Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Kurando-san error! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spiral100 could not be parsed properly. --Kurando-san 02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is long overdue! My response is the same in both cases. I find photo manipulation totally unaccaptable for an encyclopedic image. Anything that goes beyond color, saturation contrast should be banned, and manipulations should only serve to compensate for the shortcomings of (digital)photography, i.e. to bring the photographic result closer to the reality as the photographer percieved it. --Dschwen 08:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference in reaction is probably due to who has examined the photo. I don't vote on all FPCs, so I'm sure there are some that I would've expressed an opinion on had I taken the time. ~MDD4696 01:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Most of my thoughts on the subject can be summed up here: [1]. Basically, if you could have done it pre-exposure, then there is nothing wrong with doing post-exposure through some other means, such as cloning. If you could have reached your hand out and held the leaf out of the way, there's nothing wrong with blotting it out in Photoshop, I say. Either way the result is the same, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference if nobody said anything. So the simple solution is to simply do any photoshopping before you upload, and then don't tell anyone about it, and they won't be any wiser.PiccoloNamek 08:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Disturbing opinion on reality for an encyclopedia. I'd rather say if you could have done it pre-exposure, you should have! Don't nominate or upload an image where you screwed up. As simple as that. Cloning might be ok for images that are merely made to look nice, but cloning actually means making stuff up, and lying about the scene that is depicted. Not telling the viewer a picture is doctored with just makes it worse. Ignorance is bliss should not become a Wikipedia consensus! Check the policies of major news agencies on photoshopping images. That stuff gets you fired! --Dschwen 09:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As long as the subject of the photo itself is unedited, it's fine. Cloning a few stray ants out of a photo of a caterpillar doesn't make the caterpillar itself any less encyclopedic, and likewise, cloning out a stray leaf that's irrelevant to the subject of the photo doesn't make that image any less encyclopedic either. I could have brushed the ants away, and I could have held back the leaf. Or how about another example: I take a photograph of some ancient ruins, only to find that there's a tourist in the shot. I can do one of two things: Wait until the tourist is gone, or remove him in a photo editing program. Either way, I'm getting a shot without the tourist in it, and the subject itself, ther ruins, is unedited and depicted exactly as I saw it. Tell me, what exactly is so bad about doing these things in a photo editing program instead, if the end result is the same?PiccoloNamek 13:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it the same? Maybe the tourist osbscured another detail. In the end it doesn't matter, the doctored photo gives the viewer the impression what he is seeing is real, while it isn't. It is a lie. Big one little one, I don't care. A lie is a lie. There was a good comment about setting a precedent

here. --Dschwen

13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a real life example. I have two pictures I went outside and took of a pile of leaves. In one picture, there is a piece of gray PVC pipe lying on the ground. In the other, the pipe is gone.

[2]

[3]

My question to you is, did I walk over and pick up the pipe, or did I remove it in Photoshop? Can you tell? Are you sure? If you can't tell, does it matter what I did? Or, if you can tell, does it matter then? The leaves are still untouched and suitable for an encyclopedia entry, and nothing else in the photo has been edited, not even the contrast. Personally, I don't see the problem.PiccoloNamek 14:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The question is not how well you can touch up a picture, or can anybody tell wether it has been tampered with. The point is, that the falsified pictures do not document reality anymore. I will not indulge in a lengthy discussion as where to draw the thin red line, whether this or that minute manipulation is still justified. In my opinion no pixel pushing should be performed. We could go on and on for ages her, let me try to get to the root. We set our emphasis on two different points, creating a beautiful aesthetically pleasing picture on one hand, and a genuine 'document of reality where every pixel can be accounted for. Is that mutually exclusive? I dont't think so. --Dschwen 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're taking this "reality" thing a little too far. Removing an errant leaf or piece of trash doesn't harm the realism of a photograph, especially if the main subject matter is untouched. This is Wikipedia, not a crime scene.PiccoloNamek 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with PiccoloNamek, I think Dschwen you are taking reality to an unrealistic level. If someone was an eye witness account of say the attack on Sept 11 and wrote something of his experience in the article (which for arguments sake was being put up on FAC), would you want it completely as it was written or would you correct a spelling mistake to make it better?! Or would you leave a sentence with bad grammar for the sake of "reality"?! That would be completely ridiculous!

