Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2017 photo call Egon Schiele Tod und Mädchen Valerie Pachner 2.jpg

some thoughts

I do not want to change anyones mind. People look at different aspects of pictures and judge accordingly. Still I am wondering about some comments. A black eye? A shadow, yes, but a "black" eye looks very different. A bodybuilders shoulder? Really? Anything that appears not as skinny as a runway model is a bodybuilder? Why such exaggerations? Finally the noise. This picture is 5471 x 3647 px. I just looked at a couple of FPs of people. I found only one or two portraits of a similar size, most of them are considerably smaller. I forgot to downsample this one. Usually I use 4200 x 2800 or even 3900 × 2600 (which is close to many FPs of people) for portraits (because of respect for the people depicted, I don't want to present their every pore and wrinkle). At that size the noise, low as it is anyway, would be close to invisible. What astonished me most: Almost all of the FPs of people, portraits especially, are quite blurred in comparison (eyelashes etc.).
Looking at people's FPs I can't really comprehend the criteria for portraits at FPC. --Tsui (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest crop, before i wrote, i checked that in PS, it work better. There is also solution you crop her a bit from above, to get rid of bad haircut behind. Portrait picture is nothing more demanding than some macro. I actually miss here portraits here. Hereby, crop isnt good, and her shoulder-right arm is not helping you. I tried 2 crops :

crop 1 crop2

Check it. --Mile (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I suggest alternative.

• Hi Tsui, not sure how used you are to the FPC section, but exaggerated language is used here all the time to get a point across, it's not meant as bad as it sounds. Like in this FPC where a bottle of whisky and a glass was compare to "cough mixture from Boots" and "plastic cup my dentist offers". There is also some over-the-top language in another nomination of your photos, but I guess that you didn't mind that as much since it was done in combination with a 'support' vote. FPC can be a very daunting section and it can feel very personal at times having your photos criticized in a way you may not be used to, but it is like a hard tennis match where we are very hard on each other in the game to get the most excellent pictures and afterwards we are all friends again.

Your portraits are all of very high quality, but that is for QI. For FP we go for the "wow-factor" and some technically excellent photos can be heavily opposed if they don't provoke that inner wow. The opposite is also true. All supports are based on very subjective, and at times unpredictable, emotions and so are the opposes. May I also add that this is the first time I have ever been on the talk page of an FPC nomination. These discussions are normally carried out right on the nom page. This section is a bit quirky and eccentric compared to the rest of the Commons. ;) Best, --cart-Talk 10:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Tsui, wrt to the "noise" comment from Daniel Case, all I can say is he hasn't got the first clue. It is immensely frustrating to see pixel-peeping nonsense like that here at FPC. Daniel, you supported ("loved") this nomination with the same photographer and same event and same ISO, yet here the image is described as "a lot of noise and thus not make it as an FP". This inconsistency, and your admission that you reviewed the US WLM at thumbnail size, makes me suspect you are neither careful nor consistent in your reviewing. This image does not have "a lot of noise". Indoor event photography had different challenges to studio or landscape photography and your job as reviewer is to appreciate them or go do something else. If you think the noise here, in a 20MP portrait, is unacceptable for FP, then I have to say, frankly, I don't think you should be reviewing here. I'm tired to see supports of 8MP downsized from 36MP images and opposes of honest and generous fullsize image. I have to be blunt about this, Daniel, this is bad reviewing and if it is scaring off excellent portrait photographers, with the skill and equipment to do a great job, then that's bad for the project. -- Colin (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: The other portrait didn't seem to me to have the issue, and in addition to that complaint my oppose !vote seconded (or at least I intended it to be read as doing that way) cart's comment about the unfortunate effects of the shadow in her eye (Again, by comparison, the other portrait's pose and lighting were more than enough to offset any complaints about the technical qualities).

Colin, I think most nominators here understand that !votes are entirely subjective (and thus I try to phrase mine that way). If you expect some objective standard, you're not going to be happy. I thought this nomination was pretty much a lock, at least back when I nominated it. Apparently I was wrong. I can live with that, and try to learn something from it about taking and processing better pictures for later nominations, which I have.

I don't tell you how to review pictures. I respect your eye and many times you have influenced my !vote. You have also gotten me to be more forgiving of images taken under certain conditions, as well. But when you lecture me about how I should be doing this (WLM aside, for which there were some extenuating circumstances, here at FPC if I think the image works as a composition I do look at it full-size, always), I start envisioning you as being like Graham Chapman at 4:47 in this scene (the spam filter blocks the direct link) in real life. And you and I both know there are—or, more accurately, have been—some other people here who wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt on that perception, either.

