Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bondinho do Pão de Açúcar by Diego Baravelli.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2018 at 17:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sugarloaf Cable Car by Diego Baravelli
unhealthy discussion
    • Daniel it is downsized > 50% so of course it is "nice and sharp". Support if you like, but comments like this just encourage downsizing and dishearten those who've had their 24MP image pixel peep opposed for some CA or noise. This image isn't even big enough to fill an A4 high quality print. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: The FP criteria say only that the image has to be more than a million pixels; it doesn't matter how it got there. I don't know for sure that this image has been downsampled ... it might well have been cropped from the middle of a larger image. At present we do not concern ourselves with whether the image is big enough to make a nice wall print for framing. If you think we should, as has been suggested elsewhere, you can and should bring that up in the criteria, perhaps as an increase in the minimum size requirements, rather than harassing individual !voters. Maybe if you phrase your argument convincingly and respectfully enough, I will even support it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, you've been here long enough to know only newbies wikilawyer about the 2MP criteria, which has been around for over a decade and represents the lowest bar for all types of images. The EXIF is complete for this image and shows the image has had the most minute of crops due to a rotation to level the horizon. It appears to have simply been exported as a JPG to exactly 2400x1600px. Plus other images in the category, taken from the same viewing point, demonstrate the image is not cropped. I'm familiar enough with an ISO 500 out-of-camera image to know this is downsampled. If you do want to wikilawyer over it, the Commons:Image guidelines state "Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible." and "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." These concerns, about being able to print large, have been discussed and felt important for over a decade, and are generally agreed by the community, and generally result in an early "Please upload full size" comment. But sometimes we forget. I addressed your comment specifically, because "nice and sharp" is exactly the wrong response we should give to a >2x downsample. You know this already. It would be far easier if you just accepted you'd made a mistake with that comment, than make some outragous claim that in 2018 Commons FP loves 3.8MP landscape photos, that I'm out-of-step with community norms, and that reviewers are not allowed to disagree with each other but must first change the rules. Basically, everything you wrote is wrong. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I have changed my !vote appropriately because of your oh-so-superior wisdom.

So apparently pixel-peeping is bad but EXIF-peeping is not?

""Basically, everything you wrote is wrong." Next time you go off on one of your tangents, would you at least try to upsample your own sense of tact? If you have one? I am hardly the first, or even the 103rd, person to notice this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support per resolution. --C-M (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hello, how are you? I'm happy, I just do not understand why I want her in higher resolution. What would it be? I read some comments, I saw a lot of bullshit there, apparently some do not understand anything about photography. I cloaked it in these dimensions because it is the normal one that I use for internnet.
  • The above comment is made by Diego Baravelli the creator of this photo. --Cart (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Diego Baravelli and welcome to FPC. Since you are not used to the code and the way things are done here, I have formatted your comment. Hope that it is ok. The reason people here want you to upload this photo in a higher resolution, is because the Wikiproject may also use these Featured photos for printed publications. That is why the upload should be as large as possible, not only what is normal for internet sites. If you have a larger version of this, please upload it. You click on the link on the file page where it says "Upload a new version of this file" and follow the instructions. If you would like to speak Portuguese or Spanish instead, that is also ok. We can find someone here to answer in one of those languages and explain things better. (ArionEstar perhaps?) --Cart (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Colin in discussion, will never be a serene discussion Basile. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
just a update
  • @Diego Baravelli: this "I saw a lot of bullshit there, apparently some do not understand anything about photography."
Is not welcome here, we know a lot about photography, and more than you about what photography that this community requires, so you should control your ego, I know what's your gateway here in the Wikimedia Movement, and people that surround you, but for the rest of the Movement this posture is not tolerable.
We have our reasons to request something, and yes, some volunteers will request more than what's thinkable, or reasonable, but before you start to do accusations as this you should ask the "whys", okay? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 06:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks! The image offers a truly great and pleasant view. What keeps me from supporting the nom is that its technical quality leaves quite a lot to be desired. And no, I'm not pixel-peeping. There's a surprisingly high degree of noise - even for ISO 500 - and the horizon is also a bit tilted. So I suggest the user should try to redevelop their raw to address these issues. But there's definitely potential. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Martin, I agree this image has a high degree of noise, which is apparent even at 6MP (3000x2000px). I think this due to the application of unnecessarily strong sharpening. The EXIF shows sharpness 77, radius 1.3, detail 40 and mask 11. A much lower degree of sharpening, possibly smaller radius, and larger mask would help, as would applying a local adjustment to the sky and out-of-focus background to eliminate any sharpening in those regions -- as the only thing sharpening does there is bring out the ISO 500 noise.
Daniel above makes a comment about "EXIF-peeping" and I agree there is a danger to oppose because one can see bad processing in the data, rather than because bad processing is apparent in the image. I always make my mind up about an image before looking at EXIF, which isn't always comprehensive anyway, and only do so in order to make an educated guess at what went wrong. I would like to support this image at full size. It just needs a little bit of TLC in the raw processor. Diego Baravelli, we'd all love to see this image full-sized, well-processed and awarded the star it deserves, and I hope you can make some improvements. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I'll have to stay at my oppose here. Higher resolution may mean better quality, but doesn't have to. In this case, the picture is just much too noisy, especially the sky. For a near-daylight shot, it's not necessary IMO. --A.Savin 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


more unhealthy conversation
 CommentDear unknown, we have not met .. soon, I find it impossible to know what I do, let alone what I want with the fact to upload photos to Wikipedia. And I think your "attack" should not be tolerated either. If you think you know the people around me, I think it would be the case for you to control your ego ... and not me. I am here, solely and exclusively to upload photos, I have no interest in participating in discussions or anything of the kind. Really, I do not know what the community wants with the photo, and more, after your comment, I do not want to know. My only desire is to collaborate with better than existing photos, to generate better illustrations for the articles. If Translator translated it wrong, I apologize. I meant that I read reviews that are not grounds for knowing anything about photography. Do you have reason to ask for something? And I to ask why ... which in my view, should be clarified from the beginning ... even more so for those who do not follow closely. And I do not know, I'm not interested in that part. You have no right to talk about the people around me, this is bullshit (correct translation for you now ok?). No more, do, think ... theorize what you want, or worse, what you think you know. I continue with my photographs, simple as that. Have a good time!
About the photo. With the previous file it was totally possible to make an A4 print, as I read above. I already made it in size 30x45 to give as a gift.
Yes, the horizon is a little crooked, nothing that can not be corrected at the time of printing ... just like the noise.
The noise on my monitor does not appear, at least nothing to bother me. And as I said, I have already impressed her, and nothing bad has appeared.
Maybe in some monitors this has bothered, but it is the excess of clarity, not of noise ... that does not influence the impression.
Finally, I apprehend not like this photograph. I have many and many other better photos, but unfortunately the star that she can or can not win does not pay my bills, so I uploaded that photo in question.
Sorry for the harshest words, but I find it inadmissible a person that I do not even know to say things like "so you should control your ego, I know what your gateway here in the Wikimedia Movement, and people that surround you". Is this the kind of person who "judges" something? That's why I do not mind participating in these conversations, especially when I have to deal with someone who judges other "people".
People like that I do not have in my life, much less "armed" by a keyboard.
I have my photos, this is my collaboration. And they are postures like that, that distance many photographers of the world Wikipedia.
Only that. Best for everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Baravelli (talk • contribs)
Você pode escrever em português para mim.
A única coisa que eu disse é que eu sei como você veio parar aqui e quem o trouxe, eu sei que esses têm mesma postura não condizente com o Movimento Wikimedia.
Controle seu texto, bullshit é um termo chulo não aceito aqui, e é a segunda vez que usa na mesma conversa, pode ser impedido de contribuir se você se mantiver nessa postura.
Você dizer que as pessoas que aqui estão sabem nada de fotografia também não é aceitável.
E já que você não quer saber as razões pelas quais estamos pedindo o que estamos pedindo, não vou me ater a lhe responder. Mas se tudo que foi listado é passível de melhora, melhore.
Abraços.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Entrei aqui pois participo de muitos concursos de fotografia, e foi assim, simples assim. Entrei em um concurso sobre as Olimpíadas, ganhei, logo tive contato com o Commons e continuei. Você não sabe, você acha que sabe... e isso tem uma diferença muito grande. Se você tem problemas com alguém que você acha que me "trouxe" para cá, quarde-os para você, pois eu não tenho nada a ver com isso. Logo, seu comentário foi desnecessário, não acrescenta e não contribui em nada para a conversa. Quanto ao termo usado, é o correto para a sua contínua postura de achar que sabe algo sobre mim, ou que tem o direito de falar algo, se em inglês ficou pesado, traduza para babozeiras. Disse que li comentários que mostram desconhecimento sobre fotografia, ou melhor, dúvidas, e isso é fato. Já falei a cima sobre os pontos levantados, não vejo mais nada sobre. Falar sobre algo técnico é inaceitável? Volto a falar, inaceitável para mim, são posturas como a sua, essas sim imagino não serem condizentes com o Movimento Wikipedia. Minha contribuição é subir fotos, fotos que tenho paradas, para assim tentar contribuir com alguma melhora.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Baravelli (talk • contribs)
 Comment I really think that you guys need to improve the way to discuss this kind of picture promotion. Diego Baravelli is doing a great job contributing with many photographies and projects since he discovered this platform through the Wiki Loves the Olympics organized by Wiki Education Brazil in 2016. It's really bad for our movement and for Wikimedia Commons to see the way a Featured Picture Candidate is going on and to see people like Rodrigo.Argenton that was blocked so many times on pt.wiki by bad behavior offending and attacking directly and indirectly Brazilian contributors in english and portuguese. That is why we dont have a lot of Brazilians contributing to this project right now. Argentom, pare de tentar atacar os outros indiretamente, cresça e amadureça, já passou da hora. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
q.e.d.
Diego, essa palavra tem mais um peso, assim como está nela mesmo, "você está falando bosta", a minha postura foi chamar as pessoas que negativaram à princípio a sua foto pelo tamanho à reavaliarem e pedi que controlasse a sua fala para não ter problemas. Se não consegue ouvir algo simples, bom...
And I'm not the one that had a WUG de-recognized by having a bad conduct...
Nothing more here.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 14:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bondinho_do_Pão_de_Açúcar_by_Diego_Baravelli.jpg&oldid=301340388"