An armored car, captured from the ALA (
Arab Liberation Army- Kaukji's army) on 1948. The car still carries the ALA emblem, a dagger stabbing a Star of David. It was captured after the ALA defeat in the Galilee and his flight from Palestine campaign.
Since previously it was suggested the the "a dagger stabbing a "Shield of David"" is "doctored", will you please have your opinion whether the emblem might be "doctored" this time too?
The same armored car, but without the camouflage painting, is seen here:
In the
last discussion, the further I got into it, the less I was convinced the photos had been doctored. While at first glance they certainly looked doctored (that is, the emblem appeared to be added to the photo after it was taken), my opinion now is that they probably were not. The high resolution photo you offer further suggests they were not doctored. All that said, I wouldn't support erasing all trace of this discussion from the image description pages. There should be a link pointing to these discussions we've had on the subject. –
JBarta (
talk)
21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not officially a "graphicist" but I do have quite a lot of experience with photo manipulation so I'm posting here. As I said in an earlier discussion, I was not convinced by the arguments that the photo is doctored. Now I am even less convinced. A lot can be learned from
this hires image of exactly the same model from a similar angle. On the vehicle with the emblem, especially the lo-res version, it appeared that a corner of the vehicle passed through the left edge of the emblem, giving difficulties of shade and shape as well as raising the question of why someone would paint the emblem around a corner. However, the image I am bringing shows that the panel is completely flat, and the "corner" is just an optical illusion created by the camouflage pattern. I think the photo is genuine.
Zerotalk14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the description of the emblem. You can say that the dagger is stabbing the Magen David all you like, but it simply isn't. Take a fresh look; that dagger is sitting flat on top of the Magen David with a small sheath to hold it there. That dagger is not stabbing or even menacing the star. It doesn't make any sense as an Arab emblem. I think it is a Jewish emblem.
Zerotalk14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
to Zero: yours:""That dagger is not stabbing or even menacing the star'". Why will not you magnify the image and see for yourself?
Ykantor (
talk)
16:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's funny. Well, if I have to get stabbed by someone I'll choose you to maximise my chance of survival.
Here is what it really looks like (warning: graphic and disturbing).
Zerotalk07:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Merriam-webster doesn't agree nor disagree with what Zero0000 says. Anybody can see that the dagger doesn't stab the Magen David. But it is not the issue.
Pluto2012 (
talk)
13:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Could you get an additional image from that archive, along with a brief description of its origin? Perhaps one which - like the written sources cited so far - is dripping blood? –
SJ +06:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
to SJ: The archive is not fully digitized, so the process is slow, and depends on their initiative and in me, reminding them frequently. We need lot of patience, and a bit of luck.
Ykantor (
talk)
21:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
As Zero notes here, the caption is dubious, and must be rewritten. I have suggested attribution to Benny Morris for the claims that it is an official ALA emblem, and that the dagger stabs at the magen (which it does not appear to, but lies over it). I don't see any problem with the photo, but with its description and the file should clarify, unless a photo with blood-dripping comes up, that we are dealing with an interpretation.
Nishidani (
talk)
14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Nish, does Morris refer to this photo? If not, it is OR to present the photo to illustrate Morris' words, especially as it doesn't match Morris' words. It is plausible that there was an ALA emblem like Morris describes but it isn't what appears in the photo.
Zerotalk15:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
There ya go, chief. Didn't have Morris at my elbow and took refs to him from Ykantor at his word. Without wishing to come over as a brownnoser, I agree with you throughout on this, except for the notion that it might be Jewish, which would be perplexing in context (if a Jewish symbol were on an Arab vehicle, the implication would be that it was placed there by (victorious) Jews). I find nothing problematical with the idea an emblem like this might have been used officially, but find the documentation poor, the caption odd, and its use instrumental. These issues must be clarified before rushing to use them on wiki pages.
Nishidani (
talk)
16:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Aren't these supposed to be captured Arab vehicles? Of course they would have been immediately put to use (assuming they still worked) and could be painted with Jewish emblems then.
Zerotalk02:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It is supposed to be an ALA vehicle that participated to the Yehiam convoy "battle". What is written in Arab below the drawing ?
Note that if the foolowing document is true, it cannot be a Jewish Symbol :
[1] and if it is a Jewish symbol, than the document is a piece of forgery as barely found...