As PiccoloNamek quite rightly said, removing those element in no way tampers with subject and enhances the illustration. Removing something you could have done when taking the photo by using software can't pose an ethical problem as it could have been done at the time of photographing, but was done later in software.

The photo of the paprika is a prime example, it is now free of blemishes and much more acceptable both for the article and as a FPC candidate.

I think removing an element from a photo should be allowed in most circumstances. Adding an element (as I did with clouds in the War Memorial photo) probably shouldn't be allowed. In this example the branches were removed and the photo was enhanced IMO (admittidly since the edit is mine I'm probably biased). --Fir0002 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your grammar argument (adjustment of orthography) can at best be compared to the adjustment of contrast and tilt. Anyway it is not relly constructive, there are commonly accepted guidelines on citatation.

Maybe you should consider that you cannot know what information the viewer might want to take from the image. Is it always only the main subject (dried paprika for example)? On a subliminal level the surroundings get processed as well. And do you honestly know what really was behind that womens head? It is about setting a precedent. I cannot tell you where the line is regarding pixel pushing so I'm saying do not do it at all. --Dschwen 08:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think not. Removing those elements is just the same as adjusting contrast and tilt. Pixels are being changed no matter what you do. Removing an element is a way to make the photo more like reality. If I take a photo of the sphinx with a tourist in it, are you going to be able to take a photo with the same tourist in it? NO. But if I remove the tourist the photo is timeless and can be recreated easily.

I have considered what the viewer wants out of the picture, and that is a main subject. Especially since this is an encyclopedia and photos are only there to illustrate a subject, the photo should only show the subject if possible. Your argument on not knowing what the background is only applies to a very few images, for example in this photo the background is clearly going to be clouds. That is how most photos will be. --Fir0002 23:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why ist the whole discussion centering about tourist in the shot example. I mean, I can see your generality argument, even if I do not like the way you acieve it. On the other hand, why not show the tourists. I have seen so many shots of sights and monuments, which give such a wrong impression how it's really looking. Pictures of national prks with no one on it, beautiful solitude, and when I went to visit myself, i had to line up on the hikes and views. Why not be honest and show the context. The pic might not look as beautiful but you certainly get a picture thats more honest.

Back to my first scentence, there has been far worse photoshopping than just removing tourists. Take the Hashish shop for example, where someone thought some cable holding a telegraph pole in place should be removed. Then there was a monument shot here some time ago where a lamppost was removed. How does that make the picture more general? --Dschwen 08:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well why not? It illustrates the point very well. The whole point of a park is that it is supposed to look untouched and full of solitude. The photo is not trying to convey the impression of the crowds but of the national park. The features of it - the views, etc rather than the variable levels of crowds.

OK, so a powerline would make the photo more true to life, but is it helping in the illustrating the topic? Its just superflous detail. An encylopedia wants to show a subject. A specific thing, not a great big background. For instance this photo Image:Emperor Gum Moth.jpg would never have gotten featured (see the comments) if I hadn't removed the distracting and non encylopeadic background. --Fir0002 23:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose one thing that might be considered is that in the paprika photo, the head that is removed is totally irrelevent to the photo itself. Removing the head does nothing to reduce the illustrative value of the photo. But does that make it acceptable? I don't know myself; it's just a discussion point I thought I'd bring up. In fact I really don't have an opinion on this whole topic. I can see the merits of both sides. Raven4x4x 12:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and the head does not reduce the illustrative value of the photo either, so why remove it? Answer: to try and make it FP at all cost. Don't do that, leave the pic with the head in the article, but do not nominate it if it is not satisfactory as it is. --Dschwen 13:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it depends on the edit. Simple things like rotating the image a few degrees is fine. Bigger things it all depends on what the photo is showing - in the caterpiller example above, the photo is of the caterpiller and the surroundings are not important to the image so removing something distracting is fine. In the waterfall picture, the environs of the waterfall are important, the enclosed leafy space adds the atmosphere that make the photograph what it is. Thryduulf 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it depends on the purpose of the photo, so it also depends on what we want the Featured Pictures to be. If we are rating the photo on it's artistic value, then no edits should be allowed, but in same cases to increase a photos educational value edits are needed to emphasize a subject. So the question is, what is a featured picture, is it a nice looking picture that just happens to illustrate an article, or is it simply illustrations for an article? If we are looking for artistic photo, then no edits should be allowed in a FPC, but if we want to concentrate on it's educational value to the wikipedia, then edits should be allowed as long as the main subject is untouched, and it isn't noticeable. PPGMD 17:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How about if there were a guideline that submitters had to admit to any edits; but then "voters" could decide whether the edit was severe enough to cause them to vote against? Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it is much of an issue, so long as the resulting image is not misleading or a straightout fake. I was somewhat concerned when I was being persuaded to edit out a distracting

