Commons:Quality images candidates/Proposal to change the guidelines

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non admin closure) Stale: Last commented on June 2015, no consensus reached. Riley Huntley (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an aproach to discuss changes in the guidelines to promote QIs

Resolution in QI[edit]

Probably what I'm to say is stupid, but I find the lower limit of 2 mpx something really useless! I think the limit should be at least and at least say 4MPX. Guys we have cameras for at least minimum 12 mpx and we evaluate 2 mpx photo? For me evaluate photos from a definition so small is unnerving and often lack the details. What do you say? Please forward the massacre --LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 8 MPix as minimal resolution? This would enable us to remove hundreds of low quality images from outdated DSLR like Nikon's D1, D2, D100 and all these crappy 6-mpixel-generation cameras. -- Smial (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Smial. The limit should be 8 Megapixels. --Code (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the development in camera technique, I also think, that the 2 MPix threshold is too low. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't just the out-of-camera resolution that matters. Cropping an image can drastically reduce MP. So a 12/14MP camera is only 8/9MP in square crop and much less if you crop more. Photographs of birds and other distant animals tend to be heavily cropped (or are soft because a consumer telephoto lens isn't that sharp, and so may be downsized to appear sharp). So I would still permit a wildlife photo to be lower than I would a portrait, product, architecture or landscape photo. You need around 5-6 MP to print 300dpi at A4 (the size of a magazine). A 5MP image is still larger than a 27 or 32" standard monitor, or iPad can display (4K monitors are not yet mainstream). So my recommendation is 5MP with some allowance for wildlife images. But not retrospective -- old QI should be removed only if the actual image quality is poor. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we will not remove old promotions in the light of a new qualification standard. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm agree,the olds can stay --LivioAndronico talk 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO new rules can't affect older already promoted images. That would be a bad way. But we can start as soon as possible with more than 2 mpx. Next month Wiki Loves Earth 2015 will happen and this is a good time to start. --XRay talk 14:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you can enhance your image-description page to show megapixels if you add the code from here to your vector.js. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8 mpx may be difficult if the image is cropped.--XRay talk 13:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason not supporting at least 8 mpx: Older images or images taken by older cameras. But please vote! IMO the lower limit of 4 mpx is very useful. --XRay talk 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also need the opinion of: @Lmbuga: @Pleclown: @Lewis Hulbert: @Spurzem: @Johann Jaritz: @Llez: @ArildV: @Jacek Halicki: @Hubertl: @Berthold Werner: @Famberhorst: @Slaunger: @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: @Jebulon: @Ram-Man: @Poco a poco: @Cayambe: @Christian Ferrer: @Isiwal: @Crisco 1492: @Daniel Case: Sorry if I forgot someone...--LivioAndronico talk 14:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, we have to provide quality photos and with 2 mp do not think that is provided. I also agree that 8 MP resolution are excellent but there are good cameras ,like the,that makes great photos but has just 12 MPs and with a crop is probably under the 8mp.Honestly 8 mp for me are too many --LivioAndronico talk 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath comments of users[edit]

Great, so i'm completely out of this using a D3 or D4 and having any need to crop for sports photography. Thanks for the fish. --Ailura (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a D3 or/and a D4? Lucky you. If you check the specification of your camera, you would see that the resolution is 12.0 effective megapixels for a D3 (4,256 × 2,832), and 16.4 effective megapixels (4928 × 3280 pixels) for a D4, well above the requirements. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you have a lot of experience in sports photography. --Ailura (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you are complaining. Most of your sport images are above 4 Mpx. File:20140905 U21 AUT BIH 0880.JPG, File:Emanuel Pogatetz 8990.JPG, File:20130814 AT-GR Marko Arnautovic 2499.jpg, File:Severin Widmer and Yann Guyader.JPG. Yann (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife has an exception. Sports has exactly the same issues, prime lenses, movement, cropping. Hence, we need the same rules. --Ailura (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most sport submissions here in the recent past had at least 4 MPix. Don't cry, go with the flow. