Commons talk:Quality images candidates

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

Quality images community[edit]

The Quality images community is a non kind community, IMO. What is "Revenge I think."? I will not participate any more. Thank you! C T Johansson (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I reworked one of the photos, where you found quality issues from scratch. You can review again in the Consensual Review section, if the found issues are resolved properly. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Start slowly! It needs some time to get into this system. Everyone is welcome. You only have a struggle with one person - and I asure you, it´s nothing personally! --Hubertl 17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no "community" at all, I would say. I don't understand the meaning of this word and concept...--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
What I mean with community is: I scratch your back and you scratch mine. I don't like that at all! @Hubertl, thanks for the advise :) --C T Johansson (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@C T Johansson:The situation is not so harsh. I have very good friends in real life, that I found here. About photos and decline, don't worry, and have a look to the CR. If your photo is really good, it will be promoted at the end of the process, because other reviewers will help. Try to remain calm, and never revenge, it is useless and counter productive (as an old regular here, I know what I'm talking about !) And never forget that "Commons" is just a hobby. Be sure you will find very good and helpful fellows among us. Remain patient and don't give up. You are welcome here.--Jebulon (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for bad english! Normally a decline no is a private reason against you (or me), everybody (so i think) is blind with the own pictures. Normally are the declines justified and i think: "true, really" ;) Yes, it's a hobby and you are welcome here. --Ralf Roleček 18:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
C T Johansson, the QI process is a kind of School of Perception. I never learned so much in such a short time about my own wrong perception of my work as here. QI tought me: How will the picture look like, BEFORE I press the shutter release. This is more important than anything else. Don´t think so much about, what you will capture, think about the possible problems when you are sitting at home, trying to make the best during postprocessing. QI will change your way of work, and this beside all creative and artistic reflections. You have a really good equipment (I hope, also a good, calibrated monitor, not just a notebook display), in general you are doing everything right. What the colleages are doing here, is just improving your existing skills, giving some suggestions, how to make it better. This, regarding your personal level. This all is our personal benefit, that we underestimate sometimes. In fakt, if somebody - as Hockei does - is interested in similar kind of motifs, even when he is specialized in insects, it is in fakt a very similar situation. You should try to benefit from this joint work and in addition try to pass even your own knowledge to others. --Hubertl 07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition of drowned areas?[edit]

Hi, please excuse my silly question. But I'm trying to understand the meaning of drowned areas. RTFM did not work. As far as I assume, a drowned area is an image area consisting mainly of black pixels. It can be seen in the histogram, when it is leaning to the left (there is a peak at 0). The dynamic range of the camera was folded to the much less dynamic range of the jpg, which caused low key pixels to be folded to black. Detail information is lost and cannot be recovered (except from maybe the raw image). Googling is difficult as there are so many drowning people in the world, many of them detected by image processing. For sure it is photographer's jargon, but I'm only an amateur. I'm not struggling to get the files promoted, but I'm struggling to understand. No need to justify your comments, they are perfect. Parts are considered too dark, this is understood.

  • First of all is drowned an absolute measure at all? Mostly it is written as 'drowned', not as drowned. Or is it an individual impression? What tools can I use to find out drowned areas in an image, that do not depend on eyes and monitor settings and light conditions around? Freely available tools preferred.
  • As far as I understand, the histogram does not depend on the monitor or the calibration of the monitor.
  • Is there some description of drowned available (a link will do)?
  • The term drowned is not mentioned in Commons:Image guidelines, but there is a hint Lost details in shadow areas, replaced by JPEG maps. Is this the meaning of drowned? (if so, maybe it should be mentioned there). Is it a pejorative & short term for Lost details in shadow areas?
  • I understand the meaning of 'too dark'. That is a perfectly sound individual impression, that can be shared, but doesn't need to. But drowned doesn't seem to mean the same as 'too dark'. Although some people use the words synonymously ([1], [2] (abgesoffen in German = drowned))
  • For the following example image I've tried to get the incriminated areas (although small). But after that I even understand less.
The threshold diagram does not show real black areas, and when I move the slider nearer to zero, the threshold diagram gets white except some single pixels. The darkest area is near to the knee of the lady, which was a surprise for me. Can we use the images above to illustrate 'drowned'?
  • So the point is: When is an area drowned, and when it is ok? What criteria can be applied to differ?

I do not have a calibrated monitor, so I do not see what you see guys. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is an extremly silly question. And for sure, it is possible to make a thesis out of this.
The simple fact is, that even on the calibrated monitor, I could not see any more structures. For my eye it is BLACK, even when you found, that your pixels have RGB>1.
I took a lot of time to make my findings clear in simple, non-scientific words. But obviously it bothered you so much, that someone had an opinion about your image, that you need to make a provocation out of a simple description (Is there some description of drowned available (a link will do))?
--CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, to bother you CEphoto, Uwe Aranas. I was not upset by your opinion. And thanks for your answer, it is not only the calibrated monitor but the visual impression. Which is ok. I was just a bit confused as both of you argued with the calibrated monitor. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: Wenn du Probleme hast, die von dir produzierten Bilder korrekt zu bearbeiten und zu beurteilen - ob das jetzt an deinem Monitor liegt oder an einem fehlenden leistungsfähigen Programm - dann solltest du dir überlegen, hier vielleicht einen Investition zu tätigen. Wie andere auch. Ich habe in Wien zu einem Workshop eingeladen, das war dir bekannt, in dem auch diese Probleme erörtet wurden anhand von Beispielen, du hat aber kein Interesse gezeigt. Möchtest du jetzt diesen Workshop hier auf der QI-Diskussionsseite? Quasi eine Einzelschulung? Wie es scheint, hast du generell die Farben angehoben, nicht jedoch differenziert. Was dazu geführt hat, dass das, was eh in Ordnung war, ebenfalls angehoben wurde. Es geht auch nicht, ein Schwarz anheben zu wollen, Schwarz bleibt schwarz, ich kann es höchstens grau machen. Dasselbe gilt im Übrigen auch für Weiß. Es geht in diesem Fall um die Tiefen, und die Tiefen haben mit Schwarz wenig zu tun. Es sind schlichtweg die dunklen Bereiche - jedoch nicht schwarz. Schwarz selbst war nur ein Teil des Baumstumpfes (deswegen mein Hinweis, dass du ev. etwas an der Kamera machen solltest), alles andere war "abgesoffen". Ich kenne das kostenlose, mitgelieferte Bildbearbeitungsprogramm von Nikon nicht, da aber der Großteil der sich selbst ernstnehmenden Fotografen nicht damit arbeiten, dürfte das einen Grund haben. Ich mache auch mit Photoshop kein Panorama, kein Focus-Stacking oder ein HDR, obwohl alle diese Funktionen in PS vorhanden sind. Auch korrigiere ich perspektivische Verzerrungen nicht mit dem Tilt/shift Programm oder Lightroom, denn das ist ein unzulängliches Zusatzgimmick.

Mit deiner leider sehr typischen Penetranz, den anderen doch beweisen zu wollen, dass du im Grunde genommen recht hast, wirst du jedenfalls hier wenig Erfolg haben (wie sonst übrigens inzwischen auch nicht mehr). Man kann mit Histogramme alleine ein Bild nicht beurteilen, es zeigt im Grunde genommen nur eine Tendenz auf. Falls du aber der Meinung bist, dass Histogramme allein über die Qualität eines Bildes Auskunft geben, gewissermaßen den Beweis liefern, dann kann ich dir nur raten, nicht mehr die Bilder selbst, sondern gleich die Histogramme zu nominieren. --Hubertl 18:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

