Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xylocopa virginica male face.jpg

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

File:Xylocopa virginica male face.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2015 at 11:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I would rate it as scary --The Photographer (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the technique of the author, this was taken in a sleeping animal, what you call mistake is really a insect hair gold color in the shadown. --The Photographer (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The same author could create a better result, as this. I fixed the main correctable issues, wrong license, black areas, and centralized. But the lack of the quality, in general, is not appealing to me. -- RTA 07:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not compare animals and different nominations. I revert your version, I am sorry, its adding more problems that fixing something (like tilt), I invite you to create a alternative nomination, upload it like another version. Thanks for your help --The Photographer (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For THE Photographer you should study away more about photography. You reverted a background cleaning that you was not capable to do. I dedicate my time to improve a image, and you through the edition away just to impose yourself; this behaviour do not below to this Movement.
Why would I create another bad quality image? Just to not hurt your ego? No one can edit a photo that you only uploaded (with several errors)? Cleaning background is not a alternative, is improvement of the image...
And I'm not comparing "animals" I'm comparing technique... the author already showed domain of a better technique, if you did not get that, is better be quite, for you not embarrass yourself. -- RTA 20:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please Rodrigo, do not take this to a personal matter. I appreciate your comments --The Photographer (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have many buildings, however, each has its peculiarities. In this case this is not the same animal. --The Photographer (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Awareness_of_color_space_data_in_files for a generic discussion on color space. Jee 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that my oppose was conditional (and I have now striked it as I have been able to resolve the color space issue myself now). I could not revert as then I would also revert the actual edits on the file. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baby talk about colour-profile again... I brought back the metadata, as you can see on the File page (how about the next time you do that, it takes the same time as to come here to cry for it). I should let it in that away, because it's a bad photo, if several mistakes, but your only reason to you say no is the colour-profile... for God's sake.
I'll assume "revert" as "fix", to not be more disappointed... -- RTA 07:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA: It was not possible for me to restore profile data which had been lost when you also edited the file. The new version you now uploaded had the AdobeRGB color space, which is not suitable for web use, but at least that version I could convert to sRGB. I have not even started reviewing the photo yet, it had no purpose when the file had no proper color space metadata. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This a community that storage and uses internet as a tool, but this is not restricted to internet.
This suitable for web is dumb, if ProPhoto stores more information, this should be the choice... And every time and time this stupid discussion appears, I will not waste more time on this, you prefer decrease the file quality in order to be "suitable for web browsers", forgetting uses beyond Wikipedia... -- RTA 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA, please don't argue here about AdobeRGB or ProPhoto being suitable. This is an internet-based digital media archive and the standard on the internet is sRGB whether we like it or not. The world is digital now and 99.9999% of our image use will be online. I very much doubt this rather unsaturated image has any significant pixels that fall outside of sRGB colour, so why should 99.99% of our viewers see the wrong colour because you haven't done your research on the topic. AdobeRGB is for sending TIFFs to a print shop; it is the Betamax of colorspaces. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I will not waste more time on this" RTA 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As in "I refuse to learn something new today" . -- Slaunger (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger this is very offensive standard to me, and this is not the place for a colour profile discussion. Both, Colin and you, are the ones very straight on this, not open to a real discussion, imposing a view, get in to the ridiculous of spamming opposing votes, jeopardising candidatures to force people to curve to your view. So this is not "I refuse to learn" (a very deep value on me), that is "I will not enter on this stupid conversation, with people not prepared to listening". -- RTA 15:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTA, I'm missing the bit where you carefully argued your view and supplied sources for your non-standard opinions on colorspace. All I saw was "Baby talk about colour-profile again". If you want to have a grown-up discussion I'm all ears. But the fact that you uploaded an image without any colourspace tag or profile and then uploaded in AdobeRGB makes me suspect you don't know what you doing or saying and would rather throw insults than admit you made a mistake. There are plenty resources on the internet. This is not a personal view but simply the standard for the internet. -- Colin (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep insult me, this will make your point... -- RTA 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Given the difficult subject matter, a rather impressive photo. I do notice a fair amount of chroma noise at full resolution, however, that might be cleanable by someone with the technical skill. Also, the yellow area in the very center seems to be edging on overexposed. Revent (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Xylocopa_virginica_male_face.jpg&oldid=165536940"