Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egyptian Grains.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Egyptian Grains.jpg
  •  InfoSome Egyptian Grains: Top (orange)= lentil (Lens culinaris), Second (vinous)= bean, Third (brownish)= lentil, Forth (dark yellow)= maize, last one (light yellow)= wheat. This photo won the second prize at Wiki Loves Africa 2014. - created and uploaded by Dinapriv - nominated by لا روسا.--لا روسا (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support.--لا روسا (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice idea, well done! --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Will support as soon as the cyan chromatic aberration is fixed (visible on the outer edges, even in preview!) --Kreuzschnabel 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment We need a better description, this is essential, why on Earth you approved a winning contest with a bad description? I do not know the first grain, the rest a put in order there. And some one needs to fix the weird light hits the beans. And is delightful photo. -- RTA 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Conditional support Now this is how to shoot food. But I would like to see the CA removed and the description improved. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Uoaei1. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It is a good photo but I would like if it could be fixed before we accept it at FP. The CA is really quite visible and there's also very visible JPG blocking (see kidney beans) which suggests a low quality output at some stage. The author is using Photoshop so there's no reason this can't be fixed. Additionally, it has been saved as AdobeRGB rather than sRGB, which is unsuitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Like very much the idea but per above. Colin, just curious to know why AdobeRGB is less suitable than sRGB for web images ? (What's a "web" image ?). - Benh (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "web image" is an image that is nearly always going to be viewed on a computer using a web browser or mobile app. I keep meaning to write a Commons guideline on it. AdobeRGB is really only good for sending an image directly to a professional printer or magazine, for everyone else it is very likely to result in many people seeing the wrong colours and an increased risk of banding in smooth colour gradients. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin... this is not a "web" image, this a image in the web, a web image are the ones cropped and lower the quality/size at FB, i.e., to became viral, images here must have a superb quality, and high resolution in order to have more uses than just web, having the possibility to be printed, that's why we do not accept "720p" or "480p" as FP, very suitable for web images, but not even close to be a printable image.
So ProPhoto should be the choice, and more, some day every device and web browser will see prophoto, and what you gonna do when that happen? You will magically change all images from your poor sRBG to ProPhoto?
Same s as DNG, part of the community only see all media here as made to Wikipedia, and is not even close to the why this exists. -- RTA 10:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA our Commons images are largely used on the internet via the web. I'm not talking about "resized for web" which is another factor, just colourspace. No, thinking ProPhoto is a good choice is extremely naive. Even if we had displays and operating systems that supported this, it would be utterly stupid to try to squeeze that into 8-bit's of a JPG. You'd waste many of those 256 levels on colours the eye can't even see and have really terrible posterisation for the colours you can see. ProPhoto is really an intermediate format for use while manipulating images, to give one plenty flexibility to shift colours around without ever losing information, but it isn't really a destination. Sorry, but while we rely on JPG for photo image sharing, sRGB is really the only option. AdobeRGB is an extremely bad choice for sharing unless you know exactly what your recipient is capable of (hence only really for giving to a printer/magazine). I don't see Wikipedia as the only target, but 90% of the other target uses are going to be on the internet too. This is a dead argument anyway -- just Google and you'll see the same advice I give. Now, I really must write that guideline... -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin you also forgot that free means that we must be able to edit, and by your text you can see another good reason to use adobe/prophoto... so calling a "dead argument", is rude for nothing. -- RTA 13:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Em, you can edit JPGs but don't expect to be able to seriously manipulate the levels or colours or colour temperature or any other thing we take for granted from a raw file. If you want to take some kind for "upload the source code" angle to "free content" then you'd require us to upload the raw files, our Lightroom adjustment settings, our Hugin projects, etc, etc. We're judging JPGs here. It is simply incorrect to think that AdobeRGB or ProPhoto in JPG somehow has more colours and so more editable -- it has exactly 256 shades of red x 256 shades of green x 256 shades of blue just as with sRGB. Which isn't a whole lot to do anything much with edit-wise. It's just that the shade at #256 red is a deeper red in AdobeRGB than sRGB. But since you've only got a measly 256 levels, those levels are further apart. So you get posterisation. You've simply exchanged one problem (limited gamut) for another (quantisation error). And added another huge problem - incompatibility with nearly every viewer of your image. The limited gamut of sRGB isn't a huge problem as it corresponds fairly well to the gamut present in nearly all photographic subjects and to the limitations of many displays. Only once you start using a file format with sufficient bits (e.g., 16-bit TIFF or raw) does it make much sense to think of AdobeRGB or ProPhoto as a superior image colourspace and only then if your recipient is fully clued-up and has the relevant software/hardware to appreciate it. By all means upload 16-bit tiffs in AdobeRGB or ProPhoto in addition to JPGs but really for FP we should be judging JPGs that people actually see in the correct colours and without bands all over their sky. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raw never gonna happen, all raw formats are under a proprietary license, so DNG should be necessary to have here... and I even don't know why we do not insisted in implement it again. Anyway, I'm not enter deeper on this. PNGs made better results in most cases vs JPEGs, also TIFFs, but you are always trying to push JPEGs + sRGB, the worst one to see, and edit. V -- RTA 14:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely pragmatic that JPG+sRGB is chosen. Virtually nobody edits our photographs (other than cropping, denoising) and virtually nobody has a correctly-set-up calibrated wide-gamut monitor with which to review these AdobeRGB files in their glory. And the vast majority of our photographs are entirely within the sRGB colourspace anyway (this photograph here almost certainly) -- only deeply saturated colours give any issues. I'd much rather several million viewers saw correct skin tones (vs "skin that looks like a corpse" or "skin that looks like sunburn") on their browsers or tablets than a few hundred with specialist equipment saw a ski jacket in the absolutely correct Pantone shade of fuchsia. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Egyptian_Grains.jpg&oldid=152484410"