Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Archive/Sep 2014

Augustus Saint-Gaudens[edit]

Request:

please trim and split out signature... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Question: Remove the signature (crop) or extract the signature (upload signature separately)? ///EuroCarGT 18:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to both, and thank you for the follow-up!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EuroCarGT: Sorry if I'm stepping on your toes here, but you didn't put up an {{I take}} so I went ahead and pulled out a higher res version of the signature. I had an idea on how to do it that I wanted to try out. Again, sorry if I butted in where I wasn't wanted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: It's okay. Remember this is not a race or some photo editing competition. If you feel like you want to help go ahead! Also we're volunteers just doing what we can to assist each other. ///EuroCarGT 20:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Khachaturian[edit]

Resolved

– Երևանցի ^talk 23:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description of first image

Article(s): Aram Khachaturian

Request:

Please remove the white/grey dots and clean up the small scratches. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken by (Hohum ^@) 22:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC). Done[reply]

Indian Head eagle[edit]

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent 1932 eagle obverse
Transparent 1907 eagle reverse
Transparent Saint-Gaudens medal
Transparent 1932 eagle reverse
Transparent metal double eagle
Transparent 1907 wire edge eagle

JPEG Versions

Article(s): Indian Head eagle

Request:

Please remove backgrounds (pngify if you wish) and straighten slightly as needed... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, great, thanks! Can we round out the Transparent metal double eagle, or would that be OR?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be WP:OR, because we're talking about an image, not factual claims. I suppose one could argue that extrapolating out the missing pieces is some sort of Synthesis, but that would be highly spurious. I didn't do so initially because I was trying to preserve the integrity of the image. But as long as the image is illustrating that type of coin, instead of that coin in particular, I don't see any problem with modifying it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think of it now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're wonderful, thank you so much!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the thumbnails generated for PNGs are blurrier than comparatively for JPGs (see bugzilla: 18014). This behavior is particularly evident in the above gallery.

Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have therefore decided to create corresponding files in JPEG format. MagentaGreen (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of cables[edit]

Article(s):

Request:

Please clean up the black cables that are seen on the facade. Thank you. -- ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC). Done Centpacrr (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnoldPlaton: If you have the original images that went into making this panorama, perhaps I or one of the other Wikigraphists could re-stitch them for you, in order to remove some of the distortion? Regards, nagual design 01:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr:. Nice work cleaning this one up, however, please don't upload progressive jpegs per this issue. (Hohum ^@) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum:Uploaded new baseline version; previous progressive jpeg had been saved that way inadvertently. I use Photoshop CS5 (Mac) which according this apparently has a bug about which I was unaware that defaults automatically to saving files as progressive jpegs. Thanks for the heads up. Centpacrr (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Vaughan Williams[edit]

Resolved

– Tim riley talk 09:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Ralph Vaughan Williams

Request:

Could you wondrous wizards please remove the commercial watermarks plastered over the image?
And as I inadvertently uploaded with a woolly file name, could you possibly rename it "Ralph Vaughan Williams, 1954", please? Tim riley talk 22:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done. Sorry, your request to rename the file I forgot unfortunately. Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It requested renaming as well per your request. ///EuroCarGT 21:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Another superb job from the workshop. Tim riley talk 09:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stutz[edit]

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Stutz

Request:

Please trim-we get that it's an old photo, but the condition doesn't bring anything to the article. New version if that feels right. I say just crop the existing one. -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done I also removed the watermark. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry so late-great, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saakadze[edit]

Giorgi Saakadze

Article(s): Giorgi Saakadze

Request:

Please clean around the face and the bust of Saakadze. Jaqeli 12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jaqeli 13:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Can you please clean a bit around his headwear at the left? Jaqeli 15:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George the Hagiorite[edit]

1
2
Done

Article(s): George the Hagiorite

Request:

Please colorize image 1 from the image 2 version which is painted in a church at the very left. Jaqeli 13:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken by (Hohum ^@) 15:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC). Done[reply]

