Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The British Commonwealth of Nations - together 44-pf-437-2016-001-ac.jpg

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

File:The British Commonwealth of Nations - together 44-pf-437-2016-001-ac.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2019 at 07:50:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

World War II posters from the United Kingdom
thanks Charles (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Also move to oppose now that I've seen the original. Colin is right in his comment below that the original should be uploaded first so it is easy to compare with the restoration, I missed that here. --Cart (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info J’ignore ce que vous voulez dire par « altération » de couleur. Il n’y a aucune altération et je n’ai pas fait de modification directe des couleurs. J’ai simplement posé un calque de réglage : Niveau à 60 % 12-1,17-235. Rien qui puisse être définit comme « altération ». Ce terme est d’ailleurs extrêmement péjoratif et un rien provocateur. Vous avez l’original à disposition sur le site des « National Archives and Records Administration » je vous invite à reproduire la faible modification ajoutée pour vous rendre compte par vous-même. De plus le principe de couleur d’origine ne s’applique qu’aux couleurs qu’avait l’affiche en sorti d’imprimerie. Le vieillissement du papier et des pigments est sûrement la plus grosse altération que ce document ait subit. Il ne faut pas hésiter à me poser des questions sur mon travail ou à laisser un commentaire si vous voulez des informations avant de voter.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to  Oppose per others--BoothSift 01:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the colors differ among the two sources, but yours are different from both (and they look too punchy to me). I can not tell you which ones are "correct". Nobody can without seeing the original print. The IWM has a second version of the scan (on the same page) with a color target included in the frame – if we can find out which standard it follows, that would be the thing to base any corrections on. --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • je redit ce que j'ai dit ci-avant : je n'ais pas modifié les couleurs. J’ai posé un calque de réglage : Niveau à 60 % 12-1,17-235 sur un document scanné par les «National Archives and Records Administration». Faire autrement serait précisément faire ce que vous me reprochez. nonsense.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, WWII is about as close to a ubiquitously-agreed 'good war' as any there is, even if the Allied Powers arguably did not always act completely honourably (e.g. Dresden). But I would argue even a poster glorifying a 'bad war' would be featurable if it were a high quality reproduction of historical interest. Surely visitors to Commons are intelligent enough to know we don't necessarily sanction the ideological standpoint of the material we feature? Cmao20 (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think FP is the forum for your comments Cmao20 on the 'honour' or otherwise of the bombing of Dresden. Charles (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was only intended to illustrate that while there could be legitimate debate over elements of Allied conduct, the morality of the war itself as a whole is surely pretty black-and-white, and therefore I'm not personally concerned about an image that might 'glorify' the actions of the Allies in the war. I wasn't trying to push an agenda on anyone, Charles, I only brought it up because I thought it was relevant to the point I was trying to make - that regardless of the fact that there's more room for moral debate about individual campaigns and actions, we IMO shouldn't be afraid of the moral position of this image. (Although, as I say above, I would have no personal problem featuring a propaganda piece with a moral standpoint I consider objectionable, if the quality and historical interest were there. Questions of whether we 'agree' or not with the image are, to me, interesting but beside the point.) Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Charles (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote against photos of the statue in Kiev that glorifies the notorious mass murderer of Jews, Khmelnytsky, because of its subject matter. I guess some of you think I should, but I don't agree. There's no need to actually support a feature of a photo of something you hate, but voting against it because of its content is something I think we should discourage. After all, a photo of propaganda could be treated approvingly, disapprovingly or neutrally, but the work of propaganda remains an excellent example of its type. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose colour saturation. Charles (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose S. DÉNIEL, you say you have adjusted the levels. This has a consequence on saturation. If one increases brightness, the saturation tends to decrease and if one decreases brightness, the saturation tends to increase. Some image editing software attempts to compensate for this when adjusting levels. So, it is quite possible to affect the perceived saturation with your levels adjustment. The image has a serious flaw (indicated) where some lines have got lost. The image does not contain a colour profile: please ensure Photoshop is set to save one when you export to JPG and if missing from the original, then you need to assign one (likely sRGB). Our best restorers first upload the original to Commons and then their own restored version either on top (if the adjustments are likely to be non-controversial such as minor fixes) or to another file (if the adjustments are extensive, such as fixing/replacing lost or damaged parts). It isn't good enough simply to point to an external site for reference to the original: we should host that too.