dir auch danke für deine Antwort. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Ich sehe auf dem fraglichen Bild absolut nichts bildwichtiges, das störend abgesoffen wäre. Dafür braucht man auch wirklich keinen wie auch immer kalibrierten Monitor. Der Beleuchtungskontrast ist recht hoch, aber das ist nun mal so bei Sonnenschein und wirkt auf mich im Foto durchaus natürlich umgesetzt. Da sind Bildbereiche im Schatten halt sehr dunkel bis schwarz. Das ist mir persönlich deutlich lieber als zwanghaftes Tonemapping oder Kurbeln an allen möglichen Knöpfen, damit überall im Bild irgendwas zu erkennen ist. Ok, ausgefressene Lichter bzw. Clipping einzelner Farbkanäle sind mein Hobby, aber auch da gibt es Bewertungsspielraum. Was es nicht gibt, sind absolute Beurteilungs- und Qualitätskriterien in der Fotografie. Die Energie, die manche hier aufbringen, um ihren jeweiligen POV als allgemeingültige Regel zu installieren, ist kontraproduktiv und verschwendet. Wenn ich als Fotoknipser entscheide, bestimmte Bildbereiche absaufen zu lassen, dann ist das kein technischer Fehler, sondern Absicht. Dasselbe gilt für stürzende Linien oder knappe Zuschnitte oder solche mit viel Luft drumherum. -- Smial (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted[edit]

Please have a look at [3]. --Smial (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Anybody out there? -- Smial (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 5871 entries today. -- Smial (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm an old regular here, and I've never been there. Is it useful ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not know much about usefulness. The page exists, a bot is filling it day by day with unsorted images. After sorting those images manually into a bunch of specialized galleries, somehow magically some new entries appear on Commons:Quality images. -- Smial (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Can we do something ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I helped a time in this topic, however the image are moved by the BOT in a gallery like this one : Commons:Quality images/Subject/Architecture/Religious/Churches, if you're able to open it you must at least wait several minutes. There is several hundred of images in this gallery and I don't see how can someone find a specific image in it, thus I don't see why doing this. I could do it, if the images were categorized with a real category and not only moved in a gallery. How many images will there be in 10 years in this gallery? I do this kind of thing for the FP galleries because the small number of promoted images allow to do the job, but here.... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
So we own a system to create useless galleries? What if the bot looks for the existing categories of the specific image and adds new categories like "Category:Quality images of xyz" instead? If this categoriy exists, the image will simply be tagged. If the category not exists, the bot could create it and put it in the category tree below "Category:xyz". -- Smial (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably the gallery pages are completely obsolete, as we have this "good images" tool on every category page. -- Smial (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO the "good image" tool and the qi categories are more than enough. The images from the galleries should be appended to the categories. And IMO each nominated image should be proposed for at least one qi category before promotion. With nomination of an FP a gallery must be given too. A good way. (Yes, with the FP nomination the gallery is called category. That's IMO wrong. I think real categories in FP are better too.) --XRay talk 10:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Smial and XRay. The gallery pages are obsolete. We should care more about the categories. --Code (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules[edit]

In section Consensual review, there is a link to Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules but if you click, it doesn't make anything, is the link wrong? could anybody fix it? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It works for me (now). Poco2 07:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ralf Roletschek[edit]

Hi there.

Please have a look here:

And compare the assesments of his nominations, and the assesments of mine.

For years, the user mentioned above ignores deliberately our common rules.

Meaningfull file names is a MANDATORY in QIC, as need of perspective corrections is too. When a picture is declined because of a perspective distortion, he just votes a "support", no matter of the picture, only for making a point (He is not alone).

He does not care, in spite of many messages, warnings, and oppose votes. Today, he opposed to one of my noms in revenge of my new opposes to his wrong nominattions.

I just put this here now, today, the next time I'll go to ask admins for a ban. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably you refer to this edit? -- Smial (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as a retaliation against my declines of his nominations the same day and the day before.--Jebulon (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I too have had problems with RalfR, along the lines of perspective, filenames and underexposure. I found that he generally seems to assume that his images are perfect and that QIC exists to rubber-stamp them as such. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Top Feeders[edit]

Hi! I noticed that there are a lot of "top feeding" where images are nominated and promoted, within minutes! 4 October 2015, for instance, there are 123 entries and before a whole hour has passed of the next day, 78 have been reviewed and promoted -- more than 2/3s of them!

It starts to look like a popular singles bar!

Kudos to those who review the photos of those who are not so popular at the bar, whose nominations wait for days instead of minutes.

Is there a reason for this that I am not seeing?