Thanks a lot Hohum. It's perfect. Jaqeli 18:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. nagual design 01:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+2, Agreed! ///EuroCarGT 01:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My first ever colourisation attempt. Eight colours using layers and masks. Helped a lot by the quality of the main image and that each colour was in a fairly large well defined area. The one below, Maria, was trickier - only six colours, but far more fiddly, and a less satisfying result. (Hohum ^@) 13:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing a few of these for Jaqeli with mixed results. I tried a ton of different techniques and was never really satisfied. Now I see that I was trying too hard to preserve the luminosity of the grayscale layer. You've allowed the colourization to darken the image (conversion of the final colour image back to grayscale would not match the original grayscale image) but it looks great! nagual design 18:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: Can you please also crop that white frame from the picture? Jaqeli 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Maria[edit]

1
2
Done

Article(s): Maria of Alania

Request:

Please colorize image 1 from image 2. Jaqeli 21:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken by (Hohum ^@) 23:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC). Done[reply]

This is perfect. Thanks again Hohum. Jaqeli 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: Can you please clean and remove that shade Maria has at the right side of her face? Jaqeli 14:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced it somewhat. (Hohum ^@) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: Can you please make her face and hair part same as she has on her left side? That shade should be removed as it is way too much there. Jaqeli 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main source image has the figure shaded as if lit from one side. I don't think I can make that alteration look correct. (Hohum ^@) 16:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: That shade is definitely a damaged place from an original picture. Anyways thanks for your help but it would be a way more better if someone could remove that shade on the right place of her face. Because I doubt that is not her hair there but just a damaged black shade which would be better if removed. Jaqeli 18:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish this had not been requested or agreed to. You've faked up a nasty 19th-century reproduction with colours from the original. Even though it is a bit battered, in these circumstances we should always use the authentic image, and the new one has no place in Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree absolutely with Johnbod. This is a clear misuse of the process. The engraving was not coloured. It is a separate work from the original image. This is a clear falsification of the history of art. Paul B (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Barlow and Johnbod: It's not a falsification. I'm not trying to pass it off as anything other than what was requested, a colourisation. If it's being used in an article about the original artist and being described as their work, that is falsification. If it's being used in an article about the subject of the art, and the article editors want a colour version, and caption it correctly, it clearly isn't falsification. They may want this to provide a better (in their eyes) representation of the subject, to be more eye catching to readers, or whatever, but that us a style/content choice for them - look in the articles affected and make your concerns known there. (Hohum ^@) 22:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't being used anywhere, pal. I took it out & replaced the original. Don't try to change that. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hohum, there is almost no possible legitimate use of this image. A "cleaned up" version of the original Bibliothèque nationale illumination (itself cropped from a larger image) might be workable, but the combination of the colours from the original with the 19th century engraving creates a new image that appears to be a 19th century chromolithograph, and that is profoundly misleading to viewers. It's not a "new" picture. It's a falsification of two historically locatable images. It doesn't matter of the article editors "want" a colour version, anymore than it would matter if article editors wanted a Rembrandt's Hundred Guilder Print to be in colour, or wanted the Mona Lisa to be black. It isn't and she isn't, and this image too is not not in colour. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's as if you didn't read anything I wrote. Sad. (Hohum ^@) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rev H H Symons[edit]

Resolved

Article(s): Henry Herbert Symonds

Request:

The scanned image is marred by a pattern of small dots. Would it be possible to remove them, please? -- Tim riley talk 09:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Centpacrr. It's wonderful how you and your colleagues produce fine images from the murky stuff we ask you to deal with. I just hope you realise how grateful we are for this marvellous workshop. Tim riley talk 21:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, sir, and your kind words are much appreciated. Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bakar[edit]

Resolved

Done

Article(s): Bakar of Kartli

Request:

Please SVG vectorize the signature. Jaqeli 22:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Should the surrounding box be kept? (Hohum ^@) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his signature included that box. Please see better version here. Jaqeli 22:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request taken by (Hohum ^@) 23:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC). Done[reply]

