File talk:Тумманний світанок на Південному Бузі - околиці с. Самчинці.jpg
@Q-lieb-in: This is an incredibly beautiful image. Is this the full resolution? If not, could you please upload the biggest version possible? And the EXIF metadata is very minimal; I can't even see what camera this was taken on. Would you please be able to fix that? The reason I'm asking this is that I think this image has a very good chance at Commons:POTY, but if we don't have the full-resolution image with more complete metadata, we can't promote this image to Commons:FP. Thanks for this valuable upload! -- Thennicke (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Thennicke! I upload this file today in maximum resolutions and full EXIF data. This photo taken on NIKON d5100 and original frame was cropped. If you have any questions - please let me know. Good luck!
- @Q-lieb-in: Thank you so much!! I'm going to nominate this image at FPC; I've got a feeling it will go down well. I'm looking at a few of your other uploads, such as this one [1] as also being potential candidates, but they need to be in full resolution (except cropping) to be considered seriously, so if you have time, could you upload those in full as well? You might be pleased to know that one of your images is already doing very well and gathering a lot of support there right now; I have no doubts it will succeed. I think you are a very good photographer, and once again thanks for uploading! -- Thennicke (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Thennicke: - ok i do it. I upload this photo in higer resolution to. If you choose any another my photos - please let me know and i upload them to. Good luck!
- @Q-lieb-in: Thank you so much!! I'm going to nominate this image at FPC; I've got a feeling it will go down well. I'm looking at a few of your other uploads, such as this one [1] as also being potential candidates, but they need to be in full resolution (except cropping) to be considered seriously, so if you have time, could you upload those in full as well? You might be pleased to know that one of your images is already doing very well and gathering a lot of support there right now; I have no doubts it will succeed. I think you are a very good photographer, and once again thanks for uploading! -- Thennicke (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0.jpg){kind=link}
Artificial edge softening?[edit]
Hi again @Q-lieb-in: on the FPC nomination page for this image, people have pointed out that the edges of this image have been blurred in post-processing (See user:Diliff's oppose vote). If that is true, could you please upload a version without those manipulations? They are considered technical flaws for an image which will be used in an encyclopaedia, and the image won't get promoted. Thanks again :) -- Thennicke (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Thennicke: ! Yes, I did use a softening effect at the edges of the picture. I needed it to give more lighter space around the edges and not to distract the viewer's eye from the image center. This image was not processed in Photoshop - all editing occurs only Lightroom. No any items have been added to this photo - so I do not think that this is manipulation. As the author of the photo, I do not think a good idea to upload the photo without such editing - because it will distort my creative idea to submit this piece of nature. If this does not available to the rules of the community - just remove it from the FPC nomination page. Thank you for understanding! Good luck!
- Hello. I was the original person to raise the issue. I didn't mean to say that the editing was done in Photoshop - it's just a word that has come to mean "digitally manipulated" even if it was done in other software. You don't have to add items to an image for it to be manipulation. A lot of different things can be considered inappropriate. On Commons, although there is some room for artistic expression, we don't usually approve of the introduction of things that remove information from an image. This includes artificial blurring, vignettes, cloning items out of the image, etc. The aim is to present a scene as accurately as possible. Artistic expression is great, but accuracy is also important. However, not everyone has this opinion and there is a healthy debate over what is appropriate and inappropriate and not everyone agrees. :-) If you feel it's quite important to leave the blurry vignette, then that's fine, but it should be described as an image manipulation in the image description. Also, if I'm honest, I think you could have done a better job of making it look smooth. There are some very obvious boundaries where it has been applied roughly. In my opinion anyway. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hello @Diliff: Thank you for your opinion, but I will leave this picture so it uploaded here. This work is already more than 2 years and I like it just like that. I understand that the photographs on Wikipedia must be accurate, but for me as a photographer is also important picture aesthetic. I would also like to write about the blur in the description to the pictures, but i don't know how to do it. Can i write this in page of file description? Therefore, I propose simply to remove it from the FPC nomination page. Thank you for understanding! Good luck!
- Hello. I was the original person to raise the issue. I didn't mean to say that the editing was done in Photoshop - it's just a word that has come to mean "digitally manipulated" even if it was done in other software. You don't have to add items to an image for it to be manipulation. A lot of different things can be considered inappropriate. On Commons, although there is some room for artistic expression, we don't usually approve of the introduction of things that remove information from an image. This includes artificial blurring, vignettes, cloning items out of the image, etc. The aim is to present a scene as accurately as possible. Artistic expression is great, but accuracy is also important. However, not everyone has this opinion and there is a healthy debate over what is appropriate and inappropriate and not everyone agrees. :-) If you feel it's quite important to leave the blurry vignette, then that's fine, but it should be described as an image manipulation in the image description. Also, if I'm honest, I think you could have done a better job of making it look smooth. There are some very obvious boundaries where it has been applied roughly. In my opinion anyway. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Thennicke: ! Yes, I did use a softening effect at the edges of the picture. I needed it to give more lighter space around the edges and not to distract the viewer's eye from the image center. This image was not processed in Photoshop - all editing occurs only Lightroom. No any items have been added to this photo - so I do not think that this is manipulation. As the author of the photo, I do not think a good idea to upload the photo without such editing - because it will distort my creative idea to submit this piece of nature. If this does not available to the rules of the community - just remove it from the FPC nomination page. Thank you for understanding! Good luck!
