Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2024 at 11:13:33
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of light.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Church of light.jpg
Info This picture is clearly a manipulation – it's 2 pictures merged together: daylight (or very long-exposure moonlight) shot of the church and night shot of the sky). See the different noise levels of the foreground VS the sky. And there are artifacts from the background removal (check the blue outlines around the church tower). The foreground also suffers a lot from chromatic aberration, but in the areas, where the new sky was attached, the aberation artifacts were erased. Also, the real church has a cross on the top of the tower, which is missing in this picture. There also used to be a lamp on the left, which was also retouched – you can still see the leftover of the lamp around the pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. I can't beleive that the Wiki community is OK with that and can't believe this could become a FP and a finalist in Picture of the Year. (Original nomination)
Delist I have stated the reasons in the Info section. I would like to see the original RAWs or out-of-camera JPGs to prove whether (and how) this was manipulated.--RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked about this file, so here goes: Of course that photo is a combination of two photos, but I think not in a sinister way. It's simply an HDR, something that astro-photographers do all the time to get the best possible images. (Example from the same photographer where he describes the process of such photos.) If we are to ban all photos that are not just one photo as in raw, we should get rid of all stacked, HDR and panoramas too. Selecting different settings for the same scene at the same time is not against the rules. --Cart(talk)12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2) HDR should be just a series of pictures stacked together, but shot in the same time and place. I would be OK if this was the case. However, it looks like night sky was combined with a daylight foreground. I am not convinced that Moon or any other light source would create such hard shadows. Compared to other daylight shots (e.g https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeshlabotnik/53735747194/), the light looks very similar. Compared to ther night shots (https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/northern-light-aurora-borealis-vik-church-546515572), the light is very different. In reality, there are spotlights around the church and nothing to cast light on the mountains around.
Comment I recommend confirming the date of the photo with the Northern Lights at that time. I think there should be no problem combining photos from the same place regardless of the time or day. Having this information in the image description would be much appreciated but many users do not know how to do this or do not find it necessary. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having been twice to Vík í Mýrdal in Iceland and seen that church on a hill on top of the city I am not sure wether this is a single photo or the combination of multiple photos. With long exposure at night, any small light source gets exponentially increased and pictures can look like as if they were taken in day time even though they were taken at night. I can't exclude that the illumination of this picture takes it's source from city light + moon light + aurora light. For example on this picture that I took at 22:01 in Switzerland when it was completely dark to the human eye, the mountain on the photo has harsh light and shadows that only come from the moon and nothing else (but to the human eye the light and shadows were not that harsh, only to the camera because of long exposure)! And the effect is even bigger on white surfaces such as with the snow or the church painting. Conclusion : yes it is possible to have harsh light and shadows on photos taken in complete darkness with long exposure and I can't exclude that this picture is just 1 picture and not a combination of multiple pictures -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the chromatic aberrations on each side of the white part of the tower are a bit strange because they are not regular and may seem like there was some editing in that area. So it is not impossible either that it's a combination of pictures. But it might just be poor editing to try to remove the chromatic aberration so it's still possible that it's just one single picture -- Giles Laurent (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The chromatic aberration is usually most intense towards the corners. Least intense in the center. The objects affected by CA usually have a blue outline on one side and a red outline on the other. So, around the church tower, it is not aberration, but rather leftovers of the original (probably) blue sky that was there before the aurora sky was added. Otherwise, the aberration would be visible also in other parts of the church and not just the tower. And how would you explain different noise levels between the sky and the foreground? And check the transition between the sky and the foreground on the very right. There are clearly visible leftovers from using the selection tool and the eraser. And the little black rock is there twice - on the right side of the rock, behind the one added as part of image 1, you can see the one that was part of the image 2, because the images were not aligned 1:1 when merged together. Also, the real church has a cross on the very top of the tower, which is completely missing in the picture, probably because it would be too hard to paint out the original background in such a complex shape. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had an occasion were I had chromatic aberrations on the middle-top of a picture so it can happen even with good equipment but you're right that normally one side is red and the other is blue and that in this case it's two blue sides on the church tower. The difference of noise level is also present when comparing the illuminated parts and the not illuminated parts of this picture that I did but you're right that in the case of the church picture the difference seems a bit too big. Also it's very strange that the cross of the church was removed. Finally in light of this I have no doubt anymore that the church picture is unfortunately not real. The position of the northern light also felt too perfect to be true (even if sometimes people can get very lucky) -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately all these hypotheses can be classified with the presentation of the RAW, something that I proposed some time ago is that each FPC should have its respective RAW to support the editions. Wilfredor (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support what you have written. It is common that all serious photo competitions require the participants to be able to provide the original RAW files. Wikipedia does not require this so I am sure there are many more secretly manipulated pictures around here. I would be OK with this picture, if it would be properly categorised as manipulated (as all the panoramas and other merged shots should be) and if the manipulation would be done properly (no visible transitions, no artifacts, no ghosts and no alternation of the objects in the scene – like e.g. the cross on the tower, which is missing). RealPhotoManiac (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an original supporter of the nomination, I'm leaning towards a NeutralDelist vote. On the one hand, the indications are in favor of delisting, but on the other hand, the arguments of Cart, Giles, and Wilfredor need to be considered. Because of the recent cases of undeclared manipulation that have come to light, I am more sensitive these days than I was 2 ½ years ago when I supported the image in good faith. If retouching goes beyond the norm, it must be disclosed on the file page. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found out that not only the cross on the top of the tower is missing, but also a lamp was painted out. Here is a Google Street View for comparison. Everyone can clearly see that the lamp used to be in the picture, but was retouched. You can still see the leftover around pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. With all due respect to the image author, I believe he is indeed a good photographer, but a very poor photo editor. If someone could please turn on image notes on this page, I can highlight all the issues directly in the picture. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now, but tending to {{Delist}} because the orientation of the shadows / light seems different on the church versus on the mountains behind. Church : light comes from the right, while mountains : light comes from the left. Or is it an illusion / perspective effect? However, I find SHB2000's question legitimate, and think it deserves an answer. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I find any other object that was painted out from the picture, I will certainly make more contributions. I see no reason why somebody should be bothered with it. ;-) RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it reminds us of some other users who were in fact reincarnations of banned users. This is why we are a bit cautious. Sorry if you are really a new user, please understand our caution. – Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if I was a reincarnation of a banned user, would it change something on the fact that heavily manipulated photos are widely accepted here on Wikipedia? RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to make fun of you, believe me. If you have that feeling, I am very sorry for that. Please notice that I am not attacking anybody. I am here to raise awareness that cheating with photos is unfortunately a big topic here on Wikipedia and that the community here needs to focus on it a bit more. Pictures by this author are an easy example, but in the nearby future, AI generated / edited pictures will bring more difficult challenges, where it will be very hard to distinguish original vs fake images... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New account, you want to teach us something on Commons, but you've also like completely lost your background / history / identity before entering here. Obviously you're an experienced user with knowledge on the process, the site, the image note gadget, etc. and for whatever reason do not want to reveal these elements of your profile. Pardon me, but that's rather odd, unless you're the real Zorro? :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here is my another contribution. I have checked other photos made by the same author, AstroAnthony. He received a honorary mention in Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2019/Winners/Ireland for this picture: File:The stars and man.jpg. The picture is again a fake. The background can be found in another upload here: File:Milky way nebula.jpg. The foreground is copy-pasted from another photo. Put the images one over another as layers and you will see it. What's the point of awarding a photomanipulation? All heavily manipulated images should be properly categorized and described. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing this comment I went to see for other uploads of the uploader and I found this picture were there is absolutely no doubt that it is fake with three layers. There is a big difference in detail and focus between the man and the rock on which he is standing. The light on the man is completely different and doesn't match the light of the rock. Also, the man seems badly placed. Finally, we can see that the rocks were cut from their original picture...
So with all the hints on the other images as well it seems many night shots of this user are not true...
