Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.10.15.-23-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Blattwespe-Euura salicis-Larve.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2020 at 21:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
- Info
I upscaled this picture by a factor of 1.5x.All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC) - Support -- Hockei (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Great photo, but I'd like an opinion on whether it's OK to enlarge photos for FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Upscaled images have been a no-no at FPC as long as I've been here. There is nothing gained quality-wise by upscaling an image; the only thing that happens is that a too small image becomes technically eligible for FPC. --Cart (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed there is no rule that says that upscaling a picture is not allowed (Digital manipulations). If you want to introduce this rule, discuss it beforehand in the talk page. Before you technically assess the image, first compare it with the original version that still has 3.5 MP. It's not just scaled up. And what is bad, when a picture is upscaled a bit so that you can look at it better? The result is decisive. Last but not least, I didn't hide this "manipulation", so long as it is a manipulation at all. --Hockei (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Even if the no to upscaling is more of a practice than a written rule, it serves no purpose for the image quality. There are plenty of things that we object to here that are not written in the rules. You don't need to write down everything if common sense is used. As for looking at the picture, with today's computers and monitors, you can crank up the magnification as far as you like. Better to keep the images in their original size. --Cart (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
OpposeFor me upscaling should always be done client-side if wanted, because uploading an upscaled image to Commons is really just adding file size without adding any extra information or quality. This is a good photo and a good QI but I'm not sure it has enough real detail to be an FP, we have sharper photos at this resolution. This said, I do appreciate you were honest and open about the fact that it's upscaled. And no, it isn't a written rule, but I can't really think of a reason why it's ever worth it. Cmao20 (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)- Oppose
per upscaling and arguing "there is no rule".Please don't do that: you can't require all possible reasons for opposing be pre-codified in rules. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I forgot to say. Then it's an opinion that doesn't entitled to pretend this it's a rule. --Hockei (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comparing Category:Insect larvae FPs, I see most modern images are 13MP+ and have superior subject isolation and more typical setting. Unlike the flying versions, these are relatively easy to approach in order to fill the frame with the bug. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I really cannot confirm what you say about the quality of the pictures in this category that are comparable with my picture. But anyway, thank you so much for changing of your reason for your vote against. --Hockei (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Info So then, @Colin, Cmao20, and Ikan Kekek: I've set it back to the original version even if I don't share your opinion, at least partially . And Cart, I always use my common sense. My monitor has a resolution of 3,840x2,160 pixels. And I compared both versions exactly. Nothing in the scaled version got lost it's even better. --Hockei (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose A nice image that could have been, but in 2020 we really should have higher resolution images to call them FPs, especially when the camera is capable of 20Mpx. I'm not in favour of changing the original resolution of an image either, so that won't help. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- But the insect was small and in hectic movement. Also I couldn't get nearer for this picture because of the tree trunk. --Hockei (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Info I uploaded the upscaled version under a different name. --Hockei (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Colin and Cmao20: Would you be so kind and change your reason for your rejection in a valid reason or remove it? It is meanwhile invalid because it no longer applies. Thanks in advance. --Hockei (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral at least. It's better than the upscaled version but I'm still not sure it has enough pixel-level detail at this resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)