Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Caracas building.jpg

File:Caracas building.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2024 at 23:56:02
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info According to this Village Pump discussion, the picture is actually faked -- seems like in reality the same facade looks (as of 2016) like this, few in common with the "sterile" view on the featured photo (also from 2016); that said, out of scope for me and cannot be kept as featured. (Original nomination)
•  Delist --A.Savin 23:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist Yeah, sadly having read that discussion I'm pretty convinced the building never actually looked like this Cmao20 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist Just zoom 400% and you'll notice that each pattern is exactly similar to the neighbor at a pixel level. It means that the puzzle has been created from scratch, the building does not exist, the number of rows and columns is fake. Misleading nomination (and picture of the day) because no {{Retouched}} template was indicated on the photo, nor on the voting page. Description was just "Building in downtown Caracas, Venezuela". It should be something like "Photo manipulation, same motif copy-pasted 990 times" (=56x18-18) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: - Yes, as I noted when I originally raised the issue, every single panel (for example) has the same faint white spot and the exact same faint but noticeable pattern of "random" noise-reduction/JPEG-artifact flaws. Ditto other cut-and-pastes. Ubcule (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delist , per comments above. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist This is a work of computer art, not photographic art. WikiPedant (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist It is very deceiving that a long-term contributor submitted a fake image for FPC. Yann (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not sure I understand your point. Are you complaining about the uploader or the user that nominated the file for FPC? From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wilfredor should have mentioned this in the description prior to the nomination, and also in the nomination. By staying silent, he implicitly supported the nomination while commenting. Yann (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can't talk when I'm sleeping, I replied in village pump how was this image created. Again inventing things in your head like that Che Guevara thing? Wilfredor (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your comment that Yann linked above was made 3 days after you uploaded the image. Are you saying that by then you no longer remembered that the image was a manipulation, and thought instead that the striking uniformity was due to the obsession with order of the building's military personnel? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, I'm talking about the comment in this discussion. Wilfredor (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Question Thanks, @Yann for your constructive edit on the file page. According to the metadata, the Creation Tool was "Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)" (archive). Also visible at the bottom of the file page. However, Wilfredor modified your edit to specify "Hugin". Hugin is a stitching software, and Photoshop a digital art software. In this case, hundreds of similar patches have been copied + pasted to form this giant mosaic. Easy with Photoshop and there's no trace of "Hugin" in the history. Moreover, the author says "I don't even remember the place where I took that photo", so what about the software? In 2014, "I have always been against photo retouching" is very contradictory with what happened two years later. As a result, it makes sense to me to believe what is proven, more than what is uncertain. Can we agree to restore "Photoshop" in the template? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: - While we might have our own suspicions about what is and isn't more likely, we can't say for sure, so we shouldn't.

"Photoshop" in the EXIF data *could* simply indicate nothing more than its use for (e.g.) final sharpening, level adjustments, etc. of an image already processed/created elsewhere.

Or maybe not, who knows? Since it's already obvious that we're unlikely to definitively get to the bottom of how it was created regardless (unless we take on trust that Hugin *was* used), that part isn't- IMHO- worth wasting any more of our time on.

Ultimately, the details of *how* it was faked- whether via Hugin, Photoshop or something else- are less important than the indisputable fact that it *is* manipulated to the point of fakery and should be clearly tagged as such. Ubcule (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delist according to nomination. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist ouch! --Aristeas (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist It is very disappointing when a fake image is passed off as real (except on 1 April). This was nominated for FP two weeks after it had been uploaded by Wilfredor. I assume Wilfredo forgot to add the retouched template on upload, treating the image as an artistic creation. But when it was nominated for FP by another user Wilfredo had every opportunity to explain, but didn't. That's not good. Are there others? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I have always tried to be clear in my nominations about the alterations. In the past I uploaded my RAWs to the commons archive, but today that project does not exist and many Raws were lost. Leave a comment here to start a withdrawal process for all my FPs from these FP categories Wilfredor (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delist in line of the village pump discussion. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist This image was created by linking several images with Hugin creating an unreal structure --Wilfredor (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist --Adamant1 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist according to nomination. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 15:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Delist as the original nominator. ★ 15:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment I would like to apologize for having uploaded this image and not having warned that it was an unreal image. Back then I was a different person than I am today, I think people change over time. 8 years ago I was living in the most corrupt country in the world and I wanted to show the world my annoyance at the destruction of this country, unfortunately I was no longer living there but it was not the right medium to upload a heavily digitally altered photo. When I uploaded this photo I remember seeing the result and I liked it as a way of expressing the dictatorial regime's obsession with controlling people. However, I assume my responsibility for this image that I consider false and I would like to clarify this very well. Thanks Charles for motivate me to write this message --Wilfredor (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: - Your description in the original 2016 upload read simply "Building in Caracas downtown, Venezuela" and nothing more. Apart from a minor grammar correction and translations- both supplied by other editors- this remained unchanged right up until yesterday *after* this controversy was raised.