Frankly I think discussions like these do as much to "scare people off the project" as reviews such as those you are objecting to, if not more. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, the point is not about subjective issues like lighting or whether the pose is flattering, but about noise, which can be examined rather more objectively. Is the amount of noise in this photo so bad that it harms its potential use? If I use this image on a web page then it might look like this -- no noise. If I use this on TV full screen or as desktop wallpaper then it looks like this -- no noise. That size is also the resolution required to print it across an A4 magazine, but remember that when you look at it on your desktop monitor, you are applying a 3x magnifying glass to the printed image. Even if I printed it 300dpi horizontally on an A4 magazine, it would look like this and I hope you agree that once you remember you are viewing this 3x magnified, that any "noise" would be simply lost in the printing and paper texture. When you look at the original, at 100% on your desktop, you are viewing an image 4.5 feet wide and 3 feet tall. That's a poster. Which are typically viewed from a distance, not from 1 foot. So, objectively, what possible argument do you have that this image has "a lot of noise"? There is no "real world" usage where the degree of noise here would be an issue. This amount of noise is pefectly acceptable for professional event photography. So if that is the case, why should noise be a reason to "not make it as an FP"?

But more importantly, you didn't just say "noisy" as an oppose reason. I'd have argued against it if you had, but I wouldn't have been so critical of you. No, you went further and lectured Tsui: "If you needed to use the fast ISO to get this image I can understand, but do be aware that it's likely to come with a lot of noise and thus not make it as an FP.". Have you looked at Tsui's home page and gallery? A huge proportion of his contribution to Commons is indoor event photography. Pretty much all those photos have a four-digit ISO, so ISO 1000 here is at the very low end. I think Tsui doesn't need to be getting lessons from you to "be aware" of the issues of high ISO. Do you think that comment is likely to make Tsui improve his photography to eliminate such noise? Or perhaps the laws of physics might change? No, your comment says: your event photogrpahy will be pixel peeped at FP and ignorant oppose rationals like mine will ensure they fail. The result is Tsui either drastically downsizes his images before uploading to Commons (see his comment at the top of the page) simply to avoid the pixel peepers [which may result in opposes due to downsizing], or gives up nominating at FP. And we have seen before when photographers get fed up with what they perceive as ignorant criticisms of their photos at FP: they leave Commons.

So, Daniel, you are discouraging a valuable and gifted photographer, who has the opportunities and equipment to take great event photos and donate them to Commons. If you are unwilling to accept your "noise" comments are not acceptable, then, no, I'm not "lecturing you". You are harming the project. I'm asking you to go. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Colin, asking Daniel, or any user, to leave the project is pretty extreme. Please try to reconsider if there is any other way you can think of that would resolve this. But, if you are serious, then this discussion should be moved to a more 'visible' and appropriate talk page (perhaps your's or Daniel's) since this discussion has now gone way past the scope of this FPC nomination. You could also copy part of this text to that page to give the moved discussion proper context. --cart-Talk 10:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Cart, I'm not asking him to leave Commons. But to take a break from FPC. The logic I see is that Daniel's advice to Tsui amounts to telling him to abandon hope of generally achieving FP for his event photos. This is based on Daniel pixel peeping rather than any reasonable review opinion. I do not want to see Tsui discouraged/leave because of comments made by someone who, by now, should be experienced reviewer who knows better than to complain about a tiny amount of residual noise in a 20MP photo. Given the choice, I'd rather Tsui contribute his full-sized images here than Daniel contribute his pixel peeping oposition votes. Perhaps a gap from FPC, coupled with buying some books with great photos in them, might change Daniel's mind about "what makes a great photo". There are 19,952,737 pixels in this photo. Reviewing them at a magnification where you are concerned about each and every one of them, is no way to judge a photo. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Colin, I'm not getting dragged into this discussion. I know better than to step in between two old bulls (Commons age, not your actual age IRL). But I am asking you to take this to a more apporopiate venue, having this discussion here on a seldom seen FPC talk page is the Commons equivalent of brawling in a back alley. Both of you have a better chance of getting input if this was moved to a more visited page. --cart-Talk 12:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If Daniel wants to move/copy it to his talk page, I'm fine with that. I have no illusion that e.g. the crowd at FP would join in some mass chorus asking Daniel to take a break, because we've had worse behaviour that gets accepted. I've seen too many photographers get pissed off with FP votes and leave, so I'm just sick of seeing another one being advised that their entire genre of photography is unacceptable at FP. It's just my opinon, not an AN/U. -- Colin (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

