Commons talk:Quality images candidates

Mistakes in review attribution when saving

Sometimes, when I review a picture, the conferming process applies the review to a different picture (after the preview, when conferming the review). It happened here, and I had to made a correction directly by the code: [1].

I noticed today that the same happened on June 23. I was declining this picture, but the review was attributed to this other one. Both pictures had been nominated by User:PetarM. Please, can we undo the result for File:2026 Tour of Slovenia podium (1st Florian Lipowitz, 2nd Giulio Pellizzari, 3rd Jakob Omrzel).jpg?

Also, did it happen only to me, or had other experienced the same problem? Thank you. Harlock81 (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I think most user have experienced this at some point – it has happened to my photos on occasion.--ArildV (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will pay attention to it in the future

Regarding the picture that has been declined as a consequence of this bug, I just nominated it again. --Harlock81 (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Picture Composition, Composition Rules

Over the past few months, I’ve repeatedly noticed photos that could definitely be better in terms of design. Furthermore, some reviews actually call for a disregard of design rules, even if they don’t state it so explicitly. I’d like to share a few thoughts on this here:

• Design and compositional rules help shape a photo. In my opinion, the two most important rules are:
  • Focus on one (!) subject. Multiple subjects are simply distracting.
  • Follow the rule of thirds. A little negative space is definitely helpful. Many cameras even support this rule by allowing you to display a grid on the screen.
• Leave a little more space around the subject. Some photos are cropped very tightly. That might make sense for Wikipedia, though I have my doubts. Space around the subject helps highlight it.
• More blur helps emphasize the subject. This doesn’t mean the subject itself should be out of focus, but the background can certainly be blurred. A photo that is sharp from front to back creates too much distraction in the background. Especially when the background isn’t neutral, blurring helps with the composition.

I don’t want to go into more detail here, but I’d like to encourage you to explore image composition further. XRay 💬 08:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for sharing these thoughts here. All this sounds absolutely correct and it is impossible not to agree with it. But there are nuances. The fact is that Wikipedia usually doesn't need this. Wikipedia doesn't need artistic photos. It needs illustrations. Of course, artistic photos arranged according to all the rules of composition can be very useful as illustrations. But more often no than yes. I know this from many years of experience illustrating articles. Moreover, for many illustrative purposes, these rules are almost impossible to apply. For example, photos of animals, architectural elements, cars, macro photos etc. What is good for a landscape or cityscape is not good for a picture of food, furniture, or a surgeon at work. And so on, I give the first examples that came to mind. Specifically, in QI project, of course, it is worth paying attention to the composition, especially since this is indicated in the guidelines, but still, it seems to me, it is necessary to keep in mind the features and needs of Wikipedia as a maxi-project, within which QI project is located. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There’s a lovely quote by the German photographer Detlev Motz: “A beginner who ignores the compositional rules of photography has no sense. But someone who clings to them for a lifetime has no imagination.” This isn’t really about artistically composed photos, but it says a lot. In my view, Wikipedia is just one example of photos that are neither imaginative nor well-composed. And please don’t generalize—there are also very good photos on Wikipedia. But it’s just noticeable that there are sometimes photos that are, for example, cropped too tightly. Or that are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without much care—for instance, poorly categorized. (It has happened to me more than once that I clicked on a photo in a Wikipedia article to find the Wikimedia Commons category for that topic. And then I realized that the photo in the article had been categorized so poorly that the category for the actual topic was missing.) And it’s striking how often these are used on Wikipedia.

