Wikipedia:Picture peer review/The Red Gym from the Memorial Union Terrace

The Red Gym from the Memorial Union Terrace[edit]

I think the picture has great lines and adds a lot to the articles its currently places on. I just wanted to get some feedback and maybe get it nominated as a Featured or Valued picture. Thanks for any feedback in advance!

Creator: Daniel J Simanek

Nominated by: Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The picture is misnamed. It shows the Union Terrace, but completely obscures the Red Gym. The foreground is too dark. It's a nice try, but not feature status. --Sift&Winnow 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the title is a factor for FP and VP. And could you please explain the what you mean by the foreground being too dark? I guess I just don't see it... Daniel J Simanek (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It becomes a factor if you're nominating it as an encyclopaedic depiction of The Red Gym though. I don't really understand the too dark foreground either, if anything the pavement in the foreground looks a bit bright to me. Shrug... --jjron (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- too: to an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable, fitting, or right
- dark: having very little or no light
- My comments are based on having seen many, many fine photos of the same scene in sunlight, not on an overcast day.
- Plus, a photo of the back of a building shouldn't be considered as appropriately representing that building, particularly in a featured status photo. Other nice photos on Wikimedia Commons show the front of the building, with its lines and architectural detail, not unduly obscured by foliage. Compare the building as shown in this photo [1] and in the one above. Even this photo [2], though largely in shadow, shows off the building more. The important architectural features of this building - its castle-like appearance, complete with turrets and crenelated battlements - are totally obscured in the image above. That architecture is an important factor in its designation as a National Historic Landmark; the pretty flaming red maples behind it and some scattered sunburst chairs are not. --Sift&Winnow 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to respectfully request a second opinion for the entire photo. jjron, do you think you could do a full review? I am just trying to take a better picture. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who wants to wants to consider the historical and architectural significance of the "Red Gym" in evaluating whether the photo "is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer" per WP:VP?, the building is officially known as the University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium, and its history is outlined in its WP article. For quality comparison purposes, dozens of images of the building can be found in a Google Images search or on Flickr ([3], [4], [5] and [6], for example). --Sift&Winnow 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sift will you please leave it alone! I think we all get it; you don't like the picture. The purpose of peer review is to discuss a picture on its technical merits for inclusion as a VP or FP. If it does not meet those standards, the reviewer usually gives a technical reason, and explains how to correct the problem. You have done neither. Unless you can tell me how to take a better picture, please refrain from further comment. Now can someone else please give a second opinion here? It would be much appreciated.
  
  Other notes: This is not only a picture of the Red Gym (background) but it also shows the Union terrace, and is currently included in the Memorial Union (Wisconsin) article. So even if there is some disagreement as to the pictures title, I still think it adds encyclopedic value somewhere, if not here. I don't really care if the pictures makes it to VP or FP; I just want to know what I would have to correct to get it there. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't get it at all. The issue here has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like the picture. (In fact, I think its colorful.) It has to do with: (1.) whether the picture adequately represents its subject matter (It doesn't - it obscures its subject.); (2.) whether the picture meets WP:VP? standards (It doesn't, for several reasons, including that it is not among "the most educational examples" of the building.); and (3.) the fact that you ask for comments and then only listen to them if they agree with your point of view.

You're just dead wrong in stating that I haven't said how to improve the picture. I have: (1.) take a picture of the front of the building, not the rear; (2.) take a picture that shows the building, not the trees behind it; (3.) take a picture that shows the overall design and architectural detail for which the building is known, not the roof.

Tunads - You need to be forthright, honest, and humble. The only reason this photo appears in any WP article is because you put it there, replacing other images that were already there. I'm not the one with the agenda. --Sift&Winnow 00:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a two subject picture, the Red Gym and the Union Terrace. I removed the other photo in University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium because: 1.) it had no caption and 2.) it had weird proportions and was just kinda shoved in the article. But this is hardly the place for this discussion, and I have already brought up my reasoning on the talk page.

Secondly, the Red Gym happens to be obscured like this as seen from the Union Terrace. I was not going for a picture of the Red Gym in all its glory, as you seem to think. I was trying to take a picture of the Terrace and surrounding, and it just so happens that the Red Gym ended up being pretty prominent. If that's what I was going for I would say, "Yeah, I see what your getting at," but you totally missed the point of the picture and continue to harp on that same point regardless of what I say. Saying "take a picture of the front of the building," does not constitute advice and completely misses the point of this picture.

Thirdly, this picture does appear elsewhere (Memorial Union (Wisconsin)), and I think it is a great picture of the terrace (not trying to boast, but I really like it). So can someone please re-evaluate this picture from that perspective and tell me what I could do to improve it?

Fourthly, I do not have an agenda, and I don't like being accused of it either when all evidence points to the contrary. I only add my pictures to articles when I think they will add something. I have already addressed why I removed that other picture, and it was not to make room for mine.

Lastly, I want to apologize to everyone else in the PPR. This review is ridiculous, and the only thing I really wanted out of it was some helpful feedback. I was not expecting anyone to care about what the title of the picture was. I just hope this all hasn't caused too much disturbance. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and give an alternative review later per above request (don't have time now, but I'll download the photo and check it over). --jjron (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have had a better look and will try to be pretty comprehensive. FWIW Sift raises some valid objections, but please try to be civil in reviews at PPR. Editors usually put up images here for an honest, yet ‘kind’, critique of their images, and to get feedback on their suitability for FPC or VPC. If they want harsh criticisms they would jump straight into the lion’s den at FPC; when put up here we try to look for positives as well as negatives and give an honest assessment. Sarcastic remarks like this ultimately serve to drive good or potentially good original contributors away from Wikipedia. Right...

