Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation2.jpg

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

File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 09:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gatineau, Canada: Museum of Civilisation
  •  Comment --Pretty nice but no color profile embedded (sRGB, AdobeRGB?) and the barrel distortion from the lens, too much visible at the left, could have been corrected. Sting (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open the image in an editor and attribute a sRGB profile, then attribute (and not convert) an AdobeRGB one and you will understand why it is important to embed one, even if it may not be stated in the FPC Guidelines (I didn't check), because the colors aren't the same. This, of course, if you care about how people will look at your picture... And if there's no lens distortion I don't understand why the left column is curved. Sting (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seem to be a missunderstanding. I know that a color profil is, no need for private lessons. My question targeted on why you are thinking that here is s.th. wrong with the colors. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know what a color profile is then you know its importance for the display and printing of a photograph and you know too that when an image comes out from your camera it comes in a color space, usually sRGB or Adobe RGB, depending on your camera and settings. If you take a same picture one in a sRGB space and another in an Adobe RGB space, take out the exif data (and so the color profile information) like in yours, open them in Firefox for example and you should notice that the colors displayed are different. EDIT: Which is the good one? We cannot know as we don't know the original profile. It's illustrated in J. Friedl's page, first row of buttons. What if a visitor wants to print your image? He brings the file to a photo labo (because the image is larger than his A4 printer) and if that labo is serious it will ask for the color space. Embarrassing. But, as you wrote, you know all of this. Sorry for trying to explain my first comment. Sting (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, here we get stuck. You did not answer my question for second time. No necessary to go ahead with the discussion. This picture is shot by three single shots and fused by HDR-algorithm together. Therefore you can also not find an EXIF or further informations. I have not set the lights artificial but, they are similar to the natural impression. I see no reason to add the color profil and there is furthermore no need for that. Feel free to oppose the picture. Have a nice day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was following that topic because I feel concerned : Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? And been disappointed because it didn't show up the way you intended to ? I believe there's nothing wrong with the colours of the picture, and I understand neither does Sting, but rather with the colours consistency it might not present to the viewer. But the colours I see might not even be the ones you wanted to show. Small detail for you it seems, but maybe not to people who work in graphic or printing. If we want common to be seen as serious, it's natural our featured pics are faultless from a technical point of view. I think like Sting that a color profile should be embedded in every FP (I should review my own...). - Benh (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? No, never, and I had developed some of my pictures even in a very large scale. For the rest: I don´t agree. It is not the first time and surly will not be the last time that we have not the same opinion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't talk about opinion here, but about technical facts : if your pictures don't show up the way you intended to, how could anyone review them ? Sometime, I work on WB, or to add a little touch of blue cast or anything else, and I'm not happy to see this ruined because some other viewer don't see what I spent time to show, because of missing colour profile, non calibered screen... In short : no one can faithfully review this picture in its current state. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to explain why there's a need for a color space information in an image. If that wasn't your question I don't know what it was regarding your first comment. You may not accept or see the need of the color profile but I think I've answered to this point, even if you're not convinced. “I look pictures with my eyes and not with an image processing software”: and what does display the image? Your computer has settings which show you the image as you want it to be, but what about mine which has for sure different settings, and what about all the visitors, each one with different settings? An embedded color profile allows everyone to see your image with Firefox (for example, as it handles color management) as YOU see it. Many thanks Benh for these explanations, for sure much clearer as mine (unfortunately it seems not sufficient). And no, I never wrote there's something wrong with the colors; I simply don't know which ones they should be. You're right: there's no need for further discussion. Have a nice day too. Sting (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Without the need for color profile, exif information, pixel count, white balance, ca, micro tilt, dead pixel under the bushes, a little noise, etc., etc. A good picture is a good picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, sure... we see so many “good” pictures promoted here with stitching errors in panoramas, white balance off, heavy CA, over-sharpened showing bright fringes, architectural subjects with distortions, etc. I'd like to remember there's also a QI page. People don't have the same perception of quality, even with the guidelines. I only think it's a pity for all those other pictures, almost perfect at least technically, being placed at the same level as the first ones. May be we should create an Outstanding Pictures Candidates page? Just kidding. Sting (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'm sorry to see the bad faith some have concerning the comments of Benh and Sting. I think their comments are very helpful and understandable. Reading the comments was really eye-opening for me at least. It is not something I have ever thought of before - that even with a calibrated monitor what look good one place may not look right the other due to the displaying client having to guess what was the intention concerning the colors. Please understand that they are not trying to say that the colors are off, but that there is no consistent way for a browser to show the image with the intended colors from the creator without the embedded color profile. However, requiring a color profile is not something we have in the FPC guidelines today, but maybe we should.... --Slaunger (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)`[reply]
  •  Comment If you refer to my comments, no bad faith here, just a sarcastic comment on the ways pictures are evaluated in FPC, which is more as a result of personal taste and often irrelevant technical issues that have absolutely nothing to do with photography as a whole, not to mention good old cronism. For FPC in Wikipedia, considering its stature in the cyber world, the amount of good, solid photographers out there, pros and amateurs alike, the statistical amount of good photogrpahy is just not in tune with the possibilities out there, ever wonder why? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- Agree with Slaunger (no need for a small type...). At first I didn't understand Sting and Benhr's comments, but because I respect and trust their opinion, I waited for some light to shed. I'm still not sure what we should do about it because I don't know how seriously the lack of a color profile can affect an image in a monitor or printing. But there is no doubt in my mind that the requirement to have one (if aproved) should be extended to QI and VI (at least). Thoughts? Should we open a thread about this issue? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because a color is not only defined by its RGB values but also by the color space in which it should be displayed.
