User talk:WikiPedant

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
English: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, WikiPedant!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−
First steps tutorial

Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy.

Getting help

More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}}
  • For more information read the full deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--LegobotOperatortalk 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use sub-categories

[edit]

Hi WikiPedant,

dansk | Deutsch | Österreichisches Deutsch | Schweizer Hochdeutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | svenska | +/−

When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

This is what you did for images in Category:Picton, Ontario. Since this category is already part of Category:Prince Edward County, Ontario, you don't need to add this latter category to the images. Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, P199. I see that now. No arguments. Still getting used to how nested the categories are here. Thanks for fixing it. --WikiPedant (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Valued image candidates/Clearwater Beach pirate ship excursion.jpg

[edit]

I canceled your change. The last remark does not invalidate the media you have. As it is, your image is valid as the value of image. Si tu lis le français, la dernière remarque qui t'a été faite n'invalide pas le support de l'image. En l'état, elle passera comme image de valeur. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 00:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Replica pirate ship used for tourist cruises at Clearwater Beach, Florida.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jetboat in rapids of Niagara River Gorge.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Seattle skylines from Gas Works Park at sunset.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Princess of Acadia (ship, 1971).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Cropping images

[edit]

Thanks for the thanks. By way of information for the future, when you want to crop an image I suggest you use the CropTool that can be activated in your commons Preferences, under Gadgets. The CropTool will then appears in the left side of your screen. It saves everyone a lot of time because it transfers all the correct and appropriate information into the cropped image, such as source, licence, author, etc. It even leaves a backlink to the original and visa versa. That way all the proper information is there and does not need to be manually reviewed by volunteers. It really saves a lot of time and frustration in the first place, so try the CropTool next time. Good luck. Ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the tip. I have activated the crop tool and taken it for a test drive. It will obviously be very useful. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This would also help in uploading new versions - I'm always a bit hesistant myself when cropping anything inside the image itself (that is, aside from a black lining etc). It doesn't hurt to have two versions of the same image anyway.
On a separate note, when you uploaded a new version of [[:File:Philip-jos-farmer.jpg}this]] image, you noted it was in the public domain. I suppose that was a mistake, or am I overlooking something? Effeietsanders (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Effeietsanders -- You're right on both points. (1) A CC-licence gives away a lot, but does not go so far as to put an image into the public domain, and it was sloppy of me to say that. (2) I should stop taking shortcuts and upload separate, adapted versions of CC-licenced originals. I suppose even my intrusively-modified Philip Jose Farmer image would be unobjectionable if I uploaded it as a new, separate image (or am I still wrong?). Thanks for keeping me honest. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ford-Crawford-Of-Mice-and-Men-1938-cropped.jpg

[edit]

When creating a cropped and reduced version, as you did with this image, please save it as a separate file. Thanks. — WFinch (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WFinch -- I try to do this for any image I consider to be archival, but I honestly didn't regard this image as archival. In any case, I see you've already done the heavy lifting. Thanks. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive jpegs

[edit]

Hello, just an FYI. I notice that some of the jpegs you're uploading (Charlton Heston for example) are interlaced/progressive. C:Help:Progressive says not to use this type of jpeg. (Hohum @) 16:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't care for progressive jpegs myself, but don't always check. I'll look back through some of my recent uploads and replace any that need fixing, and I'll be careful about this in the future. Thanks again. -- WikiPedant (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I see what happened. I recently installed Ubuntu and have been a newbie user of GIMP for a couple of weeks. But it turns out that GIMP has "progressive" set as the default format for saving JPEGs. The default is fixed now and I've have retrieved all the GIMP-manipulated images I recently uploaded. I'll fix and re-upload them over the next couple of days. Thanks again for catching this. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

working on jpegs

[edit]

Hello WikiPedant, thank you for contributing to our projects! I set your user status to autopatrolled. Just a hint: If one crops or adjusts a given jpeg image it is not helpful to increase the jpeg compression quality when storing it. The image won't become better but bigger thereby. Better store it keeping the previously given compression value (90% or whatever it is). Regards, --Achim (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Achim: Thanks. You're right, some of my recent uploads needlessly have bigger sizes than the originals. When I started using GIMP a few months ago, I wasn't sure what to expect so I set the value to 100% just to play it safe. I'll take more care with image sizes in the future. Thanks again. -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meet_Taylor_Mason_(Asia_Kate_Dillon)_Billions_Season_2.jpg

[edit]

This was nice! Thank you! Can you tell me what you did, or point me to a tutorial or something? I'd love to be able to do that. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GRuban: Thank you. I really didn't do much to this one, just a couple basic Photoshop adjustments: to "levels" and "sharpness". Photoshop takes a while to learn, but the basics come fairly naturally. Just start with the basics. You can find tutorials, of widely varying quality, on YouTube. A lot of the learning is just through trial and error -- Work with temporary copies of images and be prepared to ruin lots of them. Two words of advice: (1) Photoshop gives the most reliable results and (2) don't overdo the adjustments. -- WikiPedant (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was literal Photoshop, not GIMP? --GRuban (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this one was GIMPed. The "levels" and "sharpen" functions are similar in both. But for other functions, like color management, GIMP is distinctly inferior. I would definitely recommend Photoshop over GIMP if you're just starting fresh to learn this stuff. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Thieme.jpg

[edit]

Hello WikiPedant. You cut off Thieme's right shoulder. There were a few centimeters on the right side of the picture that were superfluous, but cutting into his body like this to create a hovering face unrelated to it's surroundings was not called for, I think. I made the picture. It did not cross your mind to ask me before mutilating it... Best regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Gereon K.: I didn't mutilate anything. For better thumbnail display, I tightened the framing to a conventional portrait format. And I adjusted the levels to dial down the overexposed skin tones in harsh sunlight. But I have no problem with restoring your version and uploading mine as a separate image, which I have now done. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello WikiPedant. I was not complaining about dialing down of the overexposure. Thank you for that. I just did not like the cutting off of one arm. The picture was made in the open in a filming break I had with him, so there is no need to pretend that it was a portrait situation. --Gereon K. (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joachim Frank EM1B8792 (27115577469).jpg

[edit]

Please WikiPedant, your changes are not for the better and are not appreciated !! Bengt Nyman (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The face in your version looks a little overexposed by the flash illumination to me. But it's still a decent picture, and I'm not going to edit war with you over it. Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Cropping/Adjusting an Image

[edit]

Would you be able to help crop this recent image from the commons;

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IWoods.png

It would be of much help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Sure, done. I like this image. Not everyone may agree with my converting it to greyscale, though. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WP, If able, I have a few more that I need help cropping and what not; they would entail the following and please help this when you can do so because it would be a big help:

Thanks so much in advance and thanks again for helping out with Ms. Woods picture (it came out so beautiful!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: I enjoy this sort of thing (and it's nice to work with well-made images like these), so I'll take them up in the reasonably near future. I'm not quite sure what to make of the non-standard notations following the copyright symbol on the Beverly Michaels and Donna Reed pictures, though. The images were obviously made long before 1977, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't still valid copyrights on them. Anyhow, I'll adjust them and let someone else worry about that (if someone else comes along with such worries). -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC

Thanks for the help, WikiP; I have 2 more for you; This one of actress Vera Miles for her 90th birthday on August 23 which I've presently uploaded; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VeraM.jpg

Janet Blair here; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Janet_Blair.jpg

Esther Sutherland there; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Sutherland#/media/File:Esther_Sutherland_and_Telly_Savalas_in_'Kojak'.jpg

Nancy Walker finally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NancyWalker.gif (The top part could be cropped out and I'm sure once you'll see it you may think of other things I haven't)

Please help crop/adjust when able, thanks so much! You're awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: . You certainly have found some fine images, created by very capable studio photographers using those wonderful old-time large format cameras. I replaced the Nancy Walker image with a better one from the web (the distortion of the original version was caused by inaccurate aspect ratio -- the ratio of width to length -- which made her face far too narrow). I'm not going to touch the images of Vera Miles and Janet Blair. The Miles image has a clear, properly formatted copyright notice and the Blair image appears to bear one too (although the resolution leaves the text at the bottom of the image less than clear). Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WP for helping (I understand about Vera and Janet, I didn't even look that close for that tagline like you did). I have a new one I uploaded today that I'm sure you can help with in honor of Laraine Day;

It looks as this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LDiHM.jpg I hope you can help her out; it would look 10 times better without the borders plus the yellow-gray scale. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 new ones for you when time allows; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JanisC.jpg

Another one of Earl Holliman; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EHforTWC.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Please help when able and thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: OK, those 2 are done. (Hohum didn't beat me to it this time.) Thanks again for the interesting material. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new one I found that you'll like; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarthaRaye1944.jpg

And another one of Earl Holliman; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EHinPW.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

)Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 21
05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Black BIC Ballpoint: Martha Raye and the latest Earl Holliman are done. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; here I've linked one more that I think you'll enjoy doing; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RBellamy34.jpg Hope you'll like it as much as I did when I found it. Have a good Labor Day Weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP, when LD is over, I have a new one for you that I think you'll just love; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GaleStorm.jpg If there is anyway you might be able to crop and or make it a little bit brighter that be wonderful. Thanks and have a wonderful week!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: No need to butter me up. I'm retired, so life is just one big long weekend now. I'm old enough to remember some of these celebs. And I like doing this sort of thing anyway. We make a pretty good team -- you find them and I touch 'em up. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad too hear that; I found more for you too work on this weekend if able.

Here they are; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:McClahananWink.jpg It needs cropping all the way around

This one will be fun for you; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RogerMobleyRobertSorrellsJamesDalyTOSB.jpg The cropping for this one will mostly bring it down to just the head shots for Roger Morbley and Robert Sorrells since they don't have any lead headshots like James Daly does. If there is a way of making this file more than one too accomplish that that would be great. It wouldn't make sense having all 3 of them in the same photograph for a lead headshot anyway so I'm sure you'll find a way of making these work.

Thanks much!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: All done. I created the individual pages for Mobley and Sorrells here at Commons rather than at Wikipedia. If you check their Wikipedia articles you'll see that I've replaced the original group image with the new individual images from Commons. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new one for you; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EHADPW.jpg It's unique because all thought there's no trimming involved to my eye it looks a little dark Earl and Angie coming from the waist up. Do you think it could be enhanced with a little more brightness so the faces and overall aren't real darkish? I'll let you be the judge of this new one. Either way, I'm grateful for the teamwork (as always).

@Black BIC Ballpoint: This is an example of available-light photography, which is a bit unusual for studio publicity shots. Here, the available light is harsh outdoor sunlight and the photographer, perhaps unwisely, posed the subjects squinting into that strong sunlight. The result is slits for eyes and harsh shadows on the face and in the eye sockets. I dialled down some of that shadowing, but there are limits -- overdoing it produces an image with a distinctly phoney quality. And no matter what, people squinting into the sun still look like they're squinting into the sun. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So true; I'm glad for the tweek anyway it does look a little better.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more too; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MontgomeryClift.jpg If that could be cropped a bit and more centered that be good and I also have this one; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:YvonneDC.jpg Is it possible too crop off a little of that left and make her more centered for this being her new lead shot?