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kein Problem, wohin kann ich dir meine Kontonummer mailen? Oder gleich die Lieferadresse für die neue Kamera? --Ailura (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned above: The new rule replaces a working rule (hard limit at 2 MPixels with the option to demand higher resolutions for easy-to-take photos) by a rule, where now and in future every other day a discussion about exceptions will arise. That's the way you wanted it. -- Smial (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason for being grumpily. We had a voting with a clear majority to a move to 4 megapixels. Not a single day with the new rule passed now and you are not willing to give it a try? That's bad spirit. We will perhaps lose some few QI worthy images, but finally, it will be a benefit for QIC. Forget about your alleged camera limitations and start the challenge with: The real key to good photography is not equipment but knowledge, skill, and experience. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunterstand my comment completely. Of course I accept the decision of the community. It's just funny to see the first discussion about exceptions from the rule. I have warned and it happened just a day (or two?) after the change. Again: The hard limit at 2MPix was a simple rule and it worked. Now we have no simple rule anymore. Above all, a problem is addressed with this bad rule that has only in comparatively few cases ever been a problem. :-) -- Smial (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are in the spirit of this process. 2MP is so low that no exceptions were allowed. It's possible we'll allow some under 4MP, but we still won't allow anything under 2MP. This doesn't mean that it wasn't right to demand 4MP for the the vast majority of images. But there are some very good < 4MP that should be exempt. Still I would expect near perfection in that case. Others may think differently, but that's ok. -- Ram-Man 14:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ich begreife nicht, was Megapixel mit "Quality.." zu tun haben soll. --Ralf Roleček 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dann hast du dich noch nicht mit der Verwendung von Fotos abseits von einfachen Büro-TFTs oder "Full HD"-Bildschirmen befaßt? Kann ich nicht glauben. Ich halte ein unteres Limit bei der Pixelzahl durchaus für notwendig und würde sogar eine leichte Anhebung unterstützen, halte nur die jetzige Umsetzung für völlig verfehlt und gegenüber den anderen QI-Kriterien für völlig nebensächlich.
Bei QIC ging es einmal vornehmlich um die nackte technische Qualität und einige, wenige, grundlegende Gestaltungsregeln. Seit geraumer Zeit geht es aber vielen anscheinend eher darum, wer den Längeren hat, wer was neues in seiner Bildbearbeitung gefunden hat, wer bissiger argumentiert, wer die kleinste Macke in einem Bild findet, vor allem aber, wer die Beurteilungsstandards setzt und damit Macht ausübt. Ich beobachte QIC schon ziemlich lange. Als es im Photoshop noch keine taugliche Rauschreduzierung gab außer stumpfem Verschmieren, hat sich niemand großartig über ein wenig Körnigkeit erregt. Als das perspektivische Entzerren noch mühsame Handarbeit war, bei dem Leute ohne Sinn und Verstand für perspektivische Gesetze groteske Verformungen produzierten, war es ähnlich. Irgendwann haben hier Leute mitbekommen, daß es noise reduction gibt und daß man Bilder korrekt nach optischen Gesetzmäßigkeiten entzerren kann - und das sogar halbautomagisch. Seitdem müssen alle Bilder glattgebügelt und zwangsvertikalisiert sein, egal, wie scheiße das Ergebnis aussieht. Es gibt ja sogar Clowns, die jegliche Skalierung ablehnen, vermutlich, weil sie dann auch noch den letzten Restfehler selbst bei hochwertigen Optiken finden können. Egal, wie scheiße... ach, das hatten wir schon. Schon mal mitbekommen, wieviel schwerer es Fotos haben, die bei Regenwetter aufgenommen wurden bzw. bei diffusem Licht? Wieviele davon als "unscharf" gecancelt werden, obwohl sie bei genauem Hinsehen absolut ok sind - nur halt nicht die Schärfe vortäuschenden harten Kontraste geblitzter Bilder oder solcher mit strahlender Sonne haben? Schon mal mitbekommen, wie oft bei High-ISO-Bildern Detailschärfe bemängelt wird, die keine derzeit käufliche Kamera liefern kann? Da wird Rauschen bei der D800 bei 6400ISO bemängelt - ja, bitte, diese Vollformat-Sony mit 12 MPixeln rauscht deutlich weniger. Hat aber keine 36 Megapickel. Wenn man nun aber die D800-Bilder geschickt auf 12 MPix herunterrechnet um etwa dasselbe Rauschniveau zu erreichen, ist das aber auch wieder unerwünscht, denn man soll ja nicht herunterskalieren. Es gibt hier zu viele Leute, die jeden Splitter im Auge des Nächsten finden, aber den Balken im eigenen nicht. Das macht den Aufenthalt in diesen Gefilden immer weniger erfreulich und erinnert mich sehr an die vergangene Entwicklung bei de:KEB, insbesondere was die Sache mit der Deutungshoheit über die Kriterien angeht. -- Smial (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Du hast vollkommen Recht. Ein Kalenderverlag hat von mir Knipsbilder