To show one more example of the problem of an image without color profile, I created a map under the Adobe RGB color space, saved it then converted it under the smaller sRGB color space, preparing it for the Web, and saved it under an other name. This is also the common process for photographs taken with most of the single-lens reflex cameras for photographers looking for quality and shooting in Raw.
I then deleted the color profile of both maps and uploaded them on WP. Open the following images in new windows and compare them:
The difference is striking, even more if you have a wide gamut/good quality monitor. Which of them displays the correct colors? That's the problem here. And if you see very little difference... well... you must have a very low-end monitor and I must agree in this case (only!) with the amazing points 1 and 2 stated by Niabot below!
Now download these images on your computer and open them with Gimp, telling the software the first is an Adobe RGB one and the second a sRGB. What do you see? The colors of both images match! That's because I told you what was the original color space.
And what if I didn't tell you like in the case of the FP candidate here? You can only guess what I see. And you may be wrong.
For curiosity and comparison you can see that map with the Adobe RGB color profile embedded and with the sRGB profile embedded: they should be equal in your Web browser. Q.E.D. Sting (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are wrong. Color profiles describe a mapping between sRGB and something else. But you will loose quality if you use 24 bit formats with other colorspaces as sRGB, when they are converted to sRGB for display. Read the whole story behind this: User talk:Benh#Colorspace_and_profiles -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we mention calibrated screens in the guidelines, I think it would be fine to mention color profiles as well. Opening a thread could be a good idea ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is no need for a color profile if the image is in sRGB. This is the default for all applications that don't support colorprofiles or if an image does not contain a color profile.
  2. Colorprofiles for 8 bit per Channel are bullshit. I don't even know why colorprofiles are embeded inside images with 8 bit per channel. Any software that converts between this colorspaces for display on a screen with 8 bit per channel itself is just stupid. You loose a big portion of possible colors, with even worse results.
  3. Images without any distortion at wide angles are unrealistic.
  4. Nice and sharp image with good colors
-- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (will certainly change after some explanations by Niabot) You seem to got some points here (I wasn't aware of the issues you mention) but:
  1. What about if the colorspace of the image is actually adobe RGB or something else, and this wasn't recorded in metadata, and the browser reads it as sRGB ?
  2. Can you explain your issue 2. ? you can use my talk page if you don't want to clutter this nom, or stay here if you want to share.
  3. You issue 3 is not quite right. I believe Image without distortions are more realistic, can you prove me wrong ? - Benh (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentVery notable that Benh said he can not review this picture without color profil but suddenly he can when Niabot supports this picture. But it was clearly before that Benh appear at my candidates not for giving objective reviews. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laisse tomber Benh, le premier a appelé le deuxième au secours. C'est devenu plus que jamais un dialogue de sourds. Bonne soirée malgré tout. Sting (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oui, j'arrête après mon dernier commentaire plus bas. Je pensais avoir loupé un truc (j'aurais reconnu mon erreur), mais apparemment, non. Bonne journée ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very notable you still like to troll on the reviewers behaviour instead of the facts about the pics themselves. Anyways, I thank Niabot for his explanations on my talk page. That still doesn't change what we said so I believe my issues 1 still stand. Since software read any value as sRGB when it doesn't find a color profile embedded, if these value were actually AdobeRGB (or anything else), it will render wrong. So I oppose on basis that this pic cannot be reviewed. I'd also like to mention that even with colour profile, it's likely you won't achieve accuracy. A color profile ensures only consistency in properly setup devices. I think I'll stop here on that topic ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the issue? Are you opposing because you want all QI/FP images to embed a color profile even when they are created in sRGB colorspace? sRGB is default colorspace. Specifying a colorspace because it might not be sRGB seems a little idiotic here. Will you oppose a nomination because the aRGB color profile might have been used by error on an image and that you cannot verify or trust the user who did the job here? Esby (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, It's likely that image is sRGB, and is understood by my soft as sRGB. But what I mean is that there's a possibility that it was something else (like aRGB) and that the color profil was removed during the expo blending process, and the output still had aRGB but is read as sRGB by my soft, since it's the default mode. Niabot mentions on my talk page that the blending soft automatically converts to sRGB (I'm looking for evidence of that for enfuse, the one I use), so that picture would be fine. To summarize, I still have no proof that the colors I see are what Wladyslaw wanted to show (even though I suspect it's fine). In the end, it's easier for everyone that the picture has a color profile, this would give no room for chance or unconsistency. And avoid these endless talks... - Benh (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general you are right. But each image displays a new side of this interesting building; it is not ascertainable with just one image. I know examples of FP from the same object of the same angle at nearly the same time photographed by the same user; I guess this nomination is far away from that. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment --Wow!! Niabot, you're really amazing! You might be a “master” in theory but you're not worth the practical cases. You're assuming all people looking your images are using low end monitors, IE9 or Safari or FF with the color management mode value set to “1”! For those ones I agree with you, they won't see much difference. But what about all the others? Those using monitors of a little better quality with better color capabilities, much more common nowadays, those using earlier versions of IE or using FF in its standard setting because they don't even know the existence of that configuration page (and don't care about)?!? And what about those wanting to print your images? How will the printer handle those files? They're simply out of your target of visitors? And what for all of this? Gaining some kb on the file weight while it is already 2.48MB heavy?!? Well, that is a stupid approach (using your word)! If the image here had its color profile embedded I would have been able to see it strait ahead with the correct colors, instead of this I saw it over-saturated in FF with standard settings on my wide gamut monitor and Adobe RGB workspace. And there's no need of color profile? Stunning.
