of things the same way I review a photo of a painting to see if it is perfectly true to the original artwork. --cart-Talk 10:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@W.carter: Thanks for your thoughts. I was thinking about bringing your suggestion to the FPC talk page, but then I went through the FP categories again and these solid color BG product shots just don't look out of place to me, they just belong next to the "more natural background" shots. What I think is happening as well is that my subjects aren't very rare or special (the old discussion about criticising the subject together with the photographic qualities) so some people don't feel much when looking at these familiar objects regardless of the quality—in comparison to a vintage camera which might evoke memories or some other cool or unusual thing. And my lighting can never have a wow factor because it is there to light the subject evenly, accentuate features, but never more than that. I don't have a good solution, maybe new FP categories, maybe some comments on this type of photography in the FPC guidelines, or new "RQI"–reference-quality-images ;) – LucasT 14:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
This idea occurred to me while I was reviewing this image and I think this needs some more comments and more discussions, so I'm going to copy our conversation from this page to the more appropriate FPC talk page where such discussions belong. Hope that's ok with you. --cart-Talk 15:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)"
  • So Lucas, here we are. :) I think that there are many of the older photos of objects that could be more accurate to have in a section with technically flawless photos. When the subsections of FP were chosen, it was probably not so common with focus stacked pictures so any such photo gave people a "wow" experience. Not that this is more common, we are not as wowed by just a super-sharp image, we crave something more. This is not just about what background to use, it is also a way to have objects that are not so spectacular by themselves photographed in an extremely good way. Once again I draw the parallel to the reproductions of paintings and such. I think we should at least start to talk about this and see where we end up. --cart-Talk 15:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add another part of that nomination linked at the top, where I listed other examples and argued against Martin Falbisoner who originally opposed my nomination: – LucasT 16:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
"The meticulously stacked photograph of that weird looking tool has an outstanding image quality - but I really can't come to terms with this kind of totally artificial background. Yes, it's much cleaner, smoother, and thus far more perfect than any real sheet of black paper/carton/cloth could ever be. But it also lacks character, sorry. This could easily be fixed, however... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware—if you aren't already—that my solid color backgrounds can be achieved in the studio rather easily and without any reflections or shadows (I can explain how). Just to clarify that what I do here doesn't need to be made in editing. Also there are a lot of existing FPs with such backgrounds, not from me. The shells by Llez, coins, sculptures, computers, a whole engine, watches, musical instruments, jewelry, stones, crystals and some more. The background of many of those is equally character-less than this one. Obviously I like these backgrounds as they allow maximum attention to the main subject. I chose dark grey here because the object has black and white areas that need to stand out. If you would require shadows to "fix" the image, I couldn't add them, because the way I shot this I don't have shadows or reflections: Lezyne Carbon 10 collage OOC example.jpgLucasT 16:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)"
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The images can be in several different galleries/categories, I mean a photo of an object can be in the relevant object gallery and also in a potential new gallery, technical or what you want. It is a bit as I did with Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white, all the images in this gallery are also in another relavant gallery (natural, people....). The only thing is to have enough images, I mean 30-40 images is enough, 3 images is not enough IMO, and also that the topic/subject is worth it. If these two criteria are met this can be a good idea. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Depending on the rules for images to enter such a new category, we have quite a bunch of them. 30 should be achieveable. I've created a new gallery on my user page to show some examples of what I might add into such a category, there are many more of similar images: User:Lucasbosch#FP_Category:_No_shadows.2C_no_reflections.2C_all_in_focus.2C_uniform_background.2C_separation_from_background and the name is terribly long, but these were my rules and couldn't think of a short name to encompass the spirit. What I would want from that category is:
  • even lighting
  • good resolution (hard to draw a line here, but there are FPs of good subjects but they are a bit mushy)
  • all parts of the object in focus
  • no shadows or reflections on background and solid color background
  • appropriate background color to provide enough contrast to the subject
  • transparent background allowed (though I couldn't find any FPs and it feels weird to nominate transparent bg photographs).
