http://www.eitb.com/news/society/detail/17...-has-many-more/
Wikipedia users had no doubt: Horses on Bianditz Mountain was the best photo of 2008. A computer programmer by profession, Mikel Ortega immortalises the smallest of moments. See his best photos. A reflection of Merida theatre, captured by Mikel Ortega
Full Version: Winner of best photo in Wikipedia has many more - EITB
No mention that the winning photo was digitally altered, quite dramatically, before submission for the prize.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 17th June 2009, 2:04pm) 
No mention that the winning photo was digitally altered, quite dramatically, before submission for the prize.
Well...
QUOTE
The prize hasn't changed his life, but it has allowed him to demonstrate an important lesson: "there is merit in me capturing the image, but then anybody can change it and distribute it. That's the real newsflash, the combination of efforts."
there's actually a celebration of the ability to digitally alter photos.
I can see where Mr. Ortega is coming from, and I don't think there was anything at all wrong with what Mr. Ortega did. What was definitely wrong was putting the altered photo in an encyclopedia without any indication that it was altered, and what was arguably wrong was the setup of Wikimedia Commons in a way that encourages it.
A few months back, I had similar concerns about Durova's "restoration project".
Durova has been shouting from the rooftops about the value of her picture "Restoration Project" on Wikicommons. This seems to the latest fad, and a way for Wiki busybodies to assert their importance and exclusivity. Durova has assembled a group around her she self importantly terms "Restorationists". And these people go about acquiring old pictures and "touching them up" for public consumption on either the commons, or Wikipedia.
I've been searching for some on-Wiki debate about the ethics of restoring photographs in this way, to little avail. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that this practice can be controversial.
In short, if someone decides to "restore" a picture, by removing scratches, glitches and so on, they are making selections that are not true to the medium. These scratches and color fades are part of the work whether we like them or not. Evidence of deterioration forms part of the life story of the work, and to mess with that is to not be faithful. It is not necessarily a benefit to have that history obliterated by "Free Culture" kooks with no taste.
Incidentally, the "restoration project" predictably (and hilariously) descended into a slanging match over some other matter. Durova writes:
and more bizarrely:
Expect the "Restoration Project" to crash and burn in usual Wikipedia fashion some time over the next 6 months - and for all the hours of labor by participants to be bitterly resented and regretted.
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 26th March 2009, 2:19pm)
Durova has been shouting from the rooftops about the value of her picture "Restoration Project" on Wikicommons. This seems to the latest fad, and a way for Wiki busybodies to assert their importance and exclusivity. Durova has assembled a group around her she self importantly terms "Restorationists". And these people go about acquiring old pictures and "touching them up" for public consumption on either the commons, or Wikipedia.
I've been searching for some on-Wiki debate about the ethics of restoring photographs in this way, to little avail. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that this practice can be controversial.
In short, if someone decides to "restore" a picture, by removing scratches, glitches and so on, they are making selections that are not true to the medium. These scratches and color fades are part of the work whether we like them or not. Evidence of deterioration forms part of the life story of the work, and to mess with that is to not be faithful. It is not necessarily a benefit to have that history obliterated by "Free Culture" kooks with no taste.
Incidentally, the "restoration project" predictably (and hilariously) descended into a slanging match over some other matter. Durova writes:
QUOTE(Durova)
For the most part, fellow editors at Commons have been supportive and welcoming. The community at large has my heartfelt thanks for their support. Yet it has been a surprise to encounter a handful of people who construe some sort of mischief here, and both confusing and disappointing that a very small number are aggressively hostile.
and more bizarrely:
QUOTE(Durova)
Here, unfortunately, is an example of a loaded question from one of that handful of aggressive individuals. She has previously suggested that I trade sexual favors for featured candidacy supports
Expect the "Restoration Project" to crash and burn in usual Wikipedia fashion some time over the next 6 months - and for all the hours of labor by participants to be bitterly resented and regretted.
Then of course theres this one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
*** Can a mod please fix its size ***
The ogv is no doubt even more popular.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.ogv
This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2008.
This is a Quality image image and is considered to meet the Quality image guidelines.
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images.
This is a featured picture on German Wikipedia (Exzellente Bilder) and is considered one of the finest images.
This is a featured picture on Spanish Wikipedia (Imágenes destacadas) and is considered one of the finest images
Why is it so popular one wonders.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
*** Can a mod please fix its size ***
The ogv is no doubt even more popular.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.ogv
QUOTE
This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2008.
This is a Quality image image and is considered to meet the Quality image guidelines.
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images.
This is a featured picture on German Wikipedia (Exzellente Bilder) and is considered one of the finest images.
This is a featured picture on Spanish Wikipedia (Imágenes destacadas) and is considered one of the finest images
Why is it so popular one wonders.
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 17th June 2009, 8:57pm)
A few months back, I had similar concerns about Durova's "restoration project".
Personally, I don't have a problem with restoration, if done properly. And based on some chats I've had with someone named Lise who was involved in this "restoration project", I am convinced that at least she tries (at least as of a year or so ago when I had these chats) to take care to make only alterations which serve to restore the original, and that she instructs others to do the same.
I should point out that I don't have a problem with all digital alterations either, if done properly. But selectively brightening one part of the photo and not another part certainly does not qualify as proper alteration for an encyclopedia (aside from some corner cases like using the altered image to show an example of the process of altering the image).
Outside of an encyclopedia I'm even more lenient. I think Trey Ratcliff's http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustom...698504/sizes/l/ is a damn cool "photograph". But should it be on Wikipedia under [[Times Square]]? Probably not. (I can't even bring myself to say "no", maybe with a disclaimer or something.)
QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 17th June 2009, 3:01pm)
Then of course theres this one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
Why is it so popular one wonders.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
Why is it so popular one wonders.
That same artist does things like this.
And this.
And this.
When I was young, teenage boys wanted to have sex with a Playmate Of The Month.
Today, teenage boys want to have sex with a cartoon catgirl with absurdly huge eyes.
Behold, the Decline Of Western Civilization.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 18th June 2009, 4:54pm)
QUOTE(sbrown @ Wed 17th June 2009, 3:01pm)
Then of course theres this one.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
Why is it so popular one wonders.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
Why is it so popular one wonders.
That same artist does things like this.
And this.
And this.
When I was young, teenage boys wanted to have sex with a Playmate Of The Month.
Today, teenage boys want to have sex with a cartoon catgirl with absurdly huge eyes.
Behold, the Decline Of Western Civilization.
I think that's unlikely. Teenage boys still want to have sex with a Playmate of the Month. But since we were young, we've become aware of a Japanese sexual fetish.
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 17th June 2009, 1:57pm)
and more bizarrely:
QUOTE(Durova)
Here, unfortunately, is an example of a loaded question from one of that handful of aggressive individuals. She has previously suggested that I trade sexual favors for featured candidacy supports
Good luck on that, Lise.QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 17th June 2009, 1:57pm)
Expect the "Restoration Project" to crash and burn in usual Wikipedia fashion some time over the next 6 months - and for all the hours of labor by participants to be bitterly resented and regretted.
Especially when they get a look at the goods.
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 20th June 2009, 2:44am)
[redacted]
That's just mean.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.