Here's another; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JuneTravis.jpg Just needs general crop with adjusts/brightness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can do good with these two and I'm glad you think of us as a team. It's a wonderful compliment.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: OK, Montgomery Clift, June Travis, and Yvonne De Carlo are all cleaned up. Three more very nice finds by you.
Note: It would be better, BICster, if you uploaded photos that are clearly in the public domain directly to Wikimedia Commons rather than to Wikipedia. Any photo file link in Wikipedia (in an infobox or elsewhere) will still work (Wikipedia always checks in Commons if a file isn't found in Wikipedia's own photo collection). And the categories you've been adding, which generally do not exist in Wikipedia (and thus show as redlinks), will usually already exist in Commons (and thus show as bluelinks). Also, photos on file in Commons can be used in any of the other wikis in any language, so, after a while, they tend to find their way into lots of wikis to be appreciated by readers all over the world. And, also also, sometimes it's a little more convenient to work on photos (cropping, etc) when they are located in Commons rather than in Wikipedia. Give it a try. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for fixing those and I'll make a mental note in the future. At the moment, I have a new one that I found for you too see, have, and enjoy doing; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JaneGreer.jpg In future, I'll be sure to upload in the Commons here that there wouldn't be an issue. I hope you'll take pleasure in this one and (as always) I look forward too our next collaboration whenever that might be.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Jane Greer is done. I also moved this image to Commons, where there already is a "Jane Greer" category. (I'm not a regular file mover, though, and find this task a bit too much of a pain in the neck to make a habit of.) Till next time . . . WikiPedant (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP, I have a new one for you that I uploaded today, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JeanRogers.jpg I hope you'll enjoy it.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP, I found a new one for you (one quite attractive to the eye also) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AndreaKing.jpg I hope you'll enjoy this for your next project. Have a nice weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing Andrea King. It turned out great. When your time permits, would it be possible for you too help me move this file into the commons for Earl Holliman; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EHinWC.jpg I see the others there but this one. I hope you can help with that, it would mean a lot and be much appreciated. Thanks for all that you do and have a good remainder of the weekend and fresh start for this coming week.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: I activated a file exporting tool that semi-automates the process and was playing with it a bit, moving some of our previous images, but I missed that one of Earl H. It's moved now. If you spot any more, just let me know. With this exporting software, it's a fairly simple task. For now -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When your time permits, I found a beauty for you too work with; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WindsorMarie.jpg

I also have this one of Anne Francis and Earl Holliman; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EHAFinDGNTW.jpg

And this of Jack Elam; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JackElam.jpg Perhaps crop the top, make it more centered, and do you think a little brighter is possible? Same as always, I'll let you be the judge.

Finally, this of Janis Paige; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Janis_Paige_by_Clarence_S._Bull,_1944.jpg If it can be cropped down to a sort of headshot that be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all done. (1) I think I deserve a minor public service award for removing that atrocious green border from the shot of Holliman and (a very young-looking) Anne Francis. (2) The Jack Elam photo was trimmed a bit on 2 sides to improve the composition, but it's a lower resolution image so there are reasonable limits to how much smaller one can make it. I lightened up some of the harsh shadowing, but shadowing sort of works with Elam since he played rugged and often villainous types. (3) The Janis Paige shot was good fun, since it needed to be rotated and cropped a lot and then some missing background drawn in (tilted shots like that are seldom effective -- looks the photographer was drunk or the subject is supposed to a psycho). I uploaded the modified version as a separate file, since the image was so extensively changed and then put the modified version in the infobox at Wikipedia's Janis Paige entry. You come up with truly high quality images! This really is fun. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "All Done's". They came out great and I'm so glad you enjoyed them. Hopefully, when I find you more you'll enjoy them too.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found some new ones for you;

I hope you'll like it.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found some new ones for you (Just a few not as many as before)

Thanks in advance--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing those! I found an new one for you when time permits;

Have a good day and enjoy the coming weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a new one for you; 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DeweyMartin.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeggyLEE.jpg 1) Think it might be possible to adjust it to a nice headshot since the turtle-neck is so frumpy? The tone good as is or could be a little brighter? Per tradition, I'll let you be the judge. 2) Cropping and whatever else is needed from your perspective. Have a good day!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Done and done. I uploaded a separate, cropped, version of the Dewey Martin image, with some selective adjustment to the exposure levels, for you to use as you see fit. Personally, I think the original full upper-body portrait of him may be a more effective representation of his persona -- It's well composed and captures his masculinity. In any case, both images show the turtleneck. (Hey, back in the 60s I sometimes wore dorky turtlenecks like that!) Dewey Martin was in one of my favorite old Howard Hawks westerns -- The Big Sky (1952). Those were the days. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got a new one for you;

Mostly general cropping and adjusting; will let you be the judge as always if additional lighting is needed.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Another great find, BIC-meister. By far the highest-quality image of Jayne Meadows on Commons. I reworked it a bit. But I've never cared for the photographic affectation of tilting the subject to a precarious angle, so I created a more heavily manipulated extracted version (which I prefer) in which I corrected the vertical alignment and also did a little retouching:
-- WikiPedant (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It came out great!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new one;

Transer to commons when able (forgot to upload it here) and I'll let you be the judge per traditional on what ought to be adjust/cropped/perked up with this one. Have a good one!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: OK, moved this one to Commons (File:JeffDonnell.jpg) and touched up a few specks and spots (didn't need much IMO). The original image is still sitting in Wikipedia's photo collection, but it is flagged for deletion and someone with appropriate authority will likely remove it shortly. (I can copy a file from Wikipedia, but can't delete one.) -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP, when able, could you transfer these files to the commons (I totally forgot about);

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, I found a few new pics for you too play with;

Have a good day and will talk later on!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found some new pictures;

This one of is of Glynis Johns (in honor of her and her 96th birthday tomorrow);

These 2 of her as well which I did here on commons;

Thanks!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: -- All done. I didn't know that Glynis Johns was still with us. Well done, Glynis! -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new one, I uploaded just now;

Per tradition, I'll let you tweek/adjust whatever you feel is fit--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more for you;

That's all for now; have a good week!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new one, I came across;

Have a nice day!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: -- This is another nice, old-time image. I removed a couple specks, but am not inclined to make any other changes. The framing and sepia tint look good to my eye. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found some new ones for you.

Look forward too the outcome when you're able.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: -- Earl's looking better all the time. Note: In the case of File:EARLHOLLIMANforPW.jpg, you didn't grab the largest version of the image available on the external site (I fixed it). BICster, keep an eye peeled for that. Best -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WP. Yes, I agree, Earl does look better all the time; he's awesome.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 new ones for you;

I hope you'll enjoy this one. Have a nice day.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: -- For differing reasons, I don't see any reason to fiddle with these two. (1) The B&W shot is a gorgeous portrait that is technically excellent IMO. (2) The hand-colored shot, like so many of these shots from the 30's and 40's, is unnatural and pretty much impossible to make more natural. It is what it is, but I dislike the fact that in these shots, people tend to end up not looking entirely like themselves. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Black BIC Ballpoint: -- Changed my mind about image #1. I didn't change it, but added a separate, cropped version to use in the infobox of her Wikipedia article. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Adjusting/Cropping Images (New Section)

[edit]

Wiki,

I found some new pics for you that need your help; you'll enjoy this beauties;

These 3 might be a bit of a challenge but if you can bypass the watermarks and what not it is worth a shot (if not no biggie; all the ones in the first list above will be fine/dandy):

I hope this will be to your liking and give you some enjoyment in the doing. Until next time. Here is a new one I found;

Hope you're doing well, it's been a few days know and I'm surprised not in hearing from you and seeing your adjustments on our traditional photo finds from yesteryear. I hope you'll be back in your groove again and that you're happy-healthy. Hope too hear/see your pic touches soon.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new one of Earl Holliman;

Just needs cropping-adjusting and a touch of brightness.

Will catch up with you later and hope you'll be back soon.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Not to worry. I'm just a bit busy right now. But I'll chip away at them. Lots of interesting stuff here. -- WikiPedant (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, I'm glad. I look forward too the outcome of all these in good time. I hope you'll have fun with them and once these are done I'll see if I can find you some more. Will catch up.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one I have that I forgot too add to the above list:

Will talk soon.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: I'll skip the 3 watermarked images. There is some software to help remove watermarks, but doing a really good job can be quite time consuming. And I'm pretty satisfied that these images are not good candidates for use in Wikipedia, anyway. Earl's article is sufficiently well illustrated IMO and I don't like to invest effort in images that are unlikely to have much usage. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fine; I figured it be worth a shot but at least I found you other goodies that can be easily done with not so much time consumption. Plus, in the first row, I found some Earl's (himself and with others) that are gems and will look good once their get a tweeked. Yes, I agree, Earl does have good imagery for his (goodness knows the only reason, I did so much of him is because he's bar-none my #1 favorite actor). I'm glad your chipping away is working out good so far (Audrey and Richard turned out JUST BEAUTIFUL!). I look forward too seeing what more you'll prove with the rest of the lists-names and sometime next week per promise I'll see if I can find you a little more. Will talk later and I look forward too the rest of the outcomes.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you have time this week, after Virginia Field and Virginia Mayo are completed, I have some new ones for you too play with:

Have a good week and a Happy Halloween on Thursday. Will catch up later on.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy November! Too kick off the month, I came across a couple pics for you. This is what I got:

As always, I'll let you takes these and judge on how they ought to be taken. I hope you'll like them. Will talk another time.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you return, WP, could you please help transfer this file too the commons; it's not in here yet for whatever reason,

Thank you!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP, Here's 2 new ones;

Have a good one!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few new pics for you to play with when time permits:

Have a good week!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: I'm getting a bit reliant on you for all these nice images, BBB. I've always had a fondness for old Sterling Holloway, who did Disney voices when I was a kid and also (somehow, this has always stayed with me) played an eccentric inventor in a 1950's Superman TV episode, where he cooked up an artificially intelligent very 1950's computer named "Mr. Kelso". Way before your time, I'm sure. Thanks again for the good stuff. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad too hear you say that. It makes me feel good knowing I can bring you some enjoyment in the format. That episode of Superman with SH was indeed LONG before my time but I do recall seeing it once in reruns and I agree it was fun watching. I have a new one for you:

If it's possible too redo it and make a separate file with just a headshot too be used in her Wiki article that'll be fine. Per tradition, once I place it in your hands I'll let you judge what should or shouldn't be done with it. Catch you later!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: OK, I put an extracted version out there for you to use in the article if you wish. It's not a headshot, but it's about as tightly framed as I think I can go, given the resolution of the original. (Hmm, maybe the cropped version is a little too low-res. Do you want me to back off a bit on the crop?) -- WikiPedant (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It came out great; the crop came out good!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one too;

Hope you'll enjoy it.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Adjusting/Cropping Images (Section 3)

[edit]

Here's is a new one;

I think it may need some cropping at the side and perhaps above head too make it more centered. I'll let you decipher. Will talk later.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Perhaps a bit of bright since it looks a tad dark?)--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find below a list of goodies, I found for you featuring The First Lady of Song:

Second Row (In Honor of another Famous Jazz Artist):

Third Row:

Fourth Row:

Fifth Row:

Sixth Row:

Seventh [AND FINAL] Row:

These ought too keep you occupied for the next week (if not 2). These are all gems and I know you'll enjoy having them. I'll catch up with you after Thanksgiving, if I should find anymore pics that I think you'll enjoy. I hope you'll enjoy tweeking these pics later on. Have a good one and happy re-imaging.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Applause!