@Hohum: Thank you. Can you please remove that small grey dot in the middle of the signature? Jaqeli 23:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done (Hohum ^@) 00:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum: Thanks a lot again. Jaqeli 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia[edit]

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Virginia

Request:

please pngify, remove background and caption... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Personally I think it's fine in it's current state. It's been beautifully restored by Godot13 and personally don't want to replace it with an edited version. ///EuroCarGT 18:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be uploaded as a separate image. (Well, it would have to be, since jpg can't have transparency.) (Hohum ^@) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that! ///EuroCarGT 21:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Carnby (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry I missed this!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luarsab II[edit]

1
2

Article(s): Luarsab II of Kartli

Request:

Please colorize image 1 from image 2 version which is painted in a church in the very middle. Jaqeli 13:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: This is perfect. Thanks a lot. Can you please remove that shining behind and around the head of Luarsab? Jaqeli 19:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Please crate new files for colourisations; do not overwrite originals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I performed the edits as requested. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the person posting the request, or better yet: fix it yourself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, MjolnirPants, take responsibility for your own actions, and certainly don't ask other people to follow you around clearing up your messes! A colourization should never overwrite the original; they are different animals. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Jonbod said; but furthermore, you were not asked to replace the original image. I've raised this matter on Commons, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod:, @Pigsonthewing: Both of you need to read WP:CIVIL and come back when you have. You will never get my cooperation the way you are approaching me, and you both should damn well know better than to think you would. Especially when you come here acting as if you are correcting me on some policy violation, when all you are doing is shouting opinions at me. Had you approached me with a level of civility, I would have agreed that the colorized versions should be separate files and been happy to fork them off. Indeed, I do agree that they should be different files. However, after the way you two have approached me, I have no intention of helping you in any way. So once again: If you have a problem with the way something is, go fix it. Continuing to be rude to me will not accomplish anything more than to convince me that I'm wasting my time by volunteering here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you who needs to read WP:CIVIL, since nothing John or I have said transgresses it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of creating a mess and telling them to "take responsibility" for it does not fall under any definition of civility, nor does simply saying that someone is doing something wrong and it should be done a different way. Read Avoiding incivility, where two of the points are that explaining one's self and avoiding being bossy are part of how one remains civil. Had your initial post brought up concerns about the appropriateness of colored images and asked my opinion, or even been a request for me to fork out colored versions, instead of a demand that I do so, I would have. Instead, you posted a demand that I do things differently (appending "please" to a demand does not make it less of a demand), Johnbod came along and accused me of being irresponsible and creating a mess, and you chimed back in with the claim that I was not asked to colorize the images, but rather to create new, colored versions (despite the fact that the request was simply to colorize that image). There's nothing civil about that. Following is an example of how this could have gone down:

You: I'm not sure it's appropriate to colorize these images. MjolnirPants, do you think you could fork out the colored versions of these requests until this matter is resolved?
Me: No problem.

I'm sure you think that's not how I would have actually responded, but you are wrong. I have had no involvement in this issue beyond being asked to colorize an image, and then being criticized for doing so. If you can work up consensus for a "no colorizing images' policy, I would be happy to abide by it. I would even vote in favor of it, as the concerns expressed below in #Ilia Chavchavadze are valid in my opinion. However, when you come here without a policy in hand and insist I do things a certain way, then point to discussions you have had with others (including one user who is supposedly retired) after the fact (without ever making an effort to include me in that discussion) as the reason for this, you are not making efforts to change how something is being done, but rather making efforts to engender a conflict between the two of us. Finally, simply telling you how I will react under certain circumstances does not constitute incivility on my part. My initial response to you may have bordered on incivility in that I never explained why I won't cooperate, but you now have that explanation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Andy and Johnbod could have been more polite. Perhaps they should have added a smiley face or something, but not being "polite" is not a personal attack by wikipedia's definition. So invoking that was wrong. Alternatively, you could have been a whole lot defensive and touchy. What you did was clearly wrong. Replacing an historically authentic image with a colourised one should never happen. Personally, I think unspeakable images such as this should never happen at all. Paul B (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is quite possible (see above and your own post) to be uncivil without engaging in personal attacks, I never accused anyone of engaging in personal attacks, and WP:CIVIL is about civility, not just personal attacks.

