Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Distortion and perspective

How did we end up with a standard that images of architecture should not be unintentionally tilted [which seems in practice to become "should not be tilted"]? It seems that as a result we end up with nothing but "postcard shots": that are each fine in and of themselves, but when taken together end up representing only one rather specific (and I would say very conservative) photographic aesthetic that I happen not to share.

Most recently, this came up over my photo File:North Bend Community Church 01A.jpg. This photo as it stands has a quite natural perspective that arises from looking somewhat upward, in a scene where the sky is almost as much the subject as the building. I think the picture would be weakened by losing all aspects of 3-point perspective. In fact, if I wanted to strengthen it as an image, I'd be more likely to take it further into a 3-point perspective rather and stretch it a bit than making the verticals run parallel to the edges of the picture. - Jmabel ! talk 07:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rectilinear
    Rectilinear
  • Photo as originally submitted for consideration
    Photo as originally submitted for consideration
  • Exaggerated 3-point perspective, slightly cropped at bottom
    Exaggerated 3-point perspective, slightly cropped at bottom
  • Hi Jmabel. Of course you are very free to personally like what you want, however for Quality images rules are rules. While your case might be an exception, I believe that most images that show prominent falling lines in their original form are actually due to lack of space (like for example most inner-city churches). Generally, most here, including me, think that architectural works should be represented in a sometimes admittedly idealized way that shows the buildings like they should be seen from a reasonable distance. What you consider conservative, is actually considered useful, especially in an encyclopedical context. --DXR (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is exactly what I mean, written in a better english than mine. +1--Jebulon (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So do I understand correctly that this photo from National Geographic would not be considered a quality image here if it had been taken by a Commons contributor and freely licensed? - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You understand correctly. And ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • And... I guess we have completely different understandings of quality photography. It seems to me pretty odd to have a notion of "quality" so narrow that work that would appear in National Geographic is not considered a "quality image." I guess I'll just revert to my previous policy of ignoring Commons' notion of "quality." - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. "Commons" is, at first, a repository for medias to be used in the wikipedias encyclopedies (not only, but...). So, we need, as "Quality Images", documentary pictures, more " basically technical " than " artsy ". The example you show is a wonderful picture, very pretty and appealing (by itself, and NOT because it comes out of the NG collection, keep your mind open and don't follow sacred cows...). This kind of pictures has of course a place in "Commons", could maybe be a good candidate in the FPC page (different mandatories), but no, it is not a "Quality Image", according to the "Commons" criteria.--Jebulon (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing 2 MP nomination criterion?

As technique developped fast in the last years, even very cheap cameras provide much more resolution than just 2 MPix. I think that about 80% or more of the nominations provide at least a 3 MP photo, so it would be a big step towards the usability of quality photos in printed media or on high resolution monitors if the nomination criterion is increased equally. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for 3 MPix. --Jebulon (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agree 3mp could even go 4 Gnangarra 13:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (I would also support a 4 MPix threshold --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
You guys forgot to say what to do with the numerous pics between 2 and 3(4) MPix that already have the QI seal. (I ask it because "quality" is a current state and not an "award" at a certain timepoint, like ist is the case for FP; so if we decide now that a 2,5 MPix image isn't anymore a "quality" image, it's somewhat nonsense to leave it with the seal as previously.) --A.Savin 14:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about pics that already got the QI promotion. That's the past and in the past a lot of photos which nowadays - according to today's assessment criterions as e.g. rectilinear verticals - could never achieve QI status, were assessed as QI. Let them keep their QI seal. My intention is to install regulation for the future nomination candidates. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Full HD Video has 2073600 pixels and this size has been accepted so far. A good still from such a video should continue to be accepted in the future. Raising this limit, many cropped images are unnecessarily excluded. In the existing quality criteria is noted that a higher resolution already may be required if motifs are simple (i.e. not moving, bright lighting...) to be photographed. I would accept two different limits, that means for such simple, esp. architectural motifs we should demand at least 4 MPixel. But think i.e. about macro photography of living animals where you cannot use focus stacking and sometimes the only way to get good DOF is using a greater distance and cropping afterwards. -- Smial (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should make a difference to prevent penalization of shots that cannot achieved without cropping. So why not imposing a higher treshold and adding specific examples to the QI manual which photographies can be nominated with lower resolution? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2 MP as opening criteria is ok. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you all are right, just increasing the basic level was too simple. Let's remain to 2mp, I fully disagree with "different limits", that will just make the things too complicated. And, of course, I disagree with a "delist" system. QI one day, QI for ever. That's "History of QI", and it could be interesting too.--Jebulon (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dislike different sizes for different images, QI should be an easy process, once a QI always a QI over time that history will be a useful resource in itself. maybe a side thought that with the galleries getting so large that it may be worth considering breaking them into year sections. Gnangarra 05:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to introduce different sizes, I only wanted to say I would tolerate this, if a majority of contributors wants that. 2 MPix is fine for QI. -- Smial (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More size is not more quality, The megapixel is a commercial trap. 2mpx is ok for me --The Photographer (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping the standard. I'd actually prefer raising the standard for landscapes to 6 MP or more, because I feel bad for the people with D800s who are getting burned by comments about unsharpness at 36 MP that could easily be hidden by downsampling. But we need 2 MP for things like birds, and making different standards is just too difficult. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of disclosure

