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

King João VI of Portugal

Resolved

Original
PNG version

Article(s): João VI of Portugal

Request

Could you create another file (.PNG) of the same picture, but with a transparent background? Thank you, -- Lecen (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done - Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander von Hesse

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Alexander von Hesse

Request: please remove border and straighten… -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done nagual design 04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]; Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borgo Nuovo, Rome

Resolved

Portal of the palazzo dei Convertendi along the destroyed road of Borgo Nuovo, 1930 ca.

Article(s): Borgo Nuovo (Rome)

Request: If it is possible, please remove the watermarks, thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 09:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @MjolnirPants:, thanks, but some watermarks are still there... Alex2006 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to re-load the page to get it to show the new version. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were some problems with hidden watermarks and thumbnail generation. Now I think it's all right.--Carnby (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo @Carnby:, much better, thanks! Maybe there is still a small Problem (capital "P" since the problem looks like a "P" ;-)) on the left side of the grilled window left of the Portal. Maybe this is the rest of a previous watermark: what do you think about it? Alex2006 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alessandro57: It was a "p" from "sparita" watermark. I fixed it.--Carnby (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Carnby:! Now it is about time that I finish the article! The iconographic part is ready ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fragments

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Fragments

Request: please clean fold… -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done How's that look? It actually took a while. The shadows from the fold erased a lot of the grain, so I ended up having the paint it back in by hand. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. However, Commons says not to use progressive jpegs per c:Help:Progressive. (Hohum ^@) 02:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid GIMP keeps resetting my defaults... I'll fix it. Thanks for the heads up. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gascogne

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Gascogne

Request: please straighten and trim… -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done nagual design 04:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian birr

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:50 Ethiopian cents.jpg

Article(s): Ethiopian birr

Request: please straighten and remove backgrounds… -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this one, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston, Count of Eu

Resolved

– Vinícius Oliveira (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitmap version
Vector version

Article(s): Gaston, Count of Eu

Request: Please vectorize the signature -- Vinícius Oliveira (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done--Carnby (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looks much better. Vinícius Oliveira (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India noticeboard barnstar image

Moved to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop § WikiProject India noticeboard barnstar image

– Tito Dutta (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah K. Lilly, Sr. signature

Resolved

– Seattle (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature of Josiah K. Lilly, Sr.
vector version

Article(s): Josiah K. Lilly, Sr.

Request: Vectorize; remove other signature from below Josiah K. Lilly, Sr.'s signature, and the black lines from above. Note the "y" in Josiah K. Lilly, Sr.'s signature intercedes with the signature below. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done Is it OK?--Carnby (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like a clean copy, thank you! Seattle (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concept drawing for UASF Long Range Strike Bomber

Resolved

Article(s): Long Range Strike Bomber

Request: Please clone white space to cover up the text. My pathetic attempts to do this via Apple Photo are included ;-[. If you need an unbelemished start copy, just ask. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped image of Christopher Coyne

Resolved

– Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 16:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Coyne with a child

Article(s): Christopher J. Coyne

Request: Could this photograph please be cropped to remove the child; perhaps from the top of the child's head upwards, so that the pectoral cross is included (IE more than just Coyne's head and shoulders). It is currently being used in the infobox on his article but it is rather odd to have someone else (particularly a child) in the same image. Thank you -- Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]; Thank you very much! Clever work in the bottom-right corner. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 08:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tragulus javanicus: reduce glare and balance colour