You make good points. Of course I don't really know it is a Jewish symbol. All I really know is that something doesn't stack up here. If someone wanted to draw a dagger stabbing a magen david, it would have been so easy to draw it actually embedded in the star as when someone is fatally stabbed, with the dripping blood Morris writes of, instead of held harmlessly against it. As it stands, it is quite innocuous compared to how it could have been. I don't believe that Israel attempted to forge an Arab emblem either, for exactly the same reason (in that case Israel would have made it look gruesome, but it doesn't). Perhaps it is an Arab emblem whose symbolism we don't understand, for example a reference to some other symbol people knew at the time. I don't know.
Zerotalk12:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Which means in sum that, if we set aside the secondary sources, all we have visually is a Magen David with a dagger. Sources interpret this as 'stabbing', for which we have, as yet, no visual evidence, since equally one could say the dagger lies atop the magen, as a sword often lies atop a funeral bier of an officer of rank. In the absence of visual evidence, one would have to write, therefore, 'a Magen David with a dagger' (until we, or historians, can sort this out, meaning asking Benny Morris, Henry Laurens, Gilbert Achcar or Philip Mattar).
Nishidani (
talk)
12:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Pluto's
link takes us to a photo appearing in the Egyptian newspaper al-Mussawar, Cairo. April 3, 1948. There is a connect therefore with the report Ykantor mentions that in Cairo at the time 'hotel fronts and billboards were plastered with posters of a dagger dripping blood, on its handle the Star of David emblematic of Zionism.'( Kenneth W. Bilby, New Star in the Near East, Doubleday, 1950 p.7) where the dagger is identified as Zionist.
Nishidani (
talk)
12:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The inital picture was published by Ynhockey from a 1951's book written Alexander Doran (Lutzki)
[2].
Lutzki was not an historian. He worked for the Arab Department of the Jewish Agency, then for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. He became ambassador. In his book in 1951, he also published a document in French written by the Mufti that was only found back 40 years later in the UN Nations's archives by Wiesenthal Centre. In this document the Mufti stated that he was aware of the Holocaust and was suggesting this to be implemented in Palestine...
[3].
Not related to our problem here directly, Pluto. But if there is a document saying the Mufti suggested the holocaust be implemented in Palestine, that should be immediately cited on the al-Husayni page. The book you cite p.110, does not say that. The Davidic symbol was widespread in medieval Arabic literature as the Jewish Virtual Library
article on the Magen shows.
Nishidani (
talk)
11:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The word "stabbing"
The word "stabbing" is my personal translation of the image title, taken from this Dotan book. I have just tried
Google translation, which results in: stuck, thrusted, inserted.
Ykantor (
talk)
In all honesty I have no idea. I'm not very good at that sort of thing. I was just trying to upload using DerivativeFX and it spat the dummy out. Give me a few minutes and I'll retry...
nagualdesign (
talk)
09:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Photographers often avoid placing their subject in the centre of the frame, so as to add interest to the composition. Encyclopedic images are normally dead centre. But even now I've left more
lead room on the right than on the left. Hair doesn't carry the same 'weight' (in the
compositional sense) as the profile of a face.
nagualdesign (
talk)
05:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Done multiple changes, including rotation. FYI, there's no such thing as lossless image rotation, only good and bad algorithms (and of course sloppy and careful execution). Generally speaking, rotation causes loss of acutance/blurring, which can be remedied via careful sharpening. Hope that helps. Regards,
nagualdesign (
talk)
07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Cropped and uploaded, ready for cleaning. I didn't straighten this image as it would have likely cut through the gentleman on the far right (Hana Kaai). It can be done though, I'm sure, but I'll let someone else have a go.
nagualdesign (
talk)
08:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
From this image? I think the individuals are a little too small for any crops to be useful. Sorry. Perhaps you could use the whole image, and copy the text that was cropped (from the original) into the file page description, so everyone can see who's who, then on the thumbnail you could use the caption, "Back row, 3rd from left", or whatever.
nagualdesign (
talk)
04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I made an attempt to adjust Maximilian I. In all honesty I'm not really happy with it. Although the image is larger, it has less tonal detail than the smaller image, particularly in the shadows. Attempting to match the two left the blacks looking milky. Perhaps someone else will have more success. Failing that, I'd suggest ignoring the smaller image and giving free rein to improve the image in whatever way possible.
nagualdesign (
talk)
17:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: Download the original upload (6.73MB) before editing!