But I don’t want to focus solely on Wikipedia. According to its mission statement, Wikimedia Commons is a media archive for all purposes, which includes all Wikimedia projects. My own photos are often used even outside the Wikimedia world (to illustrate articles and books, to decorate doctors’ offices and other workplaces, etc.), and you don’t see that in any of the links. Your experience with illustrating articles is interesting, and you’re right—these kinds of photos don’t have to be taken according to design guidelines. But that’s not what I meant at all, because these photos are often a further stage in a photographer’s personal development. However, for some photographers who submit nominations to QI, it would be worthwhile to familiarize themselves with the composition rules. I don’t want to single out any specific photos from the past here, but every now and then images pop up where I think, “There’s potential here,” but it would be beneficial to give the composition rules some thought. My comment is meant as a suggestion, not criticism. I hold photography classes, and one of the main focuses in the early stages is composition. Leading lines, the rule of thirds, and much more are things one should explore. They’re important, at least in the beginning. The rules of composition also have a long history; they’re what often make a photo (or painting) appear harmonious. -- XRay 💬 04:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

you don't take photography classes, you hold them, if I am no mistaken --Kritzolina (talk)

Kritzolina (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. -- XRay 💬 06:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue with you, because on the whole I completely agree with you, everything you say is absolutely correct and useful. I'm just adding, drawing the attention of those who read this topic to some of the features of the place where we all are. I'm not as good as you in terms of photographic skills, but my photos are also quite often used outside of Wikipedia in various media, so I understand well what you're talking about. And I also agree about categories, because I have been correcting other people's categorization mistakes for many years. And when I see a gorgeous photo that is properly categorized and perfectly suited for illustrating an article, I am completely satisfied. But it often happens that a beautiful and properly taken photo is not suitable for illustration at all. And here's another thing to say. A year ago, I participated in a Wikimedia photography workshop with a professional photographer. He was telling the students about the same things you're talking about. But since the students mostly had no experience of photographing and good photography equipment, it seemed to me that they mostly did not understand what he was talking about. So when it came to my master class, I told them pretty simple things. Like, "keep the camera straight, don't shoot against the light, think about which Wikipedia topic your photo might be useful for," and so on. Professional photographers often forget to talk about this because it's obvious to them, but that's why we then correct so many other people's mistakes and see so many bad and useless uploaded photos. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we understand each other very well. I can also contribute a bit from my photography classes. My students are always a little surprised when they realize that photography is more than just pressing a button. Aside from the rules of composition, I try to convey that you first need to sit down with the camera and experiment with different settings. You can do that at your own pace at home. Then there’s the right lighting—which sometimes means a specific time of day or season. Movement is also key, because you can hold the camera in all sorts of different positions. And you can move yourself to get a different perspective on the subject. And you should bring time and patience to the table. These are all basics, but they take time—a lot of time, in fact. And you shouldn’t lose sight of the fun in it all. Some of the photos nominated for QI lack all of this, but you shouldn’t set the quality standards too high. That’s not what QI is for. I do expect a little, though. BTW: Last but not least, pixel peeping is part of it. That’s simply unsuitable for high-resolution photos. No photo needs to be super sharp at the pixel level. Many lenses can’t even achieve that. A beautifully composed photo is worth so much more!

Perhaps I can add something personal. I wasn’t expecting much feedback here at all. That makes your feedback and interest all the more gratifying. Thank you for that! -- XRay 💬 15:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

"Many lenses can’t even achieve that." - That’s one thing; the other is simply physics, and that has implications for two aspects that are constantly misunderstood on QIC. One concerns the alleged lack of depth of field, while the other concerns a lack of sharpness at the pixel level. The latter is limited by diffraction, whereas the former cannot be judged at the pixel level because it relies on a convention regarding what counts as sufficiently sharp. Because this isn't understood, you end up with amusing (or absurd?) assessments — as was the case recently with your forest path photo. Smial (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Many thanks to 💬 and Екатерина Борисова for this talk, which sounds like music to my ears! In many ways, I belong to the old guard of photographers to whom a correct framing, composition and lighting should be mandatory for a quality images. Of course, rules are made to be broken and we often do that for aesthetical reasons, sometimes leadind to exceptional images. I wonder whether these fundamental values are really being transmitted here, where fashionable criteria such parallel verticals, razor sharp representations and the absolute absence of CA often prevail. Anyway, there is a lot of talent here, and I really hope its owners continue to insist in showing how it should be done... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thx, I also agree with you that the "composition" aspect is not always considered in QI reviews (but should). IMO a great composition can compensate minor technical flaws and the other way round. And yes, pictures here are meant for "documentary purposes", they don't necessarily have to be so beautiful that you would use them as a wallpaper in your home, but nevertheless they should be somehow aesthetic. Plozessor (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