Similarly, last weekend I saw a retrospective of the photographs of Jeff Wall [4] who splits his work into 'documentary' photographs which try to show objective truth and very similar 'cinematic' photographs in which the events are carefully staged in the maner of film production. Part of the game for the viewer is to decide which pictures are genuine and which are fake.

We should certainly aim for documentary photographs, but it is more important that they should show good illustrations of their subject and be honest about any alterations made. -- Solipsist 19:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Another question, why does there seem to be a fundamental difference between editing out a person or a leaf or whatever and adjusting the contrast/sharpness of a photo? Why is one acceptable and the other not? Raven4x4x 00:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's simple. Cameras and the human eye have different characteristics, like dynamic range, linear vs. logarithmic response, whitebalance, black point and so on. The mentioned adjustments are not only acceptable, but sometimes necessary to reproduce a scene more accurately. --Dschwen 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I believe adjusting contrast and sharpness over the entire image is acceptable because it is a predictable, uniform process. People can easily replicate the changes themselves, and there is little subjectivity introduced. For larger edits, the end result depends on the person. Two images may look very different if an object is removed by two different people. Editing out objects introduces variability; it is much easier to quantify/qualify how one image's contrast is better than another, than to determine whose digital painting is more accurate, or natural, or whatever benchmark they might be judged by. Of course, if the benchmark is contrast... but you get my point. ~MDD4696 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my response to Dschwen's comments above, removing an element creates a more typical photo. If elements like a persons head are in the picture, the photo can be taken in literally hundreds of different versions with variations of the distracting element. In that way far more subjectivity can be introduced than from post-processing in Photoshop. Editing brightness/contrast can have huge variations. For example consider the following versions of a current FPC: Version 1, Version 2, Version 3, Version 4. Determining which version has the correct colors/contrast/brightness is as ambiguous as comparing cloning edits in photoshop if not more so.

Thats why it should only be done by the person who took the photo, not by some other user who thinks he can improve the picture. The latter can lead to twisting of the photo subject like

tuning the mist out of a jungle scene... --Dschwen

08:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that no-one but the uploader should be allowed to edit a picture? Thats ridiculous! I guess its up to the community to decide which edit they like best but not allowing people to improve a picture is against the wiki way of doing things. --Fir0002 23:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh; I'm a bit late to the discussion. Anyways, I completely agree with Dschwen's sentiments above (not the one directly above, but at the top of the section). Any manipulation of photos besides minor adjustments (cropping, contrast, etc.) is unacceptable. That's blurring reality and sets a dangerous precedent. We don't manipulate words or text to make them look better or to make them appear in our favor; we shouldn't do that to images, either. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean you don't manipulate text? I'd like to see a single article where the text has been the same since it was originally written, to make it more encylopeadic NPOV etc. If you read further up the page I explain this in more detail. --Fir0002 23:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been away and just saw this pop up on my watchlist, but I must say I'm disturbed that people consider image manipulation like removing unwanted elements acceptable. Images should not be tampered with to make them look better or more artistic. Rotation of course is fine; slight modifications like contrast and so on are acceptable, especially if they will give a more true impression of what an eyewitness would see rather than how the photograph turned out. But removing people, pipes, or pixels should never be done—I'd consider it a violation of trust if someone presented a photograph in this manner under false pretenses. If it is done, it should clearly be mentioned in the photograph's disclaimer: something like "This photograph has been altered to remove extraneous elements." I strongly discourage any such modification, even if it can be done skillfully without the casual viewer noticing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that even just the adjustment of brightness/contrat may be controversial - see the discussion on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Notre-Dame_de_Montr.C3.A9al_Basilica. Personally, I do not oppose slight retouching, such as removing a contrail from the sky, or a piece of trash from the ground, for the obvious reason that the picture could have been taken when there was no contrail, or the photographer could have removed the trash. But in any case, if any retouching is to be done, it should be done only by the photographer, who is the only one to have knowledge of the original scene. Whether or not such a shot should be labeled as "altered" depends entirely on the circumstances, and the amount of alteration - a difficult balancing act, to be sure! --Janke | Talk 08:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times has an interesting article regarding photo manipulation in scientific journals. The Journal of Cell Biology has adopted a policy that only manipulations that affect the image as a whole, such as adjusted color balance or brightness, are permitted. ~MDD4696 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Dschwen, are you opposed to changes like this? (compare to smaller version of the untouched photo) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-12 19:01

