Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Archive/May 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Getúlio Vargas[edit]

Resolved
 – 78.148.64.187 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article(s)
Getúlio Vargas
Request
Please crop the border lines;
Remove the signature on the bottom right;
If possible, clean up stains on image. Thanks. -- Vinícius O. (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
Image's request under progression Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! -- Vinícius O. (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinícius94: Centpacrr's edit wasn't one of his best, in my opinion, so I restored the image myself. (Compare before and after.) Unfortunately he's decided that it's "not an improvement" and reverted it. It isn't my intention to browbeat him every time he makes a slapdash edit, so I tried to do this without any fuss, but since he's decided to make something of it I'd like to draw your attention to the awful masking, fake background, featureless black suit jacket and excessive cropping. (See here.) As the original requester Centpacrr considers you the 'ultimate arbiter' of acceptability (notwithstanding how Wikipedia actually works), so it's up to you to decide which version you prefer.
I welcome anybody else to gently persuade Centpacrr about the error of his ways, as I think his disruptive editing has the potential to damage the project, and he seems unable to judge his own work objectively. I frequently find myself cleaning up the mess he makes, but evidently he thinks I'm just some asshole who likes to hurt his feelings. It would be helpful if other editors weighed in with their own opinions. nagualdesign 13:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that as long as we are allowed (which is the case until today) to upload different versions of the same picture, we won't have a problem here. I actually oppose both versions that have been uploaded. One, because it changed the background and the other for having added greyish tones that weren't there. But it's ok. We can have both in different files and we'll use whichever we prefer, depending on the case. There is space for everyone. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it is apparently impossible to ever satisfy "Nagualdesign" I have reverted this to his/her version of the file and uploaded mine as a new "derivative" file which can be used or not at the OPs or other editors' discretion and will continue to do that now (as I did with the Prince Charles request above) in the future to avoid these constant kerfuffles. It should be understood and recognized, however, that digital image restoration is a subjective not objective "art" and what appeals to one practitioner does not necessarily appeal to another. (Nagualdesign, for instance, left the staining on the subject's shirt that I removed and failed to retain the greenish tint of the original. I made the image sharper so that it stood out more as a thumbnail.) So to each his/her own. Centpacrr (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Centpacrr. I've uploaded a recoloured version, though personally I think the grayscale version looked cleaner. Sepia photographs can look good, as can selenium-toned photos, and I a fan of split toning where it emulates traditional processing (blue shadows and creamy highlights), but I think the colour of this photograph is mostly due to age-related yellowing. The green shadows are almost certainly due to aging. You wouldn't make the shadows green on purpose. nagualdesign 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Speer & Phillipa Northeast[edit]

Resolved
 – 78.148.64.187 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jake Speer
    Jake Speer
  • Phillipa Northeast and friend
    Phillipa Northeast and friend
Article(s)
Oscar MacGuire and Evelyn MacGuire
Request
Could the two images be cropped to the subject's head and shoulders (omitting Northeast's friend in the second image), please? -- JuneGloom07 Talk 00:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
Image's request under progression Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

 Done Centpacrr (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Centpacrr! Although I should have been clearer that I wanted the girl in the second image. Sorry! - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll fix that. Centpacrr (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thank you! - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Earl of Feversham[edit]