einer Olympus C-220 für A3 angenommen. Die haben wahrscheinlich keine Ahnung. --Ralf Roleček 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Da bin ich 100%ig bei dir, Smial. Das Problem sind für mich nicht die 4MP, vermutlich hätte ich sogar selbst dafür gestimmt. Das Problem sind zum einen der kurze Zeitraum in dem eine solche Änderung durchgepeitscht wurde und über die Osterferien quasi kaum jemandem die Chance auch nur auf Diskussion ließ und zum anderen das gesamte restliche Abstimmungsverhalten, wie du schon sagst. --Indeedous (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzt macht mal QI nicht so schlecht. Es hat mir in der Vergangenheit geholfen und hilft mir auch heute einen gewissen Qualitätsstandard zu erreichen und zu halten. Die Kritik hilft mir oft weiter und wenn es mir nur hilft einen halbwegs objektiven Blick auf die eigenen Fotos zu bewahren. Wenn doch eines abgelehnt wird, bei dem ich die Einwände nicht verstehe, versuche ich, inzwischen, mit Lässigkeit darüber hinwegzugehen ;-). --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
QIC ist von der ursprünglichen Konzeption her ja auch nicht schlecht, sonst hätte ich mich damals von MBDortmund nicht überzeugen lassen, hier mitzutun. Mich ärgert nur, daß hier in kontraproduktiver Weise an einer Schraube gedreht wurde, wo gar kein wirklicher Bedarf war - und wir nun statt einer niedrigen, aber harten Grenze ein etwas höheres Wischiwaschi-Limit haben. Die tatsächlichen, im Laufe der Jahre angestauten Probleme hingegen werden nicht angegangen und führen zu immer mehr Konflikten, Diskussionen, CRs und flüchtenden Regulars. -- Smial (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe my key question in English: Why do these changes have to be done in just 4 days during the easter holidays so that many people can't even participate? Although I don't like these strict policies about voting periods in (de.)wikipedia, maybe that's the reason why they are useful. --Indeedous (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many people Indeedous? The 94% of the people which uses the QI voted, and then 4 days are few? More than 50% are in favor of 4 Mp, honestly I don't know what you could ask (though easter was April 5, at least in Italy, France, Spain etc.),Greetengs --LivioAndronico talk 07:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to your contribution logbook, you had time to work for Commons on April 11. So, I guess, that you are not speaking for yourself but for other users. Which users? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm strongly with Indeedous. A major change like this one has to be based on a much larger concensus achieved throughout a much longer period. No matter what the present outcome seems to be, reaching a decision and implementing it on the guidelines in four days looks like a coup d'etat to me. It wouldn't surprise me if some users refused to acknowlege such decision. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that's our basic problem of understanding. These 94% may be the old men's club who believes that they ARE the QI and which promote each others photographs as QI. But you completely ignored these thousends of normal QI-participants who are also affected by those changes. It would have been fair if a banner noticed them "Hey, we are planning to change the rules and you are invited to participate. Voting period ends in 3 weeks". And if most of them uses QI once a month, we have to wait for a month before we come to a decision because THEY are QI. The german community and some other central european countrys had easter holidays (it's the week before and after easter, depends on the state) and you didn't only ignore them, you also ignored the portals and other groups inside wikipedia. There must have been some wildlife photographer here, but you didn't even consider that aviation photographers and maybe sports photographers or whoever might have problems with the 4-MP-rule. That's why I can't agree with these changes. --Indeedous (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who attends more community spoke (I honestly I've never seen you) attended that many Germans and everyway in Italy they say: one swallow does not make a spring! Where are all these thousands of users? It would be useful to see them, but in QI who usually worthy of help I have seen . However one thing is a picture quality (which must have certain characteristics) is another upload photos. I do not put all my photos on QI or FP only those who believe they have the features. Thank you.--LivioAndronico talk 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with this comment, but I'll have to agree with Indeedous. I don't have a problem with the 4Mpix rule as such, but I do have a major problem with the process used to determine it. You can't just overthrow a long-standing rule like this through 4 days of back-room voting during the holidays – as far as I can see, there wasn't even an announcement on the main Village Pump. I strongly suggest to roll back all the changes related to this vote and start a new one promoted through the appropriate channels. --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that will come to nowhere,after that already there have been extensive discussions of various users active in QI, any further discussion is useless. On this subject has already been discussed and debated with the proper authorities, the rest is just talk,I finish here for this topic, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: - why would there be an announcement at COM:VP? This is about QIC, so those who contribute should be the ones to decide. I agree that a longer time period would have been good, but if most of the QI regulars have commented, and the vote is pretty clear, I don't see a big problem with implementing it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