I have checked some of his other photos. This and this are also suspicious – a man on the rock is inserted. See the different levels of sharpness and contrast. The second photo also won an award outside Wikipedia. Is there any place on Wiki where we could discuss this topic further? I guess this page should stay focused on the church picture... RealPhotoManiac (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The arguments above have convinced me. This isn't just normal HDR, the transitions between land and sky are too abrupt for this to be the result of one frame. Cmao20 (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don’t see a problem if this photo is composed from two or more different exposures taken at the same date in the same place; this is a common approach in astrophotography – normally one or more frames of the sky are combined with a shot for the foreground which benefits from very different exposure times, ISO and/or aperture settings. Of course it would be much better if that was explained in the description page. It‘s also possible that the combined shots were taken at different dates or times of the day; this certainly would require to be documented; but that’s not sure. But what is sure (and what convinces me to vote for delisting) is that there are some obvious defects, like the missing cross and the coarse contours, which indicate that the montage has been done in a rather careless way. This is indeed a clear argument against the FP status, independent from the other questions. So many thanks to RealPhotoManiac for bringing this to our attention, and also many thanks to other participants, especially to Giles Laurent for the solid information. – Aristeas (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Many thanks to all involved for the wide range of information that now provides a conclusive overview to make a reliable decision. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bammesk, thank you very much for continuing my work! I was looking for it, but was unable to get all uploads by this user. You have done an excellent job. Things are slowly starting to move in the right direction here :-) RealPhotoManiac (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic found, Bammesk. Thanks a lot for your input. Crystal clear, now. Thanks also to RealPhotoManiac for revealing the RealPhotoManipulation :-) Also in the light of Giles Laurent's extended researches / odd elements / new clues, certainly important updates should be done on some file pages, and perhaps specific deletion requests, as "fake images" / noneducational contents. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requests? I suggest to keep all the pictures – they are an excellent proof of how the photographer was cheating. Without them, there is no proof. Anyway, the manipulated pictures should be removed from the articles and properly described and categorised. They can be used for example in an article about photo manipulation :-). RealPhotoManiac (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4th position at Picture of the year, that's not far from the podium. I wonder which place(s) would have reached the background and the church separately :-) But would they just reach the start of the competition? Not sure. I would love to see this church with its natural sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I wonder how a 2017 image could be chosen as Picture of year 2022. I also wonder how many other competitions was this guy able to cheat with fake pictures. And the worst thing is that nobody was able to recognize it. I can understand somebody is cheating, but I cannot believe that the community here is so easily fooled by so poor photomanipulations. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
update Coincidence or not, suddenly the link given above seems disabled. In any case, there are other "real photo maniacs" according to Google. The link targeted a public account on Instagram, with mobile phone pics of nature and text in Cyrillic script. Maybe nothing in relation with RealPhotoManiac, though, apart from the name -- BM alias Sherlock Holmes (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not a superhero and I do not expect others to be superheros. But it doesn't need a superhero to invest more than 3 seconds checking the picture or to put in the competition rules and FP guidelines a line stating that uploaders need to provide the orginal raw files. After seeing what is possible and what seems to be widely accepted here, I lost my faith in Wikipedia. I am doing all these my actions to draw attention to this topic in hope that the rules and guidelines would be improved and that at least some members of this community would learn to have their eyes a bit more open next time. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in life has trade-offs. Instituting a rule to require RAW files would marginally improve the authenticity/security of nominations and prevent cases like this, but it is also clear that it would gut participation in FPC and that the vast majority of regulars strongly oppose it. We are not a professional photo competition in a position to award prize money, we are a volunteer site and should be greatful to those generous enough to upload their frequently superb content here. Not make their lives harder by adding more onerous requirements. Cmao20 (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too bad i didnt take care for this nomine, to make a vote, however voting is done and one more to be removed from POTY Finale. Probably there are even more. --Mile (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info Pinging @PetarM Thanks for the manual count, Mile. But please note that a completed delisting nomination also includes the further maintenance that the bot does not do. Please read the instructions. So please pay attention next time ;) I have done the work for you to the best of my ability: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Basile Morin Thank you very much for the suggestion. Personally, in this particular case of undisclosed manipulated FP's, I would consider placing a delisting notice, similar to the chronological list. But I personally don't think a complete removal is a good idea, because it would affect the transparency of the overall history. If you want, please feel free to start a section on the FPC talk page to find a consensus. After all, it will also affect this delisting nomination, which will be closed in a few days. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a featured picture is delisted and was formerly a finalist in POTY I think two possible interpretations of what should be done are possible.