User_talk:Taxiarchos228#.22your_personal_campaign_against_my_pictures.22. Any declines on Taxiarchos's images mean you are apparently on a vendetta against them... -mattbuck (Talk) 08:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your idiosyncratic argumentation is a proof that you are not willing to admit that YOU have in fact broken your own promise and you know this. No need to discuss on two places and expansion this baublery. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A promise made in anger or of a hasty reaction can and must be broken. mattbuck apply the guideline literally : Please evaluate the oldest images first and he is often very alone to make it. For that he has all my respect and my encouragements, and when I find the time it's a duty for me to try to help him to rewiew the oldest nominations. I know nothing of this conflict but I shall be very satisfied that mattbuck continuous to make his job without any distinctions of nominators. --Christian Ferrer 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wladyslaw, mattbuck. This kind of problem would not arise if at every nominated images all the nominators were rewiewing the most oldest images and at least the same number and without choosing the author of the rewiewed image. I am thus totally against the fact that it is asked or even suggested to somebody of to not have the right to rewiew somebody else. This kind of pressure is not acceptable. If somebody is not satisfied of one decision the part Consensual review process is exactly made for that. --Christian Ferrer 08:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am wrong...

...but this doesn't look right to me. I just asked Iván for a convincing statement. Let's see. Poco2 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a summary of the outcome of the issue? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats all. --Ralf Roleček 12:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QI seal removed. Active QI colleagues are kindly requested to keep eye on User:Ivan2010's nominations (and especially promotions), as there may be further attempts of deception. --A.Savin 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good development. What about his ongoing nominations? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Ralf, that was not all. There have been more exchange than that, see here or here. Anyhow the diff you showed was not acceptable, either. I reverted it and explained him why he cannot do that.

He told me that they are 2 different persons, both friends and interested in photography. Iván explained me that they had been partially using the same computer without paying much attention about who was logged in. I ask him to to take part in any candidacy from the other to avoid severe consequences and he agreed to do so and be more careful from now on.

Right now I have no reason not to believe him, so I would drop it but be alert. Poco2 18:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating declined photos

Is there a procedure about photos that had been declined earlier and are now again in the assessment queue without any changes? In my humble opinion, this is not exactly what we want, because it is bypassing the review and CR process and it encourages people to nominate again and again until a merciful reviewer will promote it. --Cccefalon 05:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would have declined it for the same reason; but we hardly can surveil it for every nomination, unfortunately. --A.Savin 14:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be a good idea, to tag declined candidates by the QICBot. Promoted pictures are tagged, as well as unassessed candidates. But declined pictures are not tagged yet. IMHO this is a problem with the QI process. --Dirtsc (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think second nomination should be allowed, but then it should require more than a single vote. Regarding the specific case mentioned, I spotted the image and inserted my opinion exactly when the bot removed it from the page (there was an edit conflict), and then I renominated it. The original nomination was by the uploader himself. Gidip (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephansdom Taufkrone.JPG

This picture is currently nominated FPC so I took a look. At the page I wondered that this picture got QI status. A closer look showed me a completely different picture (user tells: "New picture, new camera" in the comment) was uploaded over an existing QI. Can't imagine this is within the guidelines ... --P e z i (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's even more complicated. The actual image was nominated recently, so it was not uploading over an existing QI. At first I've seen only the nomination dating September 2013. Still my question is, if uploading completely different images as a new version of an existing is a good idea. --P e z i (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Gioconda.jpg

Hello,

How is it possible that this image is QI? It is not a work by a Commons contributor. AFAIK, Leonardo da Vinci is dead since long... Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idem for File:Félicien Rops - La tentation de Saint Antoine.jpg. Yann (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it was a photo of the painting I'd let it pass; but both appear to be scans. Therefore,  Support removing the seal. --A.Savin 07:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I removed these and 2 other old paintings. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the QI status

  • The discussion comes from here

I think is not correct the removal of the status of quality images for these images:

Regarding this image, for instance, the Mona Lisa was not created by a user of Commons (of course), but the photographical reproduction yes! This photo fully complies with the quality images guidelines ("photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible") and it has also been evaluated in the appropriate page. Best regards. --Angelus(talk) 23:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt these are photographs. Do you have any evidence therefor? Besides, I fail to understand why to discuss it on two different places. --A.Savin 08:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why do you think that this image "is not a photograph"?? --Angelus(talk) 08:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because there aren't any EXIF data or similar info in the description. As it is often the case with artworks, it is far more likely a scan of a printed reproduction. --A.Savin 08:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the EXIF data, is mentioned Photoshop CS6 because, before uploading, I corrected some imperfections. --Angelus(talk) 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it is better discussed at QIC talk. But IMHO, any reproduction by a Wikimedian can be accepted irrespective of the tools used. Not many Wikimedians have good scanners though. Jee 09:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree - Angelus(talk) 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've scanned printed reproductions, like File:Sibirskai Surikov.jpg, and if you're starting from something that will fit on a normal scanner, the printing features become notable--see especially the original of that file. File:La Gioconda.jpg is certainly a photograph, IMO; the only other possibility in my mind is that someone took a high-quality painting and run it through a drum scanner, but those are quite expensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree - Exactly... --Angelus(talk) 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I restored the QI tag. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :-) Regards, Angelus(talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QIC-Bot doesn't work?