[edit]

WP, I had to stop and say that I came over today too see how you were doing and I am just amazed at how you've accomplished so much in the amount of time you had prior too my original theory. I'm glad that you enjoyed this by the looks of what came out of them and I also want too "Applaud" you for so much dedication, hard work, and good quality outcome. I hope that you enjoyed this and I'll compose a new section for you later on with new pics once I look through and see what I am able too find for you. Enjoy the rest of today and again here's an ovation for your hard work and the rapidness of the outcome.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Many thanks, my friend. The photoplay images are easy to clean up, so I chunked through them pretty quickly. Archival files (from established photo collections, and often stored in .tif or .tiff format) are sometimes problematic, since an editor should not fiddle with the archival original and other editors have often already made cleaned-up copies (the result of which is that there are existing wiki usages of all sorts of different versions of the same image -- messy!). I'm still thinking about what, if anything, I want to do with the 3 Robeson images from Othello.
Meanwhile I've been amusing myself working through the photoplay images from 1916 (so don't list any of those here -- I've already got them in my computer). -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's good. There's quite a few of Photoplay files out there so I agree it would be best no listing them and I'm sure you'll fine some on your own just from the links of what I listed prior. I do have some files on the WC page for actress Lee Patrick that you'd like. If you look up my contributions you'll find my latest one and on her page there are quite a few uploaded years ago from other users too so it would probably be better not making a list of those and just going forward with the text of this hear-tell. There's still time to determine the Robeson ones and if anything comes of that good but if not it wouldn't be a total loss since there be more in good time. Happy re-imaging and will talk later on.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting-Cropping Images (Section 4)

[edit]

WP, I found 2 new ones for you when time allows:

Will talk to you later, have a good one!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found these too:

Enjoy and will catch up!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few new one:

Have a good weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some goodies featuring Rosalind Russell:

Hope you'll have fun with these gems!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found these one:

New Treasures:

Will catch up later when the above ones are finished! Have a good weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 new ones:

Have a good day!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a new one:

If it's possible, can it be adjusted once and than have a separate extraction for of MM's headshot too perhaps be used towards her Wiki page? Have a good night!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a beauty for you:

Will let you finished these, Roz Russell, and will catch with you after Thanksgiving. Have a good rest of the week a nice day Thursday!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Once I finish these, no need to rush into coming up with more. I'm not entirely happy with some of the results I've been producing lately. I think I'll kick back and ease off for a while. Later -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly acceptable, you've done so much this month and the last, I'm in agreement that you deserve a vacation from these kind of project. Plus, I haven't been able too succeed in finding anymore newsies plus I'm starting too get a bit tired myself (looking, picking names, and plus the end of year going about). I think we all deserve a break. Have a Happy Thanksgiving, a Merry Christmas, and will catch up sometime in New Year. Later on indeed and enjoy today and the weeks ahead.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, hope you're well! If you have an interest, I came across this attractive one for you if interested:

I hope you're having a nice rest and I look forward too catching up with you again for future pics sometime in the coming year. Have a good one!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, WP, I just wanted to stop over and drop of these 2 good looking's for you to play with:

My Friend Earl Holliman: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Beauty from Yesteryear:

That's all for this year. I'll catch up with you sometime in the New Year because I'm running up dry picking names and finding pics. Until than, have a good one!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Good old Earl. As he aged his face acquired a little more character, didn't it? Looks good on him. Earl is now one of the best-represented B-listers on Wikimedia. You can now print off the entire Commons Holliman collection and create a tribute wall in your living room. Best wishes for the holiday season. ;-) -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Earl has aged beautifully! It's nice that we were able to do so much for him here. I hope you enjoy the holiday season too!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP, I found a good one for you:

Have a Happy New Year, will catch up with you sometime again next month.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Also, here's some good ones for you:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Black BIC Ballpoint (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: I made headshots from 2 different publicity stills of Dorothy Davenport (Mrs Reid Wallace) on Commons. You can decide which one you want to use. It's a six-of-one-half-a-dozen-of-the-other situation, I think. The images are:

Lots of good ones here that need help.

That's all; will catch up sometime in February.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a beautiful one of June Vincent;

That'll do for tonight. Will catch up in a month or so once I found some "inspiration".--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swung by cause I found this:

Will talk - collaborate more down the road.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a page filled with some goodies for you which coincides with my latest choice of a cinematic beauty from yesteryear:

Hope you'll enjoy. Will catch up another time.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a Silent Screen Gent,

That's all for the moment.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the page of IT Girl Clara Bow:

This will be a fun one for you. Will catch up with you sometime late next month or early March. Have a good one and take care!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 pretty ones for you too play with in downtime;

Have a good month. Catch up with you later in the spring.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2022, WP! When time permits, I found 2 new beauties to play with;

Have a good month and look forward towards the updated overwrites whenever they come along.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Hello, old friend. It's been a while and it's great to hear from you. Two more nice shots of Earl with a side-order of Tina Louise! Done. (Oh, yeah, I do remember Tina.) Hope all is well with you in these troubled times. Nothing untoward has happened here so far. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP. Yes, I am still your old friend and yes, it's been a while. So good hearing form you too. I agree, those pics were good shots of Earl with a side of Tina. Thanks for updating them so quickly. I hope you've been well and know that I am doing fine and staying healthy despite the craziness of these times (Thank God!). Nothing else has happened that is of interest on my side either and hopefully this will be the year things get back to some degree of normality. Best regards unto you as well. Catch up when we can.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP, I found a new one for you.

Have a good weekend and take care.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon, WP, Hope you're enjoying the weekend. I found one more good one for you;

Have a great day and week!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP, Hope you're enjoying a restful Sunday. When time permits, I found a new pics to play with.

Have a good week ahead!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Sunday, WP! Hope you're well! May I please have you play with this new pic I came across today?

Have a great week!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Hello, old pal. That's a good shot, and you did a nice job cropping it to a more suitable portrait format. There wasn't much else to do IMO, but I sharpened it a bit. As always, free to revert if you don't fancy it. Best -- WikiPedant (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP, Sometime soon, may I please have you help me with a retouch of this picture here?

It needs your expertise and would be much appreciated! Thank you and have a good weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC) -- Done[reply]

I also found this pic too please,

Thanks much!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC) -- Done[reply]

Please help this one too!

Thank you!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC) -- Done[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Good to hear from you, Bic. I hope you find usages for the 2 of these have no current usages. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice hearing from you too, Pendant. Thank you for your help, I'm so afraid the administators will delete the Conchata Ferrell file for I'm having a hard time making them understanding the public domain licensing. If there is anything else you can do to help me rescue that headshot for extinction I would be appreciative!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend! I found a new one for you!

Have a great week!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this one too!

Talk to you when we can!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Ashkins

[edit]

Please reduce excessive contrast by 8-10% Bengt Nyman (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speck

[edit]

Hi,

Thankk you for your work on Presidents of Costa Rica images. However just one note, in the case of José Joaquín Trejos, what you thought was a speck is actually a mole. He was famous for it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dereck Camacho: OK, thanks. I was wondering about that at the time. I'll re-do that image and fix it. Just give me a few days. I appreciate the feedback. -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry and thanks again for the work on those images, they look great. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dr. Strangelove pics

[edit]

Sorry, I didn't realize the distinction between the trailer and the film itself in terms of copyright. The same shot of General Buck Turgidson is indeed in the trailer, but File:Dr. Strangelove - The War Room.png is not - I'll replace that soon. I assume once I upload a new version my current (non-trailer) revision will need to be deleted? --Iiii I I I (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iiii I I I: Ah, you've done your duty and overwritten the copyrighted version with your latest update. It was a perfectly honest mistake. If it was me, I'd just let it go at that. But, if you're really concerned, you can point out the mistake to an Administrator and ask him/her if he/she would delete that particular revision. (I haven't interacted much with Admins here, but User:Materialscientist is an experienced Admin both here and at Wikipedia and seems to be a stand-up sort of person.) -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker

[edit]

Hi, WikiPedant. I saw you reverting vandalism here. You are also rollbacker in en.wiki and you have no problems neither here nor there, so I just made you rollbacker here to enable you revert vandalism more easily. Taivo (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper page

[edit]

Hi there, I help tranlslate Wikipedia to malayalam, which is an Indic language. I used Wikipedia beta app to do so. It asked me to add captions in malayalam and I did. When I applied the changes, it showed up in the English section. I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused. Oxideart (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxideart: Thanks for the explanation. The app accidentally overwrote the existing English caption. Malayalam captions are fine, as long as each language is separate from the others. Keep working on it. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zeytinyagli Enginar.jpg

[edit]

Hi. Please revert your update to my plate and file. Can't you see that the texture gets lost? I take pictures with primitive cellphones; go take a professional pic yourself if you don't like mine. Thanks in advance and regards. --E4024 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: I don't see any lost "texture", just better composition and a lot of restored shadow detail due my adjustment of the levels. But go ahead and change it back. I won't bother with it. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how that is done. Nor English is my mother tongue. Please do me the favour. Thanks for your time. --E4024 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Gerard photo

[edit]

Thanks for improving my pic. I've developed my own Photoshop skills somewhat over the years, which has enabled me to improve my pics, which often exhibit less-than-ideal lighting or color, but you knocked my GG pic out of the park. Well done. Nightscream (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: Many thanks, partner. Glad you judge this one to be satisfactory. Some editors are not nearly such good sports about seeing their images edited. BTW, that image has wide usage. The wikis needed it and you took it! Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some New Imagery too Help With

[edit]

Hello, WP,

I have some new headshots of Peter Haskell that could use your touch;

These are all headshots, I uploaded from his work in Bracken's World and I so appreciate you helping him out by converting his 1969 headshot recently. I've done the cropping on these ones but I wanted you too have these and see if there is more you can do with lighting and or conversion. Hope you're staying safe and will talk whenever possible.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: OK, all done to my satisfaction (although maybe not yours). IMO the only really good image, in terms of pictorial quality, is File:PHaskellBW.jpg. I really think (or, perhaps, hope) that File:PHaskell1970.jpg was stolen from the studio photographer's reject bin. But I always enjoy tinkering with them. Thanks. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping Peter out; I have one more for you and that'll be it of this year...

Thank you much!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help with this last one?

Many thanks! Be safe and hope 2021 will be better for everyone of us.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help to brighten up and glorify this new pic for me?

Many thanks! Have a good weekend!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Black BIC Ballpoint: Done, at least to my taste. The low resolution makes it challenging to adjust the levels very much without burning out the highlights. There is cross-hatching in the dark areas (especially under her chin) and I've tried to dial it down. But I just noticed that the original bears what looks like a valid copyright notice, so there's a limit how much effort I want to invest. This one may get deleted. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP, When you have a chance this week, I found a new pic that could use a bit of a touch up;

Have a great day!--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, I wanted to ask if there was still anything extra could be done with this headshot too;

Take good care and catch up when we can.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good headshot of Dolores Gray to play with;

After the other Earl headshot, in the sentence before the last one, this latest find would be much appreciated with whatever can be done. This will be my last hurrah for awhile as I am taking a mid-winter break. Keep happy, healthy, and will talk again when able.--Black BIC Ballpoint (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Margaret Thatcher in Israel (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Hi WikiPedant! I was just wondering if you could look at retouching this image, to improve the overall quality (similar to what you did for Kenneth David Kaunda.jpg)? Thanks, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Sorry, I was otherwise occupied for a few days. Actually, this image struck me as already being a good crop job (with appropriate rotation to improve the horizontal/vertical alignment). I did tweak the levels and saturation, dialled down the flash reflections, and sharpened it a little. But IMO it was already a decent portrait of Maggie. Thanks for sharing it. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you. Much appreciated! ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching File:Enda Kenny (2012) (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Hi WP! If/when you have the time, can you please have a look at retouching this portrait image, to improve the overall quality (similar to what you did for #File:Margaret Thatcher in Israel (cropped).jpg)? Many thanks, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Another nice portrait. Thanks for sharing it. But it was a little more work than I thought it would be. I touched out the background distractions rather than blur them, and, in my old age, my mouse hand is not as steady as it once was. Slow going. I may pass on doing that again. ;) -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Thanks so much WP, really appreciate it. You did a great job. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching

[edit]

Hello again WP! I wanted to thank you for uploading your retouched crop of Leon Brittan (1996).jpg. If/when you're able, can you look at doing something similar with Tony Blair (2010).jpg? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): -- Actually, this portrait and its extracted version both look really good to me as is. I have no problem with the composition, the colors, or the levels, and the focus on the face is nice and sharp. Maybe you see a problem that I don't see, but I'm not inclined to fiddle with them. Best -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I was just wondering if anything could be done to selectively recolour the background, which has a bit of a grey-green tinge, to be less greeny. Thanks for the feedback, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  WikiPedant, would you mind looking at some of these images when you have the time? Thanks, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): -- Sure, I see a couple more that could probably be improved a bit. I'm always looking for worthwhile diversion. Just give me a little time. Right now, I'm done for the day. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): -- Two down. I see a few more prospects there. Later . . . WikiPedant (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): -- BTW, if any of my versions don't work for you, don't have qualms about reverting. I shan't take it personally. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for all the work you've done, WP. Best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, can I ask if you would mind archiving the earlier parts of your talkpage? I'm currently on an older tablet and the browser keeps zooming out whenever I view this page. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): -- Well, I've fiddled with everything on that page that struck me as a candidate. It's a nice collection of notables that you've got there. As for archiving a chunk of my talk page, that is something I do not care to do. I find that I often search the page looking for previous contacts with a user, and prefer to just search the one page. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Can I just ask if you could look at James Callaghan (1975).jpg once more? I think the edges of the background blurring could be smoothed a bit, as you did with Albert Reynolds (cropped).jpg. Much appreciated, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke of Edinburgh 33 Allan Warren.jpg

