Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This 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. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Original, untouched photograph: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/50/20150324130043%21Queen_Elizabeth_II_March_2015.jpg
@Hazhk: The infobox image, File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg, has been very poorly developed. The actual original version of the image is considerably underexposed and slightly oversaturated. To brighten the image somebody has boosted the exposure, which has increased the noise, then reduced the saturation, leading to an image with extremely high signal to noise ratio (SNR) and a pallid complexion. If you view the image at 100% you'll see how bad it is. It's badly speckled and the colour is all messed up. Notice the colour of her forehead under the shade of her hat; kinda orangey and bruised looking.
I reworked the image using the original, uploaded as File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg, retaining the colour information while reducing it to a more realistic level, while going to considerable effort to reduce the noise. Please view that image at 100% and compare it to the previous version. The queen likes to wear bright colours, and I think another editor may have been confused by that and tried to turn it down far too much. Yes, when you compare the two images she does look rather tanned, but that's due to persistence of vision; we perceive colours relative to other colours. When viewed in isolation you'll see that she isn't tanned, she just has a normal skin tone, shaded from the sun. You can also see that she's applied a little blusher and her eyes are blue, which you don't see in the previous image. I've also taken steps to reduce the contrast between the parts of her dress in shadow and the rest, which is in full sunlight, so it isn't as stark.
I uploaded the image as a derivative so as not to upset anybody, but in my opinion the previous image is so poor as to be unusable. I've swapped out the image in a number of articles. Rather than undo every edit let's discuss it here first and come to a consensus. If the majority decide that they don't think the new image is an improvement then fair enough. Fair enough? nagualdesign 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Collapsed for readability |
---|
|
Collapsed for readability |
---|
|
Collapsed for readability |
---|
|
Collapsed for readability |
---|
|
Collapsed for readability |
---|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should instances of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg be replaced with File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg? (See above discussion.) nagualdesign 00:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Before casting your !vote please read the following:
|
A few notes on Wikipedia policy: First, WP:OR mainly refers to words and phrases used in articles (ie, facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist). With regard to images it says:
Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.
It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.
Without wishing to get into an extended debate about photo editing, developing digital negatives – or in this case developing a JPEG as though it were a raw image (by using the same algorithms) – is not the same as photo manipulation. While my edit was admittedly manipulated, it was not done to distort the facts or position illustrated by the image and does not present the subject in a false or disparaging light, and it is prominently noted as retouched using the {{Retouched picture}}
template. In short, no rules have been bent or broken. And my most recent edit hasn't undergone any manipulation, per se (see below).
The guidelines are actually far less strictly enforced than perhaps The Gnome would like. There's a 'Graphic(s) Lab' on both Wikipedia and Commons, each with a Photography Workshop, where editors routinely alter images at the request of other editors. Having contributed to the WP Graphics Lab for many years I can attest to the fact that many images undergo considerable editing, often distorting them in ways that I've taken exception to. I've lost count of the number of times I admonished certain editors to wind in their manipulations (and I have the scars to prove it). That's just one of the reasons I no longer work there. I prefer to work on my own these days, and I assure anyone reading this that I always make the greatest effort to do so conscientiously. I would argue that my standards of conduct in that regard are actually far higher than prescribed by WP policy, and when it comes to historical and BLP photographs in particular I'm happy to hold my work up for further scrutiny. This RfC is a prime example of that.
Back to the question posed by the RfC, please note that what I'm specifically asking is whether instances of File:Queen Elizabeth II March 2015.jpg be replaced with File:Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg, the reason being that the former has been manipulated from the original in a way that is contrary to WP:OI. That is a fact. And I'm suggesting that where that image is already in use it should be replaced with the latter. The most recent edit I made has undergone no manipulation whatsoever, and if people prefer we can simply crop that image for the infobox here (a separate issue, really).
For those not well-versed in digital photography and developing digital negatives perhaps I ought to spell out exactly what has occurred here. Evidently the photographer has set their camera up to snap an image in perfect focus with nice depth of field (f/2.8), with perfect white balance, using a high shutter speed (1/100th of a second) and very high ISO (3,200) in order to avoid blurring, and with the saturation turned up somewhat in order to capture the greatest colour information. This is standard practice for many photographers, given the circumstances. The resultant digital negative is expected to be somewhat underexposed and oversaturated, but carry enough information to create a beautiful image using post-production. Whoever uploaded the image to the Commons has conscientiously provided a JPG version of the original NEF file for posterity, the idea being that we can develop the negative ourselves while retaining the original. Unfortunately a succession of editors has come along and, seeing that the queen has an orange-looking face, made multiple edits to try to fix the colour, increase the brightness and such. I strongly suspect that they have used brightness/contrast adjustment (or curves adjustments), which is a layer-by-layer process, and the repeated saving and re-uploading has also caused generation loss. Really, they're not even the right tools for the job to begin with. By using Adobe Camera Raw with the latest upload I was able to increase the exposure (which uses a different algorithm than increasing brightness) and reduce the saturation, as well as avoiding increasing SNR by carefully applying noise reduction, all in a single edit, so there isn't even any of the ever-so-slight corruption of the original data that you get when making layer-by-layer edits. The practical upshot being that the image produced is a faithful reproduction of what the camera would have captured using normal ISO and saturation if only the queen stood absolutely motionless for long enough.
I'm not sure what else to say really, other than trust me, I know what I'm doing, but Wikipedia is all about consensus so here we are. I hope this information is helpful to anyone reading it, and I apologise if I'm waffling a bit but I hope that answers anyone's concerns and we can just put it to a !vote now. Please bear in mind though that Strongly votes carry no more weight than simply adding Support or Oppose. If you have any strong concerns then we should discuss them. nagualdesign 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Per User:Jak525's suggestion of using a new image altogether, how do users feel about this one? I temporarily changed the infobox image so that people can see how it looks in context. Firebrace (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
How about this one? Granted, it is already used down the page. But I don't see anything wrong about taking the lead image from the body. It is a fairly clear image and a faithful reproduction of Her Majesty. That being said, I think there's nothing wrong with the proposed image. The current image is full of distortion. AdA&D ★ 04:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.