Resolved
 – nagualdesign 23:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Earl of Feversham
    The Earl of Feversham
  • Alternative Version (coloring not confirmed)
    Alternative Version (coloring not confirmed)
Article(s)
William Duncombe, 1st Earl of Feversham
Request
@Centpacrr: Could this watermark be removed?--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image's request under progression Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC).  Done Centpacrr (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colour corrected, leaving to requester to revert to preference. (Hohum @) 18:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Low resolution version with unconfirmed altered coloring uploaded as separate file. Centpacrr (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly the resolution of your edit, since it's edited from that, the colour is based on the very first version of the file, and similar in tone to other well preserved vanity fair images. (Hohum @) 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your color altered file has been compressed to a 151kb lo res jpeg; my version was created and saved as a high res uncompressed 897kb file. I retained the basic colorization of the file I was specifically asked to remove the watermark from as is the custom unless asked by the OP to modify it. Both versions (the high res original color and lo res altered color files) are now available as separate files for the OP to select from. Centpacrr (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Centpacrr: Your edit summary for the revert is rather ignorant: Vanity Fair was never printed on yellow paper, and as such, Hohum's version is inarguably color-corrected, not color-altered. Also your insistence that Hohum's version is low resolution is blatantly false. It's the exact same pixel resolution, and the additional lossy compression has no visible impact on the image. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I removed the watermark from the file that I was requested to use without "speculating" about the original tone of the paper on which this particular image may have been printed in 1878, or how it may have changed color (if it had) in the 138 years since then. This was not being "rather ignorant", but instead I did what the OP specifically requested me to do. As for "resolution" it is also my practice to save jpegs with as little compression as possible whether or not someone else thinks it "makes no difference" to them in how it appears. It does make a difference to me, especially if the file is going to be worked on again in the future. As noted below, the OP prefers the "ivory" coloration of the way I did it originally. I have since also cleaned up the caption, "Vanity Fair", and date so that these are now readable. I trust everybody it happy now with two versions available and let's leave it at that. Centpacrr (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented not because I care which version is used (I don't), but because I'm finding your argumentativeness here more and more worrisome. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I regret that you apparently misunderstand and/or misinterpret the willingness of your fellow editors to take the time and effort to answer questions when raised and their explaining in detail the "whys and wherefores" of their contributions as being "argumentative". If you disagree with something I or any other contributor has to say I have no problem with that, but if you are unable to do so without the ability or willingness to also assume good faith on the behalf of others who hold different views than you do that is troubling. We are all in here as volunteers looking to improve the project to the best of our abilities. Therefore gratuitously referring to another member of the WP community as "ignorant" simply because you disagree with his or her position or approach to a particular image or other type of contribution is at best unhelpful. Centpacrr (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr and Hohum: The file on the left is better for the article but the file on the right should be kept as a different version of the image.--The Traditionalist (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the request as resolved, so the section will be archived later by the bot. Please don't apply {{Archive}} tags to ongoing discussions. nagualdesign 23:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garo Paylan[edit]

Resolved
 – Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article(s)
Garo Paylan
Request
Any improvements on this photograph would be great. Perhaps we can reduce the blur? Let me know. Thanks in advance, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
 Done Cropped, defocused and darkened background, sharpened face, for use as infobox image. Centpacrr (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Nun needing a crop[edit]

Resolved
 – Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Group photo
    Group photo
  • Sister Campbell
    Sister Campbell
Article(s)
Simone Campbell
Request
Could someone please crop this photograph so that it is only of the woman speaking at the microphone. Maybe from about the bottom of her yellow top up, and across from her left shoulder to her right elbow so that her pointing finger is included. Thanks -- Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
 Done Centpacrr (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you chop a little more off from the right and left please. There are still other women creeping into the picture! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Thank you very much, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that this means the group photo has been overwritten. Could you possibly revert the original file back to the group image and create a new one for her profile image? Hopefully that makes sense, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Centpacrr (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK front cover of Easy Lover[edit]

Stale
 – nagualdesign 12:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • UK front cover
    UK front cover
Article(s)
Easy Lover
Request
Can you create the SVG or PNG version of the JPEG image? Someone said that a faded background makes the image not ineligible for copyright. I would like someone to create an image that looks authentic and not too fake. Just big title, catalogue number, and white background. -- George Ho (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or probably just JPEG with mere digital restoration? George Ho (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
There would be no point in doing that whatsoever. I'll simply reduce the image size (to <0.1mp) and you'll have to fill out a fair-use form. nagualdesign 12:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I reduced the image size and copy/pasted a non-free fair-use template. I also removed {{PD-text}}, which is inappropriate for this copyrighted artwork. Unfortunately even fair-use isn't permitted on Commons at all, so I suggest you upload it to Wikipedia instead (and stop trying to sidestep genuine copyright issues!) nagualdesign 12:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell[edit]

Resolved
 – KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored Image
    Restored Image
  • Restored Image
    Restored Image
  • Restored Image
    Restored Image
Article(s)
41st United States Colored Infantry, Llewellyn F. Haskell
Request
Please clean up, crop from original size (don't reduce size by minimizing) and restore image using examples from other edits done on Matthew Brady's photographs of Union officers https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Mathew_Brady. Don't overwrite files, please create new files. Thanks. -- KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)

Image's request under progression Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC).  Done Centpacrr (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meacham family[edit]

Resolved
 – Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meacham family
    Meacham family
  • Battiscombe Gunn
    Battiscombe Gunn
Article(s)
Battiscombe Gunn
Request
Please could this image be cropped (and uploaded as a separate file) to produce a suitable infobox image of Battiscombe Gunn (the man on the second row from back) -- Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 13:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)

Image's request under progression Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC).  Done Centpacrr (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 11:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop/Archive/May_2016&oldid=1140264744"