[edit]

Hi WP! Just wondered what your thoughts were on this image, and whether anything could be done to improve it? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): -- It's really very good IMO, as is so much of Warren's work. The Duke's expression strikes me as perfect. It struck me as maybe a little flat, so I adjusted the foreground and background levels separately to increase the separation between them and to add a little more coloration). There's an odd history with this image. I see that earlier this year Warren himself asked for the image to be deleted (difficult to know why) but his request was refused, since posting an image on Commons is not revocable. Makes me even a little more timorous about having fiddled with it, though. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 2

[edit]

Hi WP, I was wondering if you could possibly have a look at uploading a JPEG retouched version of the originally-uploaded TIFF version of Geoffrey Howe 2003 (retouched).tif, if/when you find time? Much appreciated as always, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): -- I passed on this one when I was originally going through your page of notables, because I just didn't think there was enough resolution to improve it appreciably. I've done what I can. Perhaps others can get more out of it. But the resolution is pretty hopeless IMO. At best, it's only suitable for the thumbiest of thumbnails. (IMO, The 2011 image of him is of better technical quality, although his expression there may not be quite as satisfactory.) As always -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 3

[edit]

Hi WP! If/when you find the time, could you look at uploading a JPEG retouched version of Helmut Kohl (1996).tif (similar to what you did for Geoffrey Howe 2003.jpg)? Many thanks indeed, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): I kind of like the way this one came out: File:Helmut Kohl (1996) 10.jpg. Sorry about the odd file name -- that was an uploading mistake, and I'm not a file mover so I can't fix it. IMHO, this version is better than the original or either of the other two extracted versions. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. But as you did for Geoffrey Howe 2003.jpg, can you look at rotating the image (from the original TIF) for a better vertical/horizontal orientation? I think the crop would look better as a portrait from a more anticlockwise slant. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Yes, I think you're on to something there. I didn't start over from the TIF (a little too much work), but adjusted my previous version (generational loss is neglible IMO): File:Helmut Kohl (1996) 11.jpg. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Rotating inevitably requires some tightening of the framing.
Thanks, but when you find the time could you consider trying again with the TIF? It's less the generational loss and more the tighter frame that bothers me, which I think could be lessened with the additional space at the top of the image (that had been cropped off in the JPEG version). ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): I already pushed the framing as far out as I could on the sides and bottom (in fact, I actually drew in a little more upper sleeve for his jacket on the left side and a little more background in the top left, just to move the frame as far out as I could). I can still easily add more empty background over his head, but am not so sure I want to. To my eye, the top background is just about right as it is. Tell you what, I'll do a revision that adds more top background and then revert it. If you really want that extra background, you can revert back to that version. But I actually like it as is and won't revisit it further. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. Many thanks indeed for your work, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nelson Mandela 1994.jpg

[edit]

Hello again WP, hope you're having a good weekend. When you find time, I was hoping if you could possibly have a look at retouching this image (from the originally-uploaded version), to improve the overall quality. Much appreciated of course, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): And hello to you too, ᴀlbanɢeller. I've been working on this one, and it is irresistible but very challenging. The flash burn on his face is downright brutal to deal with, for a guy who knows how to fiddle with a few GIMP settings but is by no means a card-carrying digital artist. Give me another day, and I'll update the image with my best shot. (If it's no good, it's always revertible.) Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diana, Princess of Wales 1997 (2).jpg

[edit]

Hi WP, thanks so much for your work on Nelson Mandela 1994.jpg. I was hoping also if you could perhaps have a look at retouching this image of Princess Diana (from the originally-uploaded version), to improve its overall quality. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that there's also Diana, Princess of Wales 1997.jpg (taken in the same sitting), which I prefer somewhat, though I'd be interested to know your thoughts. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): I'm with you. I think her expression is better in the "longing" image (although her head may be a smidge more rotated to the side than is ideal). In the other image (which has more wiki usage and which was featured on the cover of US News & World Report in 1997, a couple weeks after her death), there is a slight wince, a hint of inner unhappiness, which might have been appropriate for stories about her troubled life but is probably not the best portrait of a princess for all time.
Technically, both pictures have resolution which is on the low side, and both were shot on film with fairly noticeable graininess. And the lighting is harsh sunlight with completely blown highlights in her hair. All of these factors somewhat limit (but do not exclude) making acceptable adjustments. I would not try to adjust either one very aggressively, but may take a tentative run at them, starting with the one that has higher usage. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update #1: OK, I adjusted the first image. It is a recrop from the original upload, although I forgot to say so in the description of the version. I'm not sure whether I overdid the shadow deintensification or not. Somebody will probably not like it. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Schinus weinmanniifolia

Dear WikiPedant, Thanks for your edit on the photo of Carly Rae Jepsen. I know you are aware of the different aspects in similar cases, see Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images. I'm inclined to adhere to the second interpretation (in short: removal of (copyright) watermarks is in line with CC-BY-SA and not a legal violation). Could I ask you a question, just to be sure of your point of view? Did you purely object to the removal of the copyright tag in this case because of the copyright sign in the image? To give a different example: would you object to the removal of the name of the photographer in the case of the adjacent photo? Vysotsky (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi WikiPedant, I was about to message you about this as well. Commons defines watermarks as content embedded in a creative work that is not part of the creative work itself and is used by the creator and/or copyright holder of the work to assert authorship and/or copyright (see Commons:Watermarks, although it is a proposed policy). So, indeed, it is a watermark. Visible watermarks are discouraged, although not necessarily prohibited. With that in mind, it is okay to keep the watermark there; however, a watermarkless image under a new file name as a derivative work could simply be produced and replace instances of the watermarked one. Pbrks (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky and Pbrks: Thank you for your messages. The retention or removal of copyright notifications is not a question of legality for me but of ethicality (Yup, that's a word -- I'm a retired philosophy professor). Vysotsky, I was not aware of the Wikilegal page you linked and found it interesting, but I don't have a serious appetite for lawyering (or wikilawyering!). My view is that it would simply be disrespectful, perhaps even insulting, to the photographer to remove a copyright claim which he or she has seen fit to display on his/her image (just as it would be disrespectful to remove an artist's signature from a painting or from a photo of a painting). I do sometimes remove intrusive date/time stamps from images, but I don't touch a photographer's name or copyright claim (even one that does not use strictly legal notation).
Pbrks, for me that holds for derivative works as well. I'm not sure that I've ever been in this situation, but if the derivative work is a crop in which the portion with the copyright claim has been cropped away, then I would cut and paste the copyright claim back into the derivative work as unobtrusively as possible.
So, for me, it's not about law but about ethics. I like photography and photographers and believe it is morally right to respect their decisions to display these notifications on their creative works. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, if a photographer does not want their digital signature to be removed from the visible image, they should not release their work under a license which permits others to do so. I personally believe that digital signatures should be moved to either the description page or as exif data. We do not visibly tag our name onto visible parts of articles that we have written on Wikipedia, and Commons adopts a similar approach when it comes to images (see also Commons:Exif#Watermark). Pbrks (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright right in the middle
  • Interesting discussion, that we should take to a relevant forum here at Commons for a community decision. I have added the names of photographers to the metadata (descriptions) of 500k photos in Commons, precisely because I think attribution is important, and it's only natural to give due credit to artists. At the same time I agree with Prbks that if photographers want their name visible in a photo, they shouldn't release these photographs under CC-BY-SA. Vysotsky (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geoffrey Howe (1985).jpg

[edit]

Hi WP, happy holidays! Would you mind looking at retouching this image, to improve the overall quality? Much appreciated, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Did what I could, old friend, but this is one soft image. I don't see much use for it, except maybe for really small thumbnails. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desmond Tutu (47327456801).jpg

[edit]

Hello again (and a belated merry Christmas!), I was wondering what your thoughts were on this image and the possibility of it replacing the current infobox image of w:Desmond Tutu. I personally prefer it to the image there currently, what do you think? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): -- I created a modified version of File:Desmond Tutu (47327456801).jpg and would make a few adjustments to the infobox picture as well if it weren't locked right now.
As for which is better: The flash image catches him with a better expression, but the available light (infobox) image has nicer pictorial qualities IMO, especially since it would take a true master retoucher (not me) to get all the flash burn out of the flash image. And, like a lot of photo buffs, I have a bit of a bias in favor of available light. All things considered, I think I prefer the current infobox image. When that image is unlocked, I'm going to remove the wayward blob of light near his lip and, maybe, tweak the levels and color temperature. Best wishes (lordy, for all of us) for the coming year -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the feedback (and indeed, for your modified version of the flash image). I think you can still adjust the infobox picture, it's just the file description that appears locked at my end. Clicking on revert and Upload a new version of this file didn't result in a permission error page like trying to edit the description page did. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Thanks. No, I can't upload a new version of the infobox image right now. I tried. It lets you go through the motions of uploading a new file, but, as expected, it stopped me in my tracks when I reached the final step and pressed "Upload File". For now, I've got the modified version ready to go. All things come to the one who waits. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year, WP! Just to let you know the file's protection has been lifted. Best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Keeler

[edit]

Hi WP, a very Happy New Year to you. I was wondering if you could look at creating a suitable infobox portrait from this image of Christine Keeler (I'm not entirely satisfied with the composition of the current crop used on the article). Though the quality isn't great, it appears to be the only free image we have of her when she is best remembered. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hmm, that image probably has about the same framing I would have used. (You're right about the resolution, and there's really nothing to be done about that.) So what framing do you think would be better? The only thing I can think of is to back off to a half-body or a little more, just to minimize the obviousness of the low res. I'm open to suggestions here. Best -- WikiPedant (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​I think that's a good idea, I didn't consider that. It might be best though to work from the original upload when retouching a cropped version to avoid generation loss. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Did what I could, but given the low resolution there's only so much to be tried, short of sending for an expert with digital AI software to reconstruct the image. -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WP, I think you've done a fine job with what we have. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidney Poitier 1968.jpg

[edit]

Hello WP, could you have a look at possibly retouching this image to improve the overall quality? Much appreciated, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

[edit]

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi WikiPedant, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

  • Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
  • Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
  • Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Jianhui67 T★C 07:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clarissa Eden.jpg

[edit]

Hello again WikiP, if/when you're able to would you mind having a look at retouching this image, to improve the overall quality? Much appreciated as always, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Old buddy, I'm not too comfy with the prospect of working on this one. Checking the source site, I note a 1960 copyright notice in Keystone's name and no releases available. Maybe that doesn't matter, but I think I'll steer clear this time. Thanks for thinking of me, though. Best -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About that, the copyright notice does not appear on the image itself, which means that there was no copyright notice at the time of publication, which was in the US at a time when such a notice was required for copyright protection. The releases displayed on the source site are simply another case of Commons:License laundering. (I should note that I'm myself a listed PD reviewer and, having studied the copyright situation studiously, I'm confident that this image is in the US public domain due to failure on the part of the credited US-based author to comply with the required formalities.) Can you please reconsider? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Furthermore, I considered the copyright situation of similar images published by the same agency, Keystone US, and came to my conclusion based on the situation for Judy Grinham 1958.jpg, an image with the same licence uploaded by an admin who would be entitled to review it for PD status. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): You clearly know your stuff with respect to copyright rules and the legalities associated with them. But, from my point of view, there's more to the matter than the legalities. My academic field was professional ethics, and, if I notice evidence or even suggestive evidence, that a photographer wanted to guard his/her ownership rights (whether the image was properly, legally copyrighted or not) my moral preference is to give the benefit of the doubt to the photographer and leave the image alone. So that's what I do. This image is just not for me. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Margaret The Voice 2019.jpg

[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be able to retouch this photo as it is a frame from a video and the quality is a bit poor? ArturSik (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArturSik: I did about as much sharpening as I think I reasonably can with the software I use (GIMP). I hit the hair, eyes, and mouth particularly aggressively. Pushing it any further will increase the noise and tends to produce harsh dark outlines around shapes in the image. You selected a nice frame to illustrate the subject. I hope this makes it a little more satisfactory for you. Thanks for thinking of me. I enjoy image editing. Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. I understand the resolution was low and what you could do to fix the image was limited. Still it looks better than originally. Thank you very much. ArturSik (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with choosing an image

