File talk:Lisboa - Rua da Conceição (2678274068).jpg

Rotated

Tilted original.

Usual rotation, with crop: details lost.

Lossless rotation with blurred background triangles.

(all three images scaled to ⅓-size of the original)

User:FDMS4, upon enabling the result of an edit war pending AN/U, says that what he curiously calls a border makes the image unusable. Well, I obviously beg to differ. The “border” is a filling up of otherwise blank triangles, due to straightening of the original image, with a blured-out, blown-up pattern made from the image itself. The alternative would be either leaving said four triangles filled with a solid color (bad idea, especially in a JPG), or fake details by use of cloning (always bad, and especially in this busy photo), or cropping-off of those triangles, losing recyprocal areas of relevant details of the original.

The problem here is that uploader User:Tm, as usual, uploaded this photo among a million more and never cared for it again (no categories, no location, no description), until the moment (2014-11-07T21:14:42) when I “dared” to rotate it to compensate for an obvious camera tilt. That’s when he reverted (2015-02-24T00:12:44) the change the 1st time — no warning, no discussion, not even a comment in the changelog, and ignoring that the file was in use in a discussion where its rotated version was fundamental (here: Template talk:Rotate#Cropping off triangles from non-orthogonal rotations), effectively vandalizing that discussion.

Back then, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed the reversion was a simple mistake, not one more instance of his misguided and sterile COM:OWN issue, and I did revert his reversion (2015-02-24T07:42:02), with an explanation, but he reverted it again (2015-02-24T09:58:12) — as usual no dialog, no discussion, no engagement; he did upload (2015-02-24T09:59:52) the fixed image as a separate file, though, so this matter is saved. It is interesting to not that, upon the 3rd reversion, User:Tm finally utters a sentence, to bash «the ugly borders, made by the rotation, that distorts and distract of the subject» — showing, to no surprise, that he gave the matter but a few seconds of his fleeting attention.

User:FDMS4 is welcome to use this tilted photo for whatever ends; might be good for people recovering from neck injuries. People interested in 1968 Lisbon downtown traffic who like their verticals vertical can use the corrected photo.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 19:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In case that has been unclear: Tuválkin, by restoring Tm's version I was not suggesting that he should be made an admin or bureaucrat or crowned "best user of all times", just that I think that the current version is better than yours. Have you ever seen an image with a blurring of this kind in an advertisement or even an article? Also, photographs are artworks, and I doubt that the photographer didn't notice his shoot's tilt. Personally, I would not be the first to revert you if you overwrote an image with a version that has been "usually rotated", as this would probably make it more useful for most usage scenarios. In this case, the uploader preferred to keep the original version of the artwork – I don't see why you can't accept this decision, especially given that he even reuploaded your unconventionally blurred variant under a different name. The relevant guideline here isn't COM:OWN, but COM:OVERWRITE; in fact, I could have just replied with "See COM:UPLOADWAR." instead of writing any of this.    FDMS  4    21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)