Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Species pics

Why are we using illustrated main images for species when there are photographs available? -- Ozzel 21:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess it comes down to quality. Which ones specifically? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wookiee, Twi'lek, Bith, Hutt, Jawa, Sand Person, etc. -- Ozzel 21:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems to be the "in" thing, but I think it's a mistake. Unless the quality is particularly bad, we should be using film images as primary images. jSarek 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I guess it should depend on the species rather than simply if they appear in the movies. I mean, most of the aliens in the cantina look extremely fake in the movie, and for those an illustration which depicts them more realistically would be infinitely better. --Sauron18 22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I guess I have to disagree. Unless the drawing is just outstanding (as close to real life as possible), it shouldn't be used over a "real-world" shot IMO. The NEGtAS has some great drawings, but lifelike they are not. I agree with Ozzel that the ones he's mentioned are just ridiculous, especially Hutt, Tusken Raider, and Jawa as the drawings are poor compared to the screen shots. If we have to compromise, I guess I can stand replacing Shistavenen and some of the more obscured aliens in the cantina, but that's it. Cull Tremayne 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm with Tremayne on this. None of the aliens look *extremely* fake to me (a *little* fake, maybe, but all in all the effects still stand up to thirty years of aging); but even if they did, then *that's the way those aliens look*, because it's their filmed depiction. I hate to fall back on the phrase "higher canon," since it gets abused in SW arguments so much, but it happens to be true here - the films are higher canon, and their depictions are therefore the most accurate. jSarek 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
              • I'll have to agree. As one who helped upload (but not place them in the articles) many of the NEGAS images being used, I think they should not replace a "real life" image of the species as the main infobox image unless the main image is really poor quality. The NEGAS images are very good an can just be placed elsewhere in the species page. - JMAS 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
                • With those and perhaps other examples I agree, but I was mainly referring to those aliens which, despite being in the movie, look more like plastic than anything. Many of them were made better with the PT, which in that case saves them, but others, like the Dianoga and the Duros (among others) do look better in illustration. I guess it comes down to the specific alien, and how well it appeared in the movies. If you have a full body shot of a Dianoga, and it's not horribly unrealistic art, then it simply looks better. --Sauron18 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • I completely agree. If the "real life" image of an alien is of poor quality (meaning not just the image quality, but the overall look of the alien) then the NEGAS image should be used. - 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)