Commons:Photography critiques/December 2012

December 2012

Night scene up to sniff?

Night scene - Montreal

This picture just made it to QI status. I thought of submitting it to FP next but was advised to get some views from here first. Can it be improved? Thanks! --Lusilier (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a nice clean shot, but the composition seems a bit ordinary. The bright building on the right side distracts - cropping it off would improve things IMO. The foreground elements interfere with the view of the skyscrapers, without adding much, so if reshooting is an option, I'd look for a less obtrusive or maybe a more dynamic foreground. --Avenue (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Tx for bringing this up.--Lusilier (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Borders added to Photos

Meerburgermolen with border removed

Stevenshofjesmolen at dawn with border

.

While I would be thrilled to receive any critiques of the photography in these images, my main question is something else.

I created a border around these images at the request of of a customer (Dutch Tourism Bureau, VVV) who used these images on postcards.

However, when I posted these on the wiki pages for the individual windmills, a single individual has repeatedly removed them because the 'border is ugly and inappropriate'.

Are there standards prohibiting this type of modification of photos?

Naturally, I still have the original photos without the borders, but I have come to like the borders because my customer raved about the border.

I'm not interested in getting into an editing war over this issue, but since it is a single person complaining about the borders, I'm not sure if I should post the versions without borders to please a single person on the internet.

What are your thoughts? PeteBobb (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no rules for that, however as a standard we generally removes border, watermarks, etc. in order to provide clean illustrations for the wikis (e.g. wikipedia). The free licences used allows any user to do that, however I believe the best solution would be to have both files (with and without the border) available. The description of the file could explain the reason of why there is a border, etc. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There were actually two people complaining about the borders — one of them was me, the other one was Bic (see this example, where lelijke lijst is Dutch for 'ugly border'). But never mind about that. I agree with PierreSelim that a good solution would be to have two versions available: both with and without the border. Even though there may be no rules prohibiting this type of modification of photos, images should be aesthetically pleasing, and the use of borders seems inappropriate in an encyclopedia — or a newspaper for that matter — while on a postcard it might add to the fun. The complaints on nl-wiki were not merely about the borders but also about the missing captions, adding several virtually identical images to a page, and so on. All this is rather a shame, and it really bothered me that I felt I had to give you a formal warning, because your photos are really excellent and the story on your user page shows you've put a lot of work into them. But hopefully you'll agree with me that when your pictures are that good, they deserve to be displayed and presented in the best possible way, that is, without borders but with captions, and without messing up the page layout in some cases. Kind regards, --ErikvanB (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Count me as another person who appreciates having the version without the borders, especially for photos like the Meerburgermolen one where the border interferes with one of the main elements of the photo (touching the windmill's arm on the left). The usual thumbnail display of photos in Wikipedia adds an outlining border anyway, and two borders seems like overkill. --Avenue (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

.

OK, the consensus seems clear, so I will upload versions without borders for the eight or nine foto's which included borders.

(I will leave the 'Stevenshofjesmolen at dawn with border' so other's looking at this discussion later will understand what we are talking about here.)

ErikvanB - Last Saturday, when I added foto's to articles and the concern was voiced that all foto's should have captions, I immediately added captions last Saturday.

That was not a problem. Yet it is brought up again here.

I feel that is an unfair criticism because I responded immediately when the concern was brought to my attention.

Messing up page layout?

I wish someone would explain how adding a foto in the unused 'white space' at the bottom of an article or adding a foto gallery at the bottom of an article 'messes up' the page layout.

Is it because I add foto's from left to right at the bottom of the page instead of from top to bottom on the Right Edge of the page?

Virtually identical photographs? Are these foto's really the same in your opinion? My additions were deleted even when they are without borders and have captions

==Foto's==

• 
  My version
• 
  existing foto in article
• 
  My version
• 
  existing foto in article

I see a very real difference between these fotos, and I believed that adding my foto's adds to the articles and that my foto's did not deserve to be deleted.

Yes, there were a couple times where my foto shows a windmill in sunshine with dramatic clouds in the sky and the existing foto show a flat blue sky or a flat gray sky.

But to my eye, dramatic clouds make a better photograph than a flat blue or gray sky.

I understand this is simply one artist's opinion, but I do not see how adding another photo takes anything away from the existing photo if the viewer does not agree with my opinion and likes the existing photo more. And I did not delete the existing foto, I simply added my photo to the bottom of the page as an additional option.

In my opinion, this is the example where my foto is closest to the existing foto -

• 
  My version
• 
  existing foto in article

'And so on' refers to a Wiki Member who mistakenly believes that all foto's must be put in the Public Domain before they are uploaded to Wiki. That belief is mistaken. Foto's posted to Wiki can be freely used, but only IF the user obeys the Wiki Commons license. All I ask is when my foto from Wiki is used, that the user says I made the foto. I do this by keeping the Copyright under the Wiki Commons license.

Thank you for letting me vent my concerns. Warm Regards PeteBobb (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear PeteBobb, regarding the image border, there are good reasons to have images without the border. No harm in uploading a second version with borders, using a different filename. When doing this, you should include a remark in the image caption, I would also use the "other_versions" description element to reference each other image version.

Regarding the use of images in articles, this is often a matter of taste. You notice there is a discussion page for every wiki page, why not suggest a photo replacement there and wait for answers. If there are none after a few days, then go ahead.

One quick comment on your windmill photo File:De_Roos_Delf_2.jpg. The clouds contain a white stuctureless area, it looks to me like clipped and then darkened. The fringes look unnatural. If you look at the colour histogram you see what I mean, there is a distinct peak at brightness values 243-244. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear PeteBobb, let's have another look at the photos.

• The picture on the left was removed because the caption was incomprehensible (plus the thumb should ideally have the same width as the one immediately above it in my opinion)
• These uncaptioned pictures were removed especially because they completely ruined page layout, and the number of illustrations might arguably be seen as overkill (those at the bottom in particular are nearly identical)
• This picture had no caption
• These pictures had not been given captions either and they are very similar
• Same here and we don't usually centre them
• Here the pictures are all over the page, "messing up layout" as I call it, and one of them is uncaptioned
• Here there are no captions
• Same
• Same, the picture being in the centre
• This picture has a border and has been placed in the centre
• Here is an uncaptioned picture placed in the centre and another one with an uncapitalised caption that is very similar to the one in the infobox and therefore redundant
• This picture was removed because it had a border and no caption

Do you want me to go on?

Now then, here's what happened two days later after you'd put the photos back:

• Here is the same picture again similar to the one in the infobox
• And here is the border again
• Same as well as too large according to standard practice
• This is arguably overkill (the pictures in the centre and on the right in particular have been taken from more or less the same angle)
• These huge pictures are oversized and have little to offer compared to the photograph in the infobox quite frankly, although you can argue about that
• This small picture on the right was not too bad, but it was removed as part of the mass removal process (note however that all the other tiny illustrations show the interior of the mill, so in that sense your picture was the odd one out)
• This picture had the border again

Well, Pete, I hope you can see my point. Incidentally, here is person No. 3 who reverted your edits. The edit summary reads: "One photo is enough, so the ugly one with the border can go".

Finally, let me once again point out that it's not the quality of your work which is in dispute. The photos are very good indeed and you should be praised for making them available under the CC BY-SA license — although I personally call it a licence. ;) Best regards, --ErikvanB (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

When looking at this, I would suggest you to create a Commons category for this specific windmill and then link to the Commons category from the article, as was for example done here. - This allows you to point the reader to further pictures of the same object without "overloading" the article with pictures.

Just my 2 cents --Krol:k (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)