Article(s): Even-toed ungulate

Request: I tried to enhance this picture with GIMP but I did not achieve good results. Please remove/reduce glare and balance colours (it seems that the picture is made only by yellow and red).-- Carnby (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done How does that look? It actually did have some blue in it in the highlights on the back, I did a bit of adjusting to balance the colors better and sharpen it up slightly in addition to removing the glare. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: I had another crack at it to replace the colour without introducing magenta and green fur. Let me know what you think. nagual design 04:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The blue and green in the fur looked like highlights and added some complexity to the image. But that's a subjective judgement. Objectively, the blue and green were artifacts from the lens flare (the green around the ears here shows this very well, and you can also see that this is true of the blue if you look carefully) so there's good reason to get rid of them; they're false colors. It looks a little flat to me right now, but in all honesty, it's for an encyclopedia, so it's probably better this way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder if I'd accidentally reduced any green in the foliage, but it looks like it really was all one murky brown. I guess that's what millions of years of evolving camouflage does. (And hence why I blurred the background to separate the layers.) nagual design 20:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the DOF was a great idea; it does wonders for picking out the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illlustrated London News etching

Resolved

– nagual design 10:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Lewis

Article(s): Senghenydd Colliery Disaster and William Lewis, 1st Baron Merthyr

Request

Could someone please whiten the image to remove the yellowy-green tint in the background? Many thanks indeed! -- SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Nagualdesign, many thanks indeed! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done nagual design 09:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Emmott

Alfred Emmott

Article(s): Alfred Emmott, 1st Baron Emmott

Request: Could this watermark be removed?--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done Centpacrr (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Re)

Done. Sorry Centpacrr, I should have used the {{I take}} template. It took me ages too because it was a fiddly one. nagual design 02:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Too late"?!? You know, you can really be a prize winning bell end sometimes, Scoop. Compare this to this. Now compare that to this. I didn't just overwrite your efforts without a thought. If you'd done a better job of it than I had I would have deferred to your version, but you hadn't. There's no need to get all pissy about it, especially when you hadn't even put the buttons in the right place. nagual design 20:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, sir, please just relax. I quickly overwrote my first version with updates and the current version includes many elements of your efforts combined with elements of mine with significant additional clean up applied to the details of the frock coat's lapels, trim, cloth texture, sleeve seams, and other areas that had been unaddressed earlier and also cropping out the unnecessary white space beyond the border of the page. Thank you for your efforts and (some of) your observations. In the words of the Bard, "all's well that ends well" does it not? ;) Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a grainy face with poor flesh tones is not an improvement. (Hohum ^@) 00:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hohum! I realize how abrasive I was being so I appreciate you putting your head above the parapet. If Centpacrr carried on like this in article space he'd have been banned years ago. I can only urge The Traditionalist to decide for himself which version to use, since Centpacrr thinks that's how Wikipedia works, and won't listen to anyone else. nagual design 01:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God Save the Queen. ;) Centpacrr (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually been fiddling with this one myself, without putting up an {{I take}} tag, as well. Since it's already been done (and done, and done) I'm not going to upload the one I've been working on. But I have cast a vote for which one looks the best, and is best for an encyclopedia. No offense is intended, and no sides taken, but Hohum's most recent version was the best looking one by a margin. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only found out about this discussion after making this edit. I believe that Centpacrr's version makes him look like he is dying from scurvy, to be honest...--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double_H_High_Adventure_Base

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Double_H_High_Adventure_Base.png

Article(s): Double_H_High_Adventure_Base

Request: please remove drop shadow… -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done nagual design 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of wonky image

Resolved

– Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 19:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky photograph of Sir Stuart Etherington

Article(s): Stuart Etherington

Request: This is for an infobox image. Could the picture be straightened out and trimmed please? Also, if possible, could the colouring be touched up; at the moment he has a very red face and glowing purple highlights. -- Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 16:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Request taken. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done The bottom right corner (the edge of the podium) could use a little more work, as it looks uneven when you see the image at full resolution. I'm out of time to fiddle with it though, so consider this an invitation to anyone else to come fix it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MjolnirPants. His face looks much more normal now! Could someone else please crop it so that its suitable for use in an infobox. Thanks, Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 19:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done That also resolved the issue with the edge of the podium. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thank you very much. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 19:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senghenydd colliery disaster