El Grafo, according to your contribution logbook, you had time to work for Commons on April 12. Don't tell us, you had no chance to vote --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck and Cccefalon: I had just returned from my vacation and didn't notice there was a vote until it was too late as QI is not one of my top priorities. But this is not about me: Since QI is supposed to be a way to help people find good images for their articles, users who don't actively contribute here but use the QI badge as a guide should have the chance to participate in a process like this. Unless QI has turned into nothing more than a place for complementary backslapping, they are the ones who should decide stuff like this. Who knows, maybe the majority of them would prefer a much higher threshold? --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. …" ;-) -- Smial (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything - hence also to the amount of megapixels - is 42 --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least nobody hung a Beware of the Leopard sign on the door ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info -- Let's put it this way then: I have reverted the changes to the guidelines because I don't acknowlege the decision. Please think again before putting it back: we should all strive for the same goals and no one wants to start an edit war. For those less experience in these things, major changes such as this one are usually discussed throughout a month, or more. Afterwars, a second discussion is held, usually a shorter one, to decide how to reflect the concensus on the guidelines. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You complained a "coup d'état" so you should stick to your own policy. I reverted it. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal: Start a voting, if we should roll back. Time for voting should be one month. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And one thing more: It is you, who is starting to be very undemocratic. You were involved in the voting on April 11. At that time, you had no problem with casting your vote. Now, as the outcome of the voting is not upon your taste, you start a war against the vote under the pretence of democracy. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Usual voting periods in wikimedia projects are much longer. I often wait some days for a reply on my arguments, this was not possible here, as the "result" was implemented so quickly. As can be seen in the current discussion, there is obvisiously still need for discussion. -- Smial (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but there is still no need to roll back. Discuss here and if a majority thinks it should be rolled back, then do it. But until then, everybody can see how the threshold works. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page. Please discuss and do not engage in edit warring. Pleclown (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC) (To be clear: I don't care about the limit, but I agree that the decision was a little bit rushed)[reply]
@Pleclown: Then to be perfectly coherent with what you say, please put back the page as it was before the change. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvesgaspar: meta:The Wrong Version Pleclown (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pleclown: But that is exactly what I have done, to draw your attention to the fact that this is the wrong version! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated previously, the objective of this so-called voting was obviously only the enforcement of a particular interest, and power, it was not really about image quality. Discussions about minimum image size have arosen in the past for several times, allways without a decision and without consensus. The way how this voting was closed may be not a "coup d'état", but leaves a very bad taste. An initial evaluation of the results were given after only 24 hours, possibly influencing later votes. Final result was published and voting was closed after only three days. That's absolutely unusual in wikimedia project diskussions and this is not really democracy. -- Smial (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You also casted your vote and didn't mentioned about the voting period. Indeed, it leaves a bad taste, that you are opposing now.
My previous proposal is serious and I repeat it here: Start a new vote, if the 4 MPx rule shall be rolled back to 2 MPX. Propose a voting period of 4 weeks and restrict the voting to people, which had been with QIC at least since March 1st, 2015. In the meanwhile, we all can observe, how we fare with a threshold of 4 MPix. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I casted my vote, there was no voting period, there wasn't even a "voting" section, which I myself introduced later. Don't turn facts upside down! -- Smial (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is being contested is the legitimacy of the decision process, not the results of the poll (as of 14 April). That is why I don't consider the above proposal serious. I can perfectly live with a 4Mp limit but am strongly against the present disrespect for the concensus-reaching culture of Commons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Voting" on Wikimedia projects is forbidden if it is not used to determine consensus. As soon as consensus is determined, there is no reason for the vote. Voting is just a means to an end. I almost missed the vote due to inactivity, but even if I had missed it, the result would still be overwhelmingly clear. A few more votes would make people feel better but not change the outcome. This topic has been discussed extensively for months now. Everyone has had plenty of chances to weigh in. It's not an issue of sneaking in a controversial change, a power grab, or any other conspiracy. I've read this thread and I see very few users merely discussing that did not also vote. We don't need a longer period to bring in users who don't participate in QIC to stuff the ballot. That is certainly disrespectful of building consensus. -- Ram-Man 13:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely unacceptable is the short voting period. Such decisions require more time. Even users who are not constantly online must have the chance to express themselves. 1 Mounth voting period is minimum! Please revert and repeat! --Milseburg (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear: I don't care about the limit, but I agree that the decision was a little bit rushed. I fully agree. Although I have voted, I think it is not usual in Wikimedia projects to close a poll without any indication of a "deadline". I did not notice this when I voted, I think the proceeding is a bit violent, and the procedure not conform to our usual way to do. And again, I don't care with the final result. Users old and new, need more respect. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of the vote, the outcome seemed pretty obvious to me, although I could not quite understand the urgency in closing the discussion so fast, I do not think it was done in bad faith in any way. However, since so many users have chimed in afterwards and expressed very clearly that they believe the closure was premature and that not enough discussion had taken place, I really believe we should open this process again. If not, these people will just feel alienated; I think you know the pshychology in this from yourself; if your are being told what to do you feel much less ownership, than if you feel you have had a chance to voice your opinion. If we stubbornly insist not to re-open the discussion we will have abrasion for months from the users who feel they were not heard. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no real harm in that, other than wasting time. But I don't buy that voices were excluded. This vote may have been rushed, but not the discussion which has been ongoing for months. -- Ram-Man 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, voices were excluded in two ways: first, the annoucement was made through a short list of pings only (which, for example did not include my name); and second, by the rush in presenting the results, closing the discussion, drwing the conclusions and implementing the decision. This left behind all those who were too busy in real life to fully participate (that was my case also). It is not by chance that important decisions in Commons are made after a long period of discussion. I fully agree with Slaunger that this incident may cause, if not dealt with carefully, difficult to repair damage among the editors. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too was excluded. A few nominators participated in a very short discussion on file size and decided to implement a decision that was undemocratic and irresponsible. It is completely inappropriate for macro photography. --Charles (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For me it does not change anything, so I do not think anything will change the outcome. You can also start a vote of one month or three years.--LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for some of my collegues I think :
1/ 4mpx is too much for macro and exceptions should be made and proposed in the vote for the macro photography.