First: Thank you all for taking the time to respond and for your thoughts and opinions!
This discussion took a turn I did not intend, I do not want to stir up any kind of conflict here. As far as I am concerned, FP/C is an additional aspect of Commons - respectively of contributing images to Wikipedia, which is the priority of all my activities here. Of course it is very satisfying and a further motivation if pictures are accepted and appreciated in the form of FP. If they are not not, for whatever reason or criterion, it may be frustrating sometimes or not replicable (the right word? in German I'd say nachvollziehbar) to me. It may be reason to keep distance from FP/C (again), but not to quit Commons or contributing images for Wikipedia (the most bugging, maybe the sole real problem for me here at Commons is the deletion policy concerning author's requests - sometimes in behalf of people depicted - to remove images, which hardly, if at all, get considered; but that's a completely different discussion).
People here judge images by their own standards. Overall that's ok. Even if I can not understand some votes I have no problem with the voters. FPCs get reviewed by several people. So it is always the sum of opinions that leads to the final result. If the majority supports or declines a nomination I cannot blame single voters for their judgement.
My initial comment has been motivated by the comments on the image I nominated. Reconsidering it I guess it was rather a comment on FP/C policies regarding portraits in general - which are highly subjective as it seems. I'll continue to nominate pictures from time to time and remind myself that it is somehow a kind of "game" how they are judged, depending on who reviews them and what is important to the single reviewers. --Tsui (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tsui, for taking all this in with a good mood. Your contributions to Commons are excellent and if I see some of your photos that I think belongs among FP, at QIC or someplace else, I will of course nominate them. --cart-Talk 15:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There are no "policies" for FP criteria (the official criteria is pretty awful and ignored) but I am constantly surprised how harshly portrait photography is judged considering we have very very few photographers who take/upload portraits to Commons. You are right to consider it a bit of a random game. Please don't downsize your images based on the comments made. The best thing you can do is perhaps to teach us what a great portrait is, by persisting to nominate them. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: I am puzzled as to why you feel I should take a break from FPC just because I suggested to Tsui that there might be noise issues endemic to a portrait taken under light conditions adverse enough to require four-digit ISOs, noise issues that might be an obstacle to FP status IMO. I do not object to his portraits as a whole—as you noted, I !voted to support another one from the same event because I liked the pose and it did not have those noise issues. Was I supposed to support all of them then? I suppose I might have, if he had chosen to nominate them as a set. But he didn't, and so I didn't.

I am sorry you read more into my comment than I intended. I do not have problems with portrait photography as a genre—I don't think anybody who's followed my !votes would think so, even just from that one comment. I just felt that those particular portraits may have required some compromises to turn out as recognizable images, compromises that may have foreclosed on the possibility of at least some of them that had already been promoted to QI in turn making it to FP.

If this is a reason for someone to stop nominating images, I think, they're going to have a lot of other problems. I wonder why you are focusing on my oppose, which was related to the technical issues with the image, as opposed to A. Savin's, which I would have had problems with were it my image as well. Tsui has said he will not stop nominating images, and I have no problem with that. I agree with you completely that we could use more consistent standards for portraits, and thus we need to see more nominated. However, if we encourage people to do so just because, we won't be doing anyone any good. Not the photographers and not Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, I think like your reviewing, you have been careless in reading my comments to you. I am not talking about portrait photography in general. I clearly mentioned "indoor event photography", which is Tsui main contribution to Commons. It's an entire genre, which includes stars receiving awards or rock concerts, or indoor sports, for example. Let me be quite clear, Daniel, this photo, for its genre, is technically excellent. First class. Could not be improved. (leaving aside her pose and the shadow on her eye). Yet you claim it has "noise issues" and "technical issues". It doesn't Daniel. They are all in your mind. And thus, that makes you the obstacle towards event photos being promoted at FP. Not "FP" in general. You. Others read your comments, they think you are experienced here, and pick up on that. They get the message their photos are not welcome, or perhaps they join with you in being pixel peepers. Either way it is harmful. You describe this event as having "light conditions adverse enough to require four-digit ISOs". No it doesn't have "adverse" light conditions. It has absolutely standard light conditions. For indoor events. These photos require high ISO. Deal with that Daniel. Adapt your review to the kind of photography and the conditions. This is not a studio portrait and should not be judged like one. The photographer has not made "compromises that may have foreclosed on the possibility of ... making it to FP". That's coming from your wrong-headed idea of what makes an excellent image. They have chosen the best equipment and settings to capture a great image at the event. This photo is completely usable, on a technical level. It is you who are "foreclosing" the possiblity of such images being FP. You advised Tsui that his event photos (all of which are >1000 ISO) stood little chance at FP. That's why I'm upset with you. Fortunately it appears he is made of solid stuff, but I have seen many, many, photographers react to that with a "fuck this; idiots" response. I do not want you to be the reason we lose another photographer, whether that's Tsui or someone else looking at that review, and wondering whether to contribute.