(And btw I've also learned a lot here.) Plozessor (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

However, the term “documentary” shouldn’t be interpreted so narrowly here that it refers only to Wikipedia. I always find relying solely on that source to be limiting. Creative works are just as valuable; they, too, have their place here. I don't want people to think that I see documentary photography as the ultimate goal. My goal is to take good photos, and I enjoy promoting photography. -- XRay 💬 04:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your post—I often see photos here that are submitted to QI but don’t meet many of the criteria (in my opinion). Even basic technical fundamentals are ignored—and we’re not even talking about composition yet. Sensor spots everywhere, focus errors (which can’t be chalked up to artistic choice), and much more. Artistic photography should definitely have a place on Commons, and I see it here far too rarely. Grunpfnul (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I concur with a lot of things written here, but I would add a slight nuance. In my understanding, QIs can be artistic, they don't have to be artistic (that would be FP). According to Commons' project scope, files here are intended to be useful for an "educational purpose" : if they have great artistic value, that's wonderful, but it isn't necessary. In QIC, I would make a difference between :

• A composition mistake, such as a crop that cuts part of the subject, a distracting object in the foreground that could have been avoided if the photographer have moved a few steps, etc. Pictures with these flaws should not be granted QI status ;
• A uncreative or boring composition, such as having the subject right in the middle of the picture, having the horizon at half the height of the picture, etc. These are OK for QI in my opinion, and they can in certain cases be more useful for an educational purpose than a very artistic compositions.

In my vision, it should be possible to create QIs of almost any subject (not protected by copyright, accessible to volunteer photographers, etc, of course) and obviously, not all subjects allow you to create a picture you would use as a wallpaper. But having good quality pictures of all heritage buildings, species, personalities, etc, would add a lot to the world's cultural commons --Benji 18:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I also agree with you, thank you for highlighting additional aspects of our conversation. I can also add that, for example, I find car photos boring, but I understand that they don't have to be artistic and that they are useful, and therefore I usually just don't evaluate them. On the other hand, I am surprised that many nominated cityscapes, where composition is quite important, are devoid of composition in principle, but for some reason they are often supported anyway. I think we need to evaluate these kinds of images more strictly. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• There are many aspects to photography, and a good photo collection (Commons) thrives on the diversity of interests and focuses. Everyone should photograph what they like. The photographer Lisette Model once said something remarkable on this subject: “Never photograph anything you are not passionately interested in.” This does not preclude attention to composition, nor does it preclude a creative approach to photography. -- XRay 💬 04:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sure. But here in QI project we do not see and evaluate all the photos that are uploaded to Commons, but only those that have been nominated for quality status. And we don't know which photos were taken with passion, and which ones, for example, for work purposes or for the sake of winning a prize at some competition. It seems to me that the regular participants of the project really like to take pictures, and many say that the project helps them improve their skills (I'll say that too), but we still don't know for sure. And if you take it in general, a high-quality thing made with love is always good, but if you choose one of the two, then a well-made thing without any emotions is better than a piece of garbage made with passion :) -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Clarification on uploading, nominating and evaluating for QI

I am seeking some clarification on images being evaluated for Quality Image.

As I understand it, a registered user is a user who has signed up for an account in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons and has logged in.

Images can only be uploaded by a registered user.

Uploaded images can only be nominated for QI by a registered user.

Only registered users (with some minor conditions) can evaluate an image for QI.

I see some user names in red evaluating images for QI promotion, indicating they do not have an account (not a registered user or are not logged in?). If they are not a registered user, how is this handled in QI?

Admin help appreciated,

GRDN711 (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the Wikipedia account isn't relevant here. And a red link indicates that no user page exists. However, the account may still exist. -- XRay 💬 05:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, the red link is about the user page that not every registered user does have. Plozessor (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Almost every user with red-linked username has a Discussion page with date of registration (automatically created welcome post), also one can search for contributions of such a user in Commons. This information is useful enough to decide if a user has rights to nominate and evaluate QI images. Red-linked username just shows that a user hasn't created his personal page in Commons yet, but he/she can create it any time he/she wants. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@GRDN711: you may also want wo read Commons:Username policy and Help:Unified login on Meta-Wiki. In a nutshell: Since more than 10 years now, every user should have a single username across all Wikimedia projects.