An image made by me was promoted at April 14th, 9:52, but it's still listened at the candidates page and there's no QI infobox on it's description page? Why the bot does'nt move it to the promoted pictures and put the infobox on its description page? Mariofan13 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion can be done 48 hours after the last comment, and the bot run is every day at about 3:00 UTC. Should be done tomorrow, everything seems fine with the bot. --A.Savin 19:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QI and VI

I know the standards at QI are much higher than VI. I don't know anything about what QI expects other than reading the guidelines. So I'd like to ask, is it worth the bother (ie, does this image have a chance) to nominate this image for QI? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 21:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a further example why I distrust VI. This picture appears to be an upscale from far less than 1 MPix to the current >9. For me, it's never ever a QI. --A.Savin 07:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Hi, Why do you want to judge the VI project with the QI standard? These are completely different objectives, so they have completely different requirements. Some VI could not be QI, and some QI could be VI. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An image of extremely low quality I would not have promoted as VI either. I already stated that I find the VI concept dubious with its strong bias towards topics of low notability and this is (besides the poor maintenance) actually the reason why I don't participate anymore. There was the question if this particular photo is eligible for QI as well, I say: no, several colleagues surely will agree. --A.Savin 12:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, jpg artifacts and wrong tones. VI project is more important than QI, I think so. The reason is because some photos may not be taken again, framed pictures that narrate events in a particular time and space involving items that have disappeared. As photographs extinct species, photographs of dead people or photographs of a specific event in history. --The Photographer (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 The Photographer. There is no comparison possible (nor relevant), between the QI, VI, or FP projects. A QI is not "better than" a VI, and a FP is not "better than" a QI.--Jebulon (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A. Savin--you can make your point without being a jackass about it. No wonder people leave the wiki projects in droves. The Photographer--thank you for your neutral and objective comments. I won't file it, I was just asking. PumpkinSky talk 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PumpkinSky: If your own IQ does not allow you to comment anything without personal insults, you'll probably should follow the famous advice by Mr. Nuhr. Voilà, --A.Savin 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: My point is proven by both original post and your response. Plus, you know nothing of my IQ. And if you thought I'd let you treat me like that and get away with it, then you need to attend the Golden Rule School. PumpkinSky talk 21:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty, but I can see the JPEG artifacts from the thumbnail you linked. Not QI, not nearly sharp enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image is for me not a QI and, sorry, also not a VI because there is IMO a better image in the category. --Christian Ferrer 11:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noisy, oversharpened, blurring noise reduction, bad crop, distracting background (fence, buildings). -- Smial (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for unreasonable  Oppose actions

As the case took no interest in CR, I want to bring it here for discussion: A photo was declined for the reason of "Personality rights". However, as the project is about photographic quality and we frequently have images with persons depicted, this should be no reason for decline especially when the appropriate tags are set. Explicitly for that photo, even all persons consented to the publication. In my perception, the decline by User ComputerHotline was beyond the rules of that project and the photo should go back to the nomination queue. However, I don't want to do that without the consent of other "regulars" of that project. Thank you for commenting. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a possibility, but as far as I remember there is a commons sense that declined photos can not be renominated. Of course, this case here is different. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To come to your question: no, we cannot remove such votes. But it is always possible to put an image to CR. If the image meets the QI guidelines (like in this case), it will pass the CR. If it doesn't, it will probably fail, and then it should of course not be renominated at any later timepoint. --A.Savin 18:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating again after uploading a better version

I nominated a picutre today which got declined. Am I allowed to upload a better version of the image tomorrow and nominate it again? Or do I have to wait some days? Mariofan13 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PD-old?

The “Creator” subsection advises that photos of 2-D art by Wikimedians be licensed PD-old, but I can’t make sense of that: how many Wikimedians died more than 70 years ago? (Rhetorical question.) Moreover the passage links to a guideline about the usage of PD-art—is that perhaps what was intended? And what if the artwork is under a CC-BY-SA or similar licence: is it not the case that a photographic derivative work must be licensed compatibly with the original?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can plant pictures taken by users who aren't botanists not be QIs?