The only other place on the net where you will see full size images of indoor event photography is on an equipment review website, where gearheads like to see the pixels too. So, for example, look at this gallery of the latest Sony A99ii. Look at this and this. These are high ISO photos. Nobody complains about the noise. Indeed, the review and forum comments are complementary about the photos. These are completley usable sports photos, with the only concerns being focus and framing and poses. Now compare this image taken from a sports website. It is less than one megapixel. That's an indoor event image being used. Professionaly. Now, tell me. Is the problem with your attitude and unhelpful advice. Or do you still maintain there are "noise issues" with this photo, and that high ISO photos should be prevented from being featured regardless of the genre? -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of text. Its a FP nominee, there are some issues which can be solved with software. If user isnt "there" yet with knowledge he can try next time. Shot wont be erased, it is still representing that person. About noise, it is talkable; and also could be solved. --Mile (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My attempt at mitigating the problem

:@Colin and PetarM: : I think I can best respond to both of you with my attempt to soften the noise in the bokeh while leaving the face as sharp as it has been. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's just completely missing the point. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: Only someone so aggressively devoted to moving the goalposts as yourself would call this missing the point. I should rather think that if you ask me if I "still maintain there are 'noise issues' with this photo", and I respond by posting an edit of the image in which I have at least attempted to reduce them, maybe, just maybe, I'm answering your question without saying anything (Not that it would matter if I said; you'd just find something else to natter on about.

Your second question is putting words in my keyboard. I have never said explicitly that high-ISO pictures should not be featured under any circumstances. As you yourself even noted, I had !voted for another one of Tsui's images that I liked which was also high-ISO (Are you a single person, or several people who post under the same name? Because when you get like you have been lately, it certainly seems like you don't know who you are from day to day). I have !voted for many night-sky photos, many long-exposure photos, that have been noisy because there's nothing much anyone can do about that. I don't know how you would get the idea that I would so categorically exclude high-ISO images.

All I said to Tsui was that this is sometimes an issue for me. He has taken this with much more grace than you. I hope to see him post more ... as Mile quite astutely stated (and why have you not torn into him with all the fury you have brought to bear against me? Why am I such a singular target for you?), it is possible to learn from one's mistakes. Well, for some of us, at least.

Actually, Colin, I do see your point there now. But if you wore a hat, no one would notice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, here's what you said " If you needed to use the fast ISO to get this image I can understand, but do be aware that it's likely to come with a lot of noise and thus not make it as an FP'." That is as patronising and ill informed opinion and dismissal of event photography as I've ever seen. It says, to anyone who takes such photographs to a professional standard, that they are likely to be prevented from achieving featured status on this site by some Randy in Boise who knows b***ger all about that sort of photography and shows no interest in learning. The fact that you felt the need to add further NR to the image demonstrates you are missing the point: the noise is not an issue. Your pixel-peeping is. When the late Michael Reichmann coined the term "pixel peeping" he wasn't being complimentary. There was nothing wrong with this image wrt noise. I'm not "moving goalposts". The entire professional world does not see an issue with this degree of noise for indoor event photography. You make us a laughing stock. And you discourage genuinely talented photographer with this shit. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As countless FPCs here demonstrate, noise is in the eye of the beholder (It seems Mile was one, as well). I felt there was some; I am entitled to say so without being put through the wringer. I felt that the level of noise I saw here would lead to others objecting as well; I was trying to be friendly. We have had other indoor event photography without this level of noise that has made FP.

Do you have a reference for this making us a laughing stock? I think rather that this degree of pomposity, à la Benedict Cumberbatch at 3:30 here (and really, that's how you're coming across to me right now), this level of playing !vote-cop, would do far worse to deter outside participation. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Daniel, do you seriously think I'm going to follow a link to a youtube video and scroll along to the mm:ss where your insult lies? If your experience of photography extended beyond FPC, like to some books perhaps, or some serious photography websites, you would be quite aware of how ridiculously pixel peepers are viewed. Look at my opening remarks at 08:58, 15 February 2017. Does that square with your complaint above? No. I'm unwatching now, because I've said what needs to be said, and you've been as careful to read what I wrote as you are with your reviews and advice. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: So you can dish it out but you can't take it? What do you know about what I know or don't know about photography? What makes you think you're entitled to speculate? Why do you pick on me? Because you couldn't drive Livio off FPC, I suppose.

But if you feel the need to tell me what to read, let me advise you to go read about some things like tact and manners—y'know, things that the English are supposed to have written the books on. Things that I think I'm not the only one to come to the conclusion you need to know more about. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)