Wrt political comments, I think it quite natural for a propaganda photo to provoke political comment and for that to influence voting (taking a moral objection for example). Charles is being over-sensitive here and I think we should permit users to make brief comment of their reaction or opinion of the image, without turning this into a political forum. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not be over-sensitive Colin. The comments made by Cart and Cmao20 were not at all related to the FPC. Both editors have responded positively and I have thanked them for their responses. Try reading what was posted and my comments before interfering. Of course we "should permit users to make brief comment of their reaction or opinion of the image." My objection was that people should not be "turning this into a political forum." Charles (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles. Cart obliged your delicate sensitivities because she's nice that way. Cmao20 argued against your criticism, justifying their post. I didn't see you complain about Uoaei1's oppose vote. Cmao20's response (that it was a "good war") was perfectly understandable comment, though wouldn't satisfy anyone opposed to any war. Ikan also further commented that he believes people should not oppose because they have a moral objection to the purpose of the propaganda. I didn't see you complain about Ikan either, even when he mentioned another conflict and his strong adjectives condemning it. In the history of FPC, people have always made small comments such as these.
Unlike your butterflies and lizards, Charles, the purpose of a political poster is to elicit a strong feelings in the viewer. "Together" is a strong message to unite people when they might otherwise see differences or seek disunity. The poster's message "Together" was also used in the Scottish anti-independence campaign Better Together (which claimed that Scotland would be forced out of the EU if it left the UK, a claim that subsequent events have proved ironic). It is quite natural that Cart should also recognise similar sentiments regarding recent UK politics. For a poster, the "wow" factor is surely that it resonates strongly with people, or forcefully repels them, and people should be allowed to demonstrate that briefly in their comments. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect, Charles, that your own opinions of Brexit or the Dresden bombing are leading you to take offence at others making comment on the matter. Uoaei1 opposed due to the poster "glorifying war". As a community we should be open to discussing oppose or support vote rationales. One argument is that this was a "good war" that many people feel justified and proud to have taken part in (the subject of the poster, after all, is the Commonwealth army proudly marching together [with white people in front]). Cmao20 anticipates and accepts the counter-argument that there were also bad parts of this "good war". Perhaps, then, no war is good. At the other extreme Ikan adds that he thinks we should not oppose, even if it were celebrating what most people would regard as a war atrocity. These are all different people putting arguments about how to judge a poster that glorifies war. The poster's message and power to influence is significant just as the colours on the wings of a butterfly are significant. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Colin - that was exactly what I was trying to do. The only reason I wrote it was because I was thinking to myself why Uoaei1 believed we shouldn't feature something that glorified war, and I was trying to think what reasons he/she might have for arguing this about WWII. Hence I thought I'd acknowledge the opposite viewpoint that the 'good war' maybe wasn't entirely good. I did believe my comments were thus relevant - I wasn't 'politicking' for the sake of it - and I didn't expect my comment to elicit so much controversy. Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overprocessed Poco2 20:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. – Lucas 10:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info en réponse à Colin
  • "This has a consequence on saturation." – bien sur. Pour vous ça caractérise une retouche excessive ?
  • "The image has a serious flaw (indicated) where some lines have got lost. " - Bien vue, merci, c’est corrigé.
  • "The image does not contain a colour profile" – Évidement qu’il contient un profil couleur !!! Vous ne le voyez pas ? Essayez avec gimp, s’il n’y a pas de profil il va vous le demander. Chez moi, Gimp me demande de valider le profil de photoshop : le sRGB IEC61966-2.1. c’est que ça fonctionne correctement puisque c’est ce que ma version de photoshop utilise. C’est plutôt de votre côté que ça ne marche pas. De toutes façons peu importe puisque l’image de départ comporte un profil Adobe RGB (1998). Vous pensez que mon Photoshop a fait une erreur en convertissant un profil couleur Adobe ? Ce serait drôle. Dans l’absolue il aurait été préférable de garder du RGB (1998) pour être le plus fidèle possible – mais depuis une copie en JPG ça n’a pas vraiment d’importance. De nos jours on considère que la conversion RGB en sRGB se fait bien. Mais si vous pensez que ce n’est pas le cas je vous invite à faire la vérification et a nous en parler. Personnellement je fais confiance à mon/mes logiciels, ils sont meilleurs que moi pour gérer ça au mieux.
