File talk:CheHigh.jpg

 

 

Recent upload & revert

@Huntster: , I recently uploaded what I believed to be a higher quality version of the image, because I removed all of the dust spots on the former, as well as a wrinkle/scratch/line in the center of the beret. The dust spots and the line in the beret are not in the original *real* image, but merely in the larger uncropped version hosted on Wiki seen --> here, that the user who uploaded the most recent edition relied on when making this one. However, you reverted me contending that my “new version has significantly degraded quality, introduces smoothing and contrast issues.” So, I figured I would open up a TP discussion rather than us just edit warring and reverting each other. To your claims, I believe my resolution was actually higher (2.57 vs 2 MB), and better quality as it had removed the defects not in the actual image. As for “smoothing” I believe mine is actually sharper. I will include them both here. My version --> here (vs) Your reverted version --> here Can you explain why you believe yours is superior? Thank you. Redthoreau (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

File size does not necessarily equate to higher resolution or quality. Your smoothing removed finer details, while the contrast changes removed other fine details and created many very sharp and noticeable shade imbalances and compression artefacting. Look, for example, at the neck areas. I appreciate the attempt, but sometimes it is better to leave older images alone. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster: , ok, so if I grant you that the contrast and smoothing created issues that you see (for the record I do not see them) do you not agree that the various dust spots and a line on the beret (which are only there as they were flaws on the larger one) should be removed? I can try and ONLY fix those issues and upload a new one, or if you are able to fix those it's fine with me. As for older images, I was the uploader of the original that this version is taken from, which is why I know the line and spots are not inherent to the real picture, but a remnant of my version I uploaded back in 2008. Redthoreau (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Remini?

Are we sure this is the authentic image, and not a version treated with an AI upscaling app like Remini? It really looks Remini'd to me and another user in the edit history thought so too. Do we know of a source for this particular version? Humbledaisy (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I still think this looks like it's been through AI upscaling and, I believe, historically innaccurate Remini'd versions of images are not appropriate per COM:EDUSE. Details like the two lines in the middle of his bottom lip, and the smoothed-out chin, are not present in the original uncropped version. Humbledaisy (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Humbledaisy: I cannot speak to your suggestion of what was done, but I tend to disagree that the tiny details that you're describing somehow denigrate it's value. That said, if you feel this strongly about it, you can always take it to Commons:Deletion requests and make your case there. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I feel strongly that if the image contains any details that are not authentic - that is, details generated by AI using a databse of photographic portraits - it should be reverted to the last known version before they were introduced (the 2 March 2014 version). The user who added the version in question is Wilfredor, who is not longer an active editor, so it is impossible to know for certain if they did use Remini. The app was very popular at that time, though, and several other historical portraits (such as [photograph of Stalin]) were distorted using it. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It was not Remini, it was the original source image --Wilfredor (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The new version of the image (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Che_Guevara_-_Guerrillero_Heroico_by_Alberto_Korda.jpg) looks a lot more likely to be the original source image to me and doesn't include those unusual details I mentioned. Humbledaisy (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)