Unless you have some reliable evidence that these two images do NOT accurately reflect what these two paintings look like I think the best choice is to do nothing to them at all as any changes may result in a material misrepresentation of the original artworks.
Centpacrr (
talk)
23:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I would revert the current images of both portraits to the original uploads, but I am not the OP so it is not my call. What this section asks for is "Graphist opinion(s)" and so that what this is. Sorry if it was not made clear enough to anyone that what I meant by doing "nothing at all" was to use the original files.
Centpacrr (
talk)
19:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s): The noise you are talking about is really just the grain of the film and only really visible at full resolution. I've softened the background just a bit but left the face and hands alone to retain detail. I don't think it really needs anything else as the grain is not even really noticeable at normal web viewing size in the article. This to me is a case where "less is more".
Centpacrr (
talk)
03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the phenomenally gifted graphists, would it be possible to rotate this image slightly to the left and crop it so that it focuses more closely on the memorial's inscription? I'd also like to see if it's possible to sharpen the text so that it is more legible. Thank you! --
Caponer (
talk)
18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the graphists, I apologize for not including this image with the one above. Would it also be possible to slightly rotate this image to the left and sharpen it so that the memorial is more clearly visible? The background light obscures the memorial's detailing. I'll leave any other edits to the discretion of the very talented graphists. --
Caponer (
talk)
19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I cannot remove the reflection at the edges. Is it possible to smooth these parts out without cropping. Feel free to use the source material if it helps. On the second one also please remove these two golden stickers, I am not quite sure what they are, but the painting underneath shimmers slightly through. --
Gryffindor (
talk)
20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Could you also please smoothe the edges a little bit without cutting any of the picture itself, I wasn't able to crop properly with the circle and the edges still look rather rough.
Gryffindor (
talk)
10:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
The picture of this ship arriving in Valetta, Malta, (at the beginning of the article), is marked in the summary as '1949', but in the Comment box '1939'.
Which is the correct year? The ship's article picture caption states her arriving, but it doesn't say when.
Clicking on the image only gives a talk page which says: "There are many things this page is NOT for"... one of them is:
"Requesting corrections to the image (try the talk page of an article that the image is used in, or contact the graphics lab.)"
This page is not for historical investigation, sorry. Look at the other sections to see what sort of things are done here.
Zerotalk13:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):I fixed the image for you but I am unable to upload because the host page for the image is locked. I have therefore uploaded it to my own server
here from which you can access it and upload it whenever the WP image host page is unlocked. Sorry.
Centpacrr (
talk)
03:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm all for polishing turds if I think I can get a slight sheen, but there's another phrase that springs to mind here; If you start with sh*t, you end up with crap. This image is unworthy of article space, IMO.
nagualdesign (
talk)
01:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)reply
There is not much to work with with this image but I have tweaked it a bit and think it at least slightly better. Keep it if you like, Kintetsubuffalo, or revert if not.
Centpacrr (
talk)
02:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the multi-talented Wikipedia Graphists, could you please sharpen this black and white image, and if possible, could you "equalize" the image's color--it was taken with my iPhone, and there are multiple reflections of light within the photo. I'm not sure if this can be remedied, but if so, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for all your amazing work! --
Caponer (
talk)
20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I think this pic needs some light adjustment (first of all white balance), since it was taken against the light. The light in the background seems to be too bright. I tried with some GIMP filters, with poor results.--
Carnby (
talk)
13:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Could you please try to remove fisheye effect, without deleting too much (e.g. the R. P. and the eagle in the upper right corner)?--
Carnby (
talk)
21:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I had a go at it and worked from the original to reapply the lens correction, as Centpacrr's version was good but a little blurry. I also kept the same image width. Feel free to revert if you prefer Centpacrr's version. Cheers, Fallschirmjäger✉22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I understand, probaly your version is slightly better but you have partially cut off the R. P. and the eagle in the upper right corner...--
Carnby (
talk)
07:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, I uploaded
this image a while ago, but when I attempted to crop it, as you can see in the image above, it became completely darkened. Could someone attempt to do the same crop, but without the darkening? Thanks.-- Delaywaves •
talk03:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)reply
If there's anyway we can reduce the blur that would be great. Also, I think the picture needs a little straightening to meet a better vertical position. The outer black circle frame needs to be more solid. Any other general improvements to the pic would be great. Thanks in advance.