Resolved

Article(s): Senghenydd colliery disaster

Request

Could someone please do the usual marvels with the greyscale to rid them of the greeny-yellow hue? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Hohum - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Request taken by (Hohum ^@) 15:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC). Done[reply]

Manchuria

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Manchuria

Request: please trim away obvious copy edge… -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done by User:Centpacrr. nagual design 23:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yaudheya

Resolved

– Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s): Yaudheya

Request: please remove background… -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion(s)

Done nagual design 23:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, as expected, Centpacrr has reverted the image back to his version with a pink background and multifaceted edge that looks like it's been cut out with a guillotine (and of course his signature 'agma' adjustment). I'm sure he does it to provoke a reaction but I haven't got the energy. If you're not happy with that then you'll have to tell him yourself. nagual design 17:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look more carefully sir. It was not "reverted" to an older image but is an altogether new version with the edges refined, the background set to 255-255-255, and the face of the coin cleaned up by removing multiple specks of dust, bits of lint, and other debris that you left on it,. I also removed the artificial drop shadow the you had added to it for some unknown reason. Sorry you didn't actually bother to look at the new file before assuming that it was something else. Please be more careful next time. Centpacrr (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Actually your first version had a striped background and your latest was mostly #FEFEFE, but both rendered pink on Wikipedia. Go figure. I saw your flyspecking. It's a shame you have to mar decent, hard work like that with silly contrast adjustments, but the worst part was the edge. The request was basically to cut out the coin, and not only did you do a half-assed job of that part, but when I uploaded a smoothed copy you 'reverted' to having a multi-faceted edge, as though you don't give a fuck. I mean, get rid of the drop shadow by all means, but don't do it badly.

The drop shadow, if anybody's interested, is actually fairly standard with images of coins. There have been dozens of requests over the years to "remove the background" on pictures like this, and that generally means "make it look like the photo was taken on a plain/white background". I vaguely remember some discussion about this a few years ago and that's how they've been done since then - or at least how I've been doing them. Normally nobody objects, but CP is just getting pissy because he was offended the other day. First he begins refusing to sign his posts or whatever, next thing he's all obsequious, or sulking. NGDEGUP, eh Scoop? nagual design 19:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The version that is currently up there is not mine but one done by MjolnirPants so go complain to him or her. Have a nice day. GSTQ Centpacrr (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants version looks perfectly fine to me. nagual design 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: I think if the OP wants a drop shadow, they can ask for one. Common or not, not everyone is going to just assume a drop shadow will be added. Also, Centpacrr did remove some legitimate dust and scratches, and the contrast tweaks looked good, and didn't take anything away from the image.

Fair enough. nagual design 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr: You really need to start using quick mask instead of the polygonal lasso tool when you select elements in an image. I've seen you do it this way many times, and it looks bad every time. Also, when you remove dust & scratches, be sure not to remove actual details, as you did with this one. In addition, please color correct your monitor. What you apparently see as white looks like pink to the rest of us. Finally, use the damn {{I take}} template! There's literally no reason not to, unless your intentionally trying to annoy people, which could get you blocked.

The current version is one I uploaded, taking inspiration from both of your edits. This fueding needs to end. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants, please do not think that this is any sort of feud on my part. When somebody does a sloppy edit around here I'll likely redo it and/or tell them about it. Not just that, but sometimes people do good edits that I think I can improve upon, so I do. The problem is that Centpacrr cannot take any form of criticism or having his work 'overwritten', and I don't care much for people's egos, so we end up going through the same motions whenever CP does a poor edit. Most of the time I've learned to keep my lip buttoned and just do a better job of it, but when he turns it into a revert battleground I'm not going to remain silent. Since you have redone this image I'm going to assume that you agree with me on this occasion. If you can try to keep score I hope you'll see that I'm not the one being disruptive, and if it is me then please tune me in, but please don't imply that we're as bad as each other! nagual design 19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pink background

