Hi all,
A professional photo agency offers us (Wikimedia Belgium) a donation of images of art works. They now offer as a start these images with 595 x 842 pixels at 72 dpi. This size is almost double of that from a thumbnail size on Wikipedia. My own (not the most modern) smartphone makes images at 5.312 × 2.988 pixels at 72 dpi. Seeing the size of these images I think they are to low.
My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask?
Thanks!
Romaine
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@wikimedia.org.au To: Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list < affiliates@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Chapters cultural partners coordination < cultural-partners@wikimedia.ch> Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 20:13:07 +0800 Subject: Re: [Affiliates] Size of images donated along with size I'd consider how accessible the artworks are, as you point out volunteers can produce higher resolution but can they access the artworks tot take the images. Its small they wouldnt be usable for any other purpose, personally I'd be looking for a minimum resolution of 1200 on the longest edge which then enables people to look at the image in a size that they can see details, ideally being above 2400 then give people the opportunity to look at the smaller details of brush work and techniques which is critical encyclopedic aspect for artworks
what you may get is compromise of small but significant portion of the image enlarged to show those details, as a complimentary image to full artwork
On 5 May 2016 at 19:51, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
A professional photo agency offers us (Wikimedia Belgium) a donation of images of art works. They now offer as a start these images with 595 x 842 pixels at 72 dpi. This size is almost double of that from a thumbnail size on Wikipedia. My own (not the most modern) smartphone makes images at 5.312 × 2.988 pixels at 72 dpi. Seeing the size of these images I think they are to low.
My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask?
Thanks!
Romaine
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi Romaine,
I agree with you 595 x 842 pixels = 0,5 Megapixel, that is definitively too low. The minimum resolution required for a Quality Image [1] and also for eligible winners in contests like Wiki Loves Earth is 2 Megapixel [2]. That would be the minimum to me.
Regards, Diego
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_feat... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016/Rules#Rules
2016-05-05 13:51 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com:
Hi all,
A professional photo agency offers us (Wikimedia Belgium) a donation of images of art works. They now offer as a start these images with 595 x 842 pixels at 72 dpi. This size is almost double of that from a thumbnail size on Wikipedia. My own (not the most modern) smartphone makes images at 5.312 × 2.988 pixels at 72 dpi. Seeing the size of these images I think they are to low.
My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask?
Thanks!
Romaine
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
A thumbnail of a painting we do not have is better than no image of a painting we do not have. Especially if it comes with a good metadata. Often others are inspired to search for better images and replace the thumbnail. That said 595 x 842 is quite small.
JarekT. (user:jarekt)
From: Commons-l [mailto:commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Diego Delso Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 8:44 AM To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Size of images donated
Hi Romaine,
I agree with you 595 x 842 pixels = 0,5 Megapixel, that is definitively too low. The minimum resolution required for a Quality Image [1] and also for eligible winners in contests like Wiki Loves Earth is 2 Megapixel [2]. That would be the minimum to me.
Regards, Diego
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_feat... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2016/Rules#Rules
2016-05-05 13:51 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki@gmail.commailto:romaine.wiki@gmail.com>: Hi all, A professional photo agency offers us (Wikimedia Belgium) a donation of images of art works. They now offer as a start these images with 595 x 842 pixels at 72 dpi. This size is almost double of that from a thumbnail size on Wikipedia. My own (not the most modern) smartphone makes images at 5.312 × 2.988 pixels at 72 dpi. Seeing the size of these images I think they are to low. My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask? Thanks! Romaine
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Romaine Wiki, 05/05/2016 13:51:
My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask?
Bundesarchiv was the first big content partnership and already provided 800px wide images. Minimum standards should grow gradually over time, hence Wikimedia entities and groups should keep in mind that they should every time raise the bar compared to their predecessors.
Nowadays, from WMIT partners we usually recommend and require that they give us the highest resolution they have. I'd consider 1000px the minimum for decency and some 1600px the minimum for practical purposes (it's the size of a standard postcard at 300 dpi).
The rationale I offer institutions it twofold: * Wikimedia can't offer free resources (upload help) for such a low return; * if you don't provide better resolution than your "competitors", your images will not be used or will be soon replaced by others, hence all the work spent on the partnership will be wasted on your end as well.
Nemo
On 5 May 2016 at 12:51, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask?
Ask for the best but don't be overly concerned if you don't get it. It just means that the images wont be used as much.
I agree with JarekT here: A low quality photo is better than no photo. To me, Commons is in the first place an image resource, both for other projects and for third parties. What we should ask is therefore: Does the picture add to our resource, that is, can we reasonably expect this image to be used by one of these users?
As such, we should not set a general minimum standard, but instead compare with what is already available for the subject depicted. Each picture should add something to what we already have - we don't want a picture that's basically a lower quality version of an image we already have, and for a subject of which we already have many pictures, we only want a new one if it actually adds something - which could be high quality but also a special point of view or whatever.
Andre Engels
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
A professional photo agency offers us (Wikimedia Belgium) a donation of images of art works. They now offer as a start these images with 595 x 842 pixels at 72 dpi. This size is almost double of that from a thumbnail size on Wikipedia. My own (not the most modern) smartphone makes images at 5.312 × 2.988 pixels at 72 dpi. Seeing the size of these images I think they are to low.
My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask?
Thanks!
Romaine
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Andre Engels, 07/05/2016 08:48:
As such, we should not set a general minimum standard, but instead compare with what is already available for the subject depicted.
A topic-agnostic standard, however, does matter when it comes to using Wikimedia resources for an official partnership. It's entirely different if someone independently uploads a dataset with little fuss and causes no additional work for anyone else.
Nemo