Etienne Dolet (
talk)
06:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Very very valuable photograph that I have just uploaded. The quality is not too good. I am hoping to make it like this...
[4]. If it's too big of a task, no worries. Any general improvements to this valuable photograph will do.
Etienne Dolet (
talk)
07:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):I have desaturated the colors a bit. The smaller image, however, appears to be of a painting while this image looks like a reproduction of a hand colored engraving of that painting to me so it will not have nearly the range of colors of the original art work.
Centpacrr (
talk)
01:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the talented and creative graphists, I am requesting that the above image be lightened, perhaps by modifying the article's light contrast. I'm open to other suggestions to enhance this image. Thank you for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --
Caponer (
talk)
03:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Done The signature was in bad conditions especially in the final part, I tried to restore Cyrillic script, but corrections are welcome.--
Carnby (
talk)
15:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Just looked at the first letter and it should have a circle at little "B" just like it has here . Can you please update it if possible?
Jaqeli (
talk)
17:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Circle of little "B" needs to be bolder and as in the original picture there was no connection between the letters "B" and "a" so their connection update is wrong and needs to be removed. Please just make circle of "b" bold and remove the connection of "b" to "a".
Jaqeli (
talk)
20:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Please remove the text below and crop it a bit and if it is possible change the colours of a picture for the face to have a bit of a light as it is now too dark. And please upload that file seperately. Thanks.
Jaqeli (
talk)
13:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Is it somehow also possible to remove the yellow background entirely and make it transparent SVG while leaving only the the face as it is now?
Jaqeli (
talk)
23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Could you please reduce noise, texture and interference with Fourier analysis? I tried it with a GIMP tutorial but I achieved nothing.--
Carnby (
talk)
14:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):
Done Fourier analysis doesn't work well when the underlying image is composed of dots and lines in my experienced. Cleaned up mostly by making it greyscale. (
Hohum@)
18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Please remove the white text around the face and chest of King Demetre and if possible increase the size of the picture without damaging its quality.
Jaqeli (
talk)
18:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply
An armored car, captured from the ALA (
Arab Liberation Army- Kaukji's army) on 1948. The car still carries the ALA emblem, a dagger stabbing a Star of David. It was captured after the ALA defeat in the Galilee and his flight from Palestine campaign.
Since previously it was suggested the the "a dagger stabbing a "Shield of David"" is "doctored", will you please have your opinion whether the emblem might be "doctored" this time too?
The same armored car, but without the camouflage painting, is seen here:
In the
last discussion, the further I got into it, the less I was convinced the photos had been doctored. While at first glance they certainly looked doctored (that is, the emblem appeared to be added to the photo after it was taken), my opinion now is that they probably were not. The high resolution photo you offer further suggests they were not doctored. All that said, I wouldn't support erasing all trace of this discussion from the image description pages. There should be a link pointing to these discussions we've had on the subject. –
JBarta (
talk)
21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not officially a "graphicist" but I do have quite a lot of experience with photo manipulation so I'm posting here. As I said in an earlier discussion, I was not convinced by the arguments that the photo is doctored. Now I am even less convinced. A lot can be learned from
this hires image of exactly the same model from a similar angle. On the vehicle with the emblem, especially the lo-res version, it appeared that a corner of the vehicle passed through the left edge of the emblem, giving difficulties of shade and shape as well as raising the question of why someone would paint the emblem around a corner. However, the image I am bringing shows that the panel is completely flat, and the "corner" is just an optical illusion created by the camouflage pattern. I think the photo is genuine.
Zerotalk14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the description of the emblem. You can say that the dagger is stabbing the Magen David all you like, but it simply isn't. Take a fresh look; that dagger is sitting flat on top of the Magen David with a small sheath to hold it there. That dagger is not stabbing or even menacing the star. It doesn't make any sense as an Arab emblem. I think it is a Jewish emblem.
Zerotalk14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
to Zero: yours:""That dagger is not stabbing or even menacing the star'". Why will not you magnify the image and see for yourself?
Ykantor (
talk)
16:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
That's funny. Well, if I have to get stabbed by someone I'll choose you to maximise my chance of survival.
Here is what it really looks like (warning: graphic and disturbing).
