Commons talk:Image guidelines
Update Image page requirements for QI to include SDC requirements
[edit]Quality images missing SDC depicts currently has a six-figure number of files in it. And yet about half of all promoted images don't have any depicts (P180) statement. Maybe it's time to update the Image page requirements to include some COM:SDC requirements?
My suggestion would be to change subsection 2.2 to read: "have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate caption in one or more languages (see also Commons:Language policy), at least one appropriate depicts (P180) statement and a location of creation (P1071) statement where applicable." MB-one (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I do not believe that further tightening or increasing the number of rules for QIC will lead to better overall image results on commons. Such an approach is more likely to further restrict the circle of participants and discourage new, interested photographers. --Smial (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- +1 for Smial's answer. Plozessor (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Resolution and sharpness
[edit]I have two observations regarding resolution and sharpness.
- The official guideline of 2 megapixels is very low by modern standards. Two megapixels are fine for historical documents that are not available in higher resolution, but every phone nowadays can do 12 megapixels at least. The resolution guideline should also vary by subject. Subjects like birds are typically imaged at lower resolution since fast cameras for wildlife often have lower resolution than their stills counterparts (for example comparing the 24MP speedy Sony a9 III versus its contemporary 61MP Sony a7R V), and cropping is often needed. Meanwhile, still subjects such as architecture should have a much higher bar for resolution. I would suggest at least 12 megapixels for architectural photos.
- There seems to be a misunderstanding of some Commons members where they would look at every photo at 100% regardless of the resolution, and critique "sharpness" and "noise" based on that. Imagine a 100 megapixel photo and a 10 megapixel photo, where the 100 megapixel one is slightly soft in the corners but would be perfectly crisp across the frame had it been downsampled to, say, 50 megapixels. It is clear that the 100 MP one contains much more information than the 10 MP one. But if you pixel peep both of them at 100%, then on your monitor it might seem as though the 10 MP one is "sharper" than the 100 MP one. Likewise, a slightly noisy 100 MP photo could be downsampled to 50 MP and the noise would be gone while remaining superior to a 10 MP photo in every way. At present, due to misunderstandings arising from viewing each photo at 100%, it would seem that a downsampled 50 MP image would have a much greater chance of succeeding at FPC than the original 100 MP image. There is a clause in the guidelines that says that images should not be downsampled, but it is missing the detailed technical explanation that would solve such a misunderstanding. I suggest that we add a clear paragraph explaining this phenomenon.
I hope this makes sense! dllu (t,c) 18:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good points. Some thoughts and how I handle it:
- I agree that 2 MP is quite low. I usually accept pictures with not much more than 2 MP if they are otherwise perfect and razor-sharp. But if a picture is slightly blurred though it only has 2.5 MP, I decline it. Which is related to your second point:
- If the picture is slightly blurred but has 40 MP, and at 8 MP it is perfectly sharp, this is probably ok. However, as QI is mostly about taking technically 'correct' pictures, I still honor failures. Say, a picture has wrong focus. The subject is the tree, but the photographer focused on the mountain in the background. At 100 MP the mountain is razor-sharp but the tree is blurry. Downscaled to 8 MP you don't see the difference and both, the mountain and the tree, appear equally sharp. In that case I would still deny the QI status because it's a defect.
- Plozessor (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Focus and DoF
[edit]I would like to propose a third bullet point be added below the two that are already there. So the section would read as follows:
- Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image.
- The overall image should have clearly defined focus, for example, the main subject is in focus and the foreground and background are out of focus, or else, the whole scene is in focus.
- Some allowances should be made for macro photography, which often involves a very shallow depth of field. While focus stacking can be used to overcome this for static subjects, it may not be practical for dynamic subjects like insects.
The example photograph in this section File:Butterfly Luc Viatour.JPG is described as having correct focus and depth of field. However, by today's standards, it would not meet QI criteria, as the left edge of the butterfly's wing is out of focus. This seems to go against the intent of the first bullet point, so it would be beneficial to make the guidelines more explicit. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
