Stale

Please, clean up this Hugin composite

Stale

– DyceBot (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped and reconstructed.
Example.
Alternate version, ready for cutting.
tight-n-dark

Article(s): Catedral de San Antolín de Palencia

Request:

Request:

I'm posting this here on behalf of Rowanwindwhistler (talk):

Hello. The goal is to produce something similar to this tympanum. I would be grateful if someone could remove the black background, add the small pieces that are missing from the outer archivolt and trim the edges similar to the example image to keep just the tympanum, archivolts and side statues. Thanks a lot in advance!

One can see the full gate at its category page in Commons, there are several pictures showing it in full. The parent category shows most of the building and one can see the side of the cathedral where the gate is as well.

Here's a link to a notated image showing where to make the edits and reconstructions. The best option, taking into account that the bases of the statues and the sides and the upper decoration of the outer archivolt weren't preserved in the composite image, would be to take the purple line were it diverges from the red one and remove the doorway, sticking to the base of the tympanum (but keeping the base of the central statue in). Thanks in advance.

Note:

I gave it try, but my (Pentium 4) PC wasn't able to affectively deal with such a large image. CPU kept locking up when trying to render changes. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More detail: I'll add updated comments to the notated image link within a few (20+?) minutes. Oh, and here's a link to the original Commons thread. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (with relevant area tagged via the Google interface) added as per above. Here's a transcription:

Trim horizontally along here, above the doorway arch just below the tympanum detail with a bit extended down in the middle to include the base of the central figure..

Then follow along the first side statues joining up with the red line on the left side and with the purple 'detours' on the right (and then back to the red).

Ignore the bright yellow I added w/ GIMP.

Pay attention to the orange-yellow box that shows when you scroll over this message though.

There should be very little actual reconstruction work. Just the small black ares within the red outline.

I'm thinking that a 'good dose' of feathering —more than one might normally use when cropping such, I was thinking of starting at 11 pixels and then adjusting up from there based on appearance— along the outside of the eventual cropped form may work well to both ease the transition to the background field and to complement the distressed stone's variations.

If unable to do a PNG with background transparency, perhaps a dark charcoal gray (approaching black) might be worth trying in addition to white. Easier on the eyes and better contrast with the pale stone. Maybe 'give it a shot' and see how it looks.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded an example of how I had intended to approach it:

File:CatedralDePalencia-(arch_crop_xmple-01).png

(Composition is based based on my previous discussions with Rowanwhistler, image is based on File:CatedralDePalencia20100118211516SAM 2513.jpg) --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Graphist opinion(s):

Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC). (Let's see if this works.)[reply]

Done Centpacrr (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC) (Per acceptance by Rowanwindwhistler, the original requester, as noted below)[reply]

Question to requester: I can do the project at full size (using a MacBookPro running Photoshop CS5 Extended), but before I do please advise if you want me to follow the red, yellow, or purple guidelines in the template. Centpacrr (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard above question, now moot. Centpacrr (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting things off Centpacrr. I appreciate the attempt. It includes a good bit more than Rowan wants though. And my bad, I should have made an additional note suggesting we treat such a high-res original (even though it's a .jpg) as we would a large .tiff source file and flag it as 'do not overwrite'. I should have made that clear in advance. Please don't take offense if I revert it and fork it.

err, I rexamined Centpacrr's crop while comparing to one of the broader views and realized that he hadn't added as much as I thought. I totally made assumptions based on (flawed) memory. Sorry Centpacrr. I'm currently slapping myself with a fish.

IMHO, your version is a fine option. I think that I was thrown by the clean straight geometrically symmetrical cropping. I had been attempting to organically follow the contours of the carving more like they did in the example pic. I think your alternate way is a worthy option as well though. Only thing I'd really suggest is trying some edge feathering to soften the outline-to-background-field-transition a bit. It's a bit stark/abrupt to my eye.

I'll add some more explicit directions to the 'request' bit above as Centpacrr's version has pointed out that I may have not been clear/specific enough. Which is good to know. Thanks Centpacrr.

