Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to Commons. They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
There's no official minimum but I'd say that to be useful they should be no less than 2000x1000 pixels. They should be highest quality jpg (i.e. not degraded quality, as that introduces artefacts).
Michael
On 21 May 2017, at 12:38, Flor Méchain flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch wrote:
Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to Commons. They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
-- Flor MECHAIN Wikimedia CH E: flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch M: +41 78 746 86 25 W: Flor WMCH
Wikimedia CH is a swiss non profit organisation which supports Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
You might wanna consider the recommended guidelines for here too: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_feat...
Although the guidelines apply to quality and featured images, I think the underlying reasons check.
At least, a 2MP resolution can be considered the minimum. I don't know if any image below that threshold will look good enough these days on screens.
rex
On Sunday, May 21, 2017, Flor Méchain flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch wrote:
Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to Commons. They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
-- Flor MECHAIN Wikimedia CH E: flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch M: +41 78 746 86 25 W: Flor WMCH
Wikimedia CH is a swiss non profit organisation which supports Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Dear Flor,
We usually ask Swiss heritage institutions to upload the highest resolution they have. There is a number of precedents you may refer to:
- Swiss Federal Archives - Swiss National Library - Historical Museum Basel - Zentralbibliothek Solothurn - Zentralbibliothek Zürich - ...
Should we shortly discuss this off list?
Cheers, Beat
_____________________________________________________
Beat Estermann Coordinator OpenGLAM CH Working Group http://openglam.ch Berne University of Applied Sciences E-Government Institute Brückenstrasse 73 CH-3005 Bern beat.estermann@openglam.ch
Phone +41 31 848 34 38
Swiss Open Cultural Data Hackathon, Lausanne, 15-16 September 2017 – Save the date! (workshops starting already the day before)
-----Original Message----- From: Commons-l [mailto:commons-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Flor Méchain Sent: Sonntag, 21. Mai 2017 13:39 To: commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Commons-l] Minimum resolution image for Commons
Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to Commons. They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
-- Flor MECHAIN Wikimedia CH E: flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch M: +41 78 746 86 25 W: Flor WMCH
Wikimedia CH is a swiss non profit organisation which supports Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 21 May 2017 at 12:38, Flor Méchain flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch wrote:
Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to Commons. They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Hi,
2017-05-21 18:51 GMT+02:00 geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 21 May 2017 at 12:38, Flor Méchain flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch wrote:
Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to
Commons.
They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
As others say, 2 Mpixels should be the minimum resolution, although it is a bit small to do any work (i.e. restoration). That's the minimum requirement for quality and featured images on Commons.
For doing restoration, it is quite comfortable around 12 Mpixels (4000 x 3000). That's what most cameras offer today.
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Any that small resolution should be refused nowadays.
Regards,
Yann
-- geni
On 22 May 2017 at 20:03, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Any that small resolution should be refused nowadays.
Regards,
Yann
Common's highest resolution image of a Partula turgida shell is 469 × 361. It was uploaded in december 2016. Are you going to try and delete that?
Hoi, The two images of a Partula turgida shell are really bad. They do not show enough detail to be certain that the image is about what it says it is. I delete nothing but it is poor value. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 May 2017 at 22:07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 May 2017 at 20:03, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Any that small resolution should be refused nowadays.
Regards,
Yann
Common's highest resolution image of a Partula turgida shell is 469 × 361. It was uploaded in december 2016. Are you going to try and delete that?
-- geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 22 May 2017 at 21:10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The two images of a Partula turgida shell are really bad. They do not show enough detail to be certain that the image is about what it says it is. I delete nothing but it is poor value. Thanks, GerardM
I didn't claim they were good. I said there were below Yann's resolution standard.
Hi,
2017-05-22 22:07 GMT+02:00 geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 22 May 2017 at 20:03, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Any that small resolution should be refused nowadays.
Regards,
Yann
Common's highest resolution image of a Partula turgida shell is 469 × 361. It was uploaded in december 2016. Are you going to try and delete that?
There is a difference between accepting new images and deleting old images which were uploaded years ago.
Regards,
Yann
--
geni
It is common practice for GLAMs to not want to upload their highest resolution. For example, Wikimedia Canada has a GLAM partner that donated pictures they were holding that were in the public domain, in a resolution "good enough" to illustrate Wikipedia articles. But the GLAM partner retained the highest resolutions so they can still copies and generate revenue for them, even though those are in the public domain and as soon as they sell one you could use it on Commons in theory. Sometimes we need to meet in the middle if we want to achieve our mission when there are conflicting interests.
Thanks, Jean-Philippe Béland Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
On Tue, May 23, 2017, 05:15 Yann Forget, yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2017-05-22 22:07 GMT+02:00 geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 22 May 2017 at 20:03, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Any that small resolution should be refused nowadays.
Regards,
Yann
Common's highest resolution image of a Partula turgida shell is 469 × 361. It was uploaded in december 2016. Are you going to try and delete that?
There is a difference between accepting new images and deleting old images which were uploaded years ago.
Regards,
Yann
--
geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
They can still sell copies**
Missing word. sorry.
JP
On Tue, May 23, 2017, 08:39 Jean-Philippe Béland, jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
It is common practice for GLAMs to not want to upload their highest resolution. For example, Wikimedia Canada has a GLAM partner that donated pictures they were holding that were in the public domain, in a resolution "good enough" to illustrate Wikipedia articles. But the GLAM partner retained the highest resolutions so they can still copies and generate revenue for them, even though those are in the public domain and as soon as they sell one you could use it on Commons in theory. Sometimes we need to meet in the middle if we want to achieve our mission when there are conflicting interests.