And what about the distortions as you were responding to my comment? Numerous great painters studying for centuries the perspective problem, all this wiped out by you in a few words?! Because I never never saw a perspective line going curved on a painting, neither in reality. And I don't think that curved column at the left is showing reality because we're not in a panorama or fish-eye case. Amazing again!
So many people putting their images here are much more concerned about getting the label than trying to set their images to a high quality level, sometimes with further improvements, because they are so sure of their perfection, even sometimes for cellphone-like snapshots. Each comment or what wants to be a constructive critic is considered as an attack rather than opening a way to improvement. What a selfish behavior. I don't think Commons and this label deserve this. That auto-satisfaction will give substance to those who are laughing through the Web about the inconsistency of the quality here, burying the really high quality images under the mass of mediocre ones. But keep going on, for my concern this page is all yours, you and your partner Wladyslaw, as the law of the strongest is on the side of the one demonstrating more stubbornness, even if it's not constructive for the project. Sting (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what to say to those words. But you make some big mistakes in your assumptions. Images that are using sRGB are quite as good as others in LDR format. You think a color profile increases quality when you still only have 224 possible colors? Clearly it doesn't. Even worse, that this color profiles only work on linear sources. As soon you use tonemapping (conversion from HDR to LDR) the color profile is obsolete anyways. Programms are suggested to ignore the profile in further steps, producing sRGB as the default. I might ask why your "super system" isn't able to display sRGB as it is? That might be a bug or wrong configuration on your side. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're attributing to me affirmations I never made or thought. I would just like to remember, for clarification, that FF in its standard settings doesn't manage untagged images. Sting (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then all we would need to do is to add an sRGB profile to the image and anything should be fine. I really don't see the problem. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see as not being a problem? Sting (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it sounds like we are nailing ants with WMD. Let me explain. Who know color profiles? All the average commons re-users? No, only those who are dealing in printing should actually be caring. Will this kind of users be able to differenciate color issues linked to the profile? Probably yes. Will he be able to calibrate his screen correctly? Yes. Will he be able calibrate his printers correctly? we can mostly assume yes. Will he be able to determine if the current image needs to be tweaked/ changed for his needs (which might be differents than our needs)? I assume we can. Esby (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have specifyed the description of the image. On this picture File:Gatineau - QC - Canadian Museum of Civilization8.jpg you can see the plaza from which I have made this shot. If you want I can add also the camera position as geocode. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I asked for. I meant the exact angle of the lens (FoV) that was used for making the images that were later fused. It is present in the original exifs of each file. Esby (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding. If I have used the focal length of 10 mm (with I guess but I have to look it up to acknowledge) then the FoV seems to be 102,4° (referred to the technical data sheet of my lens) --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here how it would look on the basis the columns are to be straigth (correction made with hugin). Esby (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
look good but for my eyes it seems to fall a bit on the left side, mathematical accuracy is not every time best choice --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically I don't know which version should be the proper one and I mostly don't care. Some people might agree on one and not another one, some might not agree on any of the both, some will agree on both versions. There are also a few parts I was forced to remove due to the distorsion correction of hugin, Imo, The question someone seeing the photography should ask himself/herself: Is the column in the right vertical? Are the columns to the left vertical? Is this kind of tilt / distorsion acceptable or not? Not to mention that any image will still be distorded because you can't map a 105° angle on a plane without having some distorsion visible at some point: you'll always find some bended lines when they should not be if there was no distorsion, This is because you cannot map a sphere (or some big part of it) on a plane without inducting distorsion. Esby (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Gatineau_-_QC_-_Museum_of_Civilisation2.jpg&oldid=54993642"