2/ a much longer period of vote (at least one month)
3/ a much longer ping list
I think we should vote again. -- Christian Ferrer 05:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding macro photography is not, that you use the normal lenses and just cut a small portion of the image. Usually, you work either with a mikroscope lense or a reverse ring and the object will almost occupy the full sensor format. Even the single parts of the snail shell images of Llez are huge. For living animals we already have the wilflife exemption. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I use a high quality Canon 100mm L-series macro lens. If I photograph a live insect in a forest, hand held, I cannot always approach too close as (a) the DOF will be too shallow, (b) the camera will block out the light, (c) the insect will run/fly/wriggle away. Therefore for many macro images of small subjects cropping will be necessary. The alternative, with a 4MP cut off, is to submit an image with lots of unnecessary background, which does not improve the image's encyclopaedic worth. --Charles (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That case is perfectly covered by the wildlife exemption imo. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily: this applies to any macro shot. See Depth of Field vs. Resolution. In general, the majority of high DoF macro shots are resolution limited to the 4MP to 8MP range due to diffraction. If you allow for cropping of macro, then the you are looking at 2MP to 6MP for the reasonable range. The wildlife exception does not cover the complete set of scenarios. -- Ram-Man 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done please don't revert again until a consensus were reached Ezarateesteban 02:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I doubt whether this proposal is well prepared. I see an exception for wildlife. Some people argued that it should be applicable for sports, night portraits, etc. too. I think that argument is reasonable. So what about splitting photographs into different groups. 1. Wildlife (macro and tele), sports, night portraits, etc. or possible all tele photographs. 2. landscape, architecture, etc. or possibly all photographs below 100mm in 35mm eqv. 3. Stitched panoramas. I think a 3MP is enough for group 1, 6MP for group 2, and 12MP for group 3. Jee 03:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm having second thoughts for my earlier support for 4/5 MP (with allowance) at QI. I think we're looking down the wrong end of the telescope -- starting with camera sensor resolution and trying to interpret what is then acceptable QI. Instead, we should look at the variety of end-use and view what is the minimum quality for a good number of uses. The Commons search / category pages are awful and at least with QI/FP we have a chance to filter them now to select good photos. But there's no reason why Commons couldn't also filter by size (pixels, bytes or both) to meet a re-user's needs. I'd love if we could ask WMF to improve the software for this. So I wonder whether we should forget increasing MP at QI and concentrate instead on being better at reviewing images. For a start, stop this stupid pixel-peeping nonsense where a 24/36MP image gets rejected for a bit of noise or CA. Start reviewing at 4/5MP rather than full-size. Start approving high quality images and rejecting rubbish photographs even if they are well-exposed, focused, sharp and noise-free. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment just an observation as the founder of QI, I see nothing wrong with increasing technical standards to reflect the ability of available equipment even most phones(ignoring image qaulity) can take better than 2MP images now. Any changes should be reached in a fair manner ensuring that a true consensus can be accepted by all even those that disagree with the change. Following the decision implementation of new rules should be at some point in the future(1st of the next month) which can then be advertised giving people time to adjust rather than immediately after a discussion is closed leaving people disillusioned about the change. Gnangarra 10:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the process: What the heck is going on here? There is a vote about a significant change in QI requirements and it is lasting only for 4 days? Over Easter Holidays? You can't be serious! Which mentally sane person would expect a real discussion and consensus to be found in Wikimedia within this timeframe? This smells very foul. A little bit like the independence vote of the Crimean -> make sure that the potential opposition can't vote before you start it...
  • About the subject: And what should be the reason for this? Just because the camera can do more pixels nowadays? Great, so we justice technical equipment instead of quality. Honestly: 2MP is good enough even for an A4 print seen from a normal viewing distance - so this will meet the basic purpose of the resolution requirement as well.