Ah, I see where I introduced some of the confusion. The linked pic with colored notation was originally made as an inquiry from me to Rowan and doesn't fully sync with the text above —which is based on her replies. I should have reviewed the link before posting it. Sorry. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody. Let me thank you all for your efforts so far! Centpacrr's version looks ok to me. I would just suggest removing the lower bit between the two groups of statues below the bottom of the Virgin statue (the plain undecorated stones of the doorway, such as was done by Kevjonesin in his example here), but only in case it does not involve too much work. If it does, the current version is perfectly fine with me.

On a second version, I have no problem either, but I would be grateful if the image size was kept. I took so many pictures precisely to be able to zoom in and see the details of the portal if anyone so wishes. I know handling the original pictures and the resulting one is a pain (my computer is far from powerful) but I think the result is worthwhile.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doorway arch (i.e. undecorated stones) removed as requested. Image retained at full hi resolution (12,320 × 6,911; 69.27 MB). Centpacrr (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing speed, thank you Centpacrr! I am perfectly satisfied with the last version. Unless the community prefers to do the trimming and reconstruction in the alternate composite image, I would say we are done.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help Rowanwindwhistler -- this was really a wonderful image to work on. I did the work on a 2011 MacBook Pro with a Samsung 840 Series 500GB SSD and 16GB of RAM running Photoshop CS5 Extended so the requested adjustment took less than a minute to complete. Based on your comment and acceptance above I will mark this request "Resolved". Centpacrr (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Rowanwindwhistler: I am fiddling with a second full hi res version in which I will see if I can improve the perspective and reduce the distortion introduced when the original composite was made of so many flat images. If I come up with something that looks respectable, I will post it as a separate file for you to consider. With a file this size, however, this will take me a little while and may not end up being a constructive improvement over the current version. I'll give it a shot anyway and let you know. Centpacrr (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rowanwindwhistler: I have now tried making several new hi res versions in an attempt to reduce the perspective distortion when the image is viewed in full (i.e. normal "webviewing" resolution) but find that doing so also introduces unacceptable distortions when details are studied when viewed at 100% thus marking such perspective changes to the current hi res version effectively a counterproductive exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "resolved" template. As the OP, User:Kevjonesin, hadn't been offered the opportunity to weigh in yet as is customary. Well, that's the de jure version anyhow. As to the de facto version, please examine Rowanwindwhistler's comment above, taking the time to parse and consider it in full. Specifically: "Unless the community prefers to do the trimming and reconstruction in the alternate composite image". Might it perhaps be appropriate to allow said community a chance to respond? It seems to me the active sub-thread below might warrant some consideration. And while the current version is quite good, I think that there may still some room for improvement. At the very least, I'd prefer to hear some more feedback on the latest suggestions added to "Requests:" above before marking this thread as resolved. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "request" above states "Request: I'm posting this here on behalf of Rowanwindwhistler (talk)" which by definition makes Rowanwindwhistler the OP/requester. The act of reposting of an OP's request in here from another page is only a ministerial action and does not thereby confer the "status" of the OP/requester on a reposting editor. In this case, the image file in question was both created by and uploaded to WP by Rowanwindwhistler who is also the contributor who specified what the request was. It seems to me that when the OP/requester says that "I am perfectly satisfied with the last version" and "I would say we are done", by definition that means that this specific request has been "Resolved" irrespective of anything else said about any potential additional derivative file. Other editors are, of course, free to to post such derivative files, but as both Kevjonesin and Nagualdesign have indicated that they are technically limited by their equipment in their ability to deal with this file at the high resolution and file size that the OP's request requires, I don't see how either one expects to be able to produce a file which fulfills the OP's original criteria which the accepted version does. Centpacrr (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I stated earlier, I am satisfied with the latest version from Centpacrr. If the new attempt removes detail even if it looks better when in thumbnail mode, I would say let us keep the previous one ("version 2", the one without the doorway). I agree that, if other versions are produced, that's great, any improvement benefits Wikipedia. If I have to be the one to decide if the request can be marked as resolved (not sure), I say it can. That does not mean editors cannot keep discussing possible ways to improve the image further or produce alternative versions (as with any other picture in Commons). I welcome the improvements for the sake of getting better illustrated articles. Let me thank you all again for all your ideas and work to improve my original image.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rowanwindwhistler that the greatest value of this beautiful image that he/she created and contributed is the extraordinary architectural detail that the high resolution version makes possible for viewers to study and appreciate. For that reason any adjustments made to the image that either diminish or distort its fine detail should thus be rejected and avoided. This is why I abandoned and did not upload any of my attempts to adjust the perspective of the overall image after making several such high resolution versions using a variety of techniques. While the current cropped version (#2 without the doorway) is a necessary compromise because it is a composite of many "flat" images taken from slightly different angles, I agree with the OP (Rowanwindwhistler) that it is also the best compromise because it retains detail at 100% without introducing unwanted distortion and therefore agree with her that her original request should now be marked "Resolved". Centpacrr (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—Let's hold off on passing judgment on future images until they appear shall we? --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rowanwindwhistler, please, pardon the fuss, but apparently Centpacrr and I have some (ongoing) issues to work out. (The "resolved" flag triggers an auto-archiving bot to start a count down towards removal of a section from the page. So there's a practical consideration at hand as well as general courtesy and such.) --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Centpacrr, who appointed you the unilateral definer of what my words mean? I think if you look at the file history of this page you will clearly find that the original poster of (and on) this thread is User:Kevjonesin. Might it not be considerate to ask him what he intended when placing his text above? Rather than making grandiose assumptions? I had a highschool chemistry teacher who was fond of the phrase "Never assume, for it makes an ass of u and me." I've consulted User:Kevjonesin the user who placed the request here and whose request you kindly chose to take and User:Kevjonesin says that what it means is that you may find it practical to consider yourself a sub-contractor as far as this thread goes. If you feel the need to assert yourself with a "resolved" tag please take it to Rowanwindwhistler's thread on Commons. Oh, wait that's not right because it's the prerogative of the requestor to mark as {{resolved}} as indicated in the edit page notes included with every request. The requestee is offered the use of {{done}}. Anyway, in line with Rowan's qualifier "unless the community prefers to do the trimming and reconstruction in the alternate composite image", I would like to go on with this thread.