2) Telling me I am "clearly wrong" to tell people that I will not respond to demands and rudeness is ridiculous. It also accomplishes nothing but broadening the conflict.

3) I am not responsible for that example image you gave, nor is that example even of a replaced image. The original is right here, and it is linked in the description of the image you posted. Additionally, I am not responsible for making any of the colorization requests, nor am I responsible for fulfilling all of them. Even in those cases where I have taken a request, I took it and fulfilled it in good faith, while assuming good faith on the part of the requester. For you to attempt to blame me because you feel the request should never have been made is highly ridiculous.

Finally, I've already explained that I will not be harangued into doing anything. This argument is counterproductive and I'm through with it. For the last time: If you have a problem with the way I handled the requests, go ahead and fix it yourself. That's all I have to say on the matter and I'll not be drawn any further into this sort of tripe nonsense. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are personally responsible for all the images you make and alter. It is quite understandable that other editors get angry when they read self-justifications like that. You cannot avoid responsibility by presenting yourself as some mere technician who is 'just obeying orders'. I linked the Mary Eristavi image as an example of the kind of image that should never be made in the first place. I didn't know who'd made it, but I see that you were responsible for the recent update of it: File:Mary Eristavi (color2).png, which is just as bad IMO. I still see not 'incivility' by Wikipedia's definition. Of course I know that the quite beautiful original b+w photograph exists. Creating the coloured abomination serves no more purpose other than creating a coloured-in version of a Julia Margaret Cameron photograph. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help make "Grandma Moses" images "not suck"[edit]

"Grandma Moses" in the 1860s
"Grandma Moses" with two of her children, probably at the turn of the century

Article(s): Grandma Moses

Request:

I'm not sure that I have the right language to word the request - but the image seems overly dark in some places and overly light in others. It would be nice if the images could be enhanced so that they were clearer. If it helps, the links to the original sources for the images is in the commons file definition.

The article has gone through a major re-write and is now under Good article review and it would be lovely to have the images "not suck" as your Wikipedia ad says! -- CaroleHenson (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC). Done Adjusted as requested without damage to the integrity of the original images. Centpacrr (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've looked at some of the "before" versions of the work that your group has done and I am impressed. Thanks for helping Grandma Moses, she needs it!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr: Oh, I just noticed the "done" mark. I don't know much about it, but I'm not sure I see a difference. Is it possible that the original versions were reposted to commons? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably seeing the original versions of the images from your browser's cache. Either empty your browser's cache or try doing a fresh reload of the image page. You can see in the image history that both images I uploaded are of different sizes than the originals. Centpacrr (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr: Yes, that was it - and I had the same problem in commons showing the old version - so that's why I was confused. I recycled and then the new image showed up in commons and in Wikipedia, too. Thanks for your work on it!!!

As I said in my edit summary, I had the very same issue today when loading up a new version of File:Great White Herons 1923 Frank Weston Benson.jpg but I knew what the exact differences were in that case and in that case it was resolved with one web page reload. Anyway, sorry about that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chavchavadze[edit]

Resolved

Article(s): Alexander Chavchavadze

Request:

Please colorize the image from this. Jaqeli 11:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your great work. Jaqeli 11:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark[edit]

Resolved

Article(s): Kuhn & Komor

Request: Done Centpacrr (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove watermark and reupload over original file, thank you. -- Gryffindor (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Sulkhan Saba[edit]

Original
Vectorized

Article(s): Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani

Request:

