Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Albatross and plastic marine debris
Albatross with ingested plastic marine debris edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:47:33 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- High EV, eloquently illustrating a key environmental issue
- Articles in which this image appears
- Marine debris
- FP category for this image
- Birds
- Creator
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters
- Support as nominator --ELEKHHT 12:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Informational EV. Sca (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - This is a profoundly disturbing image, and I really want to support it. However, I have to note that it is 1,200 pixels high (300 short of the minimum). Digital technology in 2009 was certainly good enough to give higher resolution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The specs for the camera this was taken on indicate that this is either a crop, or that this was downsized from a much higher resolution. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was getting at. The EXIF data has Width 8,549 px, Height 6,516 px, meaning this was considerably downsized. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Or cropped. I think is great we have at least this image, and FP is not about being the best possible image, but among Wikipedia's best work. In that regard I think composition and EV are great, and compensate the somewhat limited resolution. As it was taken in a remote location an exception to the numeric resolution requirements could be made. --ELEKHHT 05:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Owing to size and fact that there should be much more of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Or cropped. I think is great we have at least this image, and FP is not about being the best possible image, but among Wikipedia's best work. In that regard I think composition and EV are great, and compensate the somewhat limited resolution. As it was taken in a remote location an exception to the numeric resolution requirements could be made. --ELEKHHT 05:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I was getting at. The EXIF data has Width 8,549 px, Height 6,516 px, meaning this was considerably downsized. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- The specs for the camera this was taken on indicate that this is either a crop, or that this was downsized from a much higher resolution. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Weak support. Support because this is an extremely informative and striking image, weak because of the small size. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support Although the resolution is not quiet there with respect to one of the dimensions, this picture is simply shocking (I really thought it was staged until I saw it came right from the USFWS flickr account). Extremely high encyclopedic value; if you want to sum up the impact of marine debris - this image would qualify. I support making an exception per WP:WIAFP as a "unique image". --CyberXRef☎ 06:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom and CyberXRef☎. Nikhil (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Weak support A great photo, but a disappointing size. I wonder if it would be worth asking the USFWS if there's still the image which hasn't been downscaled around? Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's worth a try but glancing over their flickr account I couldn't find anything over 3000x2000 and most of their animal photos are much lower res than that.
I am starting to doubt that photo was really ever 8,549x6,516 (which seems like an odd resolution in itself). Just saw it was taken with a Phase One P65+ holy crap. --CyberXRef☎ 16:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)- CyberXRef I tried looking that up, but information was scarce. I get the feeling that this camera is one of those "If you have to ask, you can't afford it" products. What, exactly, is so special about it? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's definitely one of those. Lets see, this is a camera that got an output resolution of 8,549 * 6,516 px in 2009 (for comparison, my considerably more recent EOS 60D doesn't reach 6000px on the largest size. That alone is indicative of a very high price, probably more than my car. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, you'd need to sell one of your kidneys for that (digital medium format.. (first 645?)). You probably won't find much because "normal people" simply don't buy it. It's actually a Mamiya camera (iirc they merged with Phase One). It was first released in mid-2008. It can do 8984*6732 raw images (60.5MP; 16-bit) (the first one?). --CyberXRef☎ 03:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- CyberXRef I tried looking that up, but information was scarce. I get the feeling that this camera is one of those "If you have to ask, you can't afford it" products. What, exactly, is so special about it? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's worth a try but glancing over their flickr account I couldn't find anything over 3000x2000 and most of their animal photos are much lower res than that.
- Oppose Too small. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support per CyberXRef. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose This is featured pictures, meant to celebrate the best images out there. We aren't meant to settle. This is entirely FOIA requestable at full resolution, and we should never - ever settle when a mere request would almost certainly get us a better copy. It might take a while, and needs someone in America to do it, but really, no. Promoting this goes against the very core of Featured Pictures.
- And, sure. Maybe we'll try that, and it'll turn out to be genuinely impossible to get a better copy. But the time to decide whether accepting a low resolution copy is justified is after we've attempted to get a better copy and failed, not before.