As it so happens, this particular member of the Wikipedia community would prefer to give the latest version a bit more consideration and would also like to get Nagualdesign's input as well. I see no harm in allowing this thread to stand for a bit until activity ceases and/or some form of consensus has been reached. If you're afraid leaving it up may lead to someone making alterations to "your" file I suggest you upload it under another filename and flag it with the Commons template {{Please-do-not-overwrite-original-files}} or some such. Because even though Rowan has expressed that the image is acceptable for her purposes at present, I still think there's room for us here in the Photo workshop community to do a bit better and, judging from the sub-section below, I infer Nagual may share my opinion. Perhaps Mark viking may have input to offer as well.

Look around Cenpacrr, You are not the only kid on the playground here. Might I suggest that if you find words like community and us and consensus and collaboration and so on to be offensive in some way that you may wish to give some thought to your choice of venues? It's interesting to see how a kid who likes to lick his finger and tag his favorite pieces of pizza reacts when confronted by others who aren't so afraid of his spit.

"Happy to help Rowanwindwhistler -- this was really a wonderful image to work on."
—Centapcrr (quoted from above)

Folks, am I being unreasonable in thinking that it might be more appropriate for User:Centpacrr to give me a nod for bringing the file/request to his attention instead giving me grief?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.— Centpacrr, I've invested a great deal of time and effort over multiple days into facilitating work on the hugin image which Rowan gave to Wikimedia Commons. It's a public wiki and I chose to offer/donate my energy to it. As it's a gift I can't claim ownership of it once I've given it away, but is it so much to ask for you to reach outside the frigid depths of your sou... err, pardon the hyperbole... to reach out and grasp a spark of consideration for such? To take it into account and curb your enthusiasm to have closure. Feel free to put a notch in your gun, but please hold off on our thread until everyone has had a chance to come forward with there opinion. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr has a long history of not playing well with others and other assorted annoyances. It's doubtful he will improve anytime soon. – JBarta (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that when one says that he is posting a request "on behalf" of another (in this case on behalf of Rowanwindwhistler) that means the posting was made as a proxy or conduit for the actual originator (i.e. OP) of the request that had been posted elsewhere. I do not see how that is not a reasonable interpretation of "Request: I'm posting this here on behalf of Rowanwindwhistler". When I wrote "Happy to help Rowanwindwhistler" that was simply in response to a comment directed to me ("Amazing speed, thank you Centpacrr! I am perfectly satisfied with the last version.") by Rowanwindwhistler. I'm puzzled why you find that inappropriate. I am equally puzzled why you object to "this was really a wonderful image to work on." If you don't think it's a "wonderful image" that's up to you I suppose, but I don't see any reason why I should not be free to express my view to the OP that this is indeed an extraordinary image. If either of these are a problem for you or anyone else there is really not anything I can do about that. Centpacrr (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Do you have an official Asperger's diagnosis or some other autism spectrum disorder we should take into consideration? I wish I was simply being facetious, but no, really, have you been diagnosed with a condition which makes it difficult for you to recognize social cues and respond to the feelings of others?

