I agree with JarekT here: A low quality photo is better than no photo. To me, Commons is in the first place an image resource, both for other projects and for third parties. What we should ask is therefore: Does the picture add to our resource, that is, can we reasonably expect this image to be used by one of these users?
As such, we should not set a general minimum standard, but instead compare with what is already available for the subject depicted. Each picture should add something to what we already have - we don't want a picture that's basically a lower quality version of an image we already have, and for a subject of which we already have many pictures, we only want a new one if it actually adds something - which could be high quality but also a special point of view or whatever. Andre Engels On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Romaine Wiki <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > A professional photo agency offers us (Wikimedia Belgium) a donation of > images of art works. They now offer as a start these images with 595 x 842 > pixels at 72 dpi. This size is almost double of that from a thumbnail size > on Wikipedia. My own (not the most modern) smartphone makes images at 5.312 > × 2.988 pixels at 72 dpi. Seeing the size of these images I think they are > to low. > > My question is: what is the minimum of quality we should ask? > > Thanks! > > Romaine > > _______________________________________________ > Commons-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l > -- André Engels, [email protected] _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
