This page, part of the Graphics Lab Wikiproject, is an
archive of requests for 2017.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. You can submit new requests here.
PawełMM, in my opinion that should have been done in a separate file. You've done good work, but the retouch does alter areas outside the repair. I played with this myself a bit, and whilst I could get an ok result I felt that such changes to a historic image, adding so much digital information that was not in the original, were not necessarily a 'good' thing, unless done in a derivative clearly marked as a restoration. I ended up thinking, if the damage on the left offends, just a further crop could possibly be the best 'solution'. Anyway, that's just an opinion, and, as I say, you did good work, and it was just background restoration - not the kind of "photoshopping" sometimes associated with this subject:
[1]. --Begoon10:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I would be very appreciative if one of the talented graphists could make any adjustments to this image to improve its overall quality. The original image can be found here: Ingram Brothers (1903).
Sketch: A Journal of Art and Actuality. Vol. 32. London: Ingram Brothers. p. 177.
OCLC1765600. {{
cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (
help); Invalid |ref=harv (
help) Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you in advance! P.S. This article will be moved from my sandbox into the mainspace when it is complete in the next few days. --
West Virginian (talk)01:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)reply
There is a much higher resolution version at
britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk, so I've uploaded that. I also put the full, uncropped page in the file history for context/attribution:
[2]. I adjusted the levels slightly in the crop, and did a minimum amount of cleanup. The woman's dress is nowhere near as white in this version, and there's some retouching around the baby, probably done by 'The Sketch' for publication. In the google books version the whole dress area has been 'blown out' to bright white. Let us know what you think. --Begoon06:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)reply
PawełMM, thank you tremendously for improving the version of this image that I found on Google Books! I appreciate you taking the time to smooth out the image's rough features from the digital scanning! And
Begoon, thank you so much for finding this higher quality version, for capturing it, and for vastly improving upon it! This image adds so much value to the Olga FitzGeorge article and it has inspired me to complete this article as soon as I can! Thanks again to both! --
West Virginian (talk)12:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)reply
In my opinion we could never create an acceptable retouched image involving so much "artistic license" and construction from whole cloth of missing facial features of a person, particularly a living person for use in a BLP, as would be required to "remove" those items. It can't just be "peeled off" to reveal what is below - it has to be guessed or "made up". I know it's hard to find a free image, I tried and failed - the best was a CC 2.0 no commercial on Flickr which is no good, but I really don't think this is a good way to go, sorry. Even if the result looked "ok" there would still be too much about it that would not be genuine, in my opinion. I've done a couple of retouches myself that I was a bit hesitant about at the time, removing microphones etc, but in this case, with the particular missing facial areas, I think we'd be going too far. --Begoon14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Absolutely, and my opinion is just an opinion on whether this is an actionable request that can result in a usable image for the requested purpose. I don't think it is, for the reasons I explained, but that opinion of mine is no reflection on your work at all. The request specifies use in a BLP, and I really don't think we should do that in this way. That's not a criticism of what you've done in any way. --Begoon17:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your work
PawełMM. I was trying to add pictures to all the England Cricket team involved in
The Ashes that starts later this month (if you don't know, its one of the major events in world cricket). This was a desperate attempt to have something suitable for Keaton Jennings' article but for the reasons
Begoon has given, I won't be using it. Thanks anyway and its interesting to see how realistic you touch up has been!
Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk00:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Requesting sharpening/contrast adjustments, text removal, black point and general enhancements for both photos, similar to
this one on
Utica, New York.
This might be a rather boring request, but the descriptions need to be de-skewed. Please upload over original file, in black-and-white. Is there an automated program where I could do that myself? Thank you. --
Gryffindor (
talk)
15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Please create new file, trimmed to disk, and rotated so dark blue (the north kanji) is at the top, as Rat is the first animal in the Chinese Zodiac, named File:Chinese Zodiac carvings on ceiling of Kushida Shrine, Fukuoka … --
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk)
08:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Could you please remove the text in the image? The image is from a YouTube video that was marked with a Creative Commons CC BY license on YouTube and contained hard subtitles. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
12:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's a bit trickier, because of the pattern on the trousers of the left hand girl. I've uploaded an attempt, but it's far from perfect. If it's too noticeable feel free to revert. --Begoon02:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I've been fiddling with the reference image you linked to, and I've not yet been able to perfectly zero out those color legends (I think they're better known as process bars). But the closer I get to it, the more like the original, much smaller upload the colors of the poster itself become. For the record, I sampled the colors from that original upload to recreate the colors on your latest version by desaturating, adjusting the levels to white out everything that wasn't black, then simply painting back in the colors. I used three colors: the light yellow at the top of the background and in the text at the bottom, the purple of the elephant and the yellow-green of the bottom of the background.
I've just uploaded one last version. In the previous one, I forgot to remove the purple from the tusks. This one also introduces a small amount of noise & color variation, to better resemble the photograph it was originally made from. If you can zero out those colors, then the result would probably be the best version. On the left, they should be: #000000, #888888, #ffffff, #ff00ff, #ff0000, #ffff00, #00ff00 and #0000ff, descending. On the bottom, they should be greyscale in 5% increments (about #0d) from black to white. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
This page, part of the Graphics Lab Wikiproject, is an
archive of requests for 2017.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. You can submit new requests here.