[edit]

Hi WP, hope you're doing well. I was just wondering what your thoughts might be regarding this photoshoot of Dario Fo, and whether any of the images the results show would be preferable in your view to DarioFo1.jpg as EnWiki's infobox image. I feel somewhat spoilt for choice personally as to which one I would like to upload myself, so I hoped you might be able to point me in the direction of one that you may be open to editing? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): I've looked these over pretty carefully, and here's what I think. The 3 images aren't terrible. The exposure is OK and they are sharp enough. But they have problems: (1) All of them are pretty harsh shots taken with an on-camera flash with Fo standing with his back against a wall. This results in a nasty flash shadow alongside his head. That shadow should go, but he has shaggy hair protruding over the shadow, which means it would be a unwelcome, tedious job to touch out the shadow. (To preserve the hair, one would have to retouch at pretty much the pixel level.) (2) In image 1 he has kind of a goofy expression with his front teeth protruding over his lower lip. I wouldn't use this one. (3) In image 2 he has a posed smile, which is OK, but his head is tilted back a little, creating what photographers call foreshortening -- his chin and mouth are porportionately a bit larger and his eyes, forehead, and hair are proportionately a bit smaller. Actually, image 1 has this foreshortening too. The problem is that the photographer has the camera too close to his face. The way to avoid foreshortening is to use a portrait lens (a low-powered telephoto lens usually about 85mm-120mm in focal length) which lets the photographer take the picture from an appropriate distance (say, 8 to 12 feet). I sometimes correct foreshortening in simple pictures of objects, but correcting it in a human face shot is beyond my artistic skill level. (4) In image 3 his head is not so tilted, so I don't see any foreshortening, but his expression is sort of sad and not very congenial.
Bottom Line: I honestly don't think any of these images is as satisfactory as the current infobox image, which was taken in natural daylight and in which he has a natural, happy expression. He appears to have a group of people in front of him (perhaps reporters or fans) and is clearly reacting with pleasure to them. He's not aware of the camera. This sort of shot is a nice example of what is often called candid photography. Anyhow, if you would still like to use any of these images, tell me which and I'll be glad to at least tighten the framing and reduce the flash reflections in his face (usually pretty easy to do). Best regards as always -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some great points, many thanks indeed for the thorough reply, it's all very illuminating. I think you're right, the current image does appear to portray this person more naturally than the three photos, at least by contrast. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 4

[edit]

Hi WP, when you're able could you maybe upload JPEG retouched versions of Shirley Ann Grau LCCN97503400.tif and Yevgeny Yevtushenko LCCN2001696721.tif? Much appreciated, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Sure, that's do-able. Just give me a couple days. It's 2am here, and I'm off to bed now. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): OK, I uploaded Shirley Ann Grau LCCN97503400.jpg. There are limits to what can be cleaned up in a picture this rough, but please let me know if you see anything that you think needs further attention. I'll work on Yevgeny Yevtushenko tomorrow. (PS -- Do you want the text cropped out of the Yevtushenko picture?) Best -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WP, it looks fine from what I can see. Re Yevtushenko, yes I would like the text cropped out. Best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Yevtushenko is done too. (I'm not personally a big fan of the "archival version" and "JPEG version of TIF" templates, because, (1) in this case at least, the JPGs are not really thumbnails of the TIFs, (2) they encourage other editors (many of whom are not as fastidious as me about cleaning up specks, etc) to overwrite my work, and (3) so many of these old TIFs are so rough that there is no meaningful generational loss to worry about.) Thanks, I always appreciate the business. -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome Clin, thanks again for all your great work (I've changed the two templates, thanks for letting me know). If you don't mind me saying, I've had a few thoughts regarding your point about professional ethics in relation to Clarissa Eden.jpg (in terms of giving the benefit of the doubt to the photographer). Since the photographer hasn't been credited for that particular image, I don't think the same ethics would apply since the accreditation is to a defunct press agency. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Would I be mistaken, if you don't mind me asking? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): I don't mind you asking, but lordy, ᴀlbanɢeller, these are not the sorts of conversations I particularly enjoy. From my point of view, as a sometime photographer, the photographer has a reasonable moral right, for a long but reasonable period of time, to establish parameters governing the publication of his/her creative work, whether one knows his/her identity or not and whether he/she ever formally claimed copyright or not. (Hell, here at Commons lots of photographers -- myself included -- conceal their identities behind a pseudonym, but still stipulate such parameters, even copyright, for the images they have created and uploaded.) I expect there is no point seeking permission from the unknown photographer or from the press agency (if it still exists in some form -- There is supposedly an agency of that name with offices in Florida and Montreal, which may or may not be the current owner of the image). And that is about the limit of my curiosity on the matter. I don't come to Commons to do legal research or to go chasing after permissions. There is any number of other images, with less mysterious provenance, to work on. And that's what I'm about. So, Clarissa is definitely not my kind of gal. Let's move on . . . . Best regards, as always -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping, again

[edit]

At File:Mayor Dorm Braman, 1966.jpg, I've reverted your crop. If you want to crop anything inside the image -- especially on something from an institution, such as (in this case) the Seattle Municipal Archive -- please create a new version, don't overwrite. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Sorry, I missed the fact that this one was an archival image. Thanks for catching it. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 5

[edit]

Hey there WP, hope all's well. When you find time, would you mind cropping/uploading a JPEG retouched version of Comic Myron Cohen (left) and Phil Spector LCCN00649929.tif with only Phil Spector? Much appreciated of course, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello, old friend. Yes, a good shot of old Phil, in somewhat more respectable days. Haven't thought of Myron Cohen in decades, but I remember him too, from The Ed Sullivan Show in the 60's. No idea what he was doing hanging with Phil, though. Anyhow, how's this? File:Phil Spector in 1965.jpg. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great Clin. Thanks and all the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dame Vera Lynn 4 Allan Warren.jpg

[edit]

Hello, me again, I just wondered what your thoughts were on this image and whether anything should be done to improve it? (Mr Warren himself cropped the image here, leaving the comment "cropped and scratches removed".) ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): This one looks mighty good to me -- The exposure, lighting, sharpness, and colors all strike me as spot on. And the subject is very nicely posed. A cursory comparison of the original and his cropped version didn't reveal, to my eye at least, the scratches he says he removed, but I suppose they're there somewhere. On the face of it, I wouldn't be inclined to try to improve on either Warren's original or his cropped version. Is there something that caught your eye that you think could use some attention? Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought quite the same, I couldn't see any scratches either. Thanks for the feedback, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 6

[edit]

Hey there WP, I hope you're doing well during this sad time. I was wondering if you could look at cropping/uploading a JPEG retouched version of RIAN archive 850809 General Secretary of the CPSU CC M. Gorbachev.jpg? Much appreciated as always, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello Nev, sorry to be so long replying, but I have some ongoing health issues which are slowing me down these days. Just haven't been doing much editing. Looking at this one, I see there is already a cropped version although I don't care for its poor definition and the flesh tone of his face. It's a bit of a puzzle how to rotate this one to improve Gorby's vertical axis -- He has one axis, the background another, and the podium another. If I rotate him enough to straighten him up, the podium will look lopsided. If I crop out the podium (I see one earlier version of the cropped version tried this), there's too much loss of resolution. Not sure when I'll next fire up my photo editing software, but I'll take a crack at this one when I do. Right now, I don't see a lot of great options here, though. Keep the faith. -- Best, WikiPedant (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WP, sorry to hear you've been unwell, I hope you feel better soon. Personally I prefer Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 (cropped).jpg but unfortunately other Mikhail Gorbachev editors prefer Wikipedia's current infobox image, which I haven't been comfortable with largely because of the poor flesh tone. I think it might be least controversial to produce a crop similar in composition to the one that exists on the article currently, cropped from the original, without rotating. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, me again, just checking in to see that you're holding up well. I wish you all the best. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello, Nev. I'm still around and don't feel as bad I did, but am taking lots of meds, with their share of side-effects, and going to lots of medical appointments (hell, it's like working for a living again!). I'm giving priority to cleaning up and organizing my embarrassingly large backlog of family photos and that will keep me busy for a while. I agree that the other Gorbachev portrait is superior, although I see that a new edit of the current "podium" image has been done which is a little better than the previous version. Thanks for checking in; I do appreciate it. Best. -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 7

[edit]

Hi there WP, I'm glad to hear you've been feeling better lately. When you find the time, would you mind cropping/uploading a JPEG retouched version of Loretta Lynn LCCN2021643178.tif? Much appreciated as always, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): A nice portrait of young LL. Done. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

upload image please

[edit]

hi! could you help me by adding a photo of Flo (group) to your page? i can't add screenshots Graphdz (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 8

[edit]

Hey there WP, I hope all's been well with you lately. I was just wondering if you could find time to look at cropping/uploading a JPEG-retouched version of Portrait of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.jpg? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Is this what you had in mind? Regards -- WikiPedant —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's perfect, thank you. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
​ Just to update you, there's currently a discussion going on at Talk:Rishi Sunak#Official portraits and infobox image as to which portrait would be best suited for the British prime minister's main image. I still believe this one is best, though some concerns have been raised by a few editors over it, which I'm not too sure what to make of. I'd be very interested to know your thoughts. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): -- Well, Nev, I usually avoid these talk page discussions (unless they take a humorous turn). There are just too many time-wasters who don't know what they're talking about. "C" is obviously the best image (at least without further editing of the others, which I was thinking about doing, but decided not to, since "C" already reflects my own work and that leaves me biassed in favour of it). BTW, like one of the commentators, I don't think any of these are official portraits -- for some reason Brit official govt portraits usually have a god-awful bluish tint and stick out like sore thumbs.-- WikiPedant (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 9

[edit]

Hi WP, how are things? I was wondering if you could look at cropping/uploading a JPEG retouched version of Daniel Ellsberg LCCN2006679791.tif? Much appreciated as always, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): I may have slowed down a bit, but things are basically OK on this end. I have started to work on the late Dr. Ellsberg's picture (quite a nice one, I think). It needs some heavy-duty clean-up of specks and scratches, so give me another day or two and I should have it pretty much ship-shape. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your work WP, I really appreciate it. Can I ask what you might make of a tighter crop, perhaps not as tight as Daniel Ellsberg at 1972 press conference (cropped 2).jpg, as the infobox image for w:Daniel Ellsberg (rather than Daniel Ellsberg at 1972 press conference (cropped 3).jpg, which might not be close enough to the face)? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Yes, since last night I've been thinking about the same thing -- a nice intermediate crop, between Opencooper's bigger version and the very tight, portrait-like cropped version. I've just uploaded a change to Daniel Ellsberg at 1972 press conference (cropped 3).jpg. Now all the versions are well differentiated. What do you think? -- WikiPedant (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that looks much better now, thanks again! ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Charles III (July 2023).jpg

[edit]

Hey there WP! I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this image and whether anything should be done to improve it. It's now the new main image for w:Charles III. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Well, that is the best 2023 portrait of Charles, since it appears to be the _only_ 2023 portrait of him. But it's not much of a portrait. The lighting on his face is awkward and his expression stikes me as awkward too. It's also in need of a little more contrast IMO. I suppose some skilled, time-consuming retouching might (perhaps) improve the lighting and contrast, but his expression is what it is.
Anyhow, I've now taken a quick stab at it and uploaded a new version, which strikes me as a little better. If you don't agree, feel free to revert. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retouching 10

[edit]