Thanks! -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of many reasons, why this can happen:
    • The really good and the really bad images are identified fast.
    • It is a voluntary work and it is upon the reviewers decision how much of their precious time they are willing to spend.
    • As people expect a good reason for a decline of their images, the less experiences reviewers mostly skip such images.
    • Images with repairable flaws need a follow up and sometimes a kind of guidance to the author. Another time consuming work which is not favorised by everyone.
    • Some photographers are known for their ungratefulness and their backfiring to the reviewers. Reviewers might refrain from spending their time to such people.

Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Representing the poor images at the bottom of the page....
Thank you, Cccefalon, for your sensible answer to my question. Today, I notice that there were the maximum nominations by one user and then all five of them were promoted by only one user!! A typical real-world response to this might be "Get a room already" which is probably rude and has no place here, but the participants in this review arena might be mindful that it is very, very public here. The appearance of credibility is as important as the credibility -- eh, it is difficult to express....
Meanwhile, me (and perhaps others) certainly do appreciate when some of the QI celebrities take a look at the lower portions of the review mechanism. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent question, and excellent answers. I think you are right both. As for me, I do not hesitate to put some already promotted (sorry Uwe for your Alhambra ceiling, I jus wish to go further with this image) into the Consensual Review, and I encourage others to do so, this is not a punishment neither a shame !--Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
+ 1 ! In the long run, when we went through a critical assessment, we have far more benefits than when images are simply waved through. Thanks for declining, Jebulon and Uwe! And I mean it! --Hubertl 18:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I always preferred to review the old ones - less edit conflicts! But yes, I did find that there was often a lack of critical analysis in reviews sometimes. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
We are missing you, mattbuck! --Hubertl 15:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 :-) --XRay talk 15:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 --Code (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Mmmmh...OK, let's discuss and put this question in Consensual Review (joke)--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot problem?[edit]

My pictures Maria-Magdalenen-Kirche,_Eberswalde,_Orgel,_150926,_ako.jpg and Maria-Magdalenen-Kirche, Eberswalde, 150926, ako.jpg were promoted but not properly processed by the bot. It seems as if none of the candidates of october, 1st were processed at all. How do we handle this? --Code (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Handarbeit, Code, du findest deine Dateien von diesem Tag hier. Einfach {{QualityImage}} einfügen. In diesem speziellen Fall ist es bestimmt erlaubt. --Hubertl 17:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Tja, wenn du einfach meine Kirche fotografierst... Das ist die Strafe, ich habe den Bot verhext. --Ralf Roleček 18:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Ralf, wusste nicht, dass das Deine ist. Ich hoffe, Du magst die Bilder trotzdem. Werde mich an die Handarbeit begeben, sobald es die Zeit zulässt. Ist gerade etwas eng. --Code (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ich gehe davon aus, Code, dass du gerade die Auswirkung des EUGh-Urteils dieses netten Österreichers auf Wikipedia-Datenschutz hin untersuchst und deswegen wenig Zeit hast. Ich habe mal deine beiden Bilder von diesem Tag auf QI gesetzt. --Hubertl 05:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hubertl: So ähnlich. Heute muss ich erstmal die Presse gegen Zensurbemühungen von Politikern verteidigen. Ich danke Dir vielmals, ich hätte mich sonst am Wochenende an die Arbeit gemacht. Sehr nett von Dir. --Code (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of declined image[edit]