Some weeks ago I nominated a picture of a Rhododendron flower. At first, it was promoted but then it come to consensual review. There, two users declined because the picture has "no identification about the species". I'm sorry that I'm no botanist and don't know the species! So that means that only users who can identificate the species of a plant (botanists, biologists) can get their plant images promoted??
In my opinion that's not ok! a picture can be good without identification about the exact species!
What to do now? Shall I nominate the image again? Or change the "oppose" to "comment"? I know and prpvided that the plant on the picture is a Rhododendron, but I don't know the species.Mariofan13 (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unsure about the species, you may ask a user who is botanist, or in your wikipedia's portal (for example, the German one has a forum for identification of plants and animals). --A.Savin 10:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for identification of two plants there, but they could only tell which type the plants were (for e.g. Verbena), but not a exact species. Mariofan13 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Technical quality" means accurate description too. The rule is, in fact, that all identifiable thing must be identified (plants, coats of arms, animals, minerals, cars etc etc...). But of course, if asked, help can be provided !--Jebulon (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frequently it is not possible, by photograph alone, to beyong the genus id. That is the case of many insects and plants, where a very close examination is necessary (sometimes with a microscope, as is the case of insect genitalia). There are more than a couple of QI where the id is given by just whatever_genus sp.. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "à l'impossible, nul n'est tenu" --Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problem?

I had two promotions recently where I got the message on my discussion page but the bot didn't put the template for the seal on the file page. Is this a known problem? I've just put the seal manually on the file page; hope that's OK. --P e z i (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone may help you, then this bot's owner, User:Dschwen. --A.Savin 22:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot add a new picture in the Quality images candidates list

I cannot add a new picture in the Quality images candidates list, though I try it the same way as always. Only the picture and the words "Nomination" and "Review needed" appear! Here is a try of the picture in the gallery like in the list:

What shall I do? --Dnalor_01 (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the equals sign in the image description - what you're telling it is that parameter "Leica I with Leitz Elmar 1:3,5 F" is equal to "50mm lens, 1926-27. --Dnalor 01 08:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)". Get rid of the equals sign and all will be well. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you very much, I didn't know that! --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote by an IP signing as a registered user

Thanks for the support, but I guess this vote should be reverted? --El Grafo (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just an accident … --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Мова/Language

uk: Я кілька разів на номінаціях помічав коментарі, які стверджували що немає англомовного опису на сторінці файлу. Чи може хтось надати мені посилання на критерій, який вимагає англомовний опис для якісних зображень? Наскільки я знаю, згідно з COM:LP, Вікісховище — багатомовний проект тому будь-яка існуюча мова може використовуватись на сторінках опису і хоча й заохочується додання інших мов, аглійська не має жодного пріоритету. --BaseSat (talk) 23:50, 14 листопада 2024 (UTC)

en: I've noticed several times about comments on nominations stating there are no English desc on file page. Could anyone provide we with a link to criterion which requires English desc for QI. AFAIK per COM:LP Commons's multilingual project thus any existing language could be used on filedesc and although other lanuages are encoureged to be added English has no priority. --BaseSat (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. It is not required to have a description in English. I believe it is wrong when reviewers oppose an image for the sole reason that an English description is missing. I also believe it alienates nominators, which are not fluent in English and introduces an asymmetry. That said, it is of value to have bi-lingual users help with descriptions in 'major' languages, and as it makes the image more useful if description(s) are available in language(s), which is understandable by a significant fraction of the file users. --Slaunger (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ?

Bonjour,

Est-il possible de voter pour une photo que j'ai moi même proposé si je n'en suis pas l'auteur ? Cordialement, Vanoot59 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Vanoot59,
Je ne pense pas qu'il y a une interdiction explicite, mais normalement on ne le fait pas. Probablement on veut assurer que la décision est prise par une personne qui a une opinion neutre. --DXR (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour DXR,
C'est aussi ce que je me disait, mais, en y réfléchissant, je ne suis pas moins neutre que n'importe qui : si je propose une image qui n'est pas la mienne, c'est justement parce que je la trouve digne d'être promue. Quelle différence entre une image que je propose car je la pense digne d'être promue et une image déjà proposée par un autre pour laquelle je vote car je pense qu'elle est digne d'être promue ? Cordialement, Vanoot59 (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that is the spirit of QIC. If it were, anyone could come here with no matter what photos and promote them all. Yes, it could be contested, but most of time people don't look a second time to promoted nominations. My opinion is that it should be explicitly stated in the guidelines that neither the author nor the nominator can vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, je pense qu'Alvesgaspar dit vrai, peut-être on doit clarifier les regles, mais si une photo est assez bien pour devenir QI, ça ne vais pas être un problème. --DXR (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invasive proposition of 15 pictures.

Hello, I have been criticized for uploading 15 picuteres 24. July 2014. Then I will ask what is the upper limit, or in other words, what are good manners? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My advise in similar cases is: Withdraw the whole declined batch and wisely re-nominate every day some of them. Contributing with own, well based reviews is highly appreciated, if you regularily nominate in this contest. Your average amount of reviews should be at least one more than your nominations. Without own reviews, you can consider "a couple" to be about 4 photos without getting a complaint. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thx - I have overlooked that rule: Carefully select your best images to nominate. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! As I mentioned already on my talk page: You are not the first, who is experiencing the mass-decline at his first day. Anyway: welcome in QIC and I hope you will be a frequent nominator and reviewer. The presence here will help you to improve your skills. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why a QI?