Please SVG vectorize the signature. Jaqeli 13:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done In the future, you should bring this sort of request to the Illustration Workshop. There are a lot more people familiar with vector graphics over there. :-) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No, most of the signatures are requested here and most of the signatures for SVGization were actualy done here so again thanks a lot for your great work. Jaqeli 15:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed the point, Jaqeli. The Illustration Workshop deals with SVGs/vectorization, the Photography Workshop deals with raster graphics. Posting a vectorization request here might have got you what you want, but it's most definitely in the wrong place and will end up archived in the wrong place too. So pretty please, with a cherry on top... nagual design 19:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archil[edit]

Resolved

1
2

Article(s): Archil of Kakheti

Request:

Please colorize image 1 from image 2 version which is painted in a church in the very middle. Jaqeli 16:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken. Do you want the halo removed as well? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please if you can. Jaqeli 16:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneMjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Thanks a lot. It is great. Can you please make the crown and the handle of sword with more golden color? Jaqeli 14:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I bumped the saturation levels on the crown and sword hilt. That's actually making it less golden, because gold doesn't show very saturated colors, but if it looks better, it looks better. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Thank you for you great work again. Jaqeli 14:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian mother and child[edit]

Resolved

– Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Armenian Genocide

Request:

This picture could quite possibly be the most dramatic picture of the Armenian Genocide. I have nominated it for FP awhile back, and I want to nominate it again. The nomination, unfortunately, did not go through (see: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Armenian_mother). You can see why people have opposed it there and make initial improvements accordingly. I would really love if we can improve it to bring it up to FP quality. If you want to work with the original file, here's the link to the LOC page. I'd say, the .tiff is the best file to work on in this case. Perhaps we can make it large enough for FP while retaining its quality? That'll be ideal. Also, I'll greatly appreciate it if you can upload the alternates through different files. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks in advance, Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken. I've got some ideas on how to work this image that I think will yield spectacular results. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tell me what you think of it now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My my my...what a wonderful job. The power and emotion emanating from this photograph has been lifted to new levels. I can't thank you enough MjolnirPants. I shall nominate it to FP either today or tomorrow. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy with the results, could you please mark this request as resolved? Thanks so much. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilia Chavchavadze[edit]

original version
colorized version

Article(s): Ilia Chavchavadze

Request:

Please colorize the image from this. Jaqeli 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please don't! Jaqeli, please stop making these requests. We should not be faking up images like this. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fake. The exact coloured version is at his museum. Jaqeli 18:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, that's fake too. This is 19th-century black & white photo, and we should not be colourizing these. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19th century photographs were often "colourised" at the time. It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to use Victorian-era colourised images, but IMO, we should never create our own "fake" colourised versions for use in articles,. It is falsifying history and misleading readers. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Its colorized version exists and that's not the case here though. Jaqeli 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the evidence of that? I can't find it in your link. The image in the link appears to be a painting. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done Uploaded as separate file Centpacrr (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Jaqeli 15:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr: There are two grey lines at the center of the oval at the sides and can you please remove them? Jaqeli 15:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaqeli:I am unable to find any "grey lines" in the file I uploaded so don't know what you want removed. Centpacrr (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Centpacrr, I think you've solved this delicate task perfectly. Even though I do not know where you got the color information, it looks very authentic. Unfortunately, the praise also for the best work is only rarely found and the more often a petty criticism about it. But in particular issue I have to agree with the critics, even if I would probably not even notice this little thing.