As said before, a redlink user has an account (unregistered people are recognisable by their temporary accounts beginning with a tilde), but there's no local page content. There's also the option to create a central userpage on Metawiki that will be displayed in all projects. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nominations by Igor123121

There has been a situation in QIC project for several months now that I am concerned about. It's about Igor123121's duplicate nominations. I've already talked about this several times in Consensual review section, and now I want to discuss it with a wider range of participants. The bottom line is that this user nominates a certain photo for a status, this photo gets a status, then some time later he uploads this photo again under a slightly different name and sometimes with a slightly different processing and nominates it again. I do not know why he does this, but it repeats almost every day. I first noticed this by accident a couple of months ago, and since then I've been looking closely at his nominations. There are already enough examples, let's give a few of the current nominations. 1. This image was uploaded on 20 May 2026 and got QI status on May 24; the same image was uploaded on 18 July 2026 and nominated yesterday. EXIF data of both are exactly the same. 2. This one was uploaded on 23 June 2026 and got QI status on June 27; the same image was uploaded on 18 July 2026 and nominated on July 23. Processing is a bit different, but EXIF data of both are exactly the same again. 3. The same story with this QI and this nomination. 4. Here's another twin nominations, both are QI 1 2. And so on. If you go to Category:Quality images by Igor123121, you can easily find other pairs (like this and this for example). In other words, this is clearly not a series where the user takes several shots of a building, location, or animal, sometimes quite similar, but still from different angles and with different timings. These are precisely repeated uploads of the same photos and their repeated nomination for status, and, I believe, the nomination is completely deliberate. Yes, we don't have a rule that prohibits doing this, but we don't have any other rules that prohibit doing something that doesn't even occur to anyone. We always mean that participants can make mistakes, but they act honestly. I consider Igor's duplicate nominations primarily dishonest. Besides, according to the guidelines, images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, and there's a well-known and frequently used practice of deleting duplicate images, so separate uploading of identical or very slightly different images also contradicts the Сommons rules. See COM:Dupe. In short, the problem was formulated very well recently by Smial, who said that uploading masses of nearly identical or very similar photos of the same subject here on QIC completely contradicts the original purpose and goal of this project. I consider it a rather embarrassing form of badge-hunting that benefits no one, other than inflating the uploader's QI-count, offers no educational value, and yet creates an enormous burden on the review process. In this regard, I want to discuss with the active participants of the project what we should do with this situation and how to resolve it. @Smial, Harlock81, Lmbuga, Tagooty, Augustgeyler, Plozessor, XRay, Jakubhal, Robert Flogaus-Faust, Красный, MB-one, Lvova, Юрий Д.К., Jacek Halicki, Ermell, Poco a poco, and Mike Peel: and everyone who wants to talk about it. Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• I would prefer not to comment on the main issue until Igor has had a chance to respond. However, I have noticed another pattern that I think is also worth discussing. It appears that reviews are being treated in a transactional way. Igor consistently promotes images uploaded by users who have recently promoted his own images, usually in approximately the same numbers. In some cases, these promotions are given despite obvious technical issues, such as severely overexposed skies, or despite comments from other reviewers pointing out problems. I have also noticed several cases where he adds a second positive review to an image that has already received sufficient support, even though there is no practical need for another assessment. In every case I have observed, the image belongs to someone who had recently promoted one or more of his images. Of course, I cannot know his motivation, and I do not want to speculate about it. However, this consistent pattern creates the appearance of reciprocal review exchanges rather than independent assessments based solely on the quality of the photographs. This is also worth discussing, because the value of QIC depends on reviewers assessing images independently and on their own merits. -- Jakubhal 04:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Agree, let's let Igor comment on this, apart from that if an image get's the status of QI, a modified version of that very same picture (in B/W or cropped) should not become QI, let alone the same picture with a different title. Poco a poco (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I can also add that Igor several times opposed my photos a few hours after I opposed his photos for the reason described above. I don't consider myself the best photographer in the world and I'm calm about criticism, but I consider these cases to be revenge votes, because he never opposed anyone else's photos, and he never paid attention to mine, except for those days when I opposed his nominations. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it [revenge votes] can be completely avoided, as we are here all people with different views on life and characters . We can only reduce the probability but it requires high-grade equipment. Best, Юрий Д.К. 19:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been able to trust his nominations ever since we discussed downscaling, so I avoid them. It could be fair enough, if everyone did, but his actions are invisible for people who don't see the full scale, so I hope there will be another decision. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 11:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that similar images may be QIs (photos of the same building from other angles, crops, etc). Igor's photos are useful indeed, but imho, examples provided by Екатерина are overly similar (the first pair are duplicates, others only a bit different - likely the same photos with another perspective correction). I don't think he is doing it deliberately but I recommend avoiding very similar nominations. If you have an improved version of the original that is already on Commons, simply re-upload it. You may ask deletion if an old version isn't needed. I also wanted to address the issue of "double promotions". They are useless because they may delay QI promotion. For example, if someone supports an image on 00:00, 25 July it will be QI around 05:30, 27 July. If you re-support it, say, on 00:00, 26 July, promotion will be 05:30, 28 July. In addition, it is better to spend your time on other nominations, many are still unassessed. Best, Юрий Д.К. 19:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