  • good separation from the background (you woud be able to draw the edge without having to guess at any point). – LucasT 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: I'm very busy due to my real life job today, and likely tomorrow too, but I will look at this with you as soon as possible. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: I looked to your User:Lucasbosch#FP_Category:_No_shadows.2C_no_reflections.2C_all_in_focus.2C_uniform_background.2C_separation_from_background, the title (and then the category) IMO is far too much restrictive "Images with removed backgrounds", which is also a a popular category is likely better. In a general way a FP gallery which represents the best of our content must have something in common with our ranking system, with our category tree. But nothing prevent the creation of subsection with the kind of criteria you're talking about if there are relevant enough. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer, W.carter: Your proposed FP category name is fine by me, it's better suited than my long name. The "rules" I suggested are very specific, but let me explain why. If an image shows exceptional detail with even lighting, focus stacked, with "removed background" AKA solid colors or transparency, it might become FP, but maybe not, just because people miss the wow factor that is inherent to such accurate images. My wish would be to change the FP guidelines in a way to explain this category of images (maybe with the rules outlined above) and enable them the FP status more easily. This is the question: Are these images special enough to become FP, if they show (possibly) boring subjects extremely well and thus do have a value after all. I have nominated a few of such images and I encounter valid comments that the wow is missing (recent example – "I'm not wowed", "too technical", "this can't be FP in any case"). If you say that VI is where these images belong instead, then I would counter that VI rules are too restrictive on the content and they miss the quality aspect. Thanks for your thoughts and time.– LucasT 17:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we generally have rigorous entry criteria for specific categories. It's more an informal way of grouping the results of our votes in a way that is useful to those browsing the FPs, than a way of determining what is permitted. The categories can be useful to see what's been featured before (though standards do change) and it is also useful to look at the general image topic categories for other quality images.
I have for a long time been concerned that our pixel peeping, combined with the with our stale and pretty awful formal image guidelines (e.g., "every important object in the picture should normally be sharp") mean that product photos are being pushed towards making focusing stacking a requirement not just for small items but for large ones like cameras. Photographically, product photos can be grouped into four:
  • The kind of photos we have here from Lucas are what I believe is called "catalogue photography". It requires some of the qualities he lists above (though I would not encourage transparent backgrounds from photographic images -- leave them for SVGs). The aim is to clearly describe the produce in a neutral environment (white, black or out of focus background). Saying "all parts" need to be in focus is too strict imo. For example, photo of a watch might require the face to be fully in focus, but the strap loops back and can go out of focus as it does so. Focus can be a natural effect to indicate the 3D nature of a product, or to aim the eye at the important area. User:Evan-Amos has generated lots of great computer-related photographs of this kind. They are meticulously clean, with white background. The front-to-back sharpness is good but I'm not sure he focus stacks, instead relying on good DoF. This kind of photography certainly has a place on Commons, as it is naturally useful for educational purposes. There is a lot of skill required to setup the studio for it, and possibly to clean the product if not new. But once setup, one can rapidly fire off dozens of similar images. That might get fatiguing for both photographer and for reviewers here (see this article for comments about that line of work). The "wow" is generated from the technical standards displayed, as well as perhaps an interesting product. (If I never see another e-cigarette on FPC it will be too soon.)
  • Another kind of product photography is the "hero shot" or advertising/marketing. While this might have a plain background of the object in isolation, that is not always required and the surface may form part of the image, going all the way to a photo with the object being used or worn. The Tag Heuer watch photos in this article describe the difference. The lighting is less about making every component clearly visible to be scrutinised than about making the product desirable. It's what I was aiming for in my photo of the Sony A77ii. Compare this photo of a vintage camera with this photo of a vintage camera. In the latter photo, I want to pick it up and feel the camera in my hand; I can almost smell the leather case. The lighting looks like daylight from a window rather than some studio flash. I think generally we have not seen enough of this kind of artistic photography of products at FPC, and are often too technically harsh on them rather than judging the image on artistic merits too.
  • A third kind of photography is one where the subject is in place in its location where you saw it. For example, in a museum or shop or workplace. We often have to accept the lighting is not as great as in the studio, and the background might not be our first choice either.
  • The final kind is not a photograph at all. Increasingly, the "photos" we see of the latest camera, electric shaver or of the furniture in the Ikea catalogue are in fact just computer generated images. The cleanliness, perfection and front-to-back sharpness are because the product is not in fact real.