  • About the end: Unlike many here I don't see Wikimedia as a cheap foto cache and was always trying to provide high quality images for this project. The QI marker was in some way a confirmation to see if I achieved this goal while even the declining comments could give some suggestions. So as I'm now obviously not able to provide high quality pictures anymore by default (I'm not willing and in most cases technically not able to provide this resolution), I will not provide any images at all. So Good Bye and thanks for the fish...--LC-de (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC) discussion is still going on... --LC-de (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution in QI 2nd approach[edit]

Let's face it: The hard 2-MPix-limit has worked well for several years. On the other hand digital photography techniques have evolved and some contributors demand higher resolution. This must be taken serious. We have also seen many arguments that make it difficult to set 4 MPix (or more) as a hard limit. This also must be taken serious. A long list of exceptions would make a fixed limit with more than 2 Mpix difficult to handle. This would also lead to disputes in the future, whether a particular photo subject is to be recognized as an exception or not. I'm a fan of as simple rules as possible. How about a simplification instead of a pile of exception rules? My idea is: Don't use Mpixels, use the length of the short side of the image. If we set this e.g. to 1600 px, we would get a slight enhancement for square crops to about 2.5 MPix, typical 2:3 DSLR shots would need 3.8 MPix, and a stitched 4:1 pano must have at least 10 Mpix. This would have three advantages: a) Crops or necessary downscaling for technical reasons are still possible, and we have a moderate enhancement for standard shots. b) No need for mathematics, it can be seen directly on the description page whether an image has sufficiant resolution or not. c) We have still an undisputable hard limit. -- Smial (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have for a long time the rule: "reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily". Has this rule not worked? And: As shown, 3:2 would demand 3.8 MPix, and this is a higher requirement than before. -- Smial (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about non-photographic images? Most of them should probably be SVG, to which the rules don't apply anyway, but there are other cases. Some examples:
  1. A scan of a historic map should certainly be printable at it's original size and still be readable – 1600 px may not be sufficient for that.
  2. There's really no need to blow this reproduction of a small train ticket up to 1600 px – it's probably already bigger than life-size.
  3. There are some cases where user-created illustrations (diagrams, maps, etc.) have to be created in a pixel format rather than SVG (e.g. animated GIFs). Depending on the content type, 1600 px may be way too much there.
I'm not saying that we need a special rule for every possible exception. But a general note/disclaimer explaining that the rules were mainly created with photographic content in mind and that they may or may not be appropriate for other types of content should be quite easy to implement. --El Grafo (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ad 1) Yes, scans of rather big maps should have a higher resolution than 1600px. Such a scan should be done with at least 300 dpi, if possible with 600 dpi, so they can be printed in good quality.
ad 2) We have photos and scans e.g. of stamps or coins with rather high resolutions. Why should we require less for scans of other small objects? Maybe s.o. wants to use such a train ticket as a background for a poster. Every quality image should be printable to A4 (resp. letter size) at least at 150dpi, that's not an extraordinary claim and less than old fashioned FAX technology. So small objects should be scanned at least with 600 dpi, better more.
ad 3) An exception for graphics/maps/illustrations/animations can be formulated, if not already done. Graphics are not photos.
All in all, my suggestion refers only to photos, as it was in the original proposal. -- Smial (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally against this rule, I have no money to buy a new camera, besides the downsizing technique that I was using was the best to hide any imperfections. Now, seriously, I think the size should be the least, I believe that the rule should apply not generally the rule should be applied in each specific case, ie, that the picture is taken at the highest (maximum) resolution the camera that was taken. In this way we will be encouraging to those who have money to buy a camera last generation rise these wonderful pictures at high resolutions, and those (like me) who do not have money to buy a new camera, can continue to participate in this section. The maximum resolution of the camera must be the requirement for each picture here evaluated, thus also we encourage the photographer to approach the subject instead of using software tools cut. Thus, when evaluating the images we are being more fair, good photography techniques will encourage rather than good cameras. This is the best rule we could accept any different rule will exclude a lot of people. --The Photographer (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image quality is about so much more than resolution, especially on a site with an educational remit like Commons, we should not emphasise rewarding photographers for expensive cameras. Should galleries and textbooks remove their Bresson photos because he used a nasty 1930s lense and black&white film? Dentalplanlisa (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smial and Ezarate: can the RfC be closed (status=closed) with a resolution "folks discussed to replace the 2 Megapixel limit by 1600px for the smaller side on QI candidates", and removed (= archived) from {{Cent}}? –Be..anyone (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I neither understand all this =closed and =archive and tl|cent stuff and it's implications, nor the "resolution". But do what you want. -- Smial (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, there's a better explanation on ending a Request for Comment. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don´t see a consensus reached to do nothing here, so the Rfc must be keep opened IMHO Ezarateesteban 13:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Proposal_to_change_the_guidelines&oldid=188756179"