Salute, MagentaGreen (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment MagntaGreen. Both the original monochrome and digitally colorized (and identified as such) versions of the image are now available as separate files which hopefully should address everybody's concerns. Centpacrr (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr: Please see this. Jaqeli 21:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Barlow: Versions of images that have been colourised here should probably *always* be uploaded as a separate version because it is a major change, and if used in articles, perhaps it should be noted in their caption. i.e. "Colourised version of <original description>". Editors can obviously decide if they want colourised versions in the articles or not, but I don't think it's dishonest to use them, depending on what their utility is. (Hohum ^@) 21:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file of the original period monochrome photograph is "live" as both an image of its subject and as the photographer's original work of photographic art; the digitally colorized version (identified as such) is also live as a separate file as an illustration of the subject and that information is disclosed in its caption in the Chavchavadze article's infobox. Centpacrr (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear. Some of the other recent colourisations *have* overwritten the originals. (Hohum ^@) 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the issue. This image creates a false impression. It creates the idea in the viewer's mind that it is a Victorian-era colourisation. There is in fact no utility to this image whatever. We all know what European-people's skin looks like, and what greying hair looks like. We have no reason whatever to believe that he was actually wearing a blue jacket. The image serves no purpose whatever than to mislead. If editors don't like the fact that the only photographs of a person are in black and white, so what? They just are. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. User:Jaqeli is currently topic banned from making edits to articles on Georgia and Armenia. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Jaqeli. It's highly doubtful that he should be requesting other editors to be altering images of Georgian historical figures. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A *properly captioned* image should create no false impressions. Overwriting originals with colourisations is not acceptable though. If the image serves no purpose as far as you are concerned, then you won't use it - others may see some utility. If an editor puts in a request here, it's likely to get done unless there is an obvious issue - colourisations, in general, aren't one as far as I am concerned; It seems that you don't think any image should be colourised after some unspecified cut-off date. Again, that's up to you, but it isn't a view I share.

I don't trawl around looking for topic bans for editors who make requests here unless their behaviour warrants it, but it does concern me that there is one in this case. (Hohum ^@) 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are accessed through "google images" and other search engines. Captions are altered etc. I think it's wrong to create such images in the first place. It seems to me to be beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia, a form of "original research". I do not know what you mean by "an unspecified cut off date". I don't think photographs should be colourised at all, no. Nor should works of art, whatever their date. Obviously one can only do it to old images anyway, for copyright reasons. But that's a purely legal matter. If one legally could colourise Picasso's Guernica (painting), it would still IMO be wrong. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove watermark[edit]

Resolved

Poster for the 1939 film Punjab Mail.

Article(s): Punjab Mail (film)

Request:

Please remove watermark. -- We hope (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done--Carnby (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! :) We hope (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kōdō[edit]

Remove tags
remove reflection of glass, sharpen, cut out background

Article(s): Kōdō

Request:

For the first image please remove the white paper tags and make the background the same wood. For the second image, please remove glass reflection, sharpen the image if possible, and remove background (it can be made black). Best version can be uploaded over original file. Thank you. -- Gryffindor (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done ///EuroCarGT 21:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Witwatersrand[edit]

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Witwatersrand

Request:

please remove background... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done ///EuroCarGT 15:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chop into three pieces[edit]

Three buildings

Article(s): National Register of Historic Places listings in Cleveland, Ohio, plus articles on the three individual buildings if we get around to writing them; Record Rendezvous also goes on Leo Mintz

Request:

This photo shows three separate significant buildings, so I'd appreciate it if you'd upload pieces of it as three separate images, one showing each building. Please add coordinates, National Register reference number, and categories to each one. I've already added all of each type to the original image and marked each one as "H" for Herold, "K" for Kendel, and "R" for Record Rendezvous (and two categories marked "All three"); you just need to copy/paste each building's metadata to its picture. Note that two of the coordinates are commented out, so you'll need to uncomment them. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done at File:Kendel Building.jpg, File:Record Rendezvous Building.jpg & File:Herold Building.jpg. ///EuroCarGT 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have to ask for help with this kind of thing because I don't know how to use anything except lossy sofware such as Windows Paint. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: If you're a windows user, you may find the free programme IrfanView useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce scanning patterns on this pic[edit]

Stale

Sailors working and chanting

Article(s): Sea shanty

Request:

Could you please reduce/erase the scanning patterns found on this image (and leave it as uncompressed TIFF format)?-- Carnby (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Bennett Cerf[edit]

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Bennett Cerf

Request:

This looks like a bad copy of a photocopy of... Please trim away extra undetailed background and draw out details, if you can. This is a toughie.-- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

I scaled it up, cropped it, tweaked the levels to try to bring out some of the details and got rid of the compression distortion. Let me know what you think. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's worlds better, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek lepton[edit]