I kindly request User:Σπάρτακος to explain us why they have promoted this image to QI. We still have our COM:Image guidelines, the photo clearly does not meet them, there is insufficient sharpness, poor WB and lighting (just look at the histogram!) and chromatic aberrations everywhere. I've the impression that the current level has arrived at an absolute low point, and perhaps this still isn't the end of the line. Is it impossible to take a break for some months (as I intended) without having to observe such inconsolable development just during this time? Really disappointed. --A.Savin 11:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that this user did several weird things; see e.g. here. Well, if someone proofs not to be suitable to do qualified review work, it is not a big thing to oppugn his recent decisions and undo his edits. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot doublecheck all reviews, but it should be clear that acting against the rules automatically voids the edits of a user and QI promotions under this conditions can be revoked. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The QI status, once granted, cannot be revoked, except the image is not by a Commoner. That's the problem. Reviewers should be aware that they damage the project with such careless reviews. User:Σπάρτακος should elaborate why they promoted it, otherwise obligate themselves not to review anything in near future, otherwise be administratively banned from participating on QI. --A.Savin 13:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can explain to User:Livioandronico2013 and ask him, if he can give back the QI marker. For me, it looks, that he is really trying to learn from QIC and do enhancements at his work. So it might be, that he understands your concerns.... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can,no problem. But if you explain to me how I do it is better --LivioAndronico talk 15:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QI status can be revoked if the image is put to renomination. It pretty much never happens, but there;s nothing to stop it. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LivioAndronico: Feel free to nominate anything you find possible to succeed, but not too much at once (~ 4-5 files a day). Not bad nominations but bad reviews are evil for the QI project. --A.Savin 16:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Ok thank you, infact I have only uploaded 2 today,as always.--LivioAndronico talk 16:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol for withdrawing candidates

My apologies to the hardworking community here - I should have done my homework before nominating some of my images for consideration. For a variety of reasons I am not interested in participating in the process either as a reviewer or as a submitter. I would rather my two nominated images simply not appear in the list of nominated images - is it considered rude to simply remove them?

Thanks again and much respect to the volunteers putting in their time on this process.--Eric in SF (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just change the /Nomination to /Withdrawn and they will be duly removed. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QI not by a Commoner ?

Hi. There are few Quality images in the category Photos by Sergey Kustov, and they were all uploaded with OTRS tickets. Do they really meet the requirements of the QI Guidelines ? Gyrostat (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. --A.Savin 21:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be fixed ? Is it enough to delete {{QualityImage}} ? Gyrostat (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove {{QualityImage}} + remove (if available) [[Category:Quality images of (...)]] + remove the image from the relevant QI topic gallery. --A.Savin 08:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyrostat: and @A.Savin: I have reverted the removal of QI by Sergey. He was a member on Commons, but exercised his right to vanish a little while ago. These images were uploaded by Sergey himself, or some by me and nommed by me whilst he was an editor here. Hope this explains my reverting of the above changes. Cheers, russavia (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that this is a little odd, but if it's correct that's fine for me. Gyrostat (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a little odd to me as it was originally uploaded as this ones history says its from a third party site Gnangarra 09:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category for the declined QICs

Hello, QICbot is adding categories to the promoted and not assessed QICs, but not to the declined ones. To me if would be of great help to recognize via a category which pictures have already gone through the QIC process and which I haven't nominated yet. Otherwise I have to administrate an additional page to track the pictures that I haven't nominated yet. Since it would be a hidden category I was wondering whether somebody has a problem with letting the bot to categorize the declined pictures in a category like "Declined QI candidates" or "Not successful QI candidates". Thanks for any feedback Poco2 21:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, and I would prefer a hidden category along the lines of your second proposal. Personally I would simply use the "what links here" feature to see if has been used in a QIC page, but if you have very many photos to manage I understand that a hidden category is easier to use. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Slaunger.--Jebulon (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Daniel: as it looks like nobody has a problem with this, could you include the category "Not successful QI candidates" in all declined pictures whenever you have a bit of time? As said, priority 2, but to me really a big help. On top of that, would it be possible to mark those that have so far been declined and not promoted later on? You provided to me the numbers of declines since 2007, so maybe this is possible. Poco2 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main judge