A red pagoda catches a chill wind as green waves lap up around the lighthouse.Does a dog have buddha nature?

I didn't object to "this was really a wonderful image to work on." I wholeheartedly agree. (And feel that it still is.) I meant to suggest that it might be kind to give some consideration/recognition to the one who paved the way and brought it to your attention.

----Kevjonesin (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you did not indicate anywhere until this afternoon that you had "invested a great deal of time and effort over multiple days into facilitating work on the hugin image" when you posted the request in here on behalf of Rowanwindwhistler but only that you "gave it a try", there was no way for me or anyone else to know what your previous involvement had been or that this was anything other than a simple repost. Had you been more clear on that point originally or before now I doubt there would have been any of this kerfuffle would have happened. For all I knew up until this afternoon was the request posting just a "copy and past" of Rowanwindwhistler's original request. As I stated above, at this point I don't think I have anything more graphically to contribute to this image. I fulfilled the OP's requests as I understood them to the best of my ability, but if you, Rowanwindwhistler, or anyone else feel that V2 is inadequate then you are free to revert it to the original file. (I also subsequently made some attempts to adjust the perspective of the high resolution file to more closely match an image that was not a composite of many separate "flat" images taken at different angles and gave the reasons above why I decided not to post any of them as I found the results to be counterproductive.) I regret all the misunderstanding that has arisen here but I acted based on the information I had about the origin of the request, not the information I didn't have until this afternoon. Centpacrr (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) consideration01:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Part of being considerate, it seems to me, is being clear to start with when posting a request "on behalf" of another what one's connection is with it when doing so if it is something other than "copy and paste", and also (as has been pointed out to me before) signing your posts. I have explained why I believed that this posting was a copy of a request by Rowanwindwhistler and thus that this contributor, as the creator and uploader of the image, was the actual OP. I'm not a mind reader when it comes to this, and no I'm not autistic either. Centpacrr (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marking a request as 'resolved' triggers the archive bot, as well you know. We don't archive threads when a discussion is ongoing, regardless of who posted the request. Stop playing dumb, eh Centpacrr? nagualdesign (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or... if an editor adds a {{resolved}} tag, any other editor is welcome to remove it. – JBarta (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example

Another example

I worked out some of my technical issues (mostly using erase tool instead of paths and masks, back to basics) and proceeded to tighten up the cropping on one of Centpacrr's versions to better align with my discussions —preceding my coming here to invite other editors to help— with Rowan. To more closely resemble the illustrated examples provided above in the "requests section". I then implemented the suggestion to add a dark background (gray, composed of 88% black over white). Discussions below with Nagual also inspired me to adjust hue and saturation a bit.

Unfortunately, I'm having difficulty uploading, some sort of file error has been introduced. Even with row-by-row 'JPEG restart markers'. No preview pic or thumbnails display on the file page but if one clicks on the blank space an image will load. Not functional for article use, but I thought I'd share as an example for now.

File:TímpanoDeLaPuertaDelObispoCatedralDePalencia-(cpr)-tight-n-dark.jpg

I'll likely try to trouble shoot the upload process again at some point. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very unusual artifacts in your latest upload, visible to either side of the arch. I wonder if the file might be corrupted. nagualdesign (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The horizontal streaks of oddness in the gray? I'm befuddled by that actually. The rough kinda' perforated bits along the edge on the left were introduced by an automated selection tool. It slipped by me and I didn't notice it until I'd already moved on to other layer changes. Didn't want to backup and re-render stuff ans it seemed to fit with the kinda' organic cropping I was going for any way.