Zerotalk07:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Merriam-webster doesn't agree nor disagree with what Zero0000 says. Anybody can see that the dagger doesn't stab the Magen David. But it is not the issue.
Pluto2012 (
talk)
13:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Could you get an additional image from that archive, along with a brief description of its origin? Perhaps one which - like the written sources cited so far - is dripping blood? –
SJ +06:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
to SJ: The archive is not fully digitized, so the process is slow, and depends on their initiative and in me, reminding them frequently. We need lot of patience, and a bit of luck.
Ykantor (
talk)
21:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
As Zero notes here, the caption is dubious, and must be rewritten. I have suggested attribution to Benny Morris for the claims that it is an official ALA emblem, and that the dagger stabs at the magen (which it does not appear to, but lies over it). I don't see any problem with the photo, but with its description and the file should clarify, unless a photo with blood-dripping comes up, that we are dealing with an interpretation.
Nishidani (
talk)
14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Nish, does Morris refer to this photo? If not, it is OR to present the photo to illustrate Morris' words, especially as it doesn't match Morris' words. It is plausible that there was an ALA emblem like Morris describes but it isn't what appears in the photo.
Zerotalk15:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
There ya go, chief. Didn't have Morris at my elbow and took refs to him from Ykantor at his word. Without wishing to come over as a brownnoser, I agree with you throughout on this, except for the notion that it might be Jewish, which would be perplexing in context (if a Jewish symbol were on an Arab vehicle, the implication would be that it was placed there by (victorious) Jews). I find nothing problematical with the idea an emblem like this might have been used officially, but find the documentation poor, the caption odd, and its use instrumental. These issues must be clarified before rushing to use them on wiki pages.
Nishidani (
talk)
16:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Aren't these supposed to be captured Arab vehicles? Of course they would have been immediately put to use (assuming they still worked) and could be painted with Jewish emblems then.
Zerotalk02:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
It is supposed to be an ALA vehicle that participated to the Yehiam convoy "battle". What is written in Arab below the drawing ?
Note that if the foolowing document is true, it cannot be a Jewish Symbol :
[1] and if it is a Jewish symbol, than the document is a piece of forgery as barely found...
You make good points. Of course I don't really know it is a Jewish symbol. All I really know is that something doesn't stack up here. If someone wanted to draw a dagger stabbing a magen david, it would have been so easy to draw it actually embedded in the star as when someone is fatally stabbed, with the dripping blood Morris writes of, instead of held harmlessly against it. As it stands, it is quite innocuous compared to how it could have been. I don't believe that Israel attempted to forge an Arab emblem either, for exactly the same reason (in that case Israel would have made it look gruesome, but it doesn't). Perhaps it is an Arab emblem whose symbolism we don't understand, for example a reference to some other symbol people knew at the time. I don't know.
Zerotalk12:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Which means in sum that, if we set aside the secondary sources, all we have visually is a Magen David with a dagger. Sources interpret this as 'stabbing', for which we have, as yet, no visual evidence, since equally one could say the dagger lies atop the magen, as a sword often lies atop a funeral bier of an officer of rank. In the absence of visual evidence, one would have to write, therefore, 'a Magen David with a dagger' (until we, or historians, can sort this out, meaning asking Benny Morris, Henry Laurens, Gilbert Achcar or Philip Mattar).
Nishidani (
talk)
12:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Pluto's
link takes us to a photo appearing in the Egyptian newspaper al-Mussawar, Cairo. April 3, 1948. There is a connect therefore with the report Ykantor mentions that in Cairo at the time 'hotel fronts and billboards were plastered with posters of a dagger dripping blood, on its handle the Star of David emblematic of Zionism.'( Kenneth W. Bilby, New Star in the Near East, Doubleday, 1950 p.7) where the dagger is identified as Zionist.
Nishidani (
talk)
12:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The inital picture was published by Ynhockey from a 1951's book written Alexander Doran (Lutzki)
[2].
Lutzki was not an historian. He worked for the Arab Department of the Jewish Agency, then for the Israeli Foreign Ministry. He became ambassador. In his book in 1951, he also published a document in French written by the Mufti that was only found back 40 years later in the UN Nations's archives by Wiesenthal Centre. In this document the Mufti stated that he was aware of the Holocaust and was suggesting this to be implemented in Palestine...
[3].