Not as long as it is mentioned on the image description page. After all the contrast is now determined by the editor. But since the original exposure information faded away in the unmodified picture, and in its unmodified state is not likely to be closer to the original exposure than the edit, I surely would not object this modification, as it brings out details nicely (note that with original exposure information at hand its an entirely different story). As for cropping of the frame, sure go ahead it is not really part of the picture either. I tried to find some rules for manipulating pictures here: Template_talk:RetouchedPicture and here: commons:Template_talk:RetouchedPicture. These Templates can also be used to mark the images and clearly inform the reader about work done on the pictures. --Dschwen 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For more on this, apparently, continuous battle, see the results here: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/TaosPuebloToday. Even though I didn't make the edits to the photo, I frankly think its naive to have a hard-fast rule on re-touches. Minor retouches to clarify a photo, that have absolutely no bearing on the original image, are a hallmark of a lot of photographs --especially since this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, Anyhoo, those're my thinky-thoughts Bobak 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Users at FPC may be interested in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. enochlau (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The Main Page redesign project is nearing completion. And by popular demand, the Picture of the day is included! However, we have run into a bit of an impasse. We've pulled in the condensed version of the Picture of the day, but the built-in border is wreaking havoc with the page's format. Please take a look and advise. Is there any way to pull the picture-of-the-day onto a page without the border coming with it? Sincerely, Go for it! 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Failing that, is there a way to remove the space around your border so it matches a page's padding? Go for it! 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you'd like to comment on the proposed Main Page redesign draft, there's still time. Let us know what you think! Go for it! 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with HTML, I'll go create a test template and get back to you in a few minutes.. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot get to the wiki source coding for the POTD template. But in the HTML, your problem is coming from here: <table cellspacing="5" width="100px" style="border-style:solid;border-color:#ccccff;padding:5px;text-align:center;"> I know when creating a table here on wikipedia, the format typically allows a style statement.. it should look identical to what's inside the style="" above. Make a new template called {{POTDnoborder}} (or whatever else is fitting) and simply remove that portion of the style statement. If you cannot get it to work, I can look at it, but that would require having special privelages or admin status or something.. hope you get it to work. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input so far, though I couldn't find the code of which you spoke, except as follows: the source for the template:POTD looks like this: {{Wikipedia:POTD/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}|<nowiki>{{{1}}}}}</nowiki> The formatting seems to be in each seperate image page called. Any ideas? Go for it! 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I guess that would be me. Although its mostly been other editors who set up the layout of the POTD and I've just been managing it for a while. One thing to consider would be to use double transcluded templates, to allow more flexible formatting in different contexts. This didn't use to work, but it might now. It certainly appears to be the approach used by POTD on Commons (where they are attempting to handle multiply translated captions). In any case, now would seem like quite a good time to experiment with such things to coincide with the MainPage redesign. -- Solipsist 17:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we include this, or a similar, simple monitor "check test" on the top of the FPC page, in order to alert people to the problems of different monitor settings - which can influence voting rather significantly?