> similar images may be QIs (photos of the same building from other angles, crops, etc)

Sure. I can add that it is useful to take pictures of the same buildings, landscapes, etc. at different times of the day, in different seasons and in different years. I don't think anyone will object to this. But we are discussing repeated nominations of the same photos here, and not different nominations of different photos, that's the problem. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

identical files should be marked as {{Duplicate}} and near identical file can and should be nominated for ordinary deletion IMO. MB-one (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• I tend to be pragmatic most of the time. I don’t want to have any power or influence on Wikimedia Commons; I’ll simply act as a user (any one of you could make me change my mind):

(1) This user must speak up

(2) If they do not speak up, I will never promote their images.

(3) I will inform anyone who promotes their images of this discussion, and let them know that I have decided not to promote any of their images.--Lmbuga (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• If we work together on the basis of decisions reached by consensus within the project of Wikimedia Commons, we will make progress. We are not defenceless--Lmbuga (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe the problem can be solved through regulation or rules. There are too many well-founded exceptions where keeping very similar photos makes sense—such as before-and-after comparisons in image editing, or the aforementioned specific crops for screen backgrounds or banners. Perhaps we should all remember that QIC is not a competition to see who has uploaded the most QIs; rather, the original aim was—among other things—to showcase good examples across the widest possible range of subjects, allowing less experienced photographers to learn and thereby enabling better illustration of Wikipedia articles. In this regard, multiple nominations of identical or nearly identical photos are absolutely unhelpful; however, in my opinion, they cannot simply be banned. Instead, we can only appeal to the uploaders or establish "best practice" guidelines. Smial (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Smial. Moreover, multiple nominations of identical or nearly identical photos are annoying, and often I skip them. However, I would like to hear the people who nominate and promote these series of images. I could be wrong, instead. --Harlock81 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• At this point, I am not sure that we are going to receive a response from the user concerned. Regarding the identification of duplicate or near-duplicate nominations, I used an LLM to generate a Python script that may help detect similar cases in the future. It uses the Commons API and groups images based on selected EXIF metadata. A report generated for Igor’s uploads can be found here. The script is intended as a technical aid rather than as evidence of misconduct. It requires some basic familiarity with Python, and its results still need to be checked manually. It is also not perfect. For example, photographs taken by a drone in rapid succession, within the same second and with identical camera settings, may produce false positives; the first two groups in the report are examples of this. An earlier version used less restrictive matching: the photographs did not need to have exactly the same timestamp, provided that they were taken close together with the same camera settings. However, this produced more than 200 groups and a large number of false positives. The broader series-detection mode is still available, but it must be enabled with an additional option. I am sharing this mainly so that users concerned about repeated nominations have a practical way to identify possible cases without relying solely on memory or manually browsing hundreds of uploads. Any resulting groups should, of course, be reviewed individually before conclusions are drawn. -- Jakubhal 04:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know much about Python, but I have no doubt that you've done a useful thing, thank you. However, I don't understand if this script can make updates. And we need updates, because, as I've observed, after receiving a portion of comments about duplicate nominations, Igor stops uploading and nominating duplicates for a while, and then starts doing it again as if nothing had happened. And what surprises me the most is that he hasn't come here yet and hasn't tried to explain his behavior in any way. Maybe he thinks that we'll just talk and go our separate ways without making any decisions, and he'll be able to continue behaving this way. I don't know. But of course it would be much better to listen to him instead of speculating. So far, his only reaction has been to oppose some of my photos again. This looks rather unserious, in my opinion. And I would still like to somehow solve the problems both with his duplicates and with his reciprocal voting, and not to observe this strange actions from him for a long time ahead. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  The script does not update the report automatically, so it would need to be run again after some time. The report that has already been generated can meanwhile be reviewed to identify images that may be suitable for deletion requests, although each case should of course be checked individually. I am not sure what else to suggest regarding a user who continues to ignore the discussion. After the recent series of apparent revenge votes, I would personally consider escalating the matter to the Administrators' noticeboard. That said, my previous experience there has not been particularly encouraging: people discussed the reported behaviour for a while, but the threads eventually faded out without any clear decision or action. I would also be interested to hear from the users who continue to promote his images and then receive promotions of their own images in return, apparently in a mechanical way and without any meaningful assessment, almost as a reward. I am genuinely curious how they view this pattern. -- Jakubhal 04:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean by 'revenge vote'? I am simply exercising my right to rate photos. No rule prohibits rating the photos of a user who does not support the rater's actions. A 'revenge vote' – although I don't think that's the right term – could describe a situation where I voted against something without any justification. However, for every vote on your photos, I always provide a reason. --Igor123121 (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe you should just ping these users? Ping works fine here in Discussion page, although Igor pretends it doesn't. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• I will address this discussion in parts, as there are already claims that I am ignoring it (nobody even notified me about it on my talk page, and I only found out about it through the QI page). Regarding the accusation that I promote photos of people who promote mine – I didn't know this was considered strange. To me, it is only natural that if someone takes the time to look at and rate my photo, I will also look at theirs first as a way of returning the favor. This is what cooperation is about, and I see nothing wrong with it. There was also a complaint that I add my vote to a photo that is already promoted – I don't see anything wrong with that either. In fact, I think it's a positive thing for the author, as it means their photo was reviewed by two people. As for the argument that this extends the promotion period because the timer resets – I don't see any issue there. After all, it makes no difference whether the photo is nominated today or in 48 hours. --Igor123121 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  You have not yet addressed the main issue raised in this discussion: the repeated nomination of the same photographs for additional QI badges. Regarding reviews, do you really consider it appropriate to "return the favor" by promoting photographs with obvious technical flaws, especially when those flaws have already been pointed out by an experienced reviewer and have not yet been addressed, as you did here and here? The issue is not that you choose to look at the photographs of people who reviewed yours. The issue is whether your assessments remain independent and based solely on image quality when you treat promotion as a favor to be returned. -- Jakubhal 11:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  There was also a complaint that I add my vote to a photo that is already promoted – I don't see anything wrong with that either. Relevant rules (COM:QICGVP sections 5 and 6) have been in place for over six months; you ignored the discussion and voting regarding them at the time, despite being notified. In doing so, you are disregarding a consensus reached by the community here. You also "overlooked" the current discussion here for days, yet—surprisingly—discovered it just a few hours after the term "Administrators' noticeboard" first appeared in a comment.