I uploaded a high-resolution version of Katharine Ross HS Yearbook.jpg. Would you mind retouching this image, to improve the overall quality? Passthesalt26 (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Passthesalt26: Thanks for uploading the higher-res image. Unfortunately, some of these old pictures were printed pretty crudely, with the image composed of coarse patterns of dots (as in old newspapers) and there are limits to how successfully they can be cleaned up. I've done what I can. I wish I could push the exposure level more, but the dot patterns become too prominent if I do. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPedant: Thanks for trying. I wonder if the issue of the dot pattern could be eliminated if you screenshotted the image and applied retouches to the screenshot? Passthesalt26 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Passthesalt26: Working from a screen shot of the original might reduce the resolution but it won't change the fact that the dots are right there in the original (just not so visible due to the low contrast of the original). This kind of printed image is called a halftone, and it was a widely used kind of printing back in the day. Within limits, halftone pictures can be cleaned up by descreening (a capability of decent image manipulating software systems), but it takes some trial and error to get a satisfactory result. I will invest a little time and play with it for a day or two. I'm curious to see what happens myself. But don't expect too much! -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Passthesalt26: Hello again, Salty -- OK, I tried a lot of techniques and created many trial versions, and my upload of today is the best I seem to be able to come up with. The inevitable trade-off after descreening and retouching is a softening of the image and it still has the crudity characteristic of so many halftones. I'm not terribly satisfied, but I think it's at least a little better than the earlier versions. But judge for yourself and feel free to revert it; I will definitely not be offended. Keep the faith -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPedant: Latest upload is definitely the best version I've seen. Crudity only becomes noticeable when viewing the image at its full size. Good work! Passthesalt26 (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joanna Kulig signature.jpg

[edit]

Hey. Would you be able to remove background from this signature? Many thanks :) ArturSik (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArturSik: Hello Artur -- Done. It is uploaded as a .PNG "other version". JPG format does not support transparent backgrounds. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Appreciate it. ArturSik (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. One more - File:Joanna Kulig at 2022 Cannes Film Festival.jpg. Do you think you could do something to improve the quality? Thanks ArturSik (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArturSik: Hello Artur -- This is a very tight crop of a blurry picture, and the result is just too blurry to be redeemable. The cut-off women on either side of Kulig would also be a problem; with some trial and error, they could be painted out, but the background behind the woman on the right is black like Kulig's shirt and the two blacks would tend to merge. I'm sorry to say that IMO this picture is too out-of-focus and too complicated to be worth the effort. The wider crop which you already created and used in Kulig's article is the right way to go, and I have sharpened it as aggressively as I think is feasible. And I honestly think that even pictorially, this wider picture, in which Golino and Granik are not cut-off, tells a better "story" than a more restrictive crop would. This is probably not the answer you were looking for, but I believe it is the truth. As ever, WikiPedant (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you WikiPedant. I appreciate the efforts. ArturSik (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of white spots, streak

[edit]

Would you be able to remove the white spots and streak on this image;

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sondra_Locke_and_Clint_Eastwood_1975.jpg

It'd be of much help. Rittenber (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rittenber: Hello Rittenber, and welcome to Commons. I really like this image. It reminds of me of the great "real world" work that some of the fine street photographers of the middle decades of the 20th century produced on 35mm B&W film. I removed the spots, but didn't see anything that I'd call a streak (that line curving down Clint's face is make-up for the outlaw Josey Wales's "scar"). For my own amusement, I created a slightly cropped, slightly sharpened version with Sondra and Clint illuminated a little better (but not so much as to cancel out the backlighting). You may or may not find the cropped version worthwhile, and either way is OK by me. You have dibs on both versions of this image and what you do or don't do with it is rightly your choice. Thanks for uploading it. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This new version is superb, thanks a million. You really have a good eye (it's been ages since I saw the movie, so the "scar" make-up didn't register). Rittenber (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commons deleted this photo, I guess, because the eBay listing describes it as "possibly un-published". Your rework was stupendous and I hope you saved it. Aren't film stills, by their nature, in the public domain? eBay has some great finds, but I never put much faith in their image captions/descriptions, which are often neglectful (in this instance they couldn't even get the year right...the photo was taken in 1975 as that's when the movie was shot, but the lister put 1976). Anyway, if you can figure out a way to make the image acceptable for Commons, I'd appreciate it. Rittenber (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rittenber: Hello Rittenber. Yes, I was aware of the deletion nomination, but didn't see any argument to make on behalf of keeping the image. Commons is pretty careful about staying away from anything that might not be out of copyright or for which a permission is unobtainable. And this damned Ebay stuff tends to have a pretty mysterious provenance. I too was very disappointed to see these images go, since I really liked them as photos. Unfortunately, I no longer have them. I'm kicking myself about that -- I cleaned out my recycle bin a couple weeks ago. Damn, damn, damn. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: OK, I just redownloaded the image from the Ebay page. Within a week or so, I'll get to it and clean it up again. Then we can figure out a way to send it to you.
@WikiPedant: That's OK, unless there's a way to qualify the image for Commons, I don't think it's worth investing more time. You needn't do all the work again just for me. I appreciate the thought, though. Rittenber (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPedant: I did a search and found the photo on Twitter and Instagram. So glad it wasn't lost! Rittenber (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rittenber: Well, that's a surprise. Somebody grabbed it from Commons during the interval after I cleaned it up but before it was deleted. An almost scary reminder of how fast stuff proliferates on the internet and how hard it is to absolutely delete anything. But I'm glad to see that his one is still around. I admire its aesthetic quality. Thanks for searching and for letting me know. If you ever find another one you'd like me to take a stab at, just ring my bell. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello WikiPedant, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barry John.jpg

[edit]

Hello again WP! I hope you had a good Christmas and a Happy New Year. I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this image and whether anything could be done to improve it. It's the main image for w:Barry John. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello Nev. Yes, I can take a shot at this one, and can probably improve it noticeably (assuming nobody else improves it first). Give me a day or two. With a belated Happy Holidays to you as well -- WikiPedant (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a shot at it. It's quite a poor-quality photograph, unfortunately, with noticeable noise in some areas. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): I didn't find it particularly noisy (where you usually see a lot of speckled colors mixing into an image). I read it more as just seriously whited-out by flash burn and a bit soft in the focus. To deal with that, I sharpened it a bit, dialled down Barry's exposure levels, and brought back as much of his color as can IMO reasonably be achieved. I was fairly satisfied with the result myself. He has the banged-up appearance of the rough-and-ready veteran he obviously is. I'm always grateful for the challenges and opportunities you bring. As ever -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and I think you did a very good job at it. Speaking of rough-and-ready veterans, what do you make of JPR Williams crop.jpg? It's another of poor-quality, unfortunately, though I'm curious to see if anything could be done for it. Much appreciated as always, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 There's also the original image, JPR Williams.jpg, which could be improved for a crop to follow, though it's fine if you're not interested. Take care, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): I didn't fiddle with the original (where I don't think selective sharpening would have made much difference), but there are 2 crops out there and I worked on them. JPR stands out better now, I think. Thanks for another interesting image. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's actually the exact sort of improvement I had in mind, as the faces in the background bothered me a bit. On another note, what are your thoughts on Franz Beckenbauer (1975).jpg? It's the main image for w:Franz Beckenbauer, but the quality does leave much to be desired. You're very welcome, Clin ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Nev, I adjusted the exposure levels in the Beckenbauer image, but the image is filled with artifacts (those dozens and dozens of tiny "checkerboards" you can see if you enlarge it) and the resolution is so poor and the grain so clumpy that there's no realistic way to sharpen it. You just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's a shame about the quality. I think you did a good job with what you had though, and thanks for trying. I've been able to find versions of what appears to be the source of the image on eBay, the two largest-resolution versions here and here, which, though the checkerboard issue may still be apparent, are at least much larger and sharper. Thanks again, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): The second one is clearly the better of the two, but it's peppered with a texture of fine white dots and is still not good enough to be worth further attention IMO. And in any case I've never felt comfy regarding the copyright status of this Ebay stuff. I'm content to let Franz just be Franz. -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose you're right. I might just ask COM:GL/P what they think of the second one though, since it's at least of better quality than what we currently have. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Bruton, February 2002.jpg

[edit]

​Me again, with an image of somewhat better quality, albeit still rather wanting. Do you think anything could be done to improve it? An extracted version is the main image for w:John Bruton, which I think is cropped a bit too tightly. I think the image would benefit from just the top and right cropped slightly, though I'd be interested to know your thoughts. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Sorry, Nev, once I started fiddling with this one, I got drawn in and forgot that I hadn't even consulted with you or even replied. I completely agreed with your reading of what was needed and cropped it accordingly. I also gave the levels a little more "snap" and sharpened Bruton a bit. But, I apologize: I shouldn't have jumped the gun the way I did. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely fine, thanks so much for looking at it. I noticed you didn't similarly retouch the original, though I understand if you're reluctant to overwrite parent images. All the best, and thanks again, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
​If you don't mind, do you think you could similarly retouch the original, in a separate file if you prefer? Thanks again, and no worries if you're not interested, Clin ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): OK, Nev, done now. Sorry for the delay. I had to think about how I was going to do this, since I had unintentionally done this one backwards -- creating a crop first and working on it without having initially adjusted the original. (Usually, I do it the right way -- first adjusting the original to my satisfaction and then it's a simple matter to slice any crops out of it.) But I came up with a solution. As ever -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seamus Heaney, Irish poet, New York.jpg

[edit]

Hi WikiP, do you have any thoughts on this image of the legendary Irish poet? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): It was digitized by scanning either a transparency or negative, so the grain is a little more pronounced than for a digital image, but it's not bad and the color and sharpness are OK. But things could be done here. The black borders should be removed. And there are some specks and threads crying out for removal -- especially the ones on his chin and ear. It's a flash picture (although, again, not a bad one), so the parts of him closest to the camera are a little overexposed and the background is a little underexposed. I'd adjust the levels selectively to deal with that (might take some trial and error, as is often the case). I'd also try sharpening him a bit and maybe selectively tweaking the contrast to see if that makes for an improvement. There are a couple crops out there, which I'd replace after satisfying myself with an adjusted original. Both of the crops were made from the previous, smaller version of the original and the brightness adjustment in them was not done selectively or very carefully, so it just made the overexposed parts worse and washed him out a bit. I can make this one better and definitely want to work on it in a day or two. Thanks for another interesting find. -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPedant: you're very welcome. Have you had a chance to look at it this past week? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Done now, Nev. I put some extra TLC into this one. These older film transparencies (I'm pretty certain it's a Kodachrome) have an appeal -- the grain, the colors! -- all their own. And as a Canadian of Irish extraction (my real surname is *very* Irish) I felt a duty to the subject. Seamus, me boy-o, I'm thinkin' you're lookin' foyne now. -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Descreening of File:Franz Beckenbauer (1975).jpg

[edit]

I use GIMP and the GMIC-Qt add-on. There, in the "Repair" group, there is a "descreen" filter. Its use smoothes the grid of newspaper printing dots.

