Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julia Margaret Cameron - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Julia Margaret Cameron - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg

[edit]

and also

Image claims to be from "Google Art Project" and hosted by Getty Museum. Yet the colour has been altered by User:Yann. We already have a faithful copy: File:Julia Margaret Cameron (British, born India - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg

Neither the title nor file description note that colour changes by Yann. The image is a brown carbon print. Yann has also updated several Wikipedia articles to use his colour-altered version. These can be reverted back to the original.

For reference see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rembrandt van rijn-self portrait.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard Wilson (1714-1782), by Anton Raphael Mengs.jpg. Both were altered versions by User:Jan Arkesteijn who is now blocked indef for false representation of sources, among other issues.

Since we already have a version with faithful brown tint, this altered copy has no educational purpose, does not represent the original print, and discredits the Getty Museum with incorrect colour. Colin (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[]

 Keep Nonsense! Colin, I advise you to stay away, and stop insults to me.
The images mentioned above have a pink stain, why do prefer them to my corrected version is beyond me. Yann (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[]
You keep saying that about a lot of images... Are you sure your monitor is correct? In any case, you really should document better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Yann, I hope today finds you in a better mood. Can we concentrate on discussing the image and educational value like gentlemen? I have looked at it with several monitors and computers, one of which is calibrated. Unlike this photo, which is a sickly tint that is hard to describe, the original and the faithful copy on Commons are both red-brown, which we must assume is the colour of the print. This may have changed due to age but I see no evidence of any "pink stain" unless deliberately chosen by the photographer when developing. Both this and the "..sepia.jpg" version you created are duplicates with colours that are not realistic.
Part of the charm of old prints is that they are not pure black and white, and reflect the technology and limitations of this early age in photography. Creating versions with colours simply to please your own eye is exactly what Jan Arkesteijn did. Remember that each print may be different. The Met Museum has another brown version with different contrast and rotated in the frame. The Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía has a "Posthumous print, Photogravure on Japanese paper" that is more neutral. The Victoria & Albert museum has the original larger crop "Sepia photograph on paper". The colour, brightness, contrast and condition of all these prints in these various museums and art galleries are essential to their educational value and it is essential that we remain true to that and document accurately. This is a notable photograph in its own right, not just a passport photo of the subject for their Wikipedia article.
Unless you have personally been to the Getty Museum and seen the print for yourself and believe it to have been photographed incorrectly by both Google Art Project and by Getty Museums themselves, I don't see how this has any educational value to the project. We already have the correct version. Further, we are required, through basic professional honesty, to accurately document changes and not to pass off your own editions as though they came from GAP/Getty Museum. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I checked (again) the calibration of my monitor. It may be a little too warm, but not by much. But it doesn't change anything about these images. The Getty and Met Museum versions still have a pink stain. There is no way these could be original colors. And even if some of you prefer these versions (I don't understand why, but never mind), a desaturated version is still useful. And the sepia version is to show you what is a real sepia color. Are you trying to suppress evidence? Actually on the English Wikipedia, it should never have been promoted to FP with that stain. I added a template with a mention of the edits I made to both files. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I don't know why you keep going on about a stain. Or claiming that I have a preference. The only person with a preference is you. I simply want an accurate reproduction of the photographic print in the Getty Museum, which is red-brown. We all know what sepia toning looks like without you having to take some random print and adjusting it. We have thousands of sepia prints on Commons. What educational purpose does your artificially coloured JPG serve? Running a red-brown carbon print through a filter on Gimp to make it look somewhat like a sepia print on your laptop is not how one create an educationally valuable image. Taking an accurate photo, as Google Art Project and Getty Museum have done, is how professionals do this. I really don't understand why you think you know better than them. -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Sorry, but you have it all wrong. Denying the reality won't create new one. You can continue to claim it is "red-brown" while it is pink, it won't change its colors. And you are distorting things to make your opinion looking right. I am offering a desaturated version for whoever wants it, including me. On what right are you denying people another option? Yann (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]