- I'm not even sure this is a particularly irreplaceable image. It's valuable because it shows a - very sadly, of course - relatively common problem, not because it's unique. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I find it rather confusing to hear that this would go "against the very core of Featured Pictures", as I thought FP is about educational value and image quality, not counting pixels. I wonder what exactly is expected from the extra pixels to additionally reveal about the scene: details of the feathers? the micro-structure of the plastic objects? Would that significantly add to the specific EV of this picture? I also would like to note that the resolution of this image is consistent with the minimum size requirement until recently changed in July 2012, and thus of similar resolution as many of our current FPs - hardly as radical discrepancy with criteria as depicted above. Perhaps FPC discussions would be more constructive if comments would be more measured. --ELEKHHT 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry: If we settle, noone will even attempt the work to get a better copy. If we hold firm to standards, we have an excellent chance of getting a better copy, and can settle if it turns out we can't. FP is meant to encourage the improvement of quality of images on Wikipedia; I can't see how settling for less than is necessary, for no go good reason, promotes that goal. And having firm criteria has helped us get better material in the past - it's not uncommon, when trying to get an image released, that they want to provide the bare minimum possible to still get FP - a state that, as it has a Wikipedia mainpage - is reasonably able to be used as a carrot to convince people to release. If we waive that criteria too readily, we take away a major weapon in our arsenal of improving the spectrum and quality of free content available. And, if the goal of FP is to encourage improvement of Wikipedia's images, saying there is no need to ever attempt to improve an image that readily could be goes so far against the goals of FP that I cannot countenance it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy to write to the author and request a higher res copy (as I often do), if none has done that so far (including you). But I can't see anywhere in the FP criteria that we have to kind of attempt to extort the highest resolution image from the photographer. This approach appears to me as similar with the belief on Commons that maintaining the freedom of panorama requirement for the country of origin would 'pressure' countries to change their copyright laws. So far the result of that strategy was that for 12 years readers of Wikipedia articles have been deprived of images of 20th century buildings from France, Italy, Russia and many other countries, while no single state amended its copyright laws, and many photographers have been discouraged to contribute to Wikimedia projects. I would rather hope the author of this image would release a higher resolution version without any attempted pressure. I also think FP should value the encyclopaedic value of images, regardless of the relative potential and generosity of the author. We have barnstars to express appreciation of individual authors. --ELEKHHT 10:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- If this was just any photographer, I'd agree. But this is the U.S. Government, who, as I understand it, have a legal duty under the Freedom of Information Act to make materials available. As this may be for American citizens only, I suspect it would be better coming from a resident there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I sent them a message on Flickr two days ago with no response yet. I don't know if they actually check mail on the account, so directly contacting them may be helpful. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- If this was just any photographer, I'd agree. But this is the U.S. Government, who, as I understand it, have a legal duty under the Freedom of Information Act to make materials available. As this may be for American citizens only, I suspect it would be better coming from a resident there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy to write to the author and request a higher res copy (as I often do), if none has done that so far (including you). But I can't see anywhere in the FP criteria that we have to kind of attempt to extort the highest resolution image from the photographer. This approach appears to me as similar with the belief on Commons that maintaining the freedom of panorama requirement for the country of origin would 'pressure' countries to change their copyright laws. So far the result of that strategy was that for 12 years readers of Wikipedia articles have been deprived of images of 20th century buildings from France, Italy, Russia and many other countries, while no single state amended its copyright laws, and many photographers have been discouraged to contribute to Wikimedia projects. I would rather hope the author of this image would release a higher resolution version without any attempted pressure. I also think FP should value the encyclopaedic value of images, regardless of the relative potential and generosity of the author. We have barnstars to express appreciation of individual authors. --ELEKHHT 10:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry: If we settle, noone will even attempt the work to get a better copy. If we hold firm to standards, we have an excellent chance of getting a better copy, and can settle if it turns out we can't. FP is meant to encourage the improvement of quality of images on Wikipedia; I can't see how settling for less than is necessary, for no go good reason, promotes that goal. And having firm criteria has helped us get better material in the past - it's not uncommon, when trying to get an image released, that they want to provide the bare minimum possible to still get FP - a state that, as it has a Wikipedia mainpage - is reasonably able to be used as a carrot to convince people to release. If we waive that criteria too readily, we take away a major weapon in our arsenal of improving the spectrum and quality of free content available. And, if the goal of FP is to encourage improvement of Wikipedia's images, saying there is no need to ever attempt to improve an image that readily could be goes so far against the goals of FP that I cannot countenance it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I find it rather confusing to hear that this would go "against the very core of Featured Pictures", as I thought FP is about educational value and image quality, not counting pixels. I wonder what exactly is expected from the extra pixels to additionally reveal about the scene: details of the feathers? the micro-structure of the plastic objects? Would that significantly add to the specific EV of this picture? I also would like to note that the resolution of this image is consistent with the minimum size requirement until recently changed in July 2012, and thus of similar resolution as many of our current FPs - hardly as radical discrepancy with criteria as depicted above. Perhaps FPC discussions would be more constructive if comments would be more measured. --ELEKHHT 08:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I sent email to the photographer (Chris Jordan). They did reply to me, but they did not want to make a higher resolution photo available. Truly a shame... Renata (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- To "force" the issue one would have to go to the US institution, apparently (I doubt the FoIA applies to individuals). Of course, that would take forever. Shame... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - We're not going to get a larger version of this any time soon, and if we make an exception today, I feel that we're only going to wind up delisting this a few years down the line. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- So better to deprive for a few years the readers from an educational image, and continue our systemic-bias towards featuring bugs, standing birds, sunny landscapes, symmetric building facades, smiling staged portraits, NASA images and scans of historic art work. To paraphrase the old saying about "not seeing the forest for the trees", our FPC bias seems to be 'not seeing the image for the pixels'. --ELEKHHT 22:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- We're not "depriving" anyone of the image by not making it featured. It's still going to be in the articles that it appears in. I am all in favor of having a diversity of different types of images at FP (and indeed, contrary to your statement, think that we have one). I do believe, however, that when we set a minimum threshold, it should mean something. I'm not the one that decided where to set the line in terms of technical standards, but I am prepared to give that standard teeth. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- And when we have a clause for making exception, it shouldn't mean nothing. Will anyone travel to the Great Pacific garbage patch any time soon to take a better picture? And talking of teeth, I think we should try not to bite the hands of the photographer nor the faces of our readers. Anyway, have a look to this nice illustration of geographic bias (click search and wait patiently until it loads). --ELEKHHT 07:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- We're not "depriving" anyone of the image by not making it featured. It's still going to be in the articles that it appears in. I am all in favor of having a diversity of different types of images at FP (and indeed, contrary to your statement, think that we have one). I do believe, however, that when we set a minimum threshold, it should mean something. I'm not the one that decided where to set the line in terms of technical standards, but I am prepared to give that standard teeth. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- So better to deprive for a few years the readers from an educational image, and continue our systemic-bias towards featuring bugs, standing birds, sunny landscapes, symmetric building facades, smiling staged portraits, NASA images and scans of historic art work. To paraphrase the old saying about "not seeing the forest for the trees", our FPC bias seems to be 'not seeing the image for the pixels'. --ELEKHHT 22:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Support Godhulii 1985 (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 13:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- The image has only a 63,6% support (7/11) for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)