Who is the main judge for commons image candidates? Is it Mattbook? Please look at the lot of his negative votes! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with his reviews? The only problem of COM:QIC are careless reviewers, or those who are only critical if it's not about photos by themselves or by their mates. --A.Savin 12:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of his critic you may see at File 2014-07-26_Clan_of_Xymox_(Amphi_festival_2014)_005.JPG for example. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the quality of your reviews is of course better? --A.Savin 22:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lothar, der Mattbuck macht hier wirklich einen Knochenjob und sehr oft liegt er völlig richtig. Manchmal liegt er falsch, aber dafür haben wir ja den consensual review prozess. Und: Im Gegensatz zu manchen anderen zickt er gewöhnlich nicht herum, wenn er überstimmt wird. Baue bitte keine zusätzlichen persönlichen Fronten auf, davon haben wir schon überreichlich hier. -- Smial (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that Matt is reviewing those picture that nobody review a week long. Many of them have not been reviewed but anybody, but many others have been reviewed by some reviewers would didn't come to the conclusion whether it is a QI or not, and those are the though ones. Matt has also rejected a lot of my pictures, often I agree with him, sometimes I don't and try my luck in CR. Still, he has always behaved properly and provided argument when needed. Actually, it would be goo to have more like him here...Poco2 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Smial, ich bin weiß Gott keiner, der Streit sucht oder Fronten aufbauen will. Ansonsten beobachte ich sehr wohl, dass Mattbuck eine Menge Bilder hier vorstellt, mitunter sehr gute, oft aber auch – na ja. Und was seine Bewertungen betrifft: Schau Dir doch zum Beispiel mal die Kritik an dem oben erwähnten Bild der Gitarristin an. Sucht er da nicht mit Gewalt nach Mängeln, nur um die Arbeit eines anderen abzuwerten? Gruß -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Da hat er einen Mangel entdeckt (den ich ebenfalls sehe, aber halt anders bewerte). Ich habe ein Pro gegeben, er hat's daraufhin per kontra ins Review geschickt. Das halte ich eigentlich für einen ganz normalen Vorgang. Daß an Sport-, Action- oder halt Bühnenfotografie hier sehr häufig Kriterien angelegt werden, die anscheinend von Studio- und Architekturknipsern, die mit Stativ und Wasserwaage arbeiten, bestimmt werden, ist ein anderes Thema. Da sollten sich einige mal die Ergebnisse langjähriger Profis ansehen - die sind oft nix besser und sehen auch nur bis 800*600 Pixel fehlerfrei aus. Inzwischen kenne ich einen ganzen Schwung Konzertfotografen und habe mit einigen gesprochen. -- Smial (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In short, there is no main judge. Mattbock is merely someone who's very active here and apparently his reviews are appreciated and often agreed with by other reviewers and those who usually just lurk. --Pitke (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lothar,
I do not decline images because I like to decline them. I do not doubt that I am a harsh judge - I have high standards for what should pass QIC, and I hope that because of my reviews people will improve their photography. I know that I have improved mine because of reviews here. As has been noted, I tend to be the "last" reviewer - I rarely review images posted in the past few days, I tend to clean up the ones that are left unreviewed after 4 or 5 days. Quite often this means that the "easy" declines or promotions have gone, and I am generally left with cases which people have either not looked at or have looked at and been unable to make a decision about (I find myself in the same position sometimes). As such there aren't many images I review which are just promotable immediately. I do consider whether an image is fixable when I review, and if I think that whatever defects I pick up on can be fixed, I will leave a note and give the nominator 4-5 days to reply. If I think an image can not be fixed for some reason - for instance overexposure, motion blur - then I will decline it. Yes this does mean I tend to decline a lot more images than I promote, but that is not in of itself a bad thing.
Sometimes people disagree with my reviews - that's fine, it's what we have the discussion process for. Sometimes the vote goes with me, sometimes against, sometimes someone fixes the image and there's no longer an issue. I don't pretend I'm infallible, and that people can disagree is important. No one would nominate images if they didn't think they were potentially QI, so if someone declines then quite likely there is a disagreement, although sometimes we can just be blind to the flaws in our own images - I know I've nominated images which would never have been QI, and when a reviewer points that out I'm grateful to them. I don't want photos I nominate to get through when they shouldn't, as that devalues the whole QI project.
If you feel I've been unduly harsh on you then I apologise, I do not mean any disrespect, and I certainly do not single anyone out - I don't check to see who nominated an image, and while there are some people whose images I can identify by the photo itself, you are one one of those people. I apply high standards to all my reviews, and I hope that people will review mine in the same fashion.
Oh, and in future, if you have a problem with me, please tell me by my talk page - I only found out about this topic because Poco mentioned it when I met him at Wikimania this afternoon (hi Diego!). Further, my name is "mattbuck" or, if you prefer, "matt". I am not "mattbook", "mattbock" or any other such appelation.
-mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to File:2014-07-26_Clan_of_Xymox_(Amphi_festival_2014)_005.JPG, there is chromatic aberration and unsharpness, and yes, I would not promote this. Chromatic aberration is always a problem, no matter whether it's on anything "important" or not. That is why I changed it to "discuss" from "promotion" - because I see things which are wrong with the photo. Please note that these things are pretty easily fixable, and thus I did not initially oppose it, I only added the  Oppose after someone else had decided to promote it, so that the uploader would have a chance to fix it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merfeld, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmener Wildpferde -- 2012 -- 4.jpg

File:Pferd mit lila Streifen.jpg
OK?