What "reality"? I don't care what colour it is, as long as it is that colour. Call it pink, turquoise or ultra-violet for all I care. Let's agree to disagree about what is displayed on your laptop. Are the images of this print offered by GAP or by Getty Museum likely to be correct or incorrect? That's all that matters. What is the colour of the print itself. I could upload a picture of Theresa May with green skin if it took my fancy, but it isn't what colour she is, except in a political cartoon. So what nonsense is this "denying people another option" about? This isn't some SVG diagram or map, where people can choose what colour they like. It is a real print sitting in a real museum. The only person "distorting things" is you. -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]
 Comment We can't tell wikis which picture they should be using. There is a note that it is a retouched picture. I guess I'm  Neutral on this. Abzeronow (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Abzeronow, this argument would have more weight if those "wikis" independently chose to use Yann's altered picture in full knowledge that it looks nothing like the print in the Getty Museum. In fact, Yann inserted the image onto the wikis, so in a way, "we" are forcing a picture onto wikis, which previously used the accurate image. I would go revert that change, but would rather leave that till the discussion is over. The newly added "retouched" note is easy to miss when the filename and description falsely claim this is "Google Art Project" rather than "Yann's laptop". I really don't think Commons users should misrepresent works of art like this and insert their fake colourations onto wiki. To me, this is not much different to what Jan did, except he tended to overwrite the accurate file with a new version. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Colin, stop attacking every opinion which doesn't fit your righteous view. Yann (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Yann, I'm stating facts. You edited Wikipedia to force your version onto those pages. So "We can't tell wikis which picture they should be using." is actually an argument against what you did, not an argument for keeping some randomly coloured edition of a famous photographic print from a famous museum. Do you think you could stick to facts? I asked you "What is the colour of the print itself?" Is it this colour or this colour. I would genuinely like to know. -- Colin (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[]
No, you are distorting facts to suit your opinion. I have asked several people, and they all think that my modified image is OK in the French Wikipedia. You have to accept that some people have a different opinion. Nobody is required to follow YOUR standard. Yann (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I'm not distorting any facts. I agree some people have different opinions, which is why this is a discussion. Yann, it is clear you are taking this very personally, attacking me personally, and behaving childishly ("Go away!"), and now using SHOUTY letters. Please, when you are upset and angry it is best not to edit here. It's just a file. This is an educational medial repository, so can you please accept my right to an opinion that there is no educational value to a photograph with the wrong colours, when we already have a photograph with the correct colours. The fact that you don't like the colours of this print, is really beside the point. Please can you provide evidence that the image is approved after discussion on French Wikipedia. I can see no discussion on that project by you concerning this image. That is a wiki, and there is no reason for any off-wiki discussion about images on project. I see that User:Adam Cuerden, our most experienced restorer of period works, has reverted your undiscussed edit on English Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Do not try to teach anything when YOU made me angry. I don't have to prove anything to you, you are not my boss. Yann (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Yann, your behaviour over this has been appalling, childish, and quite inappropriate for an admin. And I do see the same ego problems as with Jan, and some of the same dishonesty with sourcing and documentation. You think you know better than the experts at a museum and want the world to view your altered "improved" "better" version. I'd rather they saw the print/artwork that is at the Getty Museum, because that one is real rather than fantasy, and that is what your filename and description claim. I think these things are important on an educational media repository, but not enough to get angry and shouty about it. The only person who has a right to be angry over this, is the professional photographer at Getty or Google who looks at the Wikipedia page and the Commons page and has a WTF moment. I assume from your refusal to answer the question, that you agree your image looks nothing like the actual print, but don't want to admit it. If basic Commons process of featured picture nomination -> rejection and deletion requests is making you this angry, perhaps you should re-evaluate your priorities. But of course, I'm not your boss, so make a fool of yourself online if you want to. -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[]
