File talk:Lupkow-Tunel-PL.JPG

The purpose of this image is to illustrate the tunnel
The purpose of this image is to "illustrate" the Lupkow-Tunnel and its structures as they exist. While this image may also have some intrinsic "artistic" value as well, that is not the primary purpose of this or any other such illustrations when used in an encyclopedic setting. That being the case, any and all elements that can be retrieved from a digital file that enhance an image's ability to accurately depict its subject should always be included in the final display version. Therefore when I removed the watermark from this image I also retrieved and made visible existing but way underexposed digital information of the grade and track inside the tunnel in the original which is not otherwise visible. This is in no way a "controversial alteration" to or falsification of the image nor is it "unnecessary or overdone lightening", but appropriate enhancement to this illustration of the subject which is the Lupkow-Tunel as a whole and not just its portal.

If any other editor disagrees with this view of the purpose of encyclopedic illustrations in general and this one in particular, then please make you case in here as to why you think making an image's existing digital information visible constitutes "controversial alteration" instead of unilaterally reverting the image again (which would also be a violation of 3RR) to a version that hides it. Centpacrr (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a poorly done and unnatural edit and I'm not going to get into a long-winded circular discussion over it with you. If you really want your altered image to be available on Commons, that's fine, just upload it as a derivative image and list it in other versions as you've been advised to do by the Commons admin and as the guidelines suggest. I'm going to revert it back once more to the unaltered version. If you persist and again revert to your altered version, I'll bring this matter up again at the Admin noticeboard. At some point this sort of nonsense has to stop. – JBarta (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Centpacrr, that edit is shockingly bad. Not only does it look awful and out of place, it also does the opposite of what you claim to be your goals. In your edit, is a bright light shining into the tunnel? If so, what kind of surface is it being reflected off? There isn't anything to be seen in that tunnel except for huge amounts of noise and an object at the end of it is less visible. Your edit leaves the viewer with more questions than before while not even clearing any existing ones. Please at least accept the fact that this is a controversial modification. —Quibik (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Shockingly bad", "awful and out of place", "leaves the viewer with more question than before". Really? With respect, sir or madame, you must "shock" easily to be driven to use of such hyperbole in this matter. It's only a picture after all. You are, of course, entitled to your own personal opinions with which I fundamentally disagree for the reasons I stated above, and I certainly do not see any reason why one should consider this image "controversial". Under the circumstances, I also see no real point in my uploading another version separately essentially only creating an orphan image that does little more than use up server space, so I will just leave it at that. Centpacrr (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You conveniently dismiss the points I bring up as just my personal opinion and concentrate only on the form and not the ideas of my post. On the topic of my ideas being merely opinions (that is, as if it was just a matter of taste), I purposefully avoided concentrating on the artistic merit of your edit and tried to explain why they fail in fulfilling the purpose of helping to illustrate an article, which you stated to be your goal. So I can't agree with that. You do not accept the compromise of uploading a separate image either, which still leaves us with the question of which version should stay as the active one. I am sorry to say that you, sir or madame, are not moving the discussion forward at all. Also, I don't consider this image to be a "controversy" with a capital C, of course. I use that word to merely convey the idea that one or more users have expressed any contention with the modifications. —Quibik (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've stated my personal philosophy above as to the purpose of encyclopedic illustrations by which I stand as you stand by your personal philosophy. My version is not unavailable, however, as it is still in the file history and thus can be accessed by any other editor cares to view and/or revert to it. Centpacrr (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)