Commons:Deletion requests/File:Israel's Genocidal Assault on the Gaza Ghetto (53289186330).jpg

File:Israel's Genocidal Assault on the Gaza Ghetto (53289186330).jpg

We've been through this before, and I wasted far too much of my own valuable time editing descriptions like this, so I'm not doing it this time: either someone needs to edit down the near-manifesto that accompanies this in the guise of a description, or this needs to be deleted outright. Also, and independently: this does not look to me like the normal outcome of any photograhic process I'm familiar with. If this is a highly retouched photograph, it should say so. If it is AI-generated from the outset, then it is almost certainly out of scope. Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep At first look, the photo has EXIFs from a Sony ILCE-7RM4 camera, and some other photos from that Flickr sream are taken with the same camera, e.g. [1]. Some others are taken with a Fujifilm X-S10. It is common for photographers to have several cameras. So if the only issue is the potential overprocessing, we should AGF regarding a hypothetical use of AI. Digital post-processing in photography may lead to an infinity of results, some successful and some much less. For this photo one may imagine that the RAW file was of poor quality, but with a high eye catching effect, and that the person who edited it chose a very advanced (?too much?) post-processing to compensate the potential lacks of quality of the RAW file. Anyway AGF without more evidence. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Furthermore in the Flickr page somewere near the top of the text, there is written "On 26 October 2023, five days after this photograph was taken...". Even if badly processed we have plenty and plenty of images with much poorer quality than in this photo, which is more than acceptable at low resolution. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep This file needs a warning that it was heavily retouched probably with the help of AI, and the description should be trimmed and external links should be removed. Otherwise I don't see any reason to delete the file itself. Yann (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep but rename to a more objective name. GPSLeo (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
• I see User:Strakhov took a chainsaw to the description, which is fine; I'd been more careful trying to extract useful information from this person's descriptions in the past, but was not willing to sort through this wall of text. I'll add {{Retouched}}. If someone can propose an appropriate rename, good. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
•  Keep. I have the feeling more and more types of retouching are being blamed too quickly on AI nowadays. To me the photo looks just selectively desaturated (mostly in the blue channel?). Additionally, considering Commons:File_renaming#cite_note-5, I don't think renaming based on objectivity would fly here on Commons. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)