Regards PawełMM (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PawełMM: Many thanks for your prompt response. I'm familiar with GIMP and that's helpful information about the add-on. Best -- WikiPedant (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mulroney.jpg

[edit]

Thanks a million, WikiP. Speaking of Canadians of Irish extraction, do you have any thoughts as to Mulroney.jpg? It serves as the main image for w:Brian Mulroney, and I think it's quite good, though the noise has been pretty hard to ignore. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts @WikiPedant? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Interestingly, there is a cleaned-up version of File:Mulroney.jpg on Commons: File:Brian Mulroney.jpg. But the latter version is flagged as an AI knockoff, and has only 1 usage. This one looks good, but I still wouldn't use it; AI is rightfully frowned upon here since AI systems are "trained" on hundreds of thousands of pictures, or more, from the web and they clean up photos by "averaging" the qualities of other images into them. The result cannot be trusted to represent a photographer's intent or work or the exact "look" of the subject. I apologize for being so slow responding. I've had many interruptions recently as I've tried to get some editing in, and am anticipating more of the same this week. I can probably improve the levels and mitigate the graininess of this Mulroney shot and it's on my list. My fondness for affable old Brian took quite a hit, frankly, when he was caught big-time (and long after the deed) with his hand in the Airbus cookie jar. I'll never forget him testifying at the televised inquiry, declaring with a perfectly straight face that he had no-o-o idea that he was supposed to declare all that under-the-table cold cash on his income tax. Brian was never legally prosecuted and, so far as I recall, neither were any Airbus executives, although, as is so often the case, the chump bagman who slipped him the envelopes ended up in the clink. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I flagged that image as such, due to the size being several times larger despite being sourced to the same image, hence upscaled. You're absolutely right about AI and the detrimental effect it can have to the educational nature of this project, which ought to remain as faithful to the original image as possible. I'm fine about your not responding as quickly, though if you could maybe acknowledge my replies (maybe by thanking it?) in the meantime so I know you're aware of my message, I'd be fine with that and won't bother you with a ping. As for the man himself, your analysis is fascinating and I'm glad you took the time to share your thoughts on that as well with me. All the very best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Ha, I should have clicked on "History" at File:Brian Mulroney.jpg. There's your edit. Even if someone sliced a 1337x1759 crop out of the big original original, it's still not as tight as this clearly upscaled version. It isn't difficult to upscale in non-AI photo editing software too (and I don't care for that, either). But File:Brian Mulroney.jpg seems too well scrubbed to be anything but AI output. -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): OK, done. This one was quite a trip. It took some serious experimenting to find a denoised level that reduced the grain without oversoftening the image. Brian's face is still a little pebbly but I don't think it would work to soften or sharpen it further. This sort of thing is always a compromise. BTW, I'm starting to suspect that the notorious File:Brian Mulroney.jpg may not be a product of AI after all. When highly enlarged, it is actually very soft and looks to me like it may have just been badly overly denoised using conventional software. Still hanging in -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, I think you've done a typically great job, especially in the amount of care you took in editing the finer details (in a progressive but conservative way, dare I say). As for the image that might or might not be AI, I see what you mean, though I still think it was upscaled (it looks too smooth and might even have a painting filter applied to it, given the splotches visible when viewed at full resolution). I'm considering nominating it for deletion now that you've had a look as I don't think it's useful to the project or has any educational value. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Thanks, Nev. Progressive yet conservative, you say? Took a moment, but I got it. Good one! ;-) I removed the solitary (Korean) usage for File:Brian Mulroney.jpg, so nominate away. And you are absolutely right -- AI or no AI, it had to be upscaled. I'll jump in and support your nomination right away. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brian Mulroney.jpg ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your (my) user redirect page

[edit]

Dear WikiPedant,

I intend to remove the redirect from User:The Wikipedant to allow it to serve as my own user page (given that is my username). Should you, for some reason, have any objection to this, feel free to raise it in the next 3 days. The Wikipedant (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted on talk page of The Wikipedant) Hello The Wikipedant -- Thank you for your message advising me of your situation and plan to repurpose the redirect page. I doubt that your change will cause any significant confusion and am fine with it, although I'm a little surprised that the system allowed you to create a username so close to mine. Over the years, I frankly have sometimes half-regretted choosing this username, since it is on the frivolous side and I am a serious editor. Originally, I thought editing here would be a bit of a lark and liked the wordplay on "Wikipedia". Almost 20 years later, I wish I'd played it a little straighter, but too many other editors now know me by this name to contemplate changing it. (Back in 2022, a disruptive editor did create the username User:Wikipedent and started undoing my edits, but was quickly permanently blocked.) Anyhow, best regards and happy editing. -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2.0 cropping

[edit]
2.0 cropping
Hi WikiPedant, your message most appreciated, your work too is outstanding, some image transformations are phenomenal. I was wondering if your skills stretch further, like cropping existing images under licence cc-by-2.0. This usually stops any editing because 2.0 is no longer available. Do you know a way around this. For example, I found a fine image for Category:Nicholas Farrell, could use a crop. No worries if not. Cheers James Kevin McMahon (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@James Kevin McMahon: I honestly don't have much knowledge about the the technical details of the various licences and for editing purposes have never distinguished the 2.0's from the other Creative Commons licences. The 2.0 licence terms say:

"Adapt, remix, transform" sure seem to me to greenlight image editing and the creation of cropped versions. The only proviso I see is that the extracted version should also show a cc 2.0 licence (which the Wikimedia "crop tool" will automatically stick on it). Am I wrong? Can you point me to any links which specify further constraints on editing of 2.0 images? BTW, are you thinking about the image of Farrell that illustrates his Wikpedia article? That one could benefit from some cropping. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk)

File:James Lovelock in 2005.jpg

[edit]

Hi WikiP, do you have any thoughts on this image of the pioneering English scientist? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): -- Hi Nev, good to hear from you. This strikes me as a pretty decently composed, acceptably sharp, acceptably exposed image, especially given that it was taken with a smallish medium-quality digital camera from 20+ years ago. He is leaning slightly to one side while the statue on his right is leaning slightly in the other direction. Those leanings can't really be fixed, since correcting one of the tilts will simply increase the other. The head-and-shoulders portrait cropped from it is also OK. The editor who created the crop did have the good judgment to fix just his tilt by rotating the crop a bit. (Although, her competent work here notwithstanding, this editor has been permanently blocked since 2019 for some sort of misbehavior.) If anything, I'd be inclined to sharpen the images slightly and, also slightly, "punch up" the exposure and contrast a tad. The image and its crop are very widely used, which, for me at least, somewhat increases the temptation to tweak them. What do you think? Did anything in particular catch your eye? -- WikiPedant (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to hear from you too. I think enhancing sharpness, adjusting the exposure and contrast, and subtle colour corrections could indeed make the image pop more. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): -- OK, I used a light touch, but bumped up the levels a bit and sharpened it a bit. I barely tweaked the colors. For the cropped portrait, I didn't use exactly the same degree of rotation as the previous editor. (For face-on portraits, I usually draw a horizontal baseline through the middle of the eyes. His eyes are slightly mismatched [many people's eyes are], but I feel OK with the result.) Thanks for another interesting one. -- WikiPedant (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for a typically great job, WikiP. (I've been somewhat bothered by the fact that there are no free images of Lovelock during his prime; still, this is a pretty good image nonetheless.) ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emma Stone after Kinds of Kindness press conference at 2024 Cannes Film Festival 3 (cropped 2).jpg

[edit]

Hey, hope you're keeping well. Any chance we could get this gentleman removed from the background? ArturSik (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArturSik: Hello Artur -- It's good to hear from you. Sure, I can do that. But I need a few days. My computer monitor died and I'm waiting for the replacement to arrive. (Right now I have my PC wired to my TV set, and it isn't very suitable for photo editing.) Hang in there, I should be back with the program pretty soon. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, thanks for getting back:) ArturSik (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArturSik: Artur, I may have done a little more than you had in mind. I removed the guy in the background, but I also tweaked the colors (they were a bit too yellow IMO), and I dialled down the shadowing on her face a bit. If you object, I can probably undo some of the extra steps, but I do think they are small improvements. Under her chin there is an out-of-focus something that I think is probably her hair, but it could be something in the more remote background. I left it in, but can remove it too. Does it look like her hair to you? -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it looks great, thanks so much. I don't think it's her hair but I'd leave it in, we don't want to overdo it:) ArturSik (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArturSik: OK, Artur, another one checked off the list. Thanks again for the opportunity. -- WikiPedant (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daddy Yankee - The Kingdom (Official Q & A).png

[edit]

Yes, it was a work by AI since the previous image was in low quality, If you think it has to be separated, please, can you upload it for me?, since editing on the phone is difficult. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aurelio Sandoval: OK, I moved it to a separate file, File:Daddy Yankee - The Kingdom (Official Q & A) (AI-generated version).png, which is linked to the non-AI original. I didn't assign any wiki usages to your AI file. I'll let you decide for yourself what you want to do about that. Aurelio, I appreciate your cooperative attitude. Like a lot of Commons editors, I regard AI-generated images of real people as suspect, since AI systems are actually incorporating graphic characteristics "learned" from many thousands of pictures on the web, and they do make subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle changes to the appearance of the people pictured. -- WikiPedant (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Hi WikiP, hope you're doing well. Regarding this portrait of the now-former prime minister, which you edited last year, do you think you might be able to look again at it when you have the time, to see whether he's properly upright in this image? I feel as if he's slanted a bit to the right, looking at it a bit more. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello Nev -- I've taken a long second look at this image, and played with some manipulations of it (which I will not post, since they constitute imagery at least as unreal as AI manipulations). But here's the thing of it:
I usually align full face-on portraits by having my software draw a perfectly horizontal line (which software can do) directly through the pupils of the eyes. That's what I did with this one, and his pupils line up spot-on. The tops of his ears are also almost perfectly aligned horizontally, and his mouth is also as close to the horizontal as one could hope a mouth to be. I also just tried drawing a perfectly vertical line through the middle of the length of his nose and continuing down. His eyebrows, eyes, mouth, and chin are nicely balanced on either side of that line.
But, good-looking fellow though he is, Rishi is not perfectly symmetrical. His eyes are not exactly the same shape -- the white of his left eye extends a smidge lower than the right. (All references to left and right are from the *viewer's* point of view.) And, below the head, there's trouble. His right shoulder droops much lower than his left. The left upper tip of the white shirt collar on his neck is much higher than the right upper tip. Same thing with the lower tips of his collar. And his tie is hanging a little off of vertical.
So my conclusion is that his head is in the right place, but, below the neck, you are fully correct in noting that his upper torso does have the appearance of sloping a bit to the right. You can't fix the one half without disturbing the alignment of the other, and I'm strongly for sticking with the head. I'll consider any further thoughts you may have, but right now I do not see this one benefiting from more adjustment.
It is interesting to re-examine this image. It's a high-resolution photo of very respectable technical quality. And, besides, Rishi is a classy fellow, who takes a good picture. Best regards as always -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Nev, I can't get this one out of my mind. Give me a couple days, and I'm going to try doing it over from scratch, with some adjustment. -- WikiPedant (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Okay, Nev, I just uploaded a new revision of this image, with a little less rotation, so that his torso is not so slanted, but with his head now cocked a little to the left. Rishi still looks OK this way, I think. But I'm happy to leave it up to you. If you prefer the previous version, feel free to revert. (BTW, I see that just yesterday someone created a tighter ("sidebar"-sized) crop of the previous version. That was indeed the better version from which to extract the tight crop, since it just features his head. Poor old Rishi, out of office and already relegated to an historical sidebar.) -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, WikiP. I'm sorry for not responding earlier. I think you've made great improvements to the crop, although the previous version wasn't necessarily flawed. He appears more upright now, even if that might be illusory based on your earlier notes. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sutherland

[edit]

Hi WP, I was just wondering what your thoughts might be regarding these Library of Congress photographs of Donald Sutherland, and whether any of them might be preferable to Donald Sutherland (cropped).JPG for use as an infobox image. Best regards, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): When I looked them over, I thought the best of the bunch are #3, #18, and #19, but they all serve best as depictions of the play or of actors acting. Sutherland is in character as the hapless Humbert Humbert and Baker very much as the nymphette Lolita. None of the three is very suitable for an infobox illustration of the actual person IMO. The current infobox image of Sutherland is technically and aesthetically superior in my estimation, and it is a picture of Sutherland the person. But now I see that a nice crop of #3 is already being used deeper within the articles on Sutherland, Baker, and Lolita. Somebody else has already picked the winner of these shots, and kudos to them. Interesting viewing, Nev. Thanks for pointing them out. -- WikiPedant (talk)

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Günther Frager (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me re image?