Not related to our problem here directly, Pluto. But if there is a document saying the Mufti suggested the holocaust be implemented in Palestine, that should be immediately cited on the al-Husayni page. The book you cite p.110, does not say that. The Davidic symbol was widespread in medieval Arabic literature as the Jewish Virtual Library
article on the Magen shows.
Nishidani (
talk)
11:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)reply
The word "stabbing"
The word "stabbing" is my personal translation of the image title, taken from this Dotan book. I have just tried
Google translation, which results in: stuck, thrusted, inserted.
Ykantor (
talk)
In all honesty I have no idea. I'm not very good at that sort of thing. I was just trying to upload using DerivativeFX and it spat the dummy out. Give me a few minutes and I'll retry...
nagualdesign (
talk)
09:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Photographers often avoid placing their subject in the centre of the frame, so as to add interest to the composition. Encyclopedic images are normally dead centre. But even now I've left more
lead room on the right than on the left. Hair doesn't carry the same 'weight' (in the
compositional sense) as the profile of a face.
nagualdesign (
talk)
05:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Done multiple changes, including rotation. FYI, there's no such thing as lossless image rotation, only good and bad algorithms (and of course sloppy and careful execution). Generally speaking, rotation causes loss of acutance/blurring, which can be remedied via careful sharpening. Hope that helps. Regards,
nagualdesign (
talk)
07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Cropped and uploaded, ready for cleaning. I didn't straighten this image as it would have likely cut through the gentleman on the far right (Hana Kaai). It can be done though, I'm sure, but I'll let someone else have a go.
nagualdesign (
talk)
08:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
From this image? I think the individuals are a little too small for any crops to be useful. Sorry. Perhaps you could use the whole image, and copy the text that was cropped (from the original) into the file page description, so everyone can see who's who, then on the thumbnail you could use the caption, "Back row, 3rd from left", or whatever.
nagualdesign (
talk)
04:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I made an attempt to adjust Maximilian I. In all honesty I'm not really happy with it. Although the image is larger, it has less tonal detail than the smaller image, particularly in the shadows. Attempting to match the two left the blacks looking milky. Perhaps someone else will have more success. Failing that, I'd suggest ignoring the smaller image and giving free rein to improve the image in whatever way possible.
nagualdesign (
talk)
17:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: Download the original upload (6.73MB) before editing!
Unless you have some reliable evidence that these two images do NOT accurately reflect what these two paintings look like I think the best choice is to do nothing to them at all as any changes may result in a material misrepresentation of the original artworks.
Centpacrr (
talk)
23:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I would revert the current images of both portraits to the original uploads, but I am not the OP so it is not my call. What this section asks for is "Graphist opinion(s)" and so that what this is. Sorry if it was not made clear enough to anyone that what I meant by doing "nothing at all" was to use the original files.
Centpacrr (
talk)
19:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s): The noise you are talking about is really just the grain of the film and only really visible at full resolution. I've softened the background just a bit but left the face and hands alone to retain detail. I don't think it really needs anything else as the grain is not even really noticeable at normal web viewing size in the article. This to me is a case where "less is more".
Centpacrr (
talk)
03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the phenomenally gifted graphists, would it be possible to rotate this image slightly to the left and crop it so that it focuses more closely on the memorial's inscription? I'd also like to see if it's possible to sharpen the text so that it is more legible. Thank you! --
Caponer (
talk)
18:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the graphists, I apologize for not including this image with the one above. Would it also be possible to slightly rotate this image to the left and sharpen it so that the memorial is more clearly visible? The background light obscures the memorial's detailing. I'll leave any other edits to the discretion of the very talented graphists. --
Caponer (
talk)
19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I cannot remove the reflection at the edges. Is it possible to smooth these parts out without cropping. Feel free to use the source material if it helps. On the second one also please remove these two golden stickers, I am not quite sure what they are, but the painting underneath shimmers slightly through. --
Gryffindor (
talk)
20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Could you also please smoothe the edges a little bit without cutting any of the picture itself, I wasn't able to crop properly with the circle and the edges still look rather rough.
Gryffindor (
talk)
10:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)reply
The picture of this ship arriving in Valetta, Malta, (at the beginning of the article), is marked in the summary as '1949', but in the Comment box '1939'.
Which is the correct year? The ship's article picture caption states her arriving, but it doesn't say when.