I nominated an image (in error) which was swiftly declined and I deleted it. I was told that this is not allowed and the image was re-instated as a candidate. I can't find this rule anywhere. Editors should be able to erase images nominated in error. Charles (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You can remove it as long it is not reviewed. After review, no more remove. Also, after change of date, no more move; meaning, that removing photos you nominated yesterday, cannot be removed. The correct tool is to withdraw the image. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cccefalon: I disagree, every nominator can delete his own nomination when he wants. I would like you to show us, please, where the contrary is written, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jebulon: I disagree, we practised this different in the past. This procedure prevents, that someone deletes his decline and nominates another picture instead. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cccefalon: My first thought was: "yes, he got a point". My second thought is: "and so what ?"... Let's disagree ! Clin --Jebulon (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
As we've a number of nominations per day limit, I agree with Uwe Aranas to avoid the confusion and uncertainties a deletion can create. Better withdraw or strike off, keeping the history visible. This is applicable to un-reviewed noms too. Otherwise I can delete one and fill the gap after one or two days. I've plenty of noms archived as "unassessed" due to many reasons. ;) Jee 14:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I see your point dear Jee, but again : "so what ?" if you nominate again an unassessed picture (especially an unassessed picture I would say !) instead of a declined one, even before the end of the process ? Where is the problem ? I'm frequently "attacked" because I "love rules", but here, frankly, I don't understand...--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure, if you got my point: As long as the image is unassessed in the first day of the nomination, it can be revoked - by that an erroneous nomination can be exchanged. This happens pretty often. But as soon as there is an assessment - and the assessment starts in the moment, that someone leaves a remark, a comment or a vote - it cannot be revoked. You can draw the rule Carefully select your best images to nominate ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Jeb, I think Uwe Aranas alredy explained it. Let me make a try. We've a rule: "Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator." When someone replace a nom later, it can be considered as an attempt to override this (five per day) limit.
BTW, why we delete something here? Wikimedia projects have a longtime practice, no to delete. Even deleting comments is discouraged. Striking off mistakes is the best practice unless we really want to hide something. Jee 02:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Cccfalon and Jkadavoor: as long as there is no comment or assessing, you can change the picture (or just deleting them). But not after. --Hubertl 05:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Handling of sockpuppet user[edit]

Today - after Hubertl called CU for a sockpuppet analysis (see Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ficilbotoe95) - it turned out, that User:Nordenfan used the sock account User:Ficilbotoe95 to self-promote his nominations. The user was stubborn enough to deny the allegations until the last minute. see also User_talk:Nordenfan#Sockenpuppen.

This is not the first time, that QIC has to deal with this uncolleagual and unfair behaviour. While Nordenfan was blocked for a duration of one month in the participation at any WikiCommons activities, I suggest, that verified sockpuppet users which used QIC als platform for their activities are indefinetly excluded from participation in QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish a vote, you will have my strong support.--Jebulon (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
+1 --Ralf Roleček 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I would not take other measures that are determined by the administrators. They are very responsive when asked for help, there is no need for additional protection rules. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
ha ha ha. Very funny.--Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jebulon: I am glad I could brighten your day :) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

In this particulary case, I would exclude Nordenfan for half a year, maximum one year from QI, additionaly to the administrators one month block. Not indefinitely. --Hubertl 05:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How will actually determine whether there really is a sock puppet? --XRay talk 06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppets are afaik determined by comparison of IP. What at a first glance looks like a sockpuppet might be in reality just the use of the same computer by two persons. However, as Nordenfan claimed that he has nothing to do with Ficilbotoe9 and suggested that this user is living in another town, he himself ruled out this possibility to waive the allegations. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. My first thought was, that IP address only isn't enough. Thanks for your explanation.--XRay talk 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@XRay:: in this case, both users has told in previous, pretty old edits, from where they come from. Surprisingly from the same town, more surprisingly from the same small area of this town. They also edited in the same articles, and fightened together in the same discussions. And than, this young boy will tell us, that he has nothing to do with this other account? But this is not really a surprise for me, after 100k Edits in the german Wikipedia, seeing the fights against hundreds of socket puppets in the last eleven years.--Hubertl 14:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the one month block by Krd is enough as any sanction should be preventive; not punitive. Longtime block may encourage that user to abandon that account and go for a new account to override the sanction. Jee 07:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
any sanction should be preventive; not punitive. Dear Jee, let me disagree with you for part. No a "sanction" (your word) is and has to be punitive too.--Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not talking from an extention of the block; especially as I cannot overrule an administrators decisions. I am talking from excluding the user from participating in QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
We had a similar situation this year, in fact, as for general prevention, we should act clearly and unequivocally. Banning from QI for at least half a year, especially, when the bemoaned does not act comprehensive. The CU result is absolutely clear, there is no doubt left. --Hubertl 15:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)