To test whether your monitor is properly adjusted and can display shadow detail properly, please check this image - in the large square, you should see the left half of the circle very faintly (or not at all), but the right half should be clearly visible. If not, you need to adjust your monitor.

--Janke | Talk 11:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a cool little test (I think my monitor is pretty much perfect as I could just make out the darker side on the circle (6,6,6). I think it should be included on the FPC page --Fir0002 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thumbs up! I think it's useful as a reminder to all. enochlau (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the present test image may be a bit too large for the top of the FPC page? (I do.) How about a 70 high x 250 wide black ectangle, containing 3 circles, of which you should see at least the rightmost two, but maybe not the leftmost? (RGB values 5, 10 and 15 respectively) That would be a much smaller image. Just holler, and I'll make a sample... --Janke | Talk 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this better? Four circles, RGB values 6, 12, 26 and 38. If you see all four, your monitor is set on the bright side. Three is OK, but if you see less than three, your display doesn't show shadow detail properly.

I went ahead and added this to the top of the FPC page. Feel free to tweak the text or position the section differently. --Janke | Talk 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Very cool, a good reminder to all and a useful reference. Just used it to recalibrate my black point before checking out the photos after I'd messed it up using a 3D game editor :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Great idea! It's a very valuable addition to the page. ~MDD4696 17:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't personally like this addition. It doesn't seem relevant to the instructions on how to vote, not on judging about which way to vote. In addition, we rarely see any pictures that are as dark (!) as this one, and it is highly unlikely that such detail as shadows would be the sole cause of a FPC failing. Perhaps create a subpage for this "test" and then link to it? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is an excellent addition. If we're to judge the quality of images, best the tool we use to do so is as well-calibrated as possible. It caused me to adjust my own monitor ever so slightly. Denni ☯ 02:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• The new one is also quite neat. Press on with adding it to the page! enochlau (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I dug a bit and found 15 FPs which are not currently used in any article:

• WP:FPC
  )
• Pentakis dodecahedron (Edit: reinserting into Pentakis dodecahedron, this is an animated gif showing its rotation, update it has been kicked out again, will nominate it for delisting)
• WP:FPC
  , but I'll nominate it for delisting)
• Australian Garden Orb Weaver (Edit: this and other pic in the article were replaced by a commons link. Apparently no significant improvement of the article was percieved. I'll nominate it for delisting)
• Chamomile (Edit: nice pic, edit is featured, original was used. Replaced all occurences to use this version.)
• Yarra River
• Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley (Edit: crop is featured, pano is used. odd!)
• Mount Cook (small size was featured though high res exists. even odder. I'll replace that if no objections are made.)

It was an early FP. Users were encouraged to upload smaller images in 2004. -- Solipsist 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So it is ok to move the FP template over to the highres version? --Dschwen 23:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that should be fine. I think the image may have been nominated for delisting a year or so ago, but it survived that time. It could be nominated for delisting again, but only if someone felt motivated to do so. -- Solipsist 23:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sainte Jeanne d'Arc at night
• Teller-Ulam device (Edit: replaced with svg version)
• Tycho's supernova (Edit: on commons under a new name)
• Aerogel (Edit: on commons under a new name)
• Shadow Puzzle (Edit: on commons under a new name, cool picture!)
• Fennec Fox (Edit: on commons under a new name)
• Horse and snow (Edit: Not used in any article. Used to be in Horse but most of the pic is snow. I'll nominate it for delisting)

I don't think this one was ever promoted. It was probably added by an over enthusiastic editor who missed the promotion process instructions. -- Solipsist 23:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, someone just inserted it. I removed it. --Dschwen 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

They should be delisted. I suggest taking a look at the pics. But please don't just go inserting them since there might be (non aesthetic) reasons why they don't appear in any articles anymore. --Dschwen 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I support delisting all, except "Reclining figure" and "Chamomille", which are nice images, worthy of FP, if they only were in an article. Just my 2 ¢. --Janke | Talk 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well yes an no. If these are good pictures, then we should find good homes for them, unless there is a good reason not to. However, some of these are just housekeeping problems, as filenames sometimes get changed/improved on moving to Commons. So for example;