I plan on doing a similar crop and background based on your composite below at some point. I figure I'll reserve further trouble shooting energy for that if needed. I started with a Centpacrr version as much of the trimming had already been already done. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New composite

New composite

Can I come out yet? ...Kev, I saw the previous discussion on the Commons and decided to see how my laptop and Photoshop handled the photomerge, using the original files. With a bit of tweeking I managed to remove a lot of distortion (though I've possibly introduced some somewhere, if you look closely!) and I've been trying to upload it but I'm having problems. DerivativeFX drops out before uploading and the normal method just hangs. It's a 103Mb png. I don't suppose anyone would mind if I converted it to a jpg and tried uploading it as a new version of this file? *holds breath* nagualdesign (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the source is .jpg and there seems to be 'resolution to spare' I think JPEG would be fine. No transparent border option as with PNG but 'oh well'. : }

Please upload whatever is feasible (sounds like JPEG) and we'll take a look at it. Under a new name though please.

Feel free to just copy paste the info from the edit page on Rowan's original into the new file (via Commons basic upload) and I'll be glad to adjust it as necessary. Maybe leave me a reminder if that's the case though. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion might be off-base (I am still learning how you all operate), but since all the details are already preserved in the component images, would it make sense to downscale the final result to a reasonable size, say 2K on a side? 85 megapixel images are impressive, but in practice, they mean long download times, slow performance and a lot of scrolling at 100% on the monitor. --Mark viking (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that we upload the highest resolution available, then the Wiki software provides scaled down versions. Links to various image sizes are provided under the main image. nagualdesign (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's beneficial to have the high res versions around as sources for future graphists to make further renditions without compiling losses. Any resolution (or other) changes may then be uploaded under new filenames if needed. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a complete Wikiholic at this point. One of my first waking thoughts was that Nagual's attempt to upload a .png version may have failed due to having almost the same filename in that it may have only differed by file suffix (.jpg/.png).

Nagual, Did you perhaps attempt to upload it as:

TímpanoDeLaPuertaDelObispoCatedralDePalencia.png

...? If so, you surely ran afoul of this bug. It's also discussed here.

If this was the case, maybe try the .png again with TímpanoDeLaPuertaDelObispoCatedralDePalencia9-(NagualDesign).png or some such variation. I'd like to see it with a transparent background if that's 'OK'? (I figure 'whatever' may then be added later. Might as well take advantage of the format's (PNG's) allowances.)

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the belated reply. ..Oh wait, it's only been a day! A lot can happen in a day I guess.

Thanks for putting some thought into my uploading issue, Kevin. I had tried changing the filename (by inserting appropriate spaces) but that didn't work. I've tried again tonight to upload the png to no avail. Eventually I managed to upload a cropped jpeg.

(File:TímpanoDeLaPuertaDelObispoCatedralDePalencia(2).jpg) It doesn't matter much that we don't have a transparent background, the edges are jagged anyway from one of the processes.

As you can see, the arch is centred in the image, the centreline is vertical and the horizontals are horizontal. The view is skewed to a more frontal perspective than the other image, with more emphasis on symmetry. Bear in mind that all large panoramas (photomerges) are distorted to some degree. To create the finished (2D) image you have to choose which projection best represents certain areas of the image, usually to the detriment of other areas. In most renderings of this image the statues nearest to the centre look shorter than the ones on the outside. I've gone in and done some extra tweeking to get it just right, or near as damn it.

I haven't made any local changes, no liquifying, distorting or dodging/burning, all the stretching and bending was done globally so the result is still natural. It shouldn't look distorted at all. You might notice that the right half of the arch is lighter than in the other version. I didn't do that, it was just how Photoshop decided to blend the images. Let me know what you think. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the two processes (Photoshop vs. Hugin) resulted in opposite sides darker/lighter. I think the color on yours overall is more true to the majority of the photos in the category. And the proportions are more true. In my 2nd example pic I actually warped the perspective to better match Rownawindwhistler's Hugin composite. In my example, I squashed the vertical a bit and splayed out the horizontal in order to emulate the Hugin image. Your (Nagual's) composite is less splayed out and truer to the full views of the archway. As to the color, perhaps Rowan adjusted the levels at some point on the Hugin image? It's more bright (and saturated?) in yellow tones while most of the other pics in the category are more weighted towards gray. I'll drop her a link to here so she can comment on color and general appearance. To my eye, the Hugin image appears a bit overbright, but the Photoshop composite is a bit dark. Nagual can you tweak the levels a bit to get something in between? (note: I've been basing these comments on the —relatively— small previews at top of the file pages, not close ups)

