Jump to content

Talk:Providence City Hall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images

[edit]
Original image
Image added by Beyond My Ken
  • (EC) BMK, he has a point. You're replacing a LOT of photos with ones you've taken that are, arguably, worse than the ones that currently exist (a simple zoom shows very blurry resolution in all of yours whereas the ones that are there beforehand are not). When you add in perspective distortion and overexposure, I have to say that the original pictures (the ones before you added your own) are indeed preferable. Many of these have a gallery. Why not add them there? It doesn't need to be the lead image. Let someone else add them if they think they'd be better.
Lastly, shoehorning your own photos to be the main photo in 5 articles about historical locations is a bit much and does seem to be a bit WP:OWNish. You are not just placing images in articles about Providence. You are making your photos the lead/primary photos in all of these. I think it's reasonable to challenge the placement and replacement of the existing photos.
Like I said, add them to the gallery. No reason they can't be on the page at all. Buffs (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we have a beef, it's from so long ago I have no idea what it was. If he has a "mega-dose of WP:OWNERSHIP concerning Providence articles" he's doing a piss-poor job of it. He has only 4 edits on here and two appear to be correcting typos. Below you basically agree that your photos are low-res, but instead of saying "ok, he has a point there", you double down and make the excuse "it's just an infobox photo; it doesn't need to be high-res" (paraphrased). Then you go about "banning" people from trying to discuss things offline and placing a slew of threats...? This is a quintessential example of a WP:battleground mentality and is inherently uncivil. Please stop. Buffs (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Again it's debatable. There are again some technical issues with BMK's but the light is more pleasant. But the difference in quality isn't as stark as the other case. If the article somehow also covered the monument in front, I would agree that the current image is certainly best. As a photo in general I prefer it, but since the monument isn't mentioned and is already depicted in two of the images on the page, I have a weak preference for BMK's image here. It seems good to have both the larger context and the more straight-on coverage. It'd be more than a weak preference if it had some perspective correction, but the top crop is tight enough that I'm not confident I could do it. Aside: @Beyond My Ken: I suspect you may have a setting in your camera having to do with jpeg compression. 2.63 MB for an image of this size is quite small, and the the compression is visible in the image at full size. Somewhere along the line you're also adding "copyright 2009" to the EXIF data, which is especially odd since that camera didn't exist then. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed the copyright thing recently too, but I have no idea where it came from. I certainly didn't add it. As far as I know I'm not using compression, and my camera is set for the highest resolution it's capable of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, sure, it's an infobox image. It's display is relatively small in an article. Like all images on Wikipedia. So it should look good in small size... but that's not everything. It's not like readers don't click those infobox images to see full size when they want to see it in more detail. Seeing the subject in greater detail is a positive part of the reading experience, and people are most likely to click the top image. So no, infobox images shouldn't be evaluated only at small size. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BMK Every historical Providence structure article doesn't have to have your images. These are ok shots and could easily be added to the gallery. They might be ideal for low-res applications! Buffs (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I think it was an EC and I missed fixing it when pasting in. Appreciated! (FWIW, I see no issue with ANYONE fixing my indents if it makes the conversation clearer (even those with whom I have a disagreement). Buffs (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In WP:CANVASSING editors to this discussion, Filetime neglected to ping all the editors who have been involved, so @MB, Strangerpete, and Station1:, would you please weigh in on this discussion as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Rhod, slight preference for BMK's image. It's brighter and more direct view of the building. Infobox image should be the best image we have. MB 13:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My choice is still the same after view the variations below. MB 19:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey BMK, let's WP:AGF shall we? He asked for opinions, not to sway the discussion one way or the other; that's not canvassing (pretty sure I sided with YOUR choices on at least two of the pages). You've "banned" anyone who disagrees with you in any way from going to your talk page, yet you template theirs and toss in your remarks. Just stop, dude. A reasonable discussion can be had here without a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Buffs (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, you've stated you have 100+ photos you intend to upload. If your intent is to "update" all the relevant pages with "your images", I think it's reasonable you'd get some pushback. Given how low-res your photos are, surely they aren't the best infobox option for 100+ buildings. I mean, I appreciate that you've done it and modern photos of historical places certainly have a place here on WP (assuming they are of the quality you've previously uploaded). But I think it's pretty sensible that you aren't going to get your images as the lead images on every page. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs, Beyond My Ken, Rhododendrites, MB, Schazjmd, and Pbrks: I uploaded an alternate, slightly brightened version of Kzirkel's photograph. Feel free to weigh in on the file or further reprocess it if you think such changes are necessary. Cheers. Filetime (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Original photograph