BevinKacon, I don't think Yann has made any claim about "original tint" or about "restoring". He mentions a "pink stain" but hasn't clarified where he thinks such a "stain" has come from. Neither I nor Adam see a pink stain, and I have a high-end professional Dell monitor that is calibrated with an x-rite i1 Display calibrator. In contrast, Yann has a laptop, which are notoriously poor for screen image quality. This is a very famous and notable photograph but more importantly, there are several official prints of this photograph in existence in various galleries. The one here that is brown happens to be at the Getty Museum. Clearly the most educationally valuable image is one that accurately reproduces what that famous print in that famous gallery actually looks like. Regardless of whether one likes the tint. And we have that already. Assuming it is an accurate reproduction, there are it seems two valid alterations one can make to the colour. One could desaturate completely to produce a b&w version. And one could colourise it as in the example you gave. While somewhat controversial, colourising monochrome images does have some educational merit and adds value. (Btw, I'm not sure Jarekt is correct to label the colourised version as PD, since I would guess that colouring is a copyrightable work, and the person who coloured it only offered it under CC licence). Changing the colour tint to some slightly sickly green-yellow, has no educational merit at all. The fact that Yann prefers it is, it would seem, down to the deficiencies of his laptop screen.
But also we can see a huge difference in professional honesty between the two photos. The colourised version does not make any false claims about which print/museum the image is in the title, and in the descriptions is careful to document the source image and describe the changes made and by whom. This is the very basic level I would have expected from a long term admin like Yann, and I'm really puzzled why this should need explaining. So, at the very least, this JPG needs renamed and re-described to make abundantly clear that the GAP and Getty are merely the source of a now quite different image, and one that bears no resemblance to any reality.
Wrt by basis for disagreeing with Yann, he hasn't actually admitted/claimed that the brown one is inaccurate. The British Journal of Photography think it is just fine as it is. I think we can safely believe GAP, Getty and BJP are all capable of recognising if the image is faulty and misrepresents the print. They are professionals and experts in photography and the reproduction and curation of prints. Yann is not. -- Colin (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[]
The only reason I have not voted delete is because of the precedent it might set, edits should remain flexible where possible. I agree with everything you are saying, Yann should not have replaced the image on other wikis for their preferred version.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[]
 Keep the current revision as I fully desaturated the image. (don't tell me the filesize is reduced, it was converted from the first revision of File:Julia Margaret Cameron (British, born India - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg without quality loss) Also keep File:Julia Margaret Cameron - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project, sepia.jpg which Colin failed to tag properly, as it is the easiest on the eye from all the variants, subject to taste. As for the initial revision, I think it's pretty close to the sepia variant and as such not really needed. Keep it anyway, it's in use. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I have reverted Alexis's change. COM:OVERWRITE does not permit this. -- Colin (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[]
AJ agreed with you but went gung-ho, so I'd classify the above as a  Delete vote.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[]
It's in use so keep it anyway. The image was supposed to be a desatured version according to the {{retouched|Desaturated with Gimp.}} template, I merely made it an actual desatured version. Colin apparently prefers Yann's version, which makes no sense because he nominated it for deletion, but whatever. So I would consider that revert from Colin another  Keep vote. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[]
It is only "in use" because of Yann, and because of the misleading filename/description, so that argument has no merit. I reverted your change because we are discussing Yann's image, not a different b&w image. This is not the first time you have disrupted a DR. Please read COM:OVERWRITE. Please remove your silly second "vote" made apparently on my behalf. A DR is not a vote anyway. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[]
Funny how you ask me to remove my "vote" but didn't ask BevinKacon to remove his "vote". If BevinKacon's "vote" is turned into a link with {{Tl}}, the same can be done with my "vote". We were discussing a desaturated derivative. The derivative wasn't entirely properly desaturated, so I finished the job. You undid my work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[]
You have voted twice. Once in your name, and once in mine. No, we were discussing Yann's false colour version. Despite my issues with Yann here, I think is is quite competent enough to know how to fully desaturate an image. You didn't "finish the job", you disruptively and incompetently interfered. I'm going to stop responding to your posts now. -- Colin (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[]
I didn't vote twice. But if you were to believe that, BevinKacon voted "delete" in my name. So in that case, they would cancel each other out. If BevinKacon's "vote" is turned into a link with {{Tl}}, the same can be done with my "vote". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[]