Wie kann dieses Bild ein "Quality image" sein? Mittlerweile glaube ich, das hier nach Lust und Laune bewertet wird. Wer viele gute Bilder hochgeladen hat, wird unbesehen positiv bewertet und seine Bilder werden durchgewunken. Bei neuen Bewerbern wird jedes einzelne Pixel beurteilt. Ist das Mitmachen bei dieser Bewertung für neue Uploader noch sinnvoll, oder sind die Auszeichnungen schon vorher verteilt? Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Please translate this in English.[reply]

Approx translation: How can this image be a QI? I think that decisions here are made aribitrarily. Those who have uploaded many good images get promotions regardless of actual quality while images of new members are scrutinized very closely. Does contributing still make sense for new uploaders or are assessments already distributed in advance?
Nightflyer, ich verstehe deinen Eintrag hier nicht wirklich. Du sprichst über ein Bild, dass schon im Oktober 2013 promoted wurde. Auch wenn das Bild wohl nicht das beste auf Commons ist, weiß ich nicht, wieso das für dich ein Indikator für ein insgesamt ungerechtes System sein soll. Kritisierst du den unscharfen Hintergrund? Das ist bei langen Objektiven nicht unüblich und für mich kein Grund, das Bild abzulehnen. Natürlich ist das Licht nicht ideal und es gibt ein paar CA, aber insgesamt ist das ein akzeptables Urteil. Auch wenn der von dir beschriebene Effekt bis zu einem gewissen Grad bestehen mag, kannst du jederzeit Bilder, ins CR schicken, wenn du glaubst, dass das Urteil falsch ist. Ich glaube nicht, dass hier Bilder im großen Stil ungesehen promoted werden. --DXR (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hast du dir das Bild überhaupt angesehen? Der lila Streifen ist also OK? Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Natürlich habe ich das! Was meinst du denn genau mit dem lila Streifen? Die chromatischen Aberrationen? Ich sage nicht, dass das ideal ist, und ich hätte es wahrscheinlich auch zuerst entfernen lassen, bevor ich es promoted hätte, aber ist das ein Grund hier zu eine Terz zu machen? Natürlich haben unterschiedliche User unterschiedliche Ansprüche, aber das hat weniger mit dem Bildautor zu tun als mit ihren eigenen Standards. Ironischerweise geht es im Beitrag darüber darum, dass manche User zu harsch sind...--DXR (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ist der lila Streifen quer über das Bild nur bei mir? Getestet mit XP und Win7, jeweils Firefox und IE das gleiche Ergebnis. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Für mich sieht das nicht wie ein Bildfehler aus sondern wie ein gerade Weg im Hintergrund, denn immerhin unterbricht das Pferd links diesen Streifen ja deutlich. Abgesehen davon sieht bei mir der Streifen eher gräulich aus als lila. Und selbst wenn das ein qualitativer Fehler sein sollte, den hier ein Benutzer nicht gesehen hat so ist das eben ein Fehler und nicht der Untergang des Abendlandes oder der des QIC. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Auf den ersten Blick sieht es wirklich wie ein Fehler aus, aber warum sind die Pferde vor dem Strich? Also gehört der Strich irgendwie in die Landschaft. Aufklären kann das vielleicht nur User:XRay. --Atamari (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo! Zugegeben, sieht komisch aus. Spontan vermute ich einen Trampelpfad, er verläuft ja diagonal und nur durch die Wiese, aber sicher bin ich mir nicht. Der Farbton ist auch komisch, ist mir bisher so ehrlich gesagt noch nicht aufgefallen. Ich schaue mir das mal bei vergleichbaren Bildern an, es sind ja etliche an dem Tag entstanden. Kann etwas dauern. --XRay talk 10:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sieht wie ein Trampelpfad aus, der geschottert wurde. -- Smial (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, das Bild und alle anderen aus der Richtung und Gegend habe ich mir angeschaut. Es ist ein Schotterweg. Ganz verständlich, denn zum alljählichen Wildpferdefang parken dort Autos. Natürlich lasse ich die CAs nicht stehen, ich habe das Bild zudem korrigiert. Ich hoffe nur, dass wir nicht alle alten QI-Nominierungen durchsehen ... Manchmal sehe ich auch Bilder, die den QI-Status haben, jedoch nicht optimal sind, aber das kann passieren. Anfangs habe ich auch mehr übersehen bei den Reviews und auch heute passiert das schon einmal. Umgekehrt kommen auch schon mal Fehler meinen Bildern vor, die ich vor dem Hochladen übersehen habe. Auch das kann passieren. Allerdings finde ich das nicht tragisch. Ich freue mich, dass so viele mitarbeiten und man aus den Fehlern ja eigentlich nur lernen kann, oder?--XRay talk 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe nicht gezielt nach Fehlern gesucht. Ich suchte Bilder in der de:Wikipedia, die man Demenzkranken zeigen kann, wenn sie sich an Tiere erinnern sollen. Und bei der Eingabe von "Pferd" kam eben dies Foto als Hauptmotiv (ist bei mir übrigens immer noch lila, der Streifen). Und dann sah ich das QI-Bapperl... Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