  • "Our best restorers first upload the original" – Je ne sais pas ce que font les meilleurs retoucheurs, mais moi j’essaie de ne pas faire n’importe quoi. Étant soucieux de la planète et des finances de la fondation je ne vois pas l’intérêt de verser une image alors qu’elle est déjà à disposition de tous-le-monde sur le serveur d’un organisme gouvernemental des plus sérieux. Si encore c’était un TIF mais non c'est un jpeg. Ce n’est pas un original. C’est seulement l’original de mon travail et mettre ça sur nos serveurs n’a pas réellement d’intérêt. Surcharger les serveurs avec des copies de copie en jpg est tout simplement inutile, ça ne garantit rien et ça pollue la planète inutilement en surconsommant de l’énergie dans le stockage. Vous ne devriez pas répandre cette préconisation.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info en réponse à Charles,Cart, Cmao20, Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case, Poc, Lucas, Palauenc05, Martin Falbisoner, 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰, George Chernilevsky, Wilfredor, El Grafo - Pour ceux qui imaginent que je suis sensible à la propagande anglaise de la WWII ou que j’ai dans l’idée de faire l’apologie de la guerre, je tiens à préciser que ce n’est pas le cas. J’habite la ville de Brest en France qui fut presque totalement détruite par des avions – principalement anglais – et aussi américain. Ce qui restait encore debout est tombé dans les combats de la libération. Les brestois (y compris ceux de ma génération, qui n’ont pas connu la guerre) reste très nostalgique de celle ville détruite et nous sommes très sensibles a cette perte immense aussi bien humaine que patrimoniale. Tout ce que je peux dire c’est : plus jamais ça, pour personne et nulle part. L’intérêt de cette image est principalement historique. L’intérêt esthétique ne doit absolument pas être ramené a un concept d’esthétique de la guerre, qui je l’espère, n’intéresse personne. Ce concept d’esthétique de la guerre n’a d’ailleurs pas sa place ici. Les votes mentionnant ce motif devraient être supprimés. Vous comprendrez que je trouve très insultant et provocateur d’associer ce concept, même de loin, a mon travail ou a ma personne. Je pense, comme Charles, qu’il est anormal de préjuger de ce que pensent les votants et anormal d’être obligé de se justifier à propos de spéculations. C’est triste de perdre notre temps constamment avec ça. Je suis vraiment choqué (et il en faut pourtant beaucoup pour me choquer) qu’aucun admin ne soit intervenu pour stopper cette discussion qui a complètement pollué le vote. Malheureusement, je n’en suis guère étonné. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins do not interfere unless someone reports the debate to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Even then, heated debates are allowed as long as we don't resort to calling each other insulting names or make verbal threats to each other. This debate on the featurability of a war-time poster hasn't reached that stage yet. Also most of the 'opposes', like mine, had nothing to do with the content of the poster but rather the questionable color. --Cart (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*@S. DÉNIEL: What's going on here?! I eventually opposed simply because of color issues... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ce n'est pas une question de vote. Un commentaire qui associe un participant a un propagandiste contrevient aux règles et pas seulement celle de FP. ça devrait passer avant des questions de couleurs non? Comment pouvons-nous discutez serainement photo dans ces conditions. Regardez ce Post en entier, vous le trouvez normal? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have uploaded the original: File:The British Commonwealth of Nations Together - NARA - 44267185.jpg. This is what we do on Commons. We are a repository of free educational media and as such hold millions of JPGs that are absolutely identical to ones that appear elsewhere on the internet. Indeed, when we upload images from archives like this, we take special care to ensure they really are identical and warn people not to fiddle with them (see the warning generated by the NARA template I used). If folk want to create derivative works, to restore or to change colours or brightness, then that's fine (to a degree that the changes have educational merit) but should be uploaded to another file. This is all very very standard Commons practice, so please don't argue about it.
The original image from National Archives does indeed have an embedded Adobe RGB profile. The image you first uploaded, and I reviewed, did not contain any embedded colour profile. You can see this at Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer. The new version you have uploaded does contain an embedded sRGB profile. When you wrote "Obviously it contains a color profile! Do not you see it?" etc, you are either being dishonest with me or have made a mistake for which most people would apologise. Since the original is in AdobeRGB then for best quality you should have retained that. Converting from AdobeRGB to sRGB runs a risk of posterisation, though that risk is small for an image that is a poster with few print colours. Your first upload, with no embedded colour profile, could display differently for different viewers with different applications.
Some people might have been comparing with the quite different print at the Imperial War Museum, and you only have yourself to blame for that confusion by not uploading the original. The colours in the IWM poster are really quite different.
Your image is slightly brighter than the original, due to the adjustment layer you added. This makes the colours appear a litle paler. I see no good reason to brighten the image. It may be a valid thing to do if you belive the image brightness levels are quite wrong but not if you are just adjusting to taste. The difference it makes is not enough to cause me to oppose (that wasn't a reason for my oppose vote) but I wish you'd just left it alone.
You have fixed the error with the flag being misaligned and embedded a colour profile. I have uploaded the original for you and improved the file description page with a better template for NARA images with improved categorisation. I'd probably support, but since you've been so rude to everyone I'm going to unwatch instead. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is what we do on Commons" - Ce n'est pas une obligation et ça n'a rien a voir avec le vote. Common regorge de fichiers en multiples exemplaires de tailles et de colorimétries différentes. C'est autant de serveurs et d'électricité qui sont gaspillés.
  • "This is all very very standard Commons practice, so please don't argue about it" - Pollution comes from very standard practices. Je parle de ce que je juge utile si j'en ai envie. Les pratiques peuvent changer quand c'est pour le bien de tous. Il serait temps que common se soucie de ce problème.
  • "You can see this at Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer." Je ne connais pas cette visionneuse mais j'imagine qu'elle n'est pas infaillible. Mon workflow n'a pas changé et ma première version de l'affiche contient bien un profil - je l'ai vérifié avec mes outils - Autre solution vous pouvez allez dans l'historique de la première image, regardez dans common les métadonnés (avec le déroulant) et il indique bien Espace colorimétrique sRGB. Je vous invite a tester une des procédures que je vous donne avant de me traité comme un menteur. Partez du principe que ce que je dis est exact : c'est une attitude plus constructive.
  • "Converting from AdobeRGB to sRGB runs a risk of posterisation" - Mais il n'y a aucune posterisation? Le risque est minimine il n'est pas avéré et j'ai le droit de prendre ce risque. vous ne faites que parler de problèmes qui ne sont que potentiels. Votre insistance a trouver des problèmes là où il n'y en a pas est incompréhensible.
  • "Since the original is in AdobeRGB then for best quality you should have retained that" - Non, comme c'est une retouche d'image ça ne pose aucun problème de changer de profil. ce n'est pas un original. Il n'y a aucun original. Un JPG ne peut pas être un original. Une infime différence de colorimétrie n'est pas un problème et encore moins sur une copie retouchée en JPG. La nouvelle compression en JPG est plus destructive que le changement de profil couleur. Le fait que je vous indique moi-même la présence de ce profil Adobe RGB (1998) montre ma probité et ma compétence technique. Je vous donne une information et vous, vous la retourné contre moi pour en faire une nouvelle critique injustifiée et une nouvelle contrainte inutile. Vous perdez toute mesure.
  • "and you only have yourself to blame for that confusion by not uploading the original" - Je ne blâme personne de se tromper, tous le monde a le droit de se tromper, vous et moi y compris. Permettez-moi d'indiquer une erreur quand il y en a une. Wilfredor ne s'est pas plein de mon message et s'est excusé : fin de ce qui n'est même pas un problème!
  • "I see no good reason to brighten the image" - Moi je vois une bonne raison, le vieillissement du papier. Permettez que je puisse avoir une opinion personnelle différente et la liberté de faire ce que je pense utile. Cette insistance a pousser les autres à faire ce que vous voulez est anormale.
  • "I have uploaded the original for you and improved the file description page with a better template for NARA images with improved categorisation" - Merci, mais mon travail était satisfaisant. Vous avez fait ces changements pour montrer que vous êtes meilleur. C'est une démarche qui peut être considéré comme hautaine et destinée à rabaisser votre interlocuteur. La plus-part d'entre nous faisons des modification sans rien dire et sans donner de leçon. Quand on donne des conseils on laisse les autres le droit de ne pas les suivre.
  • "I'd probably support, but since you've been so rude to everyone I'm going to unwatch instead" - Ce qui montre que vous votez plus pour l'homme que pour l'image. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support good restoration (without major alteration, and this file is probably closer to the original than the "original" scan from the NARA).  Comment the oppose votes are either bogus or solved. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak support now per my comment above. Next time please upload the original right away to avoid this kind of confusion. "Weak" because I appreciate the work that has been put into the restoration, but I'm not particularly wow-ed by the poster itself. --El Grafo (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:The_British_Commonwealth_of_Nations_-_together_44-pf-437-2016-001-ac.jpg&oldid=348960588"