Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Featured picture candidates.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
candidate list

FP galleries and TOC

• Hello, when I made {{FPGHeader}}, used in FP galleries, I included a table of content within a scrollbox in the upper left of each page. However I just noticed that this is not supported by the Vector 2022 skin (because this skin already includes automatically a table of content), and for who is using this skin the result is an empty box in the upper left.

Questions:

1. Does anyone has the skills to write a code for the template in the purpose to detect the skin used, and then, in case of Vector 2022 the scrollbox is not displayed (to avoid an empty box)?
2. If no, do we keep the statu quo, i.e. we do nothing and the users using the Vector 2022 skin have an empty box in the upper left of the galleries?
3. If no:
   1. We use a table of content __TOC__ without scroll box. The result will be the empty box will disappears for the users using the Vector 2022 skin, however for every one else there will be a table of content which in some case will be very long, this is why I used a scroll box, e.g. for Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds you will have near the top of the gallery a table of content with 75 lines.
   2. We do note use anymore table of content neither scrollbox.
   3. Someone reading this has another good idea.

Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Christian, thank you for mentioning this problem! I have noticed it, too, and searched for a solution. But I did not find a satisfying one, so I did not make any changes … IMHO the TOC is quite useful on the FP gallery pages (I often look at the TOCs to understand the sections hierarchy of a particular gallery page, also to spot errors), so we should not remove the TOC. The perfect solution would be be to hide the scrollbox when the Vector 2022 skin is used. But I can’t help here, for me skins like Vector 2022 are so complex that I don’t want to mess with them. So I hope somebody else can help here … Until that, I would suggest to keep the status quo. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Germany and the US - galleries

Nope, nothing new or controversial, just a lot of talented and active photographers in those countries. Congratulations, you have both become the first countries to break out of a non-Natural gallery page. There are now two dedicated pages:

• Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany
• Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes/United States

Could I please ask some natives from these places to check the new pages? There is always some risk that a file or two is placed in the wrong section, or perhaps you would like to do some other/further sorting on the page. Please also check the icons for the new pages on Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany and Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States. If you like some other image to represent your countries, just change them. --Cart (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Funny, much more FP's from the town of Münster rather than from all East German states together except (East-)Berlin. --A.Savin 19:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Nevermind, it's only about Architecture/Exteriors. --A.Savin 19:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cart, for creating all the new gallery pages! I have taken a quick look at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors/Germany and everything seems fine. I just found two additional FPs of building exteriors in Germany and added them. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Germany did it again

Congratulations Germany, you did it again! Thanks to all talented photographers, your 'Castles and fortifications' section broke out of the gallery page and you now have a page of your own. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications/Germany. Again, I would be grateful if a native could check the page and see what mistakes I might have made, or if you want to sort things further/differently. If you want another image to represent you on Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany, please change it. I selected that one because I think it looks good as a miniature and it has many of the elements of German castles in the image. Just keep adding to the page! Best, --Cart (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks a lot for making the space for more German castles and fortifications! :D I did a quick first glance at the page and didn't find any mistakes, but I might have missed something, especially for those states where I am not familiar with most of the objects. One thing I noticed - and which has nothing to do with your good work - is that we have 5 FIs of Schloß Neuschwanstein taken from the same viewpoint. Now I have my own issues about this castle representing Germany in so many places, but even not regarding this, I think we might reduce the number of FIs for this subject a bit. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Kritzolina (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about that. This is not the only structure with many FPs, we also have the Golden Gate bridge, Tower Bridge, Berliner Fernsehturm and the Eiffel tower. Having several good photos of the same subject can be useful for comparison issues like weather, ecology, monument maintenance, cameras, time of day, image processing, whatever. But I am curious about what new angles of the Neuschwanstein might be discovered now that we have drones, and aren't depending so much on places to place a tripod. --Cart (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right about the weather conditions, monument maintenance and ecology aspects, I did not think of those ... you are right about all the other things as well of course, but they don't convince me as much. Thanks for making me think beyond my Anti-Neuschwanstein-bias! Kritzolina (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed a link to the gallery. Otherwise I can't find any error. Thank you, Cart! --XRay 💬 10:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Resizing images

