Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 09:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  Comment I don't agree with you. The photographer isn't obliged to upload the biggest picture what the camera can do. This picture really is large enough. --Hockei (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say anything against the upload of high resolution files ? Exactly the opposite -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand what you wrote above? Downsizing a very big picture is an established practice here in the FP-fuss to make it appear in better quality (even if I never did that). I think it isn't a problem with this picture. That's all I want to say. --Hockei (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope "Downsizing a very big picture" is NOT "an established practice". But this file seems big enough to me. Charles (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment The guideline is a guide not an absolute rule, hence the name. And it says "should not be downsized", not "must not be downsized", so there is still some leniency for downsized photos and we have promoted a lot of such images in recent times. Some are even in the POTY finals now. We can strive to not downsize photos and frown upon heavily downsized nominations, but they are not 100% forbidden. If you want this to happen you can start a discussion (yet again) on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Good composition. But I don't see the focus on the head / eyes. It's more on the tail. --Hockei (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hockei, please do not use the {{n}} template since the FPC Bot can't read it. Use the {{neutral}} instead. I have corrected that for you. Yes, it is a very annoying but it's what it is right now. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't know that. --Hockei (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Not because of the downsizing, if there was any, but because if there was downsizing it didn't do the picture any favors, technically. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Commons:Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. Poco writes above: "Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go?". Prima donna photographers can go take a hike. We're here to take, upload and select the best images we can for Commons. Take criticism or ignore it, but don't make threats and sabotage. If you start "vandalising" your uploads out of some petty dispute at FPC or QI, and if FPC/QI is actually causing you to reduce the quality of your uploads, perhaps you should take a break from FPC/QI. You should be uploading your best images in best quality regardless of what anyone here thinks of them.
On the matter of downsizing, this is still a 20MP image from a 600mm lens. According to DxoMark this lens on a 5DSR only resolves about 18MP and with a 2x extender on it, that's only going to get worse. So perhaps 12MP, which would imply the sensor has double the linear resolution of the lens+extender. So I think it is reasonable if one's sensor is hugely out-resolving one's optics, that some downsizing of the result may be appropriate. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping, it is silly if we treat 12MP, 20MP, 36MP and 50MP cameras to the same 100dpi pixel peeping on our monitors. So, Basile I don't think your getting so upset about some relatively mild downsizing in a 20MP photo is helping the project. Every single one of Diliff's interior cathedral photos are downsized, often by 50%, but they are still detailed and high resolution and worthy of FP. I suspect the issues with this photo are that the focus isn't on the eye, and that at 1/400s the bird may have moved. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poco is trying to blame me for his personal choice to downsize pictures. "You already managed" he says, as if I was responsible for the deficiency of his camera. This disempowerment is unhealthy for two reasons : First, because everyone should take their actions. As you decide not to follow the recommendations, that's your own problem, not the neighbor's. When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator. Then, because this interpretation of my speech is absolutely wrong and misleading. My request is to keep the best resolution available (after upload), which means 50 Mpx would be perfect (though not mandatory so big). Poco is like saying "I cannot cook tasty carots because you don't let me waste my haricots". Pitiful nonsense. Good haricots should not be wasted is my humble opinion, but cooked carots can be tasty, too. Easy. We're free to vote here, to express a subjective opinion regarding a candidature through the standards and guidelines of the project. We can agree or disagree with a vote, but Poco turns the situation againt this freedom, insinuating my contribution is disrupting since I dare to follow the recommendations. Lol. As I said many times, if you want to discuss and change the rules, do it (here is the talk page). I may respect them too, afterwards.
Concerning the size of the file, I also agree with Daniel it didn't do the picture any favors, technically. The focus is on the wings, not on the head -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering your "I will upload fewer widlife images of encyclopaedic value to Wikipaedia projects if the QI theshold is increased. Is that what the community wants?" is a very similar threat to sabotage your uploads if you don't get your way, it sounds like you two are made for each other. -- Colin (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop the offensive 'prima donna', 'go take a hike', 'vandalising' and 'sabotage' language. Am I the only person who considers Colin's language and attitude threatening and offensive? Charles (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and Poco are the only ones here threatening to throw their toys out of the pram when they get upset. That is not the way to deal with criticism at FPC. We might not all agree on the "rules" or whether something is an FP or not, but once you start making threats to upload fewer images or to downsize them all out of spite, the only grown-up response is to ask you both to grow up or go play somewhere else. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Cormorán_africano_(Microcarbo_africanus),_parque_nacional_de_Chobe,_Botsuana,_2018-07-28,_DD_48.jpg&oldid=342392966"