Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Alexander Nevsky Cathedral Sofia


 * Oppose The ground level is cropped off at both sides of the picture. I especially object to the edited pic with the person "removed". I don't think photo manipulation of this sort is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This edit seems particularly egregious because some of the wall stains on the bldg. appear to have been removed along with the person. --dm (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of images in the encyclopedia is to illustrate the subjects of articles. What purpose does the person serve to illustrate the topic? I don't know that I would consider removing wall stains egregious. They probably pay millions of dollars to physically remove the stains from the building, just to have them reappear. It certainly wasn't the intent of the original designers to cover the building in stains. So, what purpose does the wall stain serve to illustrate the topic? And how did you come to the conclusion that removal of any of the numerous stains on that wall should be categorized as egregious, ie "outrageously bad or offensive"? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-04-3 20:25
 * The difference between the owner of the building cleaning up stains and you editing the article is that cleaning the building isn't misrepresenting anything. The reality of the building is constant no matter what happens to it. If you edit the image and the building itself remains 'stained', then you have misrepresented the reality of the building. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a difference, now show that it matters in the least for the purposes of illustrating the building's article. Is there a section in the article that details the stains on the wall, documenting their number and size as they change with time? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-04-3 21:28
 * I actually never claimed it significantly mattered to the article previously. I was simply pointing out that your argument regarding maintenance of the building and editing out stains was silly. That said, I do think that accuracy is important, even at the expense of beauty. Why can't we just accept that we should really NOT edit out anything that was originally in the photo? If the photo suffers because of this, well so be it. The lines become SOMEWHAT more blurred when considering the editing out of an aspect of the image that was transitory in nature (for example, someone standing within the frame, or some trash), but I still feel even that is something that should not be taken lightly. If it was that important, presumably the photo should have been taken re-shot without that in the frame. Sorry, I guess I'm just a purist. :) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How have you shown that my argument is silly? You've simply identified a difference between the two situations&mdash;a difference that doesn't even address my original argument (that the difference significantly mattered to the illustration of the article). You're not making any sense. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-04-3 22:01
 * It is silly because you cannot suggest that the physical maintenance of a building is in any way similar the editing of an image of the building. If that wasn't your intention, why did you even mention the designer's intent? It is completely irrelevent. What is relevent is what the building looks like in reality today. If you have an actual image of what the building looked like when originally built, without the stains, then I encourage you to upload it - just don't try to replicate it with photoshop. To answer your question (again), the difference is significant because it is a misrepresentation of reality, pure and simple. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So the difference of changing a spot of dirt that was on the building at the time the photo was taken is actually significant to the illustration of the building in the article? Why is it? Is the spot of dirt discussed in the article? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-04-3 23:14
 * Getting into specific examples where one spot of dirt is cleaned as opposd to removed is missing the point. Yes, an idle viewer may not even notice this done, but you are STILL manipulating reality just to make it look prettier. Why not just show it the way it really is? You can still take a photo that is visually impressive without having to 'fix' aspects of the subject (as opposed to fixing aspects of the exposure of the image, which I do support) digitally. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that readers of an encyclopedia expect the pictures to be an accurate reflection of what really exists. The photos don't merely illustrate the text of an article; they convey a great deal of detailed and subtle information all by themselves. The current condition of the building is a reflection of how it is maintained. Removing stains digitally misrepresents how it looks today. Also, a general rule of historians is if you don't know, don't just make it up. When you take the person out of the picture, you have to replace it with something. The replacement probably is an accurate reflection of what's there, but for all we know there could be a neon sign on the wall, or graffiti, or whatever. We shouldn't set the precedent of making stuff up simply because we deem it insignificant. I'm not saying this because I take 1984 too seriously. It's because I take Wikipedia seriously and I'm trying to hold it to the highest standards. --dm (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)