Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Magevee karpvähiline (Ostracoda).jpg

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

File:Magevee karpvähiline (Ostracoda).jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2024 at 03:23:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
+ The author created the image to be viewed as you see it. It is not okay for the viewer to download the image to their computer, make changes in Photoshop, and then find errors. If you don't see errors right away, then there are none. You can ruin any image in Photoshop, but the author doesn't create the image so that someone can edit it in Photoshop. Janeklass (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  What?! "make changes in Photoshop, and then find errors"? I would be the last person to do that. And it's very clear from the file page that you are the sole and only uploader. You're of course free to do what you like with your pictures, but for me it's a similar case to this one or that one nominated last week. Sorry to be allowed to review here... When I read Ikan's review below ("I do see details well"), I had the impression it was a mirror of my comment (now crossed out) above ("Some details look interesting"). I got curious and then noticed the stacking issues. Please fix these errors like in this nomination. By the way, where do you find that "It is not okay for the viewer to download the image to their computer"? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You downloaded the image to your computer, increased the light in Photoshop, and then you saw the errors. The "errors" you pointed out do not disturb or affect the image. I am very sorry, but I think your assessment is unfair and is not given because they somehow affect the photo, but because you just want to scold. Janeklass (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You darkened the image, not me ("background made darker" in your summary). And you made this change without notifying a (weak) supporter writing "Definitely too dark for me", nor other participants who could also find the image (really) too dark now. Photoshop helps to find potential issues like wrong embedded color profiles (which can make the appearance vary from a computer to another, example here). This was done to help you. It was a tool. But the stacking issues (now located) also appear in the current version -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You raised the light and only then did you see errors that were otherwise not visible. For me, they do not affect the image and the problem does not exist. If you add light, you can see all sorts of things. As an author, the light is set the way I want it and it is not intended to be changed by anyone else. Janeklass (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You darkened the picture (for everyone, not only for me). Proof in the history of the file page and in the summary you left. Given the critics (here and elsewhere by other participants), it would have been more judicious to brighten the picture instead of the contrary. Otherwise it's like you want to hide the mistakes. You also hide the whole content in this blackness.
  2. No, my first impression was : "Some details look interesting at the bottom". But because it was dark, it could be a wrong impression. Confirmation (I mean denial of "interesting details") comes now, yes. Same as here. I think light should be adjusted and FS problems resolved -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your words " + After increasing the light on Photoshop, I also notice focus stacking errors. Image notes added". I'm referring to the fact that you didn't see the errors before you increased the light. So you amplified the errors yourself, which are otherwise not so visible and they don't affect the overall impression of the image. But okay, I added a little more light and I won't change this file any more Janeklass (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If my eyes are good, there is no difference in the light between the first version and this one? And your words "It is not okay for the viewer to download the image to their computer"... and worse: "the author doesn't create the image so that someone can edit it in Photoshop." Apologies, but this idea "If you don't see errors right away, then there are none" sounds a bit clumsy, according to the ton of similar nominations where errors / stitching problems are detected in the middle or even at the end of the voting period. A bunch of examples available in the archives. Currently the focus stacking errors are still present. Thus I don't change my vote -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing an image to amplify small flaws that aren't actually visible is very strange behavior to me. Janeklass (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Very visible now, even in the darkness. And also at the top right.
  2. Could be fixed / uploaded by someone else (not necessarily you).
  3. Alternative could be proposed. At least for the FS issues. Then it's a democratic choice. Could be also delisted and replaced by a more accurate version later. If you change your mind, or if someone else improves your image.
  4. Like it or not, that's how it works, actually. And how divergent opinions offer chances to improve.
  5. It's a mistake to believe that the purpose of increasing the light was "to amplify flaws". Certainly anyone else would / will do the same as observer or re-user, because it's very dark, then trying to evaluate the content fairly and see it under more favorable conditions is useful and / or necessary. The FS flaws popped up at this moment, and were not expected. Most of the users here are happy to meet the opportunity to correct their own images -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to correct mistakes when I see that the criticism is relevant. At this moment, I feel that the criticism has been overdone and criticized for the sake of criticizing. These "mistakes" are not visible in the picture and do not spoil the picture. Janeklass (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These mistakes have just been revealed a few hours ago. And first reaction, you darkened the image, which had the effect of making the situation worse, and lengthening the discussion for everyone. It would undoubtedly be wiser to fix the issues like here or there. See also this interesting case -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't darken the image because of your alleged "errors". I cropped the image and at the same time noticed lighter areas in the background and thought that the background would be better completely black. Janeklass (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... noticed something, too? For the record, you said "If you don't see errors right away, then there are none.". You changed the crop? You changed the light? Twice, already? Yes, things happen / appear in the light of a discussion, like in the light of a (well-exposed) photo -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep your opinion. I'll stick to my position and won't fix alleged errors that aren't actually visible and don't affect the image. Besides, this picture's value lies elsewhere for me (and for Wikipedia). What we actually see in the picture is much more important here - whether it ranks among the best is secondary. In my opinion, Wikipedia isn't Instagram, and I add pictures that have genuine informative value. Janeklass (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🛑Stop it now. "You can keep your opinion" and other derogatory comments written above are against COM:CIVIL. All various and subjective opinions here are welcome and encouraged on this section, per the guidelines at COM:FPC "A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate". You don't like criticisms, this does not give you permission to be disrespectful to those who don't share your view. You voted above, fine, we all respect your choice, did not contest anything. Do the same, please. Now enough. It's an open project. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the author's position not important, or do you always have to agree with criticism? If so, I will try to improve myself in the future and will not engage in further discussion.
For now, this discussion is over for me. Janeklass (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Magevee_karpvähiline_(Ostracoda).jpg&oldid=965245821"