The guidelines (for QI and FP) state that Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Now that cameras (and particularly smartphones) can produce huge images, this rule should probably be modified. What about
1. Images that are larger than 4000 pixels (on the shorter side) should be uploaded at maximum resolution, but can then be overwritten by a smaller file with a minimum of 4000 pixels (on the shorter side).
2. Images less than 4000 pixels (on the shorter side) should not be downsized/downsampled. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the problem with uploading a large image? --Wilfredor (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a problem, Wilfredo, thougn huge images are difficult to view. This current FP nomination has been downsized and breaks the rules. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with Charles’ proposal. I prefer people to provide their photos at the highest available resolution, but if people want to scale them down this may be tolerated for photos over a certain minimum size; 4000 pixels on the shorter side would be a sensible lower limit.

Maybe it would be even better if we would continue to require people to upload their photos at full size, but would consider the resolution when reviewing photos for QI and FP – e.g., all in-focus areas of photos with < 12 megapixels should normally be pin-sharp on pixel level [with some exceptions for very difficult action or wildlife shots], in photos < 24 megapixels the in-focus areas should be very sharp, and in photos > 24 megapixels some concessions regarding sharpness are appropriate, even more in photos > 40 megapixels. This could be implemented by applying the scale-down approach which is used by some photo equipment testers; e.g. by saying that the sharpness of every photo should be evaluated at a copy which has been downscaled to some normalized size, e.g. 12 megapixels. … But having said this, I understand that implementing an approach like this one may lead to endless discussions, therefore it may be more realistic for now to allow the exception proposed by Charles. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of a modern smartphone

I'm sure this has already been discussed before, but I couldn't find a clear answer for this on the page about creating a nomination, so I'm asking here. Is it an instant failure if a FP nominee is taken using a modern smartphone? I would love to nominate my File:Bowl of Pigs in a Blanket.jpg image which I took using an Iphone 14, but I've never done a FP nomination before, and I'm wondering if an Iphone has enough technical merit to be elligable a FP. I've read the criteria, but I'm still a little ignorant on this topic, so any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks! Johnson524 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you nominate your pictures to quality images first. If they pass there, and are exceptional in some way, why not? The lower quality compared to a camera could be compensated by other factors. Regarding the picture you linked above, this would fail because of the composition regardless of the quality. For a FP of such a subject, you need a clean background. Yann (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Yann, and thanks for the helpful reply! If I were to digitally alter the background to a different color, or to a transparent background, would that improve the image quality? I'm still personally skeptical if the image above could ever be an FP, but I want my contributions to Commons to be well-made if possible, and if one of these things could help, I would be happy to do it. Do you have a preference, or would it be better to just keep the image as-is? Thanks! (this is my last comment btw, I don't want to take up too much of your time 🙂) Johnson524 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

There is certainly a preference among FPC regulars against altered backgrounds, so I certainly wouldn't recommend that if FP is the goal. Featured Pictures need technical quality and a "wow factor", which is subjective. An ordinary subject -- and one which the photographer has full control over, unlike a performance or a wild animal -- will struggle with that wow unless it's extraordinarily high technical quality, extraordinarily good composition, extraordinarily interesting setting, etc. Unfortunately, being taken with a smartphone, while not disqualifying, starts off at below average image quality (visible at full resolution). As for the technical photography side, I think the marble background is less of an issue than the tightly cropped bowl. It really needs some space around it. You can take a look at what photos of food have been featured in the past for an idea of what's expected: Category:Featured pictures of food. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Oof, I was under the impression a tightly cropped background would look better 😅 Anyways, you reply was very helpful, thank you! Johnson524 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

My two cents on this image:

a) The lighting is good and attractive. You did well with that.

b) The composition is good. It's nice to see them from all different angles.

c) The marble background is IMO fine. No issue with a nice clean marble worksurface.

d) The crop is way too tight, let it breathe. This picture is an example of it done well IMO.

e) The image quality is okay but not great as you'd expect from a phone camera. But it's the pixel-level detail that's the problem too. The image is only eight megapixels which is pretty small for a 2023 FP of a pretty easily reproducible subject (i.e. one that isn't moving). If the quality at pixel level were like this at 20 megapixels it'd be fine but not for 8.

For all these reasons, it would be a weak oppose from me if nominated. But there's a lot of good things about this photo. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cmao20: Thank you as well for the in-depth feedback! I'll keep this in mind for future photos and nominations. Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)