The problem with category grouping for the FPC page is that an image (I understand) has to be in one category or another. I think the current method of grouping by type of object (clothes, tools, photographic equipment, etc) is better than grouping by type of photography on display. So I would not suggest we change the category and opposed to that suggestion. Wrt Lucas comment about about changing the criteria, I think that (re)viewer fatigue is a real issue that you can't eliminate simply by making rules that mean "if these technical standards are met => featured". Even Diliff got viewer fatigue for his constant nominations of technically perfect (ignoring our differences on wide-angle perspective for now) cathedrals -- and his subjects were some of the most beautiful and wow-inducing building interiors in the country. If you rely on technical excellence for generating "wow" then unfortunately that will diminish as we see more examples of your work, and as the general standard of work increases. If someone were to donate the contents of the Ikea catalogue or Canon's lens catalogue in 36MP glory onto Commons, would we feature all the photos? -- Colin (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Thank you for reminding of the reviewer fatigue problem and your thoughts about product photography. This dampened my wishes to enable more catalogue shots to be featured. – LucasT 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)I totally agree with Colin that an endless parade of these perfect product photos could lead to viewer fatigue, but I started this discussion because I think these photos do have a place on Commons. Of course, they could go into the normal categories just like all the rest of the uploaded photos, but we have seen that some sort of recognition for the photos' excellence and the work involved producing them, do encourage people to continue contributing. That is why I floated the idea of a new FP section. Although, I don't think having specific rules for a section is a good idea. What goes into FP sections should be more or less intuitive. If there are other suggestions, I'm very interested in hearing them. --cart-Talk 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a "beyond QI" would be a better way to see these photos. A super-QI, which we could call a "Flawless image"? FP is FP. You need wow for FP. Even boring everyday objects can be presented in a manner which is interesting and has wow. Here are some examples. And a flawless technically perfect image can be very boring and have an unimaginative composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Lucas, I hope I haven't "dampened" your wish to take more such photos and upload them. One technique for dealing with reviewer fatigue is to nominate such images less frequently. For example, the shell collection photos are nominated infrequently and do well even though they are all much like each other. If they were nominated constantly, then we'd get tired. I wonder if you would be willing to produce a guide on macro focus stacking? It is something I have tried and occasionally successful but other times it just produces a mush of artefacts. Also your lighting technique could be helpful. -- Colin (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Colin, I'm currently strapped on time because of other tasks, so you could use this for now: I use Helicon Focus for my stacks, but it does definitely not produce perfect results and requires retouching every time, with specific issues, which I plan to report to the developer sometime in the future. Regarding technique, I make markings on my macro lens and turn the focus ring a tiny amount (barely visible) for each step. Lighting is another topic and post processing is involved as well to make the results close to perfect. If you need more help, we could move this to my or your talk page. – LucasT 17:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Lucas, thanks. There's no rush. I think that this is one of those topics (like panoramic photos and HDR) where perhaps the folk at FPC could prepare some tutorial pages to help others and share their knowledge. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

[Unindent] This is a very interesting discussion. I just want to say that Slaunger's comment about composition above is very important. The reason I didn't vote on the heatsinks photo is that the diagonal composition didn't work for me. I think a vertical composition or a horizontal one would work better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Illustrating Women, Filling the Gaps[edit]

Hi, This is a new project which also concerns COM:FP. BTW I created and filled up Category:Featured pictures of women. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Different image as alt[edit]

In Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpg, there has been a discussion about the nominated image and a similar image taken around the same time. In my opinion, they are too similar to feature both. I feel that in such circumstances, alts should be permitted to be different photos of the same view (more or less) taken within minutes of each other. Otherwise, we risk denying a feature to the more worthy image if the other image happens to be nominated first. Having the two run side by side allows voters to decide which one is superior. -- King of ♠ 08:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too crazy about the whole alt pic thing. They are sometimes necessary, but should be avoided as far as possible IMO. Allowing for even more options in this will open a whole new mess. Will we also get alt crops of alt scene? If a nominator isn't sure which photo should be entered, I think it is better to do it the old fashion way and ask some of the FPC Regulars for an opinion before nominating. Like Colin did on my talk page for an previous nom. --cart-Talk 10:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
… or ask for opinions on Commons:Photography critiques (which I am pleased to see has been growing more popular again during the last months). --El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That too is very good! --cart-Talk 12:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have always been favorable to let a little freedom for the alternative nominations. It's ok for me in the extend the photos were taken at the same time (same photo shoot) and show the same subject, even if the composition is different. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Are all of you sure both photos couldn't eventually be featured? The compositions are significantly different, though the motif is quite similar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a discussion about the principle of entering an alt of a scene to a nom, not just about the nom given as an example above. --cart-Talk 13:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
True. And I agree in principle with the proposal, but it calls for a difficult judgment, and so I come back to this example, which I think is not a total slam-dunk in terms of not being able to feature both. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's a tough call. But this is only an example; my inquiry is about what we should do in the general case. -- King of ♠ 03:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)