• Image:HenryMoore02.jpg is now Image:HenryMoore RecliningFigure 1951.jpg
• Image:Blue morpho butterfly 300x271.jpg is now Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg

Wikipedia:Featured pictures should contain a link to where each of these images was used at the time of promotion, so it should be possible to see whether essentially the same image is still used in the article. -- Solipsist 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you are right. I'll update

WP:FP accordingly. --Dschwen

20:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Finished going through my list and updated

WP:FP accordingly. Only four pics remain to nominate :-) --Dschwen

20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal, labeling touched up pictures

I do not mean to put an end to the ongoing discussion at all, since a consensus clearly hasn't been found yet. But I'd like to propose this template

This is a retouched picture , which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: Recolored Empire State Building to match my shirt.

to label photoshopped pictures. This way the reader can make up his own mind. I'll have to code a switch into the template in case the original is not available (although I think it should always be made avaliable). Please disregard the diminutive example ;-) P.S.: Yes, I accidentally vandalized {{

I don't think the original needs to be added, some photographers don't agree with restriction free licensing required and may not wish to upload originals. But I like this template and it may be the best option to at least label modified photos for this debate. But we should try to flesh out, what needs to be labeled, and what doesn't. Because there is not a single photo that I take that doesn't spend at least 5 minutes in Photoshop. PPGMD 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok lets draft a policy list. My general idea is list everything except touch ups by the photographer, which only try to compensate for technical deficiencies of the capturing aparatus (camera, scanner). These include whitebalance, contrast, saturation, sharpening, color curves (i.e. to lighten shadows). --Dschwen 21:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perspective correction should also be included, as long as it doesn't damage the photo too much, but correcting for a few degrees should be ok. PPGMD 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and add leaning and lens distortion as well. I moved the Template from my userspace to {{RetouchedPicture}} and added the criteria on the templates talk page. I want to emphasize that this template is not intended to be a stigma of any kind, but a step towards a consensus/compromise(?) on this topic. All the best, Dschwen 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the first thing you'll have to worry about is getting people who disagree to admit to having modified their pictures, unless the picture itself was drastically altered and the edit is obvious.PiccoloNamek 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping for good faith here. Why would anyone lie about his pictures? I'd consider that highly unethical, especially since this is an encyclopedia. --Dschwen 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention pictures from 3rd party sources such as Flickr which may have been retouched long before arriving at Wikipedia without any way of knowing for sure. But it doesn't mean that the template isn't useful for those images that we know about. -- Solipsist 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I posted a message onWikipedia:Village pump (policy) pointing to this discussion.--Dschwen 14:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this template is a good idea, because it provides information to the reader that will otherwise go unnoticed. I don't see any harm in having the template. If we apply the tag on a best effort basis, and not make it a strict requirement for edited pictures, then it won't scare away contributors at the very least. Also, I think the exemptions (contrast et al) above are common sense. enochlau (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the idea. IMO specification other than touch ups by the photographer, which only try to compensate for technical deficiencies of the capturing aparatus is precise enough. Othervise more should be added, like noise reduction, reconstruction of dead pixels, scratches, etc. --Wikimol 10:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Only IMO such template should be applied on Commons in most cases. --Wikimol 10:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I posted on the commons village pump. --Dschwen 12:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The general requirements and guidelines at the top of

Well how about we remove the requirement that new contributors read the page in full for a while before knowing what we want and add this requirement to the description at the top? I'm sure someone clever could come up with a 'preferred if at all possible' wording that wouldn't put off the proponents of smaller images justified by their rareness. Size may not be everything, but let's admit we do find it compelling :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that if there is a size requirment it should be reasonable enough to factor photographers copyrights to the original. A photographer isn't likely to upload something is is big enough to print in photo quality, so expecting something bigger then 1024 on the largest side maybe a little too unreasoable, unless it makes the subject/details of the photo too small. So I say remove, or make it defined what is reasonable. PPGMD 23:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now we need to define "quality reproductions" - is that 3-ft poster size, or a 1-column image in a future print version of Wikipedia? If the fist, only Diliff's images qualify ;-) - if the second, any image larger than, say 480x640 will do fine... I lean toward the second, if the image is otherwise good enough. --Janke | Talk 06:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd expect it to be at least 1000px in width, because only with a decent size can you see the details that are so important in images. But of course, that's flexible; if we have an image of historial significance then it might go down. Image quality is also something that's important for maintaining detail, but this time, it's hard to quantify unfortunately. enochlau (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Slightly tangential - I run PDPhoto.org[5]. Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but what you decide here will influence how I format my photos. A lot of my photos end up getting used here on Wikipedia (that's a very good thing), and I'm just now trying to get actively involved here. For a while I've been considering increasing the size of the pictures I upload to my site, which of course would increase the size of the images people are grabbing to upload here. But how big? And is this even and issue? For example, I see people here saying the 1024x768 is good enough, but here Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Explosions.jpg a user is saying that's too small.