You edited the page on several occasions during that time (over seven years). Yet, not once did you feel moved to update the description to even mention that it was a military/regime-related building, allude to the supposed satirical/expressive purpose of the image, nor even bother explaining what the building was. (I originally guessed that was an apartment block).

Also, your memory of all this- and your motivation- is strangely clear, considering that just yesterday at the Village Pump discussion on this controversy you said:

Since 8 years have passed since that photo, I don't even remember the place where I took that photo, but it looks pretty much like the ones you have shared.

Yesterday you didn't even remember where you took that photo, but today you suddenly (and mysteriously) do clearly remember that the building belonged to the military, who you created the image to satirise?! (I mean, I'd remember doing that, even after seven years).

It comes across very much as if- having been caught out by Yann (talk · contribs) above with evidence you were already aware of suspicions/allegations against your image at the time of the 2016 FP vote- you're now trying to reframe that comment (i.e. an overly clever aside that turned into a smoking gun) into instead meaning that the photo was somehow a protest or satire against the regime?

You know, despite there never having been any previous sign of that being your intention?

Additionally, at the Village Pump discussion, you seem to imply that the resulting image was simply a result of using the Hugin photo-stitching tool (i.e. implying that it was not intentional on your part), but Basile Morin (talk · contribs) confirmed my suspicion that Hugin would likely "not create an image from scratch with 990 repeated patterns".

Having been caught out, it now seems that you're appealing to others' forgiveness for human fallibility with comments like "I think people change over time", painting your original actions- from seven years ago- as simple misjudgement rather than dishonesty and "coming clean".

But- in light of the above- you'll perhaps understand why I remain suspicious that this is just another layer of untruths.

Ubcule (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It was intentional because I recognized that it was a false generated image and even so I did not comment anything at that time, I would like to remember more details about the generation of this image but I still do not even clearly remember the building where this photo was taken, which I do remember The thing is that I took several photos of the building to assemble them because the building was too big and was too far in front, I couldn't go further back to take the photo of the entire façade so I decided to take several photos near the building to later unify them, of course the People remember more details as they make more and more effort to remember, there is no mystery, there is no drama, the facts are that it is a false image and I have admitted, at the end of the day it is my word and you decide if you are going to believe me or No and I honestly don't care if you believe me or not, I do my part and that part is telling the truth. Wilfredor (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Just two cent. It’s easy to scold Wilfredor now, but let us remember that we, the FPC regulars and Commons regulars in general, have not covered ourselves in glory, too (I explicitly include myself). This image has been promoted to FP status in 2016 and obviously nobody (including yours truly) has ever looked closely at it. If we had, it would have been too easy to recognize that something is wrong here. So, first, we all should thank Ubcule for finally looking carefully at this image – thank you! Second, we should try to learn something from this. Obviously we should take a closer look at each FP candidate. We hold different opinions about retouching details of photos (e.g., some of us think removing some minor irritating background elements from a photo goes without mentioning, others don’t), but I guess we all agree that (1) extensive changes to the main subject of a photo, (2) inserting important details, (3) combining several completely different images to a new one or (4) creating an image from scratch (maybe using some AI engine) must be declared and described explicitly. So let’s all work together, let’s take this “Caracas building” image as an instructive example and inspect future FP candidates more carefully. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delist --SHB2000 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Result: 17 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)