Edited photograph
Cropped version
Image added by Beyond My Ken
Perspective corrected
  • Thanks for the heads-up, but I'll recuse myself because of the obvious conflict of interest ... except to say that perspective should be corrected on architecture photos. - Kzirkel (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that I somewhat disagree. To me, perspective-corrected images often look artificial, and lack depth, especially if taken from an angle and not straight on. They look as if they are on a flat plane which has been altered, because that is, essentially, what has been done to them. Nonetheless, my image with the perspective corrected has been added above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ideal is to fix the perspective without it looking warped or artificial, yes. That's often easier said than done and isn't really possible sometimes. There are lots of variables: distance between camera and subject, height of subject, angle of the camera, etc. Of course, many times that's not possible. Beyond that, it's necessary to leave some headroom at the top for perspective correction. Otherwise, when you go to do it, you'll find that in order to have straight lines without chopping off the top of the building, you have to squeeze it all down and distort it. That looks like what happened here -- there wasn't headroom so everything gets squished down. I also think this doesn't quite do the trick because it doesn't account for how it's taken just off-center. Obviously the ideal is for it to be centered, but that's not always possible (I imagine the monument got in the way), so the alternative is typically from off more to the side because when it's just off-center it's distracting (like it's supposed to be centered). Obviously a lot of subjectivity involved in these preferences, though, and this is intended more as constructive criticism than an expressed preference. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I had a number of other shots with more headroom, but there was a vehicle just finishing passing by, and others that were even more off-center. The Monument did get in the way which is why the photo is taken from such a close position, because that is where I could get the whole thing in without the monument intruding. Taking from an angle doesn't eliminate the problem - for instance Kzirkel's image has the "flatness" problem that bothers me, which is even more apparent in the cropped version. I like the depth of my side angle image (uncorrected), despite the traffic light in the frame:
Obviously, there is no such thing (or rarely such a thing) as a perfect image, especially in the context of taking a bunch of photos in a single day's outing, but the task here isn't to pick the very best photo, it's to pick the image which will work best in the infobox, to give the reader a good, quick, visual overview of what the building looks like. We have a number of images here to choose from: one with two subjects, the cropped version of that, my original, and my original with corrected perspective. One of those must do the task at hand better than the others, no? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point being, that this isn't a photographic competition, in which the photograph with the best technical and artistic values "wins", the point is to find a image which is going to fulfill the requirements of the infobox. The vast majority of readers are not going to click through to see the photo larger, and those who do click through are unlikely to closely examine the photo at extreme magnification. The purpose of an infobox photo is to accurately represent the building to the reader, not to get a blue ribbon for photographic excellent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: It does not take "extreme magnification" to see that the first image has an overexposed background, is blurry, and is cut off at the top while the second image is out of focus, does not exhibit proper white balance, and includes a distracting and irrelevant element (the stoplight). Furthermore, the image with corrected perspective squashes the building, distorting its proportions. If your goal is to "accurately represent the building to the reader," this image does not effectively achieve that goal. Filetime (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please indent your responses correctly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you continue to miss the forest for the trees. But that's to be expected from someone who replaces
this, with
this,
and thinks it's an improvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, everyone, I was downtown trying out my new camera and took a new image of City Hall. I had to ask the poor homeless guy who was monologuing about Chinese girls, or something, to move so I could get this spot. I hope it was worth it. - Kzirkel (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Straight on, full building, no distortion, flagpole isn't cut off. Another overcast day, but oh well. Winner winner chicken quahog dinner. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Providence_City_Hall&oldid=1202191442"