Thanks, Jean-Philippe Béland Vice President, Wikimedia Canada
On Tue, May 23, 2017, 05:15 Yann Forget, yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2017-05-22 22:07 GMT+02:00 geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 22 May 2017 at 20:03, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Any that small resolution should be refused nowadays.
Regards,
Yann
Common's highest resolution image of a Partula turgida shell is 469 × 361. It was uploaded in december 2016. Are you going to try and delete that?
There is a difference between accepting new images and deleting old images which were uploaded years ago.
Regards,
Yann
--
geni
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 23 May 2017 at 10:15, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2017-05-22 22:07 GMT+02:00 geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 22 May 2017 at 20:03, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
geograph's 640 × 480 is the lowest widely used resolution.
Any that small resolution should be refused nowadays.
Regards,
Yann
Common's highest resolution image of a Partula turgida shell is 469 × 361. It was uploaded in december 2016. Are you going to try and delete that?
There is a difference between accepting new images and deleting old images which were uploaded years ago.
Regards,
Yann
December 2016 is years ago?
Hi all, I would add a point to the question of Flor.
Is there a minimum resolution in Commons to consider an image eligible for the cancellation?
The images which are part of this project are important for their descriptive aspects and can be useful to document some articles.
The question is important to know if there should be an additional step to rescan all images, or if we can reuse those already scanned for the website.
Kind regards
On 21/05/2017 13:38, Flor Méchain wrote:
Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to Commons. They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
You're not obligated to do additional work of re-scanning images, but the bigger and higher quality the better. (: If an image is too tiny to be useful it may be deleted, but that is unlikely. However, larger and higher quality images are more likely to be designated as Quality Images or Featured Pictures. While even small images may be adequate for thumbnails in Wikipedia articles, the biggest and highest quality images would be preferable.
If your available time and/or money constrains you from providing the highest quality and largest possible images, I wouldn't worry about this, but if you have the time and money to scan the images at very high quality and resolution, that would be preferable.
Pine
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I would add a point to the question of Flor.
Is there a minimum resolution in Commons to consider an image eligible for the cancellation?
The images which are part of this project are important for their descriptive aspects and can be useful to document some articles.
The question is important to know if there should be an additional step to rescan all images, or if we can reuse those already scanned for the website.
Kind regards
On 21/05/2017 13:38, Flor Méchain wrote:
Hello!
I am in touch with a museum that is thinking of uploading images to Commons. They are a bit uncertain about uploading high resolution, but I told them the resolution they need to upload just needs to be good enough for illustrating articles without being pixellated. The thing is, I am unsure about the minimum size of such an image. I tried poking around the instructions but didn't find a direct answer.
Do you know which size is "the minimum" that can be accepted on Commons?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Warm wishes,
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hello,
There is an essay on Wikimedia Commons discussing this topic :
< https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Why_we_need_high_resolution_media
Hope that helps,
Wikimedians rarely get excited about volunteering to help GLAMs that want to lock up high resolution media behind a paywall. It's fine to charge correctly and openly for reprographic fees, but as we commonly see, when the GLAM relies on misunderstanding of copyright so that teachers and academics part with hard-won funding to be able to use or republish the public domain images or texts, then we are straying into supporting unethical behaviour.
I would rather see Wikimedia affiliates helping to educate those institutions with case studies and advice on how to encourage attribution as the best quality source, along with persistence of metadata, rather than offering our volunteer time and charitable money to help them continue to lock up the best information, and often public assets, behind arbitrary paywalls.
If an institution is putting you in that position, make the case clear, but be fully prepared to simply walk away if their corporate objectives remain in conflict with our open knowledge and free access values.
Thanks, Fae
On 23 May 2017 at 13:46, Jean-Frédéric jeanfrederic.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
There is an essay on Wikimedia Commons discussing this topic :
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Why_we_need_high_resolution_media
Hope that helps,
Jean-Frédéric
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hello,
I wanted to thank the group for your answers. I now have a lot more arguments and examples for the library-museum that approached me. I think we'll manage to do something good, or at least, find an acceptable middle-ground.
Warm wishes,
Flor MECHAIN Wikimedia CH E: flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch M: +41 78 746 86 25 W: Flor WMCH
Wikimedia CH is a swiss non profit organisation which supports Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia
Bonjour,
Voici un exemple concret pour expliquer la résolution nécessaire : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_coal_miner.jpg 1200 × 1200 pixels est suffisant pour illustrer un article de Wikipédia, mais pas pour restaurer les défauts de la photo (les rayures sont clairement visibles ici sur la face du mineur). Pour cela il faudrait un scan de l'original qui est disponible à la Bibliothèque du Congrès à Washington, mais pas en ligne.
Cordialement,
Yann
2017-05-24 15:45 GMT+02:00 Flor Méchain flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch:
Hello,
I wanted to thank the group for your answers. I now have a lot more arguments and examples for the library-museum that approached me. I think we'll manage to do something good, or at least, find an acceptable middle-ground.
Warm wishes,
Flor MECHAIN Wikimedia CH E: flor.mechain@wikimedia.ch M: +41 78 746 86 25 W: Flor WMCH
Wikimedia CH is a swiss non profit organisation which supports Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l