For starters I find this quite a colourful and engaging image with quite good composition. Some slight bugs though occur at the bottom left hand corner where the tables/chairs are just a bit cutoff (don’t know how much further they go, like if it’s possible not to cut them off) and at the top right where that sandstone type building clips the back corner of the red gym. If possible a step back and around to the left would help with some of that. I’d also suggest, if possible, to wait for a day where the sky is a more appealing colour (while it’s not blown out in this image, it’s not that appealing), and perhaps if possible try to take it when things like that crane (?) down on the lefthand side aren’t in the shot.

Sift also raises a valid point that this has limited EV in University of Wisconsin Armory and Gymnasium, though I don’t think it’s inappropriate for the article. The image File:Old-red-gym.jpg that you apparently replaced has its own issues – it’s quite low res and quality, it really shows us very little the infobox image doesn’t already show, and based on both the image here and the taxobox image, the colours in that image are way off. As far as EV for Memorial Union (Wisconsin) goes it’s hard for me to evaluate. Certainly it shows us a different view from anything else in the article so would seem to be quite useful, as I said it’s an engaging image, and places like that are buggers of things to get a really good overview of the whole place in a single image. So it seems quite good for that article, but how good EV wise I can’t really say.

OK, the other thing here is image quality. Since you’ve stripped the exif data I can’t comment on your camera or settings, but the image quality at fullsize is quite poor. At a guess I would say you’ve used a small digicam, perhaps on less than optimum settings, and possibly even downsampled after that? The only exif data present mentions Picasa and talks of a jpeg compression of 6 – I don’t use Picasa, but if they use a 1-12 scale like Photoshop, then that’s way too low for decent quality, especially if you’re thinking FPC.

Some specific comments. Sharpness is poor, as is preserved detail, again possibly indicative of a small digicam and/or downsampling – look for example at what detail is preserved in the brickwork and tiles of the red gym and the tree leaves, or even the people’s faces (i.e., while focus was probably to the courtyard area, it’s not just a DOF or focus thing). There’s a lot of noise; this is all over the image, but to really see what I mean look for example at the presumably black suit of the man down the front. There’s also other quality issues such as purple fringing, look for example at the edges of the buildings and leaves at the top right corner.

I wonder if you still have a full quality original version of this where we could get a full idea of camera settings and output? Even if not, I would guess that lighting was a bit dull and you possibly used auto settings on the camera. It looks that the camera has compensated by upping the ISO to a high level (as they are designed to do), but that comes at the expense of poor sharpness and high noise, thereby killing quality. If you took this at the right time on a brighter day, even with this same camera, you could greatly reduce noise, improve sharpness and detail, and get better colour in the sky, also most likely helping to remove that purple fringing. In short, you’d get a better result.

Now this image looks fine at image page size, but poor at fullsize. For this reason it would not be successful at FPC, where images are assessed fullsize. It may stand a chance at VPC, though that has gone very quiet, and you would need to convince voters of the value of it to the Memorial Union article. --jjron (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WOW! That is quite a lot to digest. I uploaded the original (I think) here[7]. I think that Picasa strips out meta data (grr), but this one should still have it.
  The problem I had with the sharpness was that as soon as you would apply a bit of saturation, it would go to hell. Maybe its just the program I'm using? I do have Photoshop Elements, but I guess I was just being lazy at the time and just ran it through Picasa. Any ideas how to fix that now that you have the original?
  As for the camera/settings, it is a mid range digital (not sure on the exact model; is it in the meta data?) with adjustments for f-stop, exposure time, and film speed. I was using full manual at the time and didn't have the flash on. As for lighting, it was cloudy out and as I said, I didn't use the flash.
  Thanks for the review. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems we've had a discussion about my camera before. Here's what we said last time. Thanks again for the review! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thought I recognised the name :-). I've downloaded the linked version and will try to give some feedback in the next day or so. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've put up an alternative edit. Some of the things you said ring true, like trying to up the saturation cause funny effects, it may be that the detail in the lines is just not sufficient to trap the colours and it bleeds across when you overdo it. I did a bit of an increase, but not as much as you, however it keeps things like skin tones looking more natural, and helps with the fringing. Enhancing sharpness was OK, and the noise is far better. However I don't get as red a gym for example. Also the sky in the original was pretty badly blown, so whatever Picasa did I don't know, but it must try to compensate for that but adding greys or something. Mine probably looks more realistic at fullsize, but not as bright as yours I guess. Probably the key thing in the exif was that you took this at ISO 200 and 1/250s. On these sort of cameras you really need to try to keep the ISO as low as possible in most cases. This camera goes as low as ISO 80; you would be best for shots like this to lock it in as low as possible. You could have used ISO 80 or 100 and set the shutter speed to say 1/100s, which shouldn't have created problems with motion blur say, but should give far better quality. Only use higher ISO if you really need to. --jjron (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess I didn't realize the 200 ISO would cause that mush of and issue (sigh). That is generally my limit for ISO, because of that exact issue. I guess I'll have to go lower next time ... Thanks again! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It varies from camera to camera. Mightn't be a bad idea to set up a shot and take a series of photos at different ISO settings, then do a fullsize comparison, just to see the impact of changing ISO on sharpness, noise, etc. Even on my DSLR where I can get quite good quality at ISO 400 (and usable but degrading quality at 800), I still go for 100 whenever I can as I can see a minor decline above that. You have to compromise though - like I'll trade-off ISO for shutter speed if I have to, say for action shots. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder