Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Caracas building.jpg

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

File:Caracas building.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2024 at 23:56:02
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

@Basile Morin: - Yes, as I noted when I originally raised the issue, every single panel (for example) has the same faint white spot and the exact same faint but noticeable pattern of "random" noise-reduction/JPEG-artifact flaws. Ditto other cut-and-pastes. Ubcule (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Thanks, @Yann for your constructive edit on the file page. According to the metadata, the Creation Tool was "Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)" (archive). Also visible at the bottom of the file page. However, Wilfredor modified your edit to specify "Hugin". Hugin is a stitching software, and Photoshop a digital art software. In this case, hundreds of similar patches have been copied + pasted to form this giant mosaic. Easy with Photoshop and there's no trace of "Hugin" in the history. Moreover, the author says "I don't even remember the place where I took that photo", so what about the software? In 2014, "I have always been against photo retouching" is very contradictory with what happened two years later. As a result, it makes sense to me to believe what is proven, more than what is uncertain. Can we agree to restore "Photoshop" in the template? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: - While we might have our own suspicions about what is and isn't more likely, we can't say for sure, so we shouldn't.
"Photoshop" in the EXIF data *could* simply indicate nothing more than its use for (e.g.) final sharpening, level adjustments, etc. of an image already processed/created elsewhere.
Or maybe not, who knows? Since it's already obvious that we're unlikely to definitively get to the bottom of how it was created regardless (unless we take on trust that Hugin *was* used), that part isn't- IMHO- worth wasting any more of our time on.
Ultimately, the details of *how* it was faked- whether via Hugin, Photoshop or something else- are less important than the indisputable fact that it *is* manipulated to the point of fakery and should be clearly tagged as such. Ubcule (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: - Your description in the original 2016 upload read simply "Building in Caracas downtown, Venezuela" and nothing more. Apart from a minor grammar correction and translations- both supplied by other editors- this remained unchanged right up until yesterday *after* this controversy was raised.
You edited the page on several occasions during that time (over seven years). Yet, not once did you feel moved to update the description to even mention that it was a military/regime-related building, allude to the supposed satirical/expressive purpose of the image, nor even bother explaining what the building was. (I originally guessed that was an apartment block).
Also, your memory of all this- and your motivation- is strangely clear, considering that just yesterday at the Village Pump discussion on this controversy you said:
Since 8 years have passed since that photo, I don't even remember the place where I took that photo, but it looks pretty much like the ones you have shared.
Yesterday you didn't even remember where you took that photo, but today you suddenly (and mysteriously) do clearly remember that the building belonged to the military, who you created the image to satirise?! (I mean, I'd remember doing that, even after seven years).
It comes across very much as if- having been caught out by Yann (talk · contribs) above with evidence you were already aware of suspicions/allegations against your image at the time of the 2016 FP vote- you're now trying to reframe that comment (i.e. an overly clever aside that turned into a smoking gun) into instead meaning that the photo was somehow a protest or satire against the regime?
You know, despite there never having been any previous sign of that being your intention?
Additionally, at the Village Pump discussion, you seem to imply that the resulting image was simply a result of using the Hugin photo-stitching tool (i.e. implying that it was not intentional on your part), but Basile Morin (talk · contribs) confirmed my suspicion that Hugin would likely "not create an image from scratch with 990 repeated patterns".
Having been caught out, it now seems that you're appealing to others' forgiveness for human fallibility with comments like "I think people change over time", painting your original actions- from seven years ago- as simple misjudgement rather than dishonesty and "coming clean".
But- in light of the above- you'll perhaps understand why I remain suspicious that this is just another layer of untruths.
Ubcule (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was intentional because I recognized that it was a false generated image and even so I did not comment anything at that time, I would like to remember more details about the generation of this image but I still do not even clearly remember the building where this photo was taken, which I do remember The thing is that I took several photos of the building to assemble them because the building was too big and was too far in front, I couldn't go further back to take the photo of the entire façade so I decided to take several photos near the building to later unify them, of course the People remember more details as they make more and more effort to remember, there is no mystery, there is no drama, the facts are that it is a false image and I have admitted, at the end of the day it is my word and you decide if you are going to believe me or No and I honestly don't care if you believe me or not, I do my part and that part is telling the truth. Wilfredor (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Just two cent. It’s easy to scold Wilfredor now, but let us remember that we, the FPC regulars and Commons regulars in general, have not covered ourselves in glory, too (I explicitly include myself). This image has been promoted to FP status in 2016 and obviously nobody (including yours truly) has ever looked closely at it. If we had, it would have been too easy to recognize that something is wrong here. So, first, we all should thank Ubcule for finally looking carefully at this image – thank you! Second, we should try to learn something from this. Obviously we should take a closer look at each FP candidate. We hold different opinions about retouching details of photos (e.g., some of us think removing some minor irritating background elements from a photo goes without mentioning, others don’t), but I guess we all agree that (1) extensive changes to the main subject of a photo, (2) inserting important details, (3) combining several completely different images to a new one or (4) creating an image from scratch (maybe using some AI engine) must be declared and described explicitly. So let’s all work together, let’s take this “Caracas building” image as an instructive example and inspect future FP candidates more carefully. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Result: 17 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:Caracas_building.jpg&oldid=843608574"