One first solution would be to consider that if it loses it's FP status, it loses it's right to be qualified to participate in POTY and therefore should "automatically" be removed from all pages related to POTY.
One second solution would be to consider that eventhough it lost it FP status, it was at the time eligible to participate in POTY and that losing it's eligibility afterwards doesn't disqualify it automatically from POTY.
In this second case the only way to remove a delisted image from POTY would be with a POTY committee approval. POTY rules state that "The committee reserves the right to disqualify or replace candidates in exceptional circumstances, but will not use this ability without careful discussion." so this is within their competence.
I personnaly think that the second solution is the best one as it allows a case-by-case analysis and to keep an image (in justified circumstances) as a POTY competitor eventhough it was delisted. For example if an image was delisted only because it's technical quality (for example resolution) is not considered as good anymore as it was at the time, I really don't think that the image should be removed from POTY, on the contrary it should stay imo. Example : if this delisted image would have been a POTY finalist, I don't think that it's POTY finalist status should be removed.
But of course regarding the present delisted image, since it was promoted to Featured picture based on a completely fake background and that all votes it gathered in POTY were also based on the fake background I think that the POTY committee would make no objection to delisting the present image. So if the image has been promoted to FP status on the basis of a fraud (for example undeclared fake background), I think it should easily be disqualified and removed from all POTY pages.
Pinging the current active POTY Committee to see what they think should be done when delisted pictures were previously POTY finalists and what they think of the present case : Ingenuity, Rhododendrites, AntiCompositeNumber and ZI Jony.
Pinging @Giles Laurent Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. I agree with your second suggestion. Regarding these revealed manipulations, a subsequent disqualification should be considered. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture is clearly a manipulation – it's 2 pictures merged together: daylight (or very long-exposure moonlight) shot of the church and night shot of the sky). See the different noise levels of the foreground VS the sky. And there are artifacts from the background removal (check the blue outlines around the church tower). The foreground also suffers a lot from chromatic aberration, but in the areas, where the new sky was attached, the aberation artifacts were erased. Also, the real church has a cross on the top of the tower, which is missing in this picture. There also used to be a lamp on the left, which was also retouched – you can still see the leftover of the lamp around the pixel coordinates [1486,3044] and you can clearly see artifacts created by using the spot healing brush / clone tool going from that place up left. I can't beleive that the Wiki community is OK with that and can't believe this could become a FP and a finalist in Picture of the Year. (Original nomination)
Delist I have stated the reasons in the Info section. I would like to see the original RAWs or out-of-camera JPGs to prove whether (and how) this was manipulated.--RealPhotoManiac (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep Why is this request coming from a 20-minute-old account? (in addition to what's been mentioned by Cart below) --SHB2000 (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC).svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I was asked about this file, so here goes: Of course that photo is a combination of two photos, but I think not in a sinister way. It's simply an HDR, something that astro-photographers do all the time to get the best possible images. (Example from the same photographer where he describes the process of such photos.) If we are to ban all photos that are not just one photo as in raw, we should get rid of all stacked, HDR and panoramas too. Selecting different settings for the same scene at the same time is not against the rules. --Cart (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Abstain 
,_delisted){kind=link}
On hold Thanks for your 12th edit. Could you also make a thirteen contribution here? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
,_delisted){kind=link}
Fantastic found, Bammesk. Thanks a lot for your input. Crystal clear, now. Thanks also to RealPhotoManiac for revealing the RealPhotoManipulation :-) Also in the light of Giles Laurent's extended researches / odd elements / new clues, certainly important updates should be done on some file pages, and perhaps specific deletion requests, as "fake images" / noneducational contents. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
,_delisted){kind=link}