  Regarding the accusation that I promote photos of people who promote mine – I didn't know this was considered strange. Smokescreen, don't distract. The point is that, in some cases, you waved through images containing obvious errors—errors that, in turn, you criticized severely when they appeared in Екатерина's work. Smial (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for letting me know about the established consensus. As you said, it has been in place only recently, and the information about its introduction wasn't made public, for example, on the talk pages of active users. Of course, it might have happened from time to time that I promoted photos with technical flaws – I'm only human, and humans make mistakes. Igor123121 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern regarding duplicate images, but I would like to clarify that these photos are not identical duplicates.While they capture the same scene, they have been processed and edited differently (in terms of color grading, contrast, and overall atmosphere). This intentional variation provides flexibility for end-users, allowing them to choose the specific aesthetic or mood that best fits their project or article context.Since they offer distinct visual qualities, I believe keeping them provides practical value to the community rather than violating the duplicate policy. --Igor123121 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• As I stated above I strongly disagree. Apart fromt the fact that differences are hard to notice, you should make up for mind which "version" of your image you would like to become QI. I consider this practice an abuse against common sense in QIC. And as I will not review your former images before I promote one I'd rather not review them at all. Poco a poco (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• But what is the point? It's not that big of a difference between your similar photos to show, for example, how different light settings affect the final picture. What difference in use can your similar uploads have based on different processing and editing? Красный ^{wanna talk?} 08:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• I disagree too. As I wrote, the small differences in orientation and light of the several copies obtained by the same photograph, as well as of the photos in a series taken just few seconds apart one from the other, suggest that their quality is somehow questionable. According to me, you should choose the best and most useful picture of a series to be nominated.
  Furthermore, revenge/reward votes must stop. --Harlock81 (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think there's no black or white. I too have different pictures of the same scene made just seconds apart, but processed differently. For example, in a church, you could create a picture with pretty dark shadows that highlights a golden statue in the middle and catches the atmosphere of the location, while you could process with same picture with more uniform brightness to show all the details of the building. Both pictures would be useful for different purposes and would look differently, though they could even be created from the same raw file, like I did here and here. But this is something else just taking 5 pictures in a row with same settings while moving a few meters inbetween. I absolutely agree that usually we should avoid uploading similar pictures, but still there may be reasons to deviate from that general rule. Plozessor (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think we can all agree that series in which the images differ sufficiently are not a problem. We are talking instead about cases such as this: variant 1 and variant 2 - the same image uploaded twice and nominated twice at QIC. -- Jakubhal 12:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I find it quite remarkable that you always know the written and unwritten rules precisely—sometimes even to the letter—whenever it suits you and allows you to use them as an excuse for your behavior here on QIC. When they don't suit you, however, the rules are suddenly too new, or you complain that they weren't served up to you on a silver platter; yet even when they *are*, you expect—as a human being—to be allowed to make mistakes that simply must be forgiven. Afterward, you carry on with your little games completely undeterred—perhaps after a brief hiatus to let things blow over. This clearly spoils the enjoyment of contributing for quite a few people here. You really ought to consider whether your approach actually helps the QI project or Wikimedia Commons, or if there is a risk that someone might eventually reach their limit and interpret your actions as a disruption to the project. Smial (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment Forgive me if I am unfair, but this behaviour looks no more than a naïve attempt of gaming the system, given the expressed interest of the user in some sort of competition, maybe just with himself: User:Igor123121. The explanation of providing the end user with variants of the same photos is not at all convincing in face of the trivial nature of most of those pictures. In the end, the practice appears not to be effective at all. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• I understand (and share) the position against this practice, but let me play devil's advocate for a bit. (¶) I guess it is largely common practice to edit photos once (if at all) and upload one final version. Most users will only upload multiple versions if there was a clear and relevant reason to produce more than one version to begin with. I don't think the QI process really considered (bulk) deviations from this established practice, but if it did, how should it be dealt with? (¶) In some cases, I have uploaded both 3:2 and 16:9 crop variants of my photos. I believe this can indeed, as Igor also puts it, provide an additional format that's fitting for different projects and contexts, namely, different screen sizes or different uses (say, article illustration or computer wallpaper). Now here, one could actually argue that the difference between the two is so minor, one should automatically be QI if the other is! It's the same quality shot, the same quality edit, just prepared to fit different ratios. (¶) The image guidelines fairly clearly describe the difference between a featured picture, which is such a prime case of a shot that by definition there shouldn't be much that's similar, and a quality picture, which is primarily a technical category. They even state: "There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images". (¶) In my case, when uploading two versions, I use the feature offered by Commons, the use of which I think is relevant to this discussion: Other versions. Since, in one example, I aesthetically preferred the 16:9 myself, I only nominated that for QI and linked the original format in the file's description. Of course, there is a scale here. I doubt we will be able to write down at what point another version is sufficiently different to be judged QI on its own. What we probably can agree on, though, is that some meaningful Commons features must be used for an image to be QI. Just like improper categorization can be grounds for QI rejection, not indicating that an image is in fact another version of an already-existing image seems to violate expected Commons practice and should be judged accordingly. Lrkrol (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• I’ve been thinking for a while about whether I should write anything on this at all. But I think it can definitely make sense to express an opinion. There are fundamentally different approaches that justify a nomination as a QI. However, I see only two main ones: color and black-and-white. I rarely consider a different aspect ratio to be appropriate, nor do I consider only slight variations. If they seem appropriate for any reason, you can upload them, but you should refrain from nominating them. For such variations, I like to use the {{Other versions}} template. Another point is photo series, which, however, are relatively poorly supported on Commons. From a series, I usually nominate only a single photo. In my opinion, that’s sufficient. In this regard, you can certainly nominate several photos that are based on the same source, provided you do so judiciously. However, there should be a clear difference between them. The word “clear” may seem somewhat vague here; it’s difficult to define a precise boundary. Well, from my perspective—which I believe many here share—that difference lies in a color version and a black-and-white version. Nothing more. (Black-and-white is only an option if the photo is suitable for that type of processing. Otherwise, no.) -- XRay 💬 07:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Quality criteria for photographs of oil paintings?