566 Recent promoted QI to be categorised

Folks, I know this work is quite boring and dull, but it's necessary and important for QI. Please categorise the recently promoted QI. The number is rising and rising. Today we had 566 pictures to categories. I have already made 120 166 of them. Maybe you can establish for yourself: 2 minutes each day. And if we find 6-8 users to do this nasty work it'll be not really worse for none of us. Thanks and regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as QI galleries are actually nothing else than bloated piles of uncaptioned thumbnails, they are nearly useless; at least not worthy wasting human time (imho); which leads me once again to the question if really not a single bot would be able to do this work based on the categories the images are sorted in. --A.Savin 22:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm; even though the caption is "to be categorised"; I see no categorization at all (only "gallerysation"). I checked a file which is recently promoted as QI. It is added to relevant gallery; but no to relevant category. I don't know any other volunteers are doing that categorization as in FPC. Otherwise, it is a wastage of time and need to be done together. Jee 03:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's a small step for a programmer to copy the QI's from the relevant gallery`s into the relevant category's. I see no reason why this work couldn't be done by a bot. But if we don't put the QI's into the relavant gallery we'll have indeed only a bloated pile of pictures. And for sure this work is only to done by a team and not by a single user. Therefore my appeal here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the images should be categorized. Some categories exist. The gallery pages should be generated from the categories, for example every day or week up to 50 images on the gallery page. --XRay talk 10:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No! I'm absolutely opposed to the creation of Quality Images of ... categories. These parallel category systems are an utter waste of time. Actually, the the Help:FastCCI gadget QIs get exposure in the regular category system. I'm all for using dynamic category intersection to retrieve QIs. Maybe we should think about stopping the QI categorization effort on Recently promoted. --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not stop populating QI galleries too. I don't expect anybody visit those galleries to find a file for reuse. Jee 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I might not have been clear enough, but I was suggesting to stop both the galleries and the parallel category graph. --Dschwen (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Quality images by country is actually a useful structure. The QI gadget cannot sufficiently replace it. --A.Savin 10:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious where you see the deficits of the FastCCI gadget for this application. And I'm also wondering how useful this one single categorization topic is to deserve special treatment. --Dschwen (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used your gadget several times; it is good for catching QI's that aren't in any specified QI category yet; but the results are unstructured and unprecise ("QI" and "Russia" shows some results that are not taken in Russia, for example.). On the main category, we see how many QI of each country Commons has. Some countrys have thousands, some just a handful. Maybe a good idea for some active traveller amongst us, where to go next holidays or so. --A.Savin 13:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Dschwen. This parallel category system is a mess. It doubles the amount of work with only very little or even no profit. -- Smial (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all who helped to manage the big number of unsorted QI. Now we are at a level of 0. Hopefully we manage the QI-sorting in future to be in time. If each user sort the number he received as elected QI than we'll never had any problems. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Quality images of ships is available since long time. I created some other suitable and often applicable subcategories under the main categores Category:Quality images of objects and Category:Quality images of buildings. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I use both, the Quality-images-categories and the FastCCI gadget and I think, every system is useful and cannot replace the other one. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you but why to put the quality images of boats in this gallery? How can you find the boats of a precise town (region, country, 50 years old boats...)? by opening all the files one by one? There is a lot of file in this gallery and in others. And how many files in this gallery in 2 or 3 year? This page : Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted is not a QI categorization because the image are not categorized, for now there are only put in a gallery where it is impossible to search correctly something. The images recently promoted must be categorized by the boot (or by the tool) in the same time there are placed in the gallery.
For now maybe the Category:Quality images of ships exist but this category have nothing to do with this gallery, maybe the purpose is to recategorize a second time all the images of the galleries. So why could not the boot (or the tool) not make a thing like that? -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the sorting should be to make images easier to find for those who are looking to illustrate an article or for any other purpose. Doing the sorting is tedious, and error prone, and subject to a particular sorter's point of view. And, after all that tedious manual sorting, the images aren't tagged with a category, only placed on a gallery page with limited search capabilities. IMO, the QI group should attempt to piggyback on existing search methods, and encourage the use of the commons categories - not special QI categories. The single Quality Image category becomes just an attribute of the image that is usable in intersection searches, and by the gadget. The QI rules should enforce that the image have one or more usful categories, just like the rules currently require a meaningful description. Searching becomes easier, and the gallery pages can be maintained by a bot. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the gallery pages are left over advertising for the QI concept and the project anyway - and not a useful way for others to find quality images. A lot of effort is being expended for little gain. In summary, I propose that the QI project stop sorting and categorizing, and require the producer of the image to use categories in the first place. The QI process merely verifies that categories are present and meaningful. --Generic1139 (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photography critiques

The first para of the QI project page mentions Commons:Photography critiques. That project hasn't been active for a year. Remove the reference? --Generic1139 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halos

How to avoid halos on photos and how do they occur? Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haloes tend to happen due to sharpening. Many compact cameras do this automatically and it's not fixable, with a DSLR you can generally turn down the sharpness if it's happening too much. Of course there are also haloes due to chromatic aberration, but I'm assuming you aren't referring to purple haloes. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is halos like them here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ARoS_camera_obscura_correted.jpg Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That’s sharpening artifacts, as mattbuck pointed out. In digital editing, the impression of sharpness is increased by enhancing the edge contrast, darkening the dark side and brightening the bright side, which causes those halos unless smartly done. The image is entirely overprocessed IMHO, trying to work out a level of detail the optical system cannot deliver. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_4&oldid=148483117"