Per note at AN, about some content belonging here. For reference is the Jan Arkesteijn manipulation of a famous artwork (a painting), and Yann's manipulation of a famous artwork (an early photographic carbon print):

  • Jan's manipulation
    Jan's manipulation
  • GAP/Getty version. Reality.
    GAP/Getty version. Reality.
  • Yann's manipulation. Fiction.
    Yann's manipulation. Fiction.

The comparison is obvious and the harm to the project identical. As noted in the Jan Arkesteijn DR:

"This painting is effectively a work of fiction, it is a false-colour version of ____... Replacing the authentic official original image with fake colour versions on Wikipedia(s), without any notice or consensus to do so, appears to be a pure act of vandalism. Deletion is necessary as the image actively misleads and misinforms. There is no reason for other Wikimedia projects or reusers off-wiki to use this false colour version and continuing to host it on Commons will leave the door open for future mistaken reuse or further deliberate misrepresentation."

At Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 73#User:Jan Arkesteijn, Jeff G. wrote "This user keeps uploading problematic green-tinted images, claiming they are from the mentioned source, but not explaining the differences". That's also Yann here, the exact same issue. Steinsplitter commented "the original ones are looking different. Highly concerning" and "Do you think it is okay to change colors of hundreds of years old files" -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[]

If the name and description were changed and Yann would stop edit warring to keep it on French Wikipedia, I would be inclined to keep it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[]
 Comment This was taken in a black and white negative. It seems therefore sensible to offer a desatured and a grayscale versions. I am uploading Alexis' version separately. Beside, colors deteriorate with time, so we can't know if the original prints were really brown. This is quite obvious, since the versions from different intitutes have different colors. Could someone please close this nonsense by Colin? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[]
To suggest that because the negative was "black and white" that grayscale and what's Yann continues to refer to as "desaturated" (but everyone else sees as "green tinted") are sensible options is quite a naive understanding of photographs and early photography. A true grayscale version may have some merit provided it is made clear that it is a computer-edited derivative, and not the copy owned by Getty or Google Art project. Yann's green-tinted derivative work continues to have negative educational purpose since it only exists to mislead. The true fact is that this is a photographic print, not some digital negative. If we look at Getty's website we see that the negative was made in 1864 and this print in 1875. Note what is says about the prints: "Her demeanor, indicated by the title Sadness, which Cameron gave to another print of this image, may also indicate Terry's realization that her marriage was a mistake. Employing a non-fading print process used for commercially distributed pictures, Cameron's printer made multiple carbon prints available for purchase by Terry's and Cameron's fans." We know that particularly with the great b&w photographers, their prints are what they consider the published works, not their negatives. Much darkroom manipulation was common, as was the skill in producing a good print. This is not a JPG created by scanning a negative, but a photograph/scan of a print, which is in colour.
We can see from the Art Gallery of New South Wales page that there are different prints, with their own qualities. About theirs, they say "The image in the collection is a 1913 photogravure as published in ‘Camera Work’ of that year and is the later of the two versions". In other words, the specific print and the print technique are important historical facts. Met Museum has another damaged print dated 1913.
The fact that different prints have different colours is because they used different techniques and were made at different times. They also reflect the skill of who made the print and the medium it was printed on/with. This is what is interesting about historical images: they aren't pure brilliant white or pure neutral grey or darkest black. That character comes from an accurate colour reproduction of the print. A derivative green-tinted work, as Yann has created here, is out-of-scope user-generated art, and disrespectful to Getty, the Google Art project, and the artist who created this brown print. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[]
  •  Keep +  Move . I see no reason for deletion in the aforesaid arguments. This picture is in the public domain so any user can do what they want with it, and if it suits them to produce altered versions and upload them here, they are perfectly entitled to do so. The educational value of that version is exactly the same as that of the original, provided it is clearly identified as a retouched picture, which it is. The problem lies in that file’s name, which may be misleading, not in the file itself. So I think it would be better if it was renamed to explain more clearly that this is a retouched version, and not the original one from Getty or Google Art Project. Then, it is up to the contributors to each Wikipedia to decide which version they want to use for which article on their encyclopædias. Akela NDE (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[]
Well I fail to see how the educational value is "exactly the same" if one is green, unlike any print in existence. Just because PD allows people to create weird variants doesn't mean they are in scope on an educational media repository that already has the correctly coloured version. Btw, Yann is edit warring on French Wikipedia to retain his green version there, so I have asked for mediation on that project. He continues making personal attacks there also. To be honest, if Yann wasn't the experienced admin he is, I'd have classed "Let's upload a weirdly green version of a famous artwork, force it onto several Wikipedias, and then respond with continued hostility towards anyone suggesting it be deleted" as trolling of the most obvious kind. Instead, I'm going to assume his laptop screen is broken. -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[]
Colin: I share your impressions on this image. However, it seems to me that it meets the criteria of eligibility. I admit, however, beeing relatively incompetent in that matter. Note that this image will probably not be accepted in any Wikipedia article (so it is probably harmless).--Braaark (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[]

Kept: as per my comment above. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[]

Comment: I renamed the file, as agreed in the discussion above. Yann (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Julia_Margaret_Cameron_-_Ellen_Terry_at_Age_Sixteen_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg&oldid=340223513"