On both versions I wonder how it would look if rotated slightly to bring the larger central statue (of 'the Virgin') into vertical —rather than the peaks of the archivolts? --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my version looked weirdly saturated on the upper-right part of the arch, but I haven't compared it to the originals. I didn't do anything with the colour though. The centreline is based on the backdrop (those square 'tiles'). Because the photographer was slighty right of centre, anything that stands forward of those tiles appears slightly to the left. The central statue should be vertical though. I'll take another look at it later tonight... nagualdesign (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put the measuring stick away and skewed the image by eye as much as I dare. It does look subjectively straighter now. I think the central statue looks better too. Having looked at the original images it seems that the colouring is true. I'm not sure that a brighter version is necessary though. When you zoom into the image the brightness/contrast looks good to me. Scaled (cached) versions of the image tend to loose contrast/accutance, but the full-sized composite is meant for zooming into, not looking at the whole image. nagualdesign (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. "Acutance", I learned a new word. : }

Yeah, the upper right has color more similar to the other version. The right hand row of statues as well. I ~~fixed~~ improved something similar recently by using a gradient mask while adjusting HSL levels. In that case it was the top horizontal third of a low res .jpg though. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nagual, the links here may shine some light on upload issues. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegory of the Spanish Republic

Stale

– DyceBot (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegory of the Spanish Republic

Article(s): First Spanish Republic

Request:

Could someone possibly improve the quality of this picture please, many thanks. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Darkened it a little. – JBarta (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Should the map exclude Awdalland territories?

Resolved

– Reepy1 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): List of states with limited recognition Somaliland

Request:

First image and Second image: The leaders of Awdalland declared autonomy in 2010, and they do not recognize the secessionist Somaliland government's claim to sovereignty or to its territory. In this case, should the maps still include Awdalland territories? (I have also added this entry on File_talk:Limited_recognition.png)

Second Image: Parts of Sool, Ayn, Somalia, Khatumo State and Maakhir is controlled by Puntland, an autonomous state in Somalia.

Can you fix the second image? Maybe there could be light red for claimed territories and dark red for controlled territories. -- Reepy1 (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Question is probably best posed at Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition. – JBarta (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Reepy1 (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I've accidentally put it here instead of the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Sorry :P Reepy1 (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Carvey

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Brad Carvey

Request:

non-notable buddy shot, please trim down to the encyclopedically interesting shorter fellow... -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done - The next question is can the hand that's growing out of his neck be removed? Yes it can, but not by me. At least not by me now. If someone else wants to do it... go for it. If it's still here later, maybe I'll do it. – JBarta (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a whirl...

Request taken by nagualdesign (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Done nagualdesign (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow guys, that's fantastic, thank you so much!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 13 Mailbox

Resolved

– – JBarta (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers work on the Apollo 13 Mailbox

Article(s): Aerospace engineering, Apollo 13, Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center.

Request:

Crop whitespace on right and top. Any and all possible restoration work, as I'd like to nominate this image to become a featured picture. -- Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s):

Done - First upload is simply cropping the white border. Second upload is adjusting the contrast a little and cleaning up a few spots. It's not the greatest image in the world to start with, (a lot of area is pure white) but it looks presentable to me. Of course, if other editors want to give it a whirl... go to it. – JBarta (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. There are other versions of the image, such as JSC at 40 MCC Gallery that have better exposure. --Mark viking (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one does look like it has a lot more detail left on it. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has better shading, but being a much lower resolution, has much less detail. The full size image we're hosting here is a somewhat badly altered version of the original, but unless we can get that original at a resolution near the one we have, we're SOL and the better option remains the one we have. – JBarta (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I had meant to say more highlight detail. I am not sure if there is a way to ask NASA for the full res scan. Any experience with that?--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 02:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Georgia Brown... I found a copy of the original here. I tweaked the color & shading and uploaded it. The only drawback is that it's a little grainy and it was saved as a rather highly compressed JPG. It's now loaded with JPG artifacts. There's no reversing that in this copy of the image. The only hope for an even better image is that scan before someone saved it as a highly compressed JPG. (I should mention that JPG is great image format... just be aware of what compression level your image is being saved at. Low compression = good, high compression = bad.) – JBarta (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I found that 2 mins ago, and was comparing it to the one here when I noticed they looked almost the same! Thanks for all the help here, my friend. Cheers!--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 03:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better, thanks Jbarta! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Baker White (Virginia)