Regarding the proposition of L'Échanson (Allégorie de la Tempérance) de Theodore Rombouts.jpg as QI, I wonder which quality criteria should be applied. In that specific case, the painting's surface structure causes reflections in the uppermost area of the painting's photo, as well as some "noise" in the center and all over the entire painting. I think this is inevitable when taking photos e.g. in museums without special lighting equipment, but I wouldn't esteem the result to be of good quality. Is this too harsh? Fl.schmitt (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

In general, if you can't take a quality image of an object for external reasons - weather, lighting, something blocking the view - then you can't take a quality image, that is not an excuse to promote a poor image to QI. I have lots of pictures from oil paintings in churches that I'm not nominating for this very reason.

About this specific case, I would not promote the current version. However, it took me less than a minute to improve the quality and reduce the reflections (see https://ibb.co/zhsxTFdj). And then there's of course AI reflection removal, which I tried with this result: https://ibb.co/JPs5pd0. I would consider both these variants borderline. Plozessor (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Plozessor: Where quality images are not possible, we'll simply have to live with "non-quality", or rather "lower-quality" images until better conditions allow for better images.

I'd go with the first of his very illuminating improvement examples. The second, AI-manipulated image goes way too far. After removing all the canvas structure, that's not an oil painting anymore but rather a dull computer-graphics imitation, maybe suitable for advertising purposes. – Thanks a lot, Plozessor, for showing us these examples and their difference!

Whether or not the current QI candidate matches the criteria is up to the community. Personally, I'd be quite happy if my oil painting photos came out this good. -- Martinus KE (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: With every removal of reflections, the painting's colours get more brownish. I'm not convinced that this is the right direction. My guess is rather that the colours are too yellowish-brownish from the beginning, potentially caused by the varnish on the painting and/or by the lighting in the museum. An (admittedly hypothetical) colour correction in the opposite direction gives the pewter jug a blue metallic shine, and the (moderately) violet fabric of the man's garment contrasts nicely with the yellow insets of the sleeves, which look rather plausible to me.

Well, I guess digital image correction (or colour correction at least) is not an "objective science" that could guarantee undeniably reliable results ... -- Martinus KE (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)