Clicking on the image only gives a talk page which says: "There are many things this page is NOT for"... one of them is:
"Requesting corrections to the image (try the talk page of an article that the image is used in, or contact the graphics lab.)"
This page is not for historical investigation, sorry. Look at the other sections to see what sort of things are done here.
Zerotalk13:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):I fixed the image for you but I am unable to upload because the host page for the image is locked. I have therefore uploaded it to my own server
here from which you can access it and upload it whenever the WP image host page is unlocked. Sorry.
Centpacrr (
talk)
03:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm all for polishing turds if I think I can get a slight sheen, but there's another phrase that springs to mind here; If you start with sh*t, you end up with crap. This image is unworthy of article space, IMO.
nagualdesign (
talk)
01:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)reply
There is not much to work with with this image but I have tweaked it a bit and think it at least slightly better. Keep it if you like, Kintetsubuffalo, or revert if not.
Centpacrr (
talk)
02:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the multi-talented Wikipedia Graphists, could you please sharpen this black and white image, and if possible, could you "equalize" the image's color--it was taken with my iPhone, and there are multiple reflections of light within the photo. I'm not sure if this can be remedied, but if so, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for all your amazing work! --
Caponer (
talk)
20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I think this pic needs some light adjustment (first of all white balance), since it was taken against the light. The light in the background seems to be too bright. I tried with some GIMP filters, with poor results.--
Carnby (
talk)
13:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Could you please try to remove fisheye effect, without deleting too much (e.g. the R. P. and the eagle in the upper right corner)?--
Carnby (
talk)
21:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I had a go at it and worked from the original to reapply the lens correction, as Centpacrr's version was good but a little blurry. I also kept the same image width. Feel free to revert if you prefer Centpacrr's version. Cheers, Fallschirmjäger✉22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)reply
I understand, probaly your version is slightly better but you have partially cut off the R. P. and the eagle in the upper right corner...--
Carnby (
talk)
07:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi, I uploaded
this image a while ago, but when I attempted to crop it, as you can see in the image above, it became completely darkened. Could someone attempt to do the same crop, but without the darkening? Thanks.-- Delaywaves •
talk03:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)reply
If there's anyway we can reduce the blur that would be great. Also, I think the picture needs a little straightening to meet a better vertical position. The outer black circle frame needs to be more solid. Any other general improvements to the pic would be great. Thanks in advance.
Etienne Dolet (
talk)
06:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Very very valuable photograph that I have just uploaded. The quality is not too good. I am hoping to make it like this...
[4]. If it's too big of a task, no worries. Any general improvements to this valuable photograph will do.
Etienne Dolet (
talk)
07:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):I have desaturated the colors a bit. The smaller image, however, appears to be of a painting while this image looks like a reproduction of a hand colored engraving of that painting to me so it will not have nearly the range of colors of the original art work.
Centpacrr (
talk)
01:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)reply
To the talented and creative graphists, I am requesting that the above image be lightened, perhaps by modifying the article's light contrast. I'm open to other suggestions to enhance this image. Thank you for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --
Caponer (
talk)
03:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Done The signature was in bad conditions especially in the final part, I tried to restore Cyrillic script, but corrections are welcome.--
Carnby (
talk)
15:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Just looked at the first letter and it should have a circle at little "B" just like it has here . Can you please update it if possible?
Jaqeli (
talk)
17:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Circle of little "B" needs to be bolder and as in the original picture there was no connection between the letters "B" and "a" so their connection update is wrong and needs to be removed. Please just make circle of "b" bold and remove the connection of "b" to "a".
Jaqeli (
talk)
20:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Please remove the text below and crop it a bit and if it is possible change the colours of a picture for the face to have a bit of a light as it is now too dark. And please upload that file seperately. Thanks.
Jaqeli (
talk)
13:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Is it somehow also possible to remove the yellow background entirely and make it transparent SVG while leaving only the the face as it is now?
Jaqeli (
talk)
23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Could you please reduce noise, texture and interference with Fourier analysis? I tried it with a GIMP tutorial but I achieved nothing.--
Carnby (
talk)
14:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Graphist opinion(s):
Done Fourier analysis doesn't work well when the underlying image is composed of dots and lines in my experienced. Cleaned up mostly by making it greyscale. (
Hohum@)
18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Please remove the white text around the face and chest of King Demetre and if possible increase the size of the picture without damaging its quality.
Jaqeli (
talk)
18:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)reply