Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:August Friedrich Albrecht Schenck - Anguish - Google Art Project.jpg

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

File:August Friedrich Albrecht Schenck - Anguish - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 18:35:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anguish
"soles"!? I don't understand what do you mean, where is it written? "Object type Unknown" : the template description is autogenerated from wikidata and the field should be "paintnig" (instance of (P31)), I don't know why this don't work, I will ask to someone. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok I see now, I don't know what "soles" means, but I fixed "Object type" Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to see what is to be removed or even what is disturbing, furthermore I'm not very excited about changing anything, because exception made to lose quality by editing this high resolution jpg I'm not able to see what we have to win in overwriting this file, or by creating a new one very very similar. No sorry I will not edit it, and I tend to disagree that someone do that for so small gain. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose until these 10477 black pixels are removed. Opening the picture at full size on Photoshop (or any other picture viewer), these lines are very visible. You see them even better by pasting the image on a white background. Which means they will appear on any print, corrupting the so-called "good quality" certification. We're here to select featured pictures. This mistake from the photographer is clearly a lack of requirement, accordingly to our official image guidelines. I don't think my screen invents anything. Such a correction will not reduce the quality of the image since the good pixels are not transformed. Also minor crops on existing files are totally valid, per Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Minor_improvements -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"very"?! I guess the word does not have the same meaning for all of us. And yes re-save a jpg mean a loss of quality, each time you save a jpg you have a new compression. And in order to remove a 1 pixel black line invisible for almost everybody exception made by who know where to look or maybe except for 1% of the viewers? Yes you will damage more pixels than you will remove, you will damage here 25 million pixel in order to remove those almost invisible 10477 pixels (furthermore 10477 pixels? I let to you the responsibility of this number). To oppose for that is silly. And an incentive to edit jpg files (=loss of quality) for only a few pixels may even be harmful for the project IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. "When you resize an image and do not resample it, you change the image's size without changing the amount of data in that image. Resizing without resampling changes the image's physical size without changing the pixel dimensions in the image. No data is added to or removed from the image." Quote from Adobe's website, section Resizing images without resampling. Screencapture Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: Please read this too: Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Exceptions_to_the_minor_changes_rule --XRay talk 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor croppings are ✓[OK] okay. This painting is not even yet a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adobe is promoting adobe. They don't say "take an image from Wikimedia servers, save it on your pc, crop it with adobe, save the result and re-upload it on Wikimedia server, no data is added to or removed from the image". Sorry I don't read the same thing as you. And for the screenshot, I see that only on your screenshot, I'm also sorry but at full resolution I'm not able to see that. The purpose of FP project is to promote the finest, not to put the finest in the file histories. I prefer an oppose vote and I even prefer that the image be not promoted than to run after a "support" or after a potential promotion at the prize of damage of the image. Sorry, end of discussion for me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"take an image from Wikimedia servers, save it on your pc, crop it with adobe, save the result and re-upload it on Wikimedia server" ✓ Done : File:Test_disappeared_1_pixel_lines_warning_message.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - The black line looks like it's damage to the painting. If it's actually on the painting, I don't think the photo should digitally restore the painting. If it's not in the painting, it absolutely should be removed. However, if you look carefully at the photo on the museum's site, the line is there. So unless any of you know for a fact that it's not, I don't think you should be judging the photo as wanting for showing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Yann, for confirming I'm not inventing ! Ikan (and the others), we're not talking about the same line. This extra line full of black pixels is definitely not part of the painting. This is just the last lines of pixels (at the bottom, and on the right) which are completely black, as if the frame had been cut and added to the image by the photographer / technician. I already joined a screenshot at 200% above (here again), but to be very explicit I will add this one too at 800% and that other one at 3200% (extracted from the download). Of course, there's no reason to have these lines in the file, it's just corrupting the beautiful painting, and that's only a technical problem. BTW, I don't understand why Peulle and other users notice the technical issue of this painting Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anton_Francesco_dello_Scheggia_-_The_Seven_Virtues_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, but not this one. There's also the same black line at the bottom and on the right of this last FPC. Easy to spot : you just need to zoom. But bigger problem : this line is also displayed on the thumbnails, at small size, probably interpreted as an important part of the image by Google Chrome and other browsers. Tested on Firefox + Internet explorer + Safari. So definitely polluting the previews, and of course definitely not welcome on the original image. Also, checking the quality of this photograph, we can notice it was already slightly deteriorated by a jpeg compression. You can check this by zooming very big, for example on Photoshop at 3200%, we see all the squares of 8x8 pixels which characterizes a moderate jpeg compression, inferior than the maximum quality (one more screenshot). When a jpeg picture is recorded with the best quality on a camera, only pixels are visible, not the compression. So claiming the purist argument to avoid to make the correction is not really a valid reasons in my opinion, here. Any clean modification of the file from the original at the maximum quality rate will have absolutely no impact compared to what the picture already suffered from in the past -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the line and I don't understand why you don't just remove it if it's such a huge problem. To answer your question I'll quote the Guidelines for you: "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." This is a tiny technical problem on an outstanding photo with huge wow factor. My vote stands. --Peulle (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle, why I just don't remove it ? Because of the controversy. Christian writes "No sorry I will not edit it, and I tend to disagree that someone do that for so small gain." Also : "To oppose for that is silly. And an incentive to edit jpg files (=loss of quality) for only a few pixels may even be harmful for the project IMO." Don't want to fight. And concerning your quote of the guidelines, that's really an interpretation, here ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's there, but I can't see it at full size unless I look for it specifically, and even then, I see only enough to be able to see where you must be seeing it, not that it's clearly there to my eyes. It's so de minimis that in no way would it affect my vote. However, since it bothers you, I would support its removal if that would cause no damage to the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the black line is there and is above all on every previews at small size (not only on Commons). But if this and this is normal for a FP for everyone, then let's close the discussion, and just turn the page. I will have learnt something new today about the FP requirements -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearer than any other demonstration. I'll temporarily strike my supporting vote, and the edit should be made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:August_Friedrich_Albrecht_Schenck_-_Anguish_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg&oldid=302444159"