Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Urraca (Pica pica), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, España, 2021-12-19, DD 20.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates
edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 23:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Tagooty 7 MB small? how do you come to this conclusion? the bokeh makes 2/3 of the image and there is no detail there. Those things are decisive for the file size. I do restrict the file size to 12 MB, not the quality and this image is far below 12 MB. I tested this topic intensively with my camera and had this discussion on Commons before. I spent some time to check the topic with my camera files. The same applies to others (the threshold could though vary), when I see a 30 MB file out of a 24 MPx camera I just shake my head Poco a poco (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going by my observations of 15-20 MB for 24 MP images from Nikon D7200 and Sony A7C. Granted large uniform areas will reduce size. Tagooty (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Processing sofware can change MB. Topaz Denoise typically increases file size though, as Poco says, aggressive denoise of the background will cut MB dramatically. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I bet this has already been discussed here, but there's no discernible quality increase when using very low JPEG compression settings ([1]). Standardising compression settings could save a ton of money that the Wikimedia Foundation could use elsewhere? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting point. I saved an FP quality out-of-camera JPG image (4.62MB) as Photoshop CS6 quality Medium 6 (12 is best) and you can hardly tell the difference (new size 699MB). It would still be FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons is an archive and so disc space isn't really a problem compared to preserving the image. When Wikipedia serves up a thumbnail (i.e. anything downsized) it delivers a highly compressed version over the internet. That said, using 100% Lightroom (or 12/12 Photoshop) is pointless and better to choose 90% (11/12). Going lower can sometimes fail to capture fine detail, not that this image has any. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also quite perplexed that after so many years people like me still contribute with dedication (not to mention time and money) to this project in spite of users like Colin, wo invest most of their time not in contributing but in attacking, being rude and in fact insulting. When I read messages with that package I cannot even look into the content. If I had a company and would treat my employees like this, I'm be alone latest after one week. Poco a poco (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poco, you are welcome to contribute images to Commons with dedication, time and money. You can do that without nominating images at FPC and making personal attacks when they get criticised. Really, if you are a delicate soul, then stop nominating, and keep happy contributing your images. But whenever any one of us nominates our own images at FPC we are arrogantly declaring "Look what I created! Isn't it just among the very finest there is on Commons! I offer it here for your admiration and glowing support. Please feed my ego!" Poco, seriously, this photo is what I'd send to Canon with a warranty claim for lens defects. If you don't like reading negative reviews, and want uncritical praise, show your photos to your mum or your wife, whatever. But if you nominate a blurry noisy glare-filled boring static image of a common-as-dirt magpie staring at the ground, then I'll call it out. Meh. I wouldn't even upload this, never mind boast to the world that it is "among the finest on Commons" and get all cry-baby when someone says it isn't. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are totally wrong, and anyone who knows me would confirm that. I can bear criticism, I don't feel need to show my pics to my mum to confirm myself. The problem is the way you treat people here and that "scent" of arrogance in all your comments. After all these years, please, don't pretend that your judgement is fair after you see who is the author. The ugly packaging of your comments along with your attacks and biased voting result in steril reviews in my eyes. Poco a poco (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm mostly a big fan of the angle, the colors and the posture of the bird, which might have led me to overlook some imperfections in the file. Yes, the sharpness is not as good as it could be, but I also feel like quite a few people underestimate how hard these birds are to get well on picture too. --Alexis Lours (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to judge the finest on Commons, not give stars out of sympathy. We have better bird-in-flight photos than this soft noisy on-the-ground picture of an extremely common bird, so I don't really buy any excuse that this was difficult to get right. Aside from the excellent JJ Harrison's work, take yourself off to Category:Featured pictures by Rhododendrites and examine crisp, detailed high resolution photos with engagine composition and good light. That's someone who only took up photography recently and is using a m43 camera, not some top-of-the-range full frame. It is this sort of "easy pass for the regulars" FPC that discredits the whole process. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a poor image, but one reason why Poco a poco is so upset is because of the inflammatory reviews by Colin. Colin winds us up by belittling our work. He frequently votes oppose, but virtually never supports. Can I suggest Poco a poco that you come over to England and visit the Tower of London. Why not photograph a couple of ravens so you can challenge for POTY. Put the wrong lens on your camera so you have to crop the image. Choose F7.1/ISO 100 to make sure that one bird is way out of focus. Move your point of view so that you achieve a really disturbing background then take your snap. If you win, you will earn the right to pontificate on the art of wildlife photogrpahy for years to come. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those confused by the Tower of London reference, Charles is referring to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odin and Thor, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30a.jpg, an image of mine from five years ago that both Poco a Poco and Charles opposed. It went on to win first place in Commons:Picture of the Year/2016, a shock that it seems Charles hasn't recovered from. What a sense of entitlement demonstrated here: How dare someone who won POTY with a funny tourist snapshot criticise us? Charles, you say "this is a poor image", and you are an experienced wildlife photographer, so it is kinda weird that you then just make a personal attack on me in order to discredit my judgement that you agree with. But this "poor photo" currently has 12 support and 4 oppose so is well on its way to featured status. Which really is taking a big dump on all the genuinely excellent featured wildlife photos. That's what stinks here. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit that I'm sometimes confused with Charles reviews, leaving comments but not reacting to improvements on the images. Still ok to me because Charles is a tough reviewer overall and consistent with his feedback. I do accept his criticisms and try to improve the image based on them as he articulates it in a manner I can understand and accept them. This is the same for all over reviewers here, and ther are many, but Colin is the big exception. Along with a review he always feels the need, specially when it comes to my noms, to try to discredit me and my work. Be tough in criticism if you like, that's your good right, but be fair and respectful to fellow Commoners. That's all I ask for and I didn't receive for many years now. --Poco a poco (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, all you ask for is that people support your photos so your ego gets a boost. Do you think nobody has noticed? -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking away and changing the topic is the easiest way to ignore your problem. Keep being rude as you have always been. I was really happy to get my first FPs prometed a bunch of years ago, agree, but approaching 800 FPs now that excitement is gone. And still I'd like to celebrate someday the 1,000 FPs with you (or rather in spite of you) here on Commons. --Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the thing right there. You want 1000 FPs and think I'm here to spite that. It doesn't enter your head to think what you are doing to help others get their FPs or how much work other people have to invest of their time for you to get there. Poco a poco, do you have any idea how many of your FPs I've commented on, where you have improved the image as a result, and achieved not only an FP but a better photograph as a result? No, you really don't. Wilfredor complains when I don't give him negative reviews, as that's how he sees him becoming better as a photographer. If you take a photo of a fossil in rubbish lighting or are sloppy in your focus stacked editing, which is better? That you churn out another 20 meh FPs with uncritical support, or that you go read a book on lighting, or work harder on your photoshoping and stacking technique? When you nominated that 3MP blurry shark photo, do you think it was better that nobody said anything and we had a crap FP, or that you uploaded/inserted a much better image instead. This isn't primary school where teacher's job is to encourage your infant brain with praise. I did a quick search of our nominations that I collected back when I collected stats recently. You have reviewed precisely 17 of my featured picture nominations, and I've reviewed over 174 of yours. Of those, I can see 76 oppose and 65 support, the rest comments or neutral. That's a 43% oppose rate and your overall failure rate at FPC is 40%. So I'm not actually out of step with the community. Bet that surprised you. I have reviewed 10 times as many of your images than you have of mine, and supported at least 65 of them. Yet in all that work, which I and hundreds of others have put in to helping you get your featured pictures, you write like I'm personally here to prevent you getting any. Could your comments be more ungrateful and entitled? -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to you is like talking to a wall. Surely I can improve a picture or any skills if I get constructive criticism, from you and from many others but when you cover your criticism with attacks and disrespectul comments I don't care to understand when you say. In your case the effect is the opposite. You discourage me to upload images, improve them or even take my camera and go out, but who cares. Bye. Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, looking at the EXIF, you've used a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM along with a 2x extender. That's a lens introduced in 1997, the era of film, coupled with a 2x extender which is widely known to degrade image quality, mounted onto a modern camera with one of the most demanding sensors ever made. This antique is not going to produce acceptable results in 2022, and explains why I reckon you've got about 2MP of detail that just looks a hazy glary mess at 30MP. We have much much more detailed 6MP images at FP and the quality of bird compositions has improved in recent years too. What is continually frustrating, is that reviewers who actually bother to judge the image properly, and compare it to our existing FPs and repository, and who dare to oppose because it is quite frankly a dreadfully bad quality bird photo, get personal attacks and childish blackmail. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very balanced voting record, Colin. Perhaps I too only remember your opposes, not your supports. Do you have the same type of voting stats for my FP noms (and my voting on yours), please? It would be good to stop fighting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Urraca_(Pica_pica),_Almuradiel,_Ciudad_Real,_España,_2021-12-19,_DD_20.jpg&oldid=760913842"