I want to find a happy balance between what is most useful for people and what won't bump up my bandwidth costs. I'm thinking of moving up to 1280x1024. But if 1600x1200 would really add considerable value, I might just do that. Any input the folks here have on such a sweet spot would be very helpful. --y6y6y6 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brooklyn Bridge at Night for example. What's with all the "strong support" votes? I'm a strong believer that one vote is indeed one vote, and that some users' opinions should never count more just because they hold the belief more strongly. A long time ago when I closed FPCs, I treated a "strong support" as if it were just a "support", while respecting the wishes of "weak support" voters by treating it as if it were about half a support. What do others think? enochlau (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee}

---- 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but should a "strong support" vote contribute more to the understanding of what the consensus is than a simple "support" vote? enochlau (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you're asking, here's my thoughts: A "strong" vote should count just as a vote, but "weak" vote should be weighed in context. A weak vote (either way) may be a way of showing interest in having an edit uploaded. --Janke | Talk 07:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If a picture is licenced under Creative_Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License, can it be submitted to the featured picture candidates? - YB 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. enochlau (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Would it be at all possible for us to place a list of the acceptable liscences for Featured Picture Canidates up on the project page? This would allow everyone to immediatly see what kind of liscences are acceptable without having to ask on this discussion page. I think that would help streamline the whole process. TomStar81 05:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It says up the top:

Images listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since an image gallery is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery.

So basically that's anything that can be uploaded to Wikipedia except for the fair use ones. enochlau (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have written up at the bottom of the page some rough removal information and have added an archive including archiving the two overdue removal requests. I think we should work on refining the guidelines and stuff though so if anyone has any suggestions please bring them up.

Having gotten back from my vacation and uploaded tons of pics and movies - would it be a problem if I were to nominate a large number of pictures (say, a 6-12) at once? Raul654 18:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My initial batch of nominations would probably be:

• 
  Tiger
• 
  Tiger
• 
  Bald eagle
• 
  Great Egret
• 
  Great horned owl
• 
  Komodo dragon

I have no problem with that as long as you do them all as one nom per picture and follow everything else correctly.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @}

---- 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, remember that they also have to be in an article, and add substantially to that, in order to qualify. FPC is not a photo competition... --Janke | Talk 21:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All of those except the tiger pics (which I am getting to) are in articles already. Raul654 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto above. FPC has always been a little subjective, and if I may suggest, perhaps don't put pictures of the same subject right next to each other (mix them up... unless they're all of tigers), just so we don't get comments like "yet another tiger" or something like that :) enochlau (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm bumping this.

I've been reading that a lot lately. I understand that a picture needs to be of a reasonable size, and not like 200x100, but it seems like people are pushing a precendent that each picture needs to be big enough to be a wallpaper (more or less).

set resolutions are a bad idea. Some pictures need to be big and others don't. I wrote the WP:WIAFP standards and I now think that the size requirement should also mention being able to zoom in and inspect smaller parts. Broken S 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that since the majority of FPCs these days are coming from digital cameras, there is no particularly good reason why they CAN'T be at least 1000 pixels wide/high, if not as big as the camera allows (although I do believe that you can reduce the resolution by half in most cases and still retain all visible data, since bayer sensor algorithms don't give you REAL pixel resolution). This can be lowered for historically significant photos as mentioned above, as they are not able to be re-shot. At best, they could perhaps be re-scanned at a higher resolution, but even then, access to the originals is not always easy, so I don't think it is wrong to be a little more lenient on them. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a duplicate discussion of "Being up front about image size requirements" above? enochlau (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