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Greek lepton

Request:

Please straighten and remove shadow... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken. Do you want the background removed and a .png made of it? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either way. This one looks great, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Centpacrr. He/she's the one who actually made the changes. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoloz[edit]

Resolved

Article(s): Nikoloz Baratashvili

Request:

Please remove that white dirt from his forehead. Jaqeli 18:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done Criticism and comments are welcome

--Carnby (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carnby. Can you please also see this? Jaqeli 19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi Hilton[edit]

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Hanoi Hilton

Request:

please straighten and trim... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done. ///EuroCarGT 15:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidian massacres[edit]

Resolved

– Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Hamidian massacre

Request:

One of the first photographs published on the massacre. It needs a lot of improvement. Perhaps a bit of darkening. It's hard to make out the children. This photograph [1] can give a better idea. Any kind of improvement will be appreciated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):Adjusted gamma and contrast. Centpacrr (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deportees[edit]

Resolved

– Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Viktor Pietschmann

Request:

Can someone please get rid of those little blots of white. If you can, can you also get red of the blots of black on the woman in the middle? This photograph is very valuable. I'd appreciate it if you can take the utmost care in handling this. Thanks in advance, Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC). Done Centpacrr (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yngve[edit]

Resolved

Article(s): Yngve

Request:

please remove frame... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done I also scaled it back up just a tad, so it is still the same width. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krokan.jpg[edit]

A pastry-style wedding cake

Article(s): Confectionery (lead image)

Request:

Please crop to make narrower/focus on the cake. -- WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done. --///EuroCarGT 04:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosas[edit]

Profile view of Juan Manuel de Rosas
Rosas dressed in Gaucho attire
Rosas in childhood

Article(s): Juan Manuel de Rosas

Request:

Please, I need the frame removed from the first picture (without taking chunks from the painting itself). In the second picture, I need its colors to be more like this. For the third picture, I need the entire frame removed and the borders trimmed to be closer the picture. Also, I need a second version of the painting with translucid background like this.-- Lecen (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EuroCarGT could you remove the weird black dot on Rosas' nose (near his eye) on the picture when he was a kid? --Lecen (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I really appreciate all your help! --Lecen (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done Second one. (Hohum ^@) 14:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done First one. ///EuroCarGT 16:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done second version of image #3, available at File:Juan Manuel de Rosas as a child (transparent).png. ///EuroCarGT 20:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done additional request. ///EuroCarGT 21:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthim[edit]

Resolved

Original
Modified

Article(s): Anthim the Iberian

Request:

Please crop out the picture of Anthim making it circled and transparent-vectorized around. Jaqeli 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jaqeli 21:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWI postcard art[edit]

Article(s): open-use for any WWI, WWI centenary, etc.; being uploaded here instead of commons' because of commons' dual-PD (usa & country-of-origin) requirement.

Request:

Hello again;

i've got several more WWI postcards (handmade original artworks; "war art" not mass-printed) uploaded now, & there are several dozen more to come. Could you guys just put a "watch" on my user-page User:Lx_121, & do the work "ad-hoc"?

the needed work is basically just rotation to orient the image correctly (may require more than just the 90/180/270 options to get it "right") & cropping; i'd like to leave the edges of the postcard visible in the original file, to keep the sense of it as an "object" (also note that the postcards are not always perfectly "squared"; some of them are moderately irregular in shape & many/most have rounded/worn corners). if anyone is interested enough, they are more than welcome to make "derivative works" excerpting the art from its "frame", but please do them as separate files.

i'm not sure what "best practice" would be for orienting the backs? what about: 1st priority given to the (predominant) direction of any written messages on the back of the card, 2nd priority to the direction of printed text (i.e.: the postcard "formatting" info), 3rd priority (where there is no text) to matching the orientation of the front?

(note that these are high-resolution original scans, & that we are the primary online source for them; so i'd like to keep as much of the "sharpness" as possible)

-- Lx 121 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]