Botticelli is a famous artist, it shows because the picture is used on at least 150 pages in 38 projects. When art is presented, it is not a great idea to just change the original picture "because you can". It is to be preferred when the original remains available. When improvements are made to an image, adjusting the colour levels is only one aspect of a range of actions that should be applied as a whole.
Changing an image like this may be well intended but the link with what a picture "really" looks like is lost. In my opinion it is extremely important that the changes that are made are motivated and the different phases of such a change should be available. This allows other people to collaborate on a restoration. In this way, the image is available for impovement in a wiki way.
Thanks,
GerardM
7 comments:
But the different stages *are* available! As you surely know, every version of the images are stored and can be recovered to be worked on. In fact, even thumbnails of each version are now available to let people have a visual idea of what they'll get. That way, if an "enhancement" wasn't done well, someone else can easily access the original version and do proper restoration. But until someone does that, I think a "not 100% correct" enhancement is better than no enhancement at all.
When the colours are distorted like this, it no longer reflects what the image looks like. I do not qualify this as an enhancement.
This kind of action does trigger a lot of aggression as well.
Thanks,
GerardM
Well, you did agree that "the original colours are a bit flat". I'm not saying this particular change was an enhancement, but it's clear that the editor had the same impression you did and tried to improve the image. I don't see why the aggression: if they did it wrong, as I said, previous versions are right there to allow other editors do better. it's just like a wiki page... sort of :)
ps - what do you mean, "this kind of action"? that's precisely what "upload a new version of this file" is there for! :D
There are several people I know who are violently opposed to people "improving" the way an important work like this is improved. For them it is a reason NOT to contribute to Commons.
A realistic impression is much preferred.
Thanks,
GerardM
If these people are really as aggressive and violent as you're saying, I'd say that it's a blessing that they're not editing on Commons. What else could they wish other than have ready access to the previous, untreated versions of an image? That way they could show, by example, how a real restoration is done -- instead of making useless negative criticism. That's the Wiki way of improving things -- it's never a finished job. Of course, please correct me if I got the wrong impression.
You do have the wrong impression. What is rightfully objected to is that it should be a CHOICE to have an "improved" version of an image.
Thanks,
GerardM
Post a Comment