PawełMM, in my opinion that should have been done in a separate file. You've done good work, but the retouch does alter areas outside the repair. I played with this myself a bit, and whilst I could get an ok result I felt that such changes to a historic image, adding so much digital information that was not in the original, were not necessarily a 'good' thing, unless done in a derivative clearly marked as a restoration. I ended up thinking, if the damage on the left offends, just a further crop could possibly be the best 'solution'. Anyway, that's just an opinion, and, as I say, you did good work, and it was just background restoration - not the kind of "photoshopping" sometimes associated with this subject:
[1]. --Begoon10:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I would be very appreciative if one of the talented graphists could make any adjustments to this image to improve its overall quality. The original image can be found here: Ingram Brothers (1903).
Sketch: A Journal of Art and Actuality. Vol. 32. London: Ingram Brothers. p. 177.
OCLC1765600. {{
cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (
help); Invalid |ref=harv (
help) Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you in advance! P.S. This article will be moved from my sandbox into the mainspace when it is complete in the next few days. --
West Virginian (talk)01:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)reply
There is a much higher resolution version at
britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk, so I've uploaded that. I also put the full, uncropped page in the file history for context/attribution:
[2]. I adjusted the levels slightly in the crop, and did a minimum amount of cleanup. The woman's dress is nowhere near as white in this version, and there's some retouching around the baby, probably done by 'The Sketch' for publication. In the google books version the whole dress area has been 'blown out' to bright white. Let us know what you think. --Begoon06:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)reply
PawełMM, thank you tremendously for improving the version of this image that I found on Google Books! I appreciate you taking the time to smooth out the image's rough features from the digital scanning! And
Begoon, thank you so much for finding this higher quality version, for capturing it, and for vastly improving upon it! This image adds so much value to the Olga FitzGeorge article and it has inspired me to complete this article as soon as I can! Thanks again to both! --
West Virginian (talk)12:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)reply
In my opinion we could never create an acceptable retouched image involving so much "artistic license" and construction from whole cloth of missing facial features of a person, particularly a living person for use in a BLP, as would be required to "remove" those items. It can't just be "peeled off" to reveal what is below - it has to be guessed or "made up". I know it's hard to find a free image, I tried and failed - the best was a CC 2.0 no commercial on Flickr which is no good, but I really don't think this is a good way to go, sorry. Even if the result looked "ok" there would still be too much about it that would not be genuine, in my opinion. I've done a couple of retouches myself that I was a bit hesitant about at the time, removing microphones etc, but in this case, with the particular missing facial areas, I think we'd be going too far. --Begoon14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Absolutely, and my opinion is just an opinion on whether this is an actionable request that can result in a usable image for the requested purpose. I don't think it is, for the reasons I explained, but that opinion of mine is no reflection on your work at all. The request specifies use in a BLP, and I really don't think we should do that in this way. That's not a criticism of what you've done in any way. --Begoon17:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your work
PawełMM. I was trying to add pictures to all the England Cricket team involved in
The Ashes that starts later this month (if you don't know, its one of the major events in world cricket). This was a desperate attempt to have something suitable for Keaton Jennings' article but for the reasons
Begoon has given, I won't be using it. Thanks anyway and its interesting to see how realistic you touch up has been!
Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk00:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Requesting sharpening/contrast adjustments, text removal, black point and general enhancements for both photos, similar to
this one on
Utica, New York.
This might be a rather boring request, but the descriptions need to be de-skewed. Please upload over original file, in black-and-white. Is there an automated program where I could do that myself? Thank you. --
Gryffindor (
talk)
15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Please create new file, trimmed to disk, and rotated so dark blue (the north kanji) is at the top, as Rat is the first animal in the Chinese Zodiac, named File:Chinese Zodiac carvings on ceiling of Kushida Shrine, Fukuoka … --
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk)
08:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Could you please remove the text in the image? The image is from a YouTube video that was marked with a Creative Commons CC BY license on YouTube and contained hard subtitles. --
Emir of Wikipedia (
talk)
12:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's a bit trickier, because of the pattern on the trousers of the left hand girl. I've uploaded an attempt, but it's far from perfect. If it's too noticeable feel free to revert. --Begoon02:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I've been fiddling with the reference image you linked to, and I've not yet been able to perfectly zero out those color legends (I think they're better known as process bars). But the closer I get to it, the more like the original, much smaller upload the colors of the poster itself become. For the record, I sampled the colors from that original upload to recreate the colors on your latest version by desaturating, adjusting the levels to white out everything that wasn't black, then simply painting back in the colors. I used three colors: the light yellow at the top of the background and in the text at the bottom, the purple of the elephant and the yellow-green of the bottom of the background.
I've just uploaded one last version. In the previous one, I forgot to remove the purple from the tusks. This one also introduces a small amount of noise & color variation, to better resemble the photograph it was originally made from. If you can zero out those colors, then the result would probably be the best version. On the left, they should be: #000000, #888888, #ffffff, #ff00ff, #ff0000, #ffff00, #00ff00 and #0000ff, descending. On the bottom, they should be greyscale in 5% increments (about #0d) from black to white. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply