Hello,
Could you explain please your resons for uploading new version of files with a description: "Corrected lighting and line of sight." I suppose that by the "corrected lithing" you mean the white balace correction. The "line of sight" remains a mystery for me. Anyway your new versions are of poorer quality especially due to smaller size. Honestly I would like to revert all those edits as they do not bring any new value to commons (actually lower it). Please explain your reasons. --sfu (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you're not happy, but I was working on the instructions of one of the original uploaders. If you feel any should be reverted, please feel free to do so. BTW, "line of sight" was correcting the angle of buildings in the photos.--Andreasegde (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take for example File:Varanasi Aurangzeb Mosque.jpg. Your version looses the sharpness. If you want to impove the colors and tilt, don't spoil the sharpness please, as the picture due to that process is worse than it was. Small white balance incorrection is a minor deficiency comparing to lack of sharpness. What kind of software are you using for making your edits? --sfu (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be discussing about point of watching of pictures in full zoom. You can not go into someone mind and know if one is maybe willing to watch the picture wich that person finds interesting. Your edits do not impove anything. Actualy it's taking the space on servers with poorer version of usually allready poor pictures. There's no point in your edits, nor it's worth the time. --sfu (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a repository of media files, which can be used on wikipedias. Everybody knows however, that most of them is not being used there. Also it places the galleries for wikipedias' pages. Concluding it supposed to potentially usefull on wikipedias, but first of all it's media repository of files for any educational purpose. --sfu (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, Andreasegde mentioned this discussion to me, as I am one of the people he is working with on these images, and I have used some of his new images. I think the issues of quality would merit a wider discussion as while I do agree with the concerns over image size, I don't agree that there is no improvement to the images, certainly not on the one I see above.
Incidentally commons doesn't provide a repository that lives up to the claims that are put forward. It cannot be used as a repository of pics for an external site unless the people running the external site are fans of unexpected changes. I find efforts to improve the situation is pointless as commons attracts a wealth of people who live to argue and that repels many artists. I like spaceflight, and drew my impression of the future Chinese space station which many people liked. I have an external website which uses commons pictures, but I certainly can't use it to host important images. Someone who prefers their much simpler version, despite a clear consensus that mine is preferred (and I personally want both in the en.wikipedia article) he chooses to alter the description of my artists impression to suggest that it has errors in it, as I am the authority on my own opinion, what I think, and my own impression of the future station, this seems unreasonable. Using the image on an external site would just bring the altered description there. I can now draw brilliant CGI images, the computer I am using is rendering a Tardis flying about right now, I think it looks not bad myself, other people were impressed by the scaled down broken image on my english talkpage. But drawing a space station ? what for ? why bother ? if there is nobody who wants the work and is there to look after it, it gets trashed. If I draw it and host it on an external site, then they will just steal my work anyway with lies that the work can't be reproduced.
The claim on english wikipedia regarding this image
Q. Replaceable?
A. Not with a free image
I could draw that in two or three hours tops, or spend a little longer and make a full 3D CGI animation of the whole thing. But f that for a joke, the only attribution you get on here for your artwork is your usepage, artists often find their real name taken, and so the userpage is the only place to tell people a little about yourself. The first thing people do when they take a dislike to you is to block you and then wipe out all trace of attribution. What is the point of making art and putting it onto wikipedia unless there are people here to adopt it. Sure some people slave away all day for different reasons, but sometimes, not always, people ask to be attributed, and wikipedia does not offer that except as a false claim. I have seen a lot of people's userpages wiped out. So what am I, an idiot ? this can happen to anyone.
I've suggested the simple everyday solution that is widely used elsewhere, and people who are attracted by the arguments on commons couldn't care less. People aren't saying it's a good or a bad idea, they just don't care to comment as it would once and for all put to rest discussions like this one. The uploader could choose, and then if they set it for use on an external site, they could set it to read only. Fat chance of any such solution happening, after all, some people who like to do nothing other than argue all day every day (and I do not mean either of you two) would have nothing at all to do all day long. Can't see them voting for nothing to do everyday can you ? and so the idea dies in the ass and the system is designed and tinkered with to improve the areas where people can be bitten and harassed.
Just make two different copies of the image and end the argument, or put it up for further discussion somewhere. At least there is no end of people who like to do nothing better than find validation in a rfc. Penyulap ☏17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll aks someone alse about the review of your changes. Meantime I ask again what software are you using for making your changes. --sfu (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What prompts the interest in software ? is it for advice on the use of filters ?
Actually a two minute check of your contribs reveals you most likely know it's Picasa and just want to critique the use of adequate software for the task at hand, on the grounds it's not GIMP or Blender, but do please correct me if I'm wrong here. Penyulap ☏23:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to look at the pictures and compare the old and new versions. I looked at the last three images and imo:
There is nothing wrong to make images look better. But for Commons is the educational value always more important than aesthetics. Best regards,--ArildV (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant ! thanks for the input ! It's good to have some feedback.
Also, how can you have educational value without aesthetics ? I don't think it's possible to separate the two in that manner, as it depends upon the field of research as to what you are looking for. Penyulap ☏23:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easy thing to do is to just make two copies. Actually, I'm repeating myself. I the end, the final image as you see is not large enough to worry about sharpness and so on, it's an index file. So it's simply a matter of putting the working images up as a separate file. Unless of course commons is against hosting intermediate images because too few people see any merit in collaboration. Penyulap ☏23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will not dicuss with you, because you seem totally frustrated. Take a walk maybe in the park, make yourself a trip in the country or whatever you like. I just find it quite aggressive attributing me a will to "just want to critique the use of adequate software", "few people see any merit in collaboration", etc. Just the discussion with a person in your state of mind seems pointless. Sometimes you just have to allow this thought in your mind that someone else might be right, and you might be wrong. It's hard, I know it. Here is what I have done. I've made myself a tilt and white balance corrected version of File:Varanasi Aurangzeb Mosque.jpg. Now, please compare my version and Andreasegde's version, and please honestly tell me wich one is better? I didn't do the white balance correction that strongly, if you insist that colors should be more saturated then I can upload a new one. The question I was lacking on your side, all the time in this dicussion, was "so please, tell me how to make this corrections better". But I never heard it. All I heard was that your versions are so good. If you are willing be constructive, it would be nice to learn using your tool better or use another tool for this corrections so they can look nicer. --sfu (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would have saved everybody a lot of time if you had done your correction before you uploaded it. A tip: buy a tripod and a spirit level.--Andreasegde (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