[edit]

Hi WikiP, I was just wondering what your thoughts were as to Hayfestival-2016-Edna-O'Brien-2.jpg, and whether you think, as I do, that the image looks somewhat oversaturated. All the best to you, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello Nev -- Yes, I read about O'Brien's passing a couple days ago. Looking at the skin tones, the hair, the spine of the book, and the colors on the designer socks intruding at the bottom of the picture, I think the colors and saturation are about right. What doesn't work so well is that very intense background of blacks and dark blues. Those deep blues might appear oversaturated, but I suspect they are accurate; it's the actual coloration of the set design that strikes me as a bit problematic. The somewhat overpowering background is minimized in the cropped version (File:Edna O'Brien (2016).jpg), which IMO is a significantly more satisfactory version and which deservedly has more usages. I see there is another, rather underexposed shot taken on the same occasion (File:Hayfestival-2016-Edna-O'Brien-3.jpg), which has also been cropped as well as brightened (File:Hayfestival-2016-Edna-O'Brien-4.jpg) although her expression there is not ideal and the crop was not done very capably. My conclusion: File:Edna O'Brien (2016).jpg is the keeper here, and I'm disinclined to fiddle with it. . . . Ah, the Irish do punch well above their weight when it comes to literary achievement. With good wishes, as ever. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayatollah zanjani m (cropped).jpg

[edit]
File:Ayatollah zanjani m (cropped).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

HeminKurdistan (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Copyvionote|1=File:Madame de...par Max Ophüls de 1953.jpg|2=Tagged as Template:Tl PD-old

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Hinnk.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait.jpg

[edit]

Hello again WikiP. I was just wondering, do you have any thoughts on this image of the new British prime minister? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello, Nev. Technically, this one seems to be quite flawless -- the lighting of Sir Keir and the room is ideally balanced and just fine; the exposure and colors strike me as spot-on; and the resolution is stupendous. Of course, this full image cries out for cropping and other editors have already made just slightly fewer than a gazillion crops of it (even crops of the crops). The crop that probably suits most purposes, IMO, is File:Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait (cropped 2).jpg.
But I'm struck by how neutral, passionless, even lifeless his expression and body language are. He looks more like a wax figure at Mme Tussaud's than a living, breathing person, especially in the full version where he appears to be one more furnishing in the room. Even his suit, shirt, tie, and glasses are stunningly pristine. I find myself wondering if there has been some *very* skillful retouching here, that makes the picture too damn perfect and cold. But, if so, I sure can't prove it.
Sometimes, Nev, I get a bit bored with the random, low-quality images of obscure people which I try to improve (at least a bit), but the ones you bring to my attention tend to be of interesting figures and are intriguing and thought provoking. This curious one is no exception. There is, of course, nothing left to be done with it, except to contemplate it with a mix of admiration and uneasiness. Thanks -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I was thinking, WikiP, and I completely agree. That said, I'm rather unsatisfied with the crops that have been created. Certainly, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait (cropped 2).jpg is the best full-length crop, but generally, bust-length portraits are preferred as infobox images, as seen at w:Keir Starmer. The image used there, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Official Portrait (cropped).jpg, appears fine at first glance, but I think it could do with some work in rotation of the head, which looks slanted to the right. What do you think? Best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Nev, for infoboxes I too prefer head-and-shoulders shots, not full-length. But here, there is the problem which we've previously encountered. His head is cocked a little to one side, but his tie, the curtains and window frame behind him are almost dead-on vertical. And his shoulders and the points of his shirt collar are pretty much dead-on horizontal. So rotating the head will throw all those other reference lines out of whack. That will be noticeable and I honestly don't see any remedy. However, IMO these head-and-shoulders crops are not bad as they are and are OK for infobox use. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but do you not think something could be done similar to what you managed for Portrait of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (cropped).jpg? That said, the background was far simpler for that one. Maybe a slightly tighter crop might make the slant less apparent, perhaps? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): Right, Nev, I thought about that. But what I did on Rishi's crop was paint and blur out the out-of-focus door frame behind him to remove the offending horizontal and vertical reference lines. That wasn't too much work. But with Sir Keir's crop (even a tighter crop) there's just too much stuff behind him to paint out. Even if it were tightened enough to remove the portions of wall to the left of the green curtain and to the right of the window, there'd still be the vertical lines within the curtain, the overhead vertical edge of curtain, and the horizontal lines of the top edge of the window and the edge of the ceiling, which all interact with his hair. I'd have to retouch at the pixel level to work around that hair, and that's beyond the level of my patience or skill. Additionally, the off-white of the window is not quite the same color as the off-white of the ceiling, and that would have to be reconciled. At the resolution of this image there are *a whole lot* of pixels involved here. There's high-level professional software that can automate some of this, but I'm not up to making such a heroic attempt with my poor man's GIMP software. I wish I could, but not in this case. Sorry. Maybe next time. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, WikiP, and thanks for taking the time to explain. Do you think though that a slightly tighter crop could make the slant less apparent? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): No, not to my satisfaction. Not this time. Sorry again -- WikiPedant (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Addai-Robinson to Nazanin Boniadi

[edit]

Hi Wikipedant, From my talk page...Cynthia Addai-Robinson LotR-TRoP Asia 2022.jpg

FYI this appears to be an image of Nazanin Boniadi, not Cynthia Addai-Robinson. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC) My apologies it did happen once before, I will ask someone to change it or delete it.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made a mistake again on identity, is there any chance you can change the jpg name? if not, just delete it. I am usually very rigorous, but this one foiled me. Many thanks.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@James Kevin McMahon: No problem, James. Fixed. (PS: I can change a file name. But I can't delete images from Commons. Only admins can do that.) -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am most grateful to you for fixing that issue, thank you.James Kevin McMahon (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joanna Kulig, Berlinale 2023-1 (cropped).jpg

[edit]

Hi, I was hoping you could work your magic on this one. The lighting is awful greyish. I tried to adjust the colours myself but wasn't happy with the end result. I'm sure you have better tools to make it look great as you always do. ArturSik (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArturSik: Hello Artur. Could you tell me a little more about what's bothering you about this one? The lighting here is uneven, with her face partly sunlit (with the sun above, to the right, and slightly behind her), so part of her face is brightly lit with sunlight and part of it is shadowed. The shadowed parts might seem a bit greyish, but the colors don't seem too far "off" for a backlit picture like this. (I usually go by the whites of the eyes, and hers are reasonably white.) From your reverted edits it appears you'd like to dial up the skin tones a bit and dial down the shadows. I can probably make changes like that without too much trouble, but there are limits -- a backlit picture should always look at least somewhat backlit. Just let me know if I'm reading your intentions correctly, and I'll be glad to take a stab at it. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My main issue is the shadow which as you noticed I tried to minimise. So if you’d be able to tweak that without compromising the overall look of the picture that be great. Best ArturSik (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArturSik: Artur, I uploaded 2 versions. The most recent reduces some of the shadowing and highlighting more than the previous. Take your pick. ;) -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArturSik: PS -- Artur, now that about half a day has passed, I'm not so sure whether I like what I did with this one or not. Maybe I'm getting a bit burned out, but if you decide to revert it back to the original upload, I'll be OK with that. Your call. -- WikiPedant (talk)
Hi WikiPedant. Thank you so much. I appreciate the work you've put into this. It's certainly an improvement over the original. I think the issue here is the shadow, but that's the nature of the picture so there's really not much we could do about it. Please, don't beat yourself up. Not everything can be fixed, unfortunately but we tried:) I'll keep your edits tho and might find use for the photo in the future. Again, appreciate your help. Always a pleasure. ArturSik (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Categories need parent categories

[edit]

Thank you for creating a new category or categories. When creating new categories as you did at Category:David Bamber, please try to include one or more parent categories:

Categories that lack parent categories appear on one of these reports:

Please make sure your categories aren't in these reports by adding categories to them.

Thank you. (This is a standardized talk page message)


 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

[edit]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Quick1984 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie Hagan.jpg

[edit]
File:Willie Hagan.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Abzeronow (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theresa May (2016).jpg

[edit]

Hi there, WikiP. I was just wondering if you could possibly have a look at lightening the vignette and brightening the shadows of this image in a separate file, similar to Theresa May.png? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hello Nev. I uploaded the cleaned-up version as File:Theresa May (2016) 02.jpg.
IMO the vignetting really was unpleasant and you were right to want it removed. I also found the facial reflections of the photographer's light source rather revolting (and maybe a tad incompetent), and dialled them down. That task proved to be challenging with such a high-resolution image of skin and I learned a few things by trial and error, but feel satisfied with the result now. You also mentioned shadows, and I didn't see any intrusive shadows, but I did dial up the overall exposure level a bit. I also did one presumptuous thing -- I dialled down the crows' feet around her eyes just slightly. Thanks for another interesting one. Regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, WikiP. Thank you for reviewing it. You've done a great job as usual, and I agree with your assessment of the original composition, which I always found rather unsatisfactory.
Lady May has just had a new portrait of herself done in the upper house, Official portrait of Baroness May of Maidenhead.jpg. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts regarding that one. Best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neveselbert (mobile): None of them is awful. It seems to me that we get a good sense of what the baroness looks like. And "May of Maidenhead" does have a bit of a ring to it. But there are some shortcomings:
In the full-size image, the left side of her face (her left) is overexposed and IMO the shadowing around her right eye is a little too intense. Her left shoulder and collar could be dialled down a smidge too.
These shortcomings carry over into all 3 cropped versions. Additionally
(1) Crop 1 isn't particularly usable IMO because there's too much background on either side of her and the top border is too close to the top of her head.
(2) Crop 2, which has all the usages, cries out for more balanced composition. The top and left borders need to be trimmed to reduce the excess background, the "Do Not Crop" banner notwithstanding.
(3) Crop 3 is fine (although the left margin could be moved in just a hair's-width).
As you can see, Nev, as usual I have no shortage of opinions. ;-) -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Cameron (2023).jpg

[edit]

Hi WikiP, do you have any thoughts on this portrait of Lord Cameron during his brief stint as foreign minister? It's a better representation than Prime Minister David Cameron - official photograph (8947770804).jpg, I would think. Best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Well, Nev, it's not entirely fair to compare the 2 images, since they depict the man 13 years apart. Technically, the 2023 shot has higher resolution, but the 2010 shot's resolution is quite good, and certainly fine for Wikipedia usage. The 2023 image is an indoor studio shot while the 2010 photo was taken outdoors using, it appears, a mix of generous natural light and a fairly soft artificial fill light. To me he looks a little better (considering the hair, the shape of his face, his skin) in the more naturally lit 2010 shot even if it is contrastier -- but we pretty much all looked better when we were 13 years younger. My bottom line is that both pictures have good, although differing, technical and aesthetic qualities which show Cameron at different stages in life and that each has its reasonable usefulness. The 2023 shot is quite appropriate for showing him as he looks today in his post-PM years, and the other shot appropriately represents him during his freshman year as PM. I don't really have a runaway favourite. Thanks for the look. Felicitations -- WikiPedant (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustavo gutierrez.jpg

[edit]

Hi WikiP, do you have any thoughts on this image of the pioneering Peruvian theologian? All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Oh yeah, Nev, I think I can do something helpful (although not miraculous) to this one, and to the cropped version. The headshot-only super-cropped version (created by longtime User:Storye book) appears to have been adjusted a bit and, for some reason, greatly enlarged, but it's only suitable for use as a very tiny image in lists and currently has no usages. I've added them to my to-do folder and will get to them soon. Thanks. -- WikiPedant (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for creating the cropped/enlarged image of Gutierrez' head was that at the time I understood that another editor wanted a clearer thumbnail of his face for infobox use (scaling up makes the face show more clearly as a thumbnail). In the event, that editor chose another version which (as I write) is in the article here. So I personally don't mind what you do with File:Gustavo Gutiérrez (Peruvian theologian) (1b).jpg, although perhaps out of courtesy you might consult the opinion of Gerda Arendt just in case she has plans to use it? Storye book (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: Hello Storye book -- No worries, I wasn't planning to touch that one. I think that you've done all that there is to do to create a useful headshot crop. The big limitation is the low resolution of the original. I appreciate your contributions. Best regards -- WikiPedant (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dulce frente a su escritorio.jpg

[edit]
File:Dulce frente a su escritorio.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ђидо (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Nott.jpg

[edit]

Hi WP! Just wondered what your thoughts were on this image, and whether anything could be done to improve it. All the best, ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert (mobile): Hi Nev. This one could be improved with some exacting editing. It won't be difficult to improve the face with some sharpening and tweaking of levels. The trick will be to paint out the two overlapping heads in front of him. I'm probably pushing my luck, but can't resist taking a crack at it. I've added it to my "to do" folder. It may take a while before I get to it though -- I've got quite a backlog of tasks (here at Commons and in the real world) right now. I'll check back eventually. Meanwhile . . . WikiPedant (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiPedant&oldid=961907818"