He just bumped it. BrokenSegue 01:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops :D enochlau (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this picture good enough for fpc?--God of War 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Not in my opinion. I like the choice of subject but I think it falls short of FP technical standards on a few points: the white water & sky are blown out; there is an imperfection in the lower left corner; the background hill is desaturated and blurred; and the foreground could do with a bit of sharpening.
  Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review would be better for this by the way. I know the page hasn't really taken off yet but holding this sort of discussion there will help and I'm sure a few of us have the page watched! ~ Veledan • Talk
  19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yellow? Yuck. What do others think? I suggest something more subdued like blue or something. enochlau (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurando-san error! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mr. Eko and the Black Smoke could not be parsed properly. --Kurando-san 02:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just created {{breakafterimages}} to expand to the HTML
<br style="clear:both;" />
in order to get a break effect that includes images. Could we start promoting using it in the instructions:

===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}| ExampleName ]]===

[[ Image: Example.jpg |thumb| Caption goes here ]]

Add your reasons for nominating it here; 
say what article it appears in, and who created the image.

*Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~ 
*

<!-- additional votes go above this line  -->
{{breakafterimages}}

- Bevo 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this come up as a reason to oppose several diagrams, most recently the carbon nanotubes one. Personally I don't see how this is a problem. It's impossable to make text readable in thumbnail view without it being two inches high in the full size image. I think this is an unrealistic expectation.

I suppose that all comes down to how you use images in the article. If I see a diagram in an article, I open it up full size in a new browser window. I don't need to be able to read the text in the thumbnail. Perhaps other people have different approaches. Raven4x4x 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've got to say I'd oppose any image that included text like the nanotubes draft did. Explanatory text should not be a part of the image at all - it should be on the image page and in the caption instead. Apart from the possibility that one day a paper version of Wikipedia might be produced (and images would have to make sense in all sizes), text within the image makes it difficult to do anything with the format later. For example, people using non-standard browsers (e.g. speaking browsers for the blind) can't even tell what the caption says if it's in the image itself. ~ Veledan • Talk 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I made the picture in question and in retrospect the draft was a bad idea. Text in the picture is just not a good ides. That picture was my first-ever attempt at visualizing scientific information, so I was bound to make mistakes. However, I think that labels that are explained in the image description do not necessarily have to bea readable in a 150px thumbnail. If you do that, they might be much to large when viewed at a larger size. After all, what do we have thumbnails for if not for clicking them? Mstroeck 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We can't entirely discount having text in an image. I can think of some legitimate uses: labelling a diagram, charts designed for identifying objects, and entire posters uploaded to Wikipedia. enochlau (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I did mean only explanatory text, not labels. I also agree with Raven4x4x's point that it would often be inappropriate for labels to be readable in thumbnails. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I added a new illustration with some labels to

Can I suggest that the Featured Picture template, like the Featured Article template, provide a built-in link to the picture' nomination page? Palm_Dogg 23:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

promoting FPs is already enough work (we are all lucky we have Raven4x4x to close most of the noms). People can just look at the links on the bottom. BrokenSegue 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Have we considered getting the bot to close and promote for us? Of course a human will decide whether a picture gets promoted, but perhaps the process could be simplified to us tagging a section with a {{promote}} or {{no promote}} template, and then the bot comes along and places things in the right place. enochlau (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not as hard as you'd think. If you check

Template:Featured, they have a line of code that reads '''''[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{PAGENAME}}|identified]]'''''. Palm_Dogg

00:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't usually give the subpages the same name as the filename. enochlau (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, at one point a bot was being coded to automate the promotion, but I think the project was scuttled because it turned out to be too hard and unwieldy. BrokenSegue

There's a superfluous FPC template box between the drop and the card trick. I can't figure out what causes it. Can anybody fix this, please... THX, --Janke | Talk 10:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just removed it. Was in the Card Trick nomination template. Purge the page cache to see it's gone. --Dschwen 13:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)