Okay, if we can just put our differences aside for a moment I'd like to get to the bottom of the pink background. I have an inkling that this might be some sort of encoding issue. If I save a copy of either of Centpacrr's uploads then open them in Photoshop the background is definitely pink, but when the full-sized image is viewed in a browser it renders as pale gray. There are also a few stray blobs here and there and areas of pink, but I find it peculiar that the colours render differently. So, Centpacrr, may I ask what editing software you use? If it was Photoshop I'd suspect that it was a colour space issue. Basically, make sure you tick "Convert to sRGB" when you save jpegs. nagual design 20:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop CS5 Extended v12.0 x64 13" MacBook Pro (LED screen) OSX 10.6.8 All images saved as RGB jpg least compression (12); White background set manually to 255-255-255. Centpacrr (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that by "set manually" you mean that you first made a selection and then used Fill > White (or Background color if that was set to white), which might suggest it was a selection issue. Had you used the magic wand, quick selection tool or similar I might suspect that some pixels were actually only partially selected, but it's obvious that in this case you used the polygonal lasso tool. I'm baffled as to how you could have introduced those artifacts, to be honest. The only thing I can think is that you used the brush tool and thought you were painting white when in fact you'd selected #FFFDFE, but that still wouldn't explain why it renders pink or grey depending on the software used. The only advice I can offer is, when it comes to working with pale tones tilting your screen back can help squeeze a little extra dynamic range out, so that you can easily see the difference between pure white and off-white. nagual design 21:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized that you referred to the compression setting as "12", which suggests that you're using Save as.. (Shift+Command+S) to save your images. If that's the case I suggest you start using the Save for Web & Devices (Alt+Shift+Command+S) dialogue, which is much better at avoiding weird compatibility issues. And remember to tick Convert to sRGB. nagual design 21:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the header of the last Centpacrr jpg, it uses an ICC profile as follows:

   ICC Profile:
     Marker Number = 1 of 1
       Profile Size                      : 7261 bytes
       Preferred CMM Type                : 'Lino' (0x4C696E6F)
       Profile Version                   : 0.2.1.0 (0x02100000)
       Profile Device/Class              : Display Device profile ('mntr' (0x6D6E7472))
       Data Colour Space                 : rgbData ('RGB ' (0x52474220))
       Profile connection space (PCS)    : 'XYZ ' (0x58595A20)
       Profile creation date             : 1998-02-09 06:49:00
       Profile file signature            : 'acsp' (0x61637370)
       Primary platform                  : Microsoft Corporation ('MSFT' (0x4D534654))
       Profile flags                     : 0x00000000
       Profile flags                       > Profile not embedded
       Profile flags                       > Profile can't be used independently of embedded
       Device Manufacturer               : 'IEC ' (0x49454320)
       Device Model                      : 'sRGB' (0x73524742)
       Device attributes                 : 0x00000000_00000000
       Device attributes                   > Reflective
       Device attributes                   > Glossy
       Device attributes                   > Media polarity = negative
       Device attributes                   > Black & white media
       Rendering intent                  : Perceptual
       Profile creator                   : 'HP  ' (0x48502020)
       Profile ID                        : 0x00000000_00000000_00000000_00000000

Otherwise known as "sRGB IEC61966-2.1"

However, this shouldn't cause a problem with a background colour set to 255-255-255. I'm wondering if the colour profile is actually corrupt / adjusted / tampered with. The profile creator being HP seems odd. A good version directly from ICC is the bottom one here. (Hohum ^@) 21:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this looks like a color calibration issue. I didn't notice any speckling or mottling; the background color on both versions Centpacrr uploaded was FFFDFE at every pixel I sampled. It's barely noticeable, but on my personal computer, you can just see the difference when compared to pure white. On my work computer, I can't see any difference (my work computer's monitor is not color calibrated). I'm guessing it wasn't the filling that was the problem, but the picking of what appeared to be pure white.

I also checked the other two versions, to see if it's a browser issue, but both of them display pure white at every pixel of the bg. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]