Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Autumnal Retreat in Old Quebec- A Canvas of Fading Reds and Vibrant Oranges.jpg

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

File:Autumnal Retreat in Old Quebec- A Canvas of Fading Reds and Vibrant Oranges.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2023 at 12:47:58
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

I have always been sincere but we cannot control what others do, if we prevent large alterations in the photos, someone will still make them whether we want it or not and it will be impossible to identify that there was an alteration on the original --Wilfredor (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably true, and I think it has already happened many times and we haven't discovered it, but just because it exists doesn't mean we have to encourage it. It's getting harder and harden to see what is genuine photos or computer-enhanced photos. I see the photo without the trees in the same light as I saw the photo with an added moon. Remove something big or add something big, and it's no longer a true representation of the subject. --Cart (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep In a small size, the new version is for sure more appealing. In full size, however, several distortions appear as a result of the removal of the tree. A picture with those defects would had never been accepted as a featured image. Why should we substitute the original one? --Harlock81 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist and replace -- Karelj (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The new photo should fail at FPC if nominated. It's very poorly stitched above the house, with a very unsharp area. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Personally I don't have any qualms with structural modifications to images, as long as they are i) clearly declared (which I think is the case for this image); and ii) well done (which is not the case). Wilfredor, I assume you have used Adobe's AI generative fill for this? Currently it doesn't work well with high resolution files. Instead, try to generate individual 2,000 x 2,000 pixel areas. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep We produce pictures for an encyclopedia so we shouldn't deviate too much from reality. I think deleting moveable things like litter is ok because it still shows the object as it could be, but enhancements with AI are not acceptable any more. By the way there should be some general guidelines for this because sooner or later we aren't able to see any more what is real and what is artificial on the pictures here. --imehling (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one of Commons' goals. If we want FPs to be a representative selection of "content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose" we need less rules, not more. Any additional caveat we introduce stifles new nominators (particularly those that don't speak English) and further limits nominations to overrepresented genres (e.g., landscapes, wildlife, macro, architecture)- --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Julesvernex2 that Commons is for all sorts of images, and I think we are going to see many more digitally manipulated images now that it's so easy to make. But I also think there needs to be a very clear way of seeing what images are in their original state and which ones are not. The 'Retouched' template is not enough. Often it is used by conscientious authors in cases where very minor things have been altered. It is also far down below the info field where many users who go looking for photos for articles don't look. Large fixes like this should be declared in the title (File:My picture - photoshopped.jpg]]) and the description, not just tacked on "below the fold". Correct categories about the alteration should also be added to the file. With so much AI and enhancing we see, correct information is gold. For me, altered photos are welcome at FPC, but they should not end up among other more true representations of places, since they are misleading. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and I'll add the appropriate category to my own manipulated images, alongside their existing {{Retouched}} template (changing all their files names would test the patience of file movers, though). However, as you hint, perhaps the broader issue is how to identify non-declared AI images. In the short-term, tools such as AI or Not have been shown to be effective. In the longer-term, I would like to see Wikimedia integrate initiatives such as CPI. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree both with Julesvernex2 and Cart.
(1) Julesvernex2 has even found a clear, but still unobtrusive way to indicate the level of post-processing with the “PPLx” hints in the filename (see User:Julesvernex2, scroll down and expand the “By PPL (Post Processing Level)” tab). Maybe we could recommend that approach for general use. I just think we should differentiate PPL3 into PPL3 to PPL5 – reserving PPL3 for the removal of mid-size temporary elements (cars, people etc.), PPL4 for the removal of bigger permanent elements and the addition or editing of mid-size parts of the image (still in agreement with factual reality), PPL5 for extensive montages. The photo discussed here would be PPL4.
(2) Agree also that in the long run the identification of (mostly) AI-generated images will be our biggest challenge. I hope that initiatives like CPI will provide the necessary level of differentiation (how much of a photo was changed/generate by AI?), because unlike some sport news agencies we cannot prescribe our users just to upload out-of-camera JPEG files (this would limit image quality extremely, using raw image files is essential for many advanced photographers). We need to support many levels of image developing, editing and post-processing, just indicating the amount of manipulation.
(3) In that respect, the existing Category:Digitally manipulated photographs and its subcategories are far too general, we must create more specific subcategories in order to differentiate and indicate the level of digital manipulation. In the end each photo from any digital camera is “digitally manipulated” (many users don’t realize it but the cameras do much with the data from the sensor, every out-of-camera JPEG file is already the result of an extensive development process, and in the end the photos from modern cellphones are completely “photoshopped” images). So we must draw a distinction here and create appropriate subcategories which indicate more exactly what has been done. --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on adding PPL4 and PPL5 levels (and perhaps PPL6, for fully-AI generated images?). Happy to discuss this further if others are interested in adopting this sort of scale. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I don't mind removing the tree, since it is not an essential or important part of the composition, and since the modification is declared; but per Ikan and Jules, there are other issues present. --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 09:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Removing the tree is not an acceptable edit in my view. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep My general view on modifications is that they should only be used to correct mistakes or temporary situations in order to produce a final product that could have been captured in real life. For example, if there are some small distracting branches in the corner, you could have moved a little bit out of the way, so removing them is fine. Removing one particularly disturbing person/car is also fine (but generally not removing all the traffic if it would falsely imply that a popular tourist destination is deserted). Here, the branches are very prominent and right in the middle, so you could not have taken a photo without them without significantly changing the composition, so the edited version is not an accurate portrayal of reality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Similar to what King of Hearts mentioned, I think the originality as a reflection of reality should not be fundamentally changed with AI. It would be different if the tree had been cut down, as can be seen in a series of my own pictures: in 2021 the first oak on the left was still visible, in 2022 not, because the municipality had cut it down. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The tree was only removed digitally and this was done rather poorly. --Milseburg (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Ikan.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 07:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 12 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. /BigDom (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:Autumnal_Retreat_in_Old_Quebec-_A_Canvas_of_Fading_Reds_and_Vibrant_Oranges.jpg&oldid=825134723"