Resolved

– – JBarta (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of John Baker White

Article(s): John Baker White

Request:

This image was taken from a scanned copy of History of Hampshire County, West Virginia: From Its Earliest Settlement to the Present in Google Books and the overall quality is quite poor. Any sharpening, leveling, trimming around the edges, and general overall fixes would be greatly appreciated. This is the only known image of Mr. White hence my usage of it for his forthcoming article on Wikipedia. A link to the original source can be found here:

Maxwell, Hu (1897). History of Hampshire County, West Virginia: From Its Earliest Settlement to the Present. Morgantown, West Virginia: A. Brown Boughner. Retrieved June 30, 2013. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

-- Caponer (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC). Caponer, is this what you were looking for? Centpacrr (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Done Centpacrr (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr, thank you so incredibly much for your tremendous work in rehabilitating this old scanned photograph. This more than satisfies the request and I greatly appreciate your assistance! Thanks again for all you do! -- Caponer (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Centpacrr (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note to Caponer: Besides the downloadable Google Books version of the book from which you have been finding images of persons about which you have been using images therefrom, additional versions in a variety of other formats of it can be downloaded at http://archive.org/details/historyofhampshi00maxw which may better suit your purposes. Centpacrr (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaszow Memorial (Resized).JPG

Resolved

– – JBarta (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial at Płaszów

Article(s): Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp

Request:

If you could remove the date stamp from this image that would be awesome. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, C! It looks great. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Centpacrr (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinian Joint Chiefs

Resolved

– – JBarta (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinian Joint Chiefs
Purnell

Article(s): William R. Purnell

Request:

Hi! I think the contrast and brightness on the first image could use some work. If you would rather work from the source version, it's here.

The second image, whatever you can do to brighten, clean, etc. Thanks so much. --Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Request taken by Centpacrr (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC). I am not really clear as to what you wanted done to these two images Diannaa, but I have tweaked and cleaned them up and bit. If this is not what you were looking for then you (Diannaa) should feel free to revert them or provide more specific instructions as to what you would want me to do further. Centpacrr (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Done Centpacrr (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Centpacrr. I didn't want to get too specific as I am not sure what's possible and don't know the specialised lingo. Both images look much better, especially the portrait. Thank you! -- Diannaa (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The first one didn't really look that bad to me so I just spiffed it up a bit and tweaked the contrast so it didn't look quite so "flat" or gray. The portrait took a bit more work to deal with the Moiré pattern but I think for an info box image it now works well. Centpacrr (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the portrait took you a lot more effort, I can see that, but it's a very nice result. Thanks again. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article on RADM Purnell ... a very interesting career for him indeed. I hope you didn't get too badly hurt by the floods up there. I have lots of friends in Calgary and elsewhere in the Province and it looks as if it is going to take years to fully recover from the damage downtown, the Stampede Grounds, and elsewhere. Centpacrr (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye is working on the article right now, for a GA nomination. We are fine, I live up near Edmonton. I have a lot of friends in the Bow Valley (Canmore, Banff) but as far as I know everyone is okay. Calgary, what a mess. :/ -- Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked in pro hockey for over 40 years so have many friends from around Edmonton, Calgary, and elsewhere in Alberta including Flames' GM Jay Feaster and coach Bob Hartley who are both long time buddies. I don't see how the Saddledome can possibly be put back in shape in time for the season having been flooded up to the tenth row. A mess indeed. Centpacrr (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC) PS: I am also ironically also currently reading the book "In Harm's Way" about the sinking of the cruiser USS Indianapolis just a few days after that ship had delivered the Hiroshima bomb to Tinian Island. Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]