File talk:David Barkley.jpg

Untitled
This photo looks extremely doctored -- not by the uploader, but by the Army source. Note the strange skin and eye colors, the different levels of focus, the jagged lines, the unusual lighting, etc. Is it perhaps Army practice to use stock photos when no photo is available, or to colorize or cut and paste existing photos to match the modern format? --M @ r ē ino 16:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess someone in the army cut it out of a group photo, blew it up, and colored it... But that's just a guess. --Falcorian (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That was my reaction; the photo almost looks like it came off an early computer graphic tablet. Is it a reliable likeness? -- DavidA 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel sorry for poor Mr Barkley if he really looked like that!!!--Cavie78 17:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I came here to check if this photo is not some prank... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a very high quality image. And the article says he's Hispanic..? --Leathlaobhair 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a photofit, efit, whatever you call it. T r o u b l e s h o o t e r 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The photo is doctored and old and possibly even irrelevant. So can we either get a replacement or remove it. I don't think it adds anything. --84.13.241.254 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, did Andy Warhol paint this? this picture is absolutely terrible. I think the article would be better with no picture. -Taco325i 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hahah, I thought this was from a video game.

here is a better quality, b&w photo if anybody cares enough to do the work: http://www.bragg.army.mil/82EO/Files/Culture%20&%20Observances/Hispanic%20American/Hisp%20MOH.pdf  -Murcielago 02:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. (Obviously, that's the original, pre-doctored photograph.)  &mdash;David Levy 03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

New, Undoctored picture
Taken from http://www.bragg.army.mil/82EO/Files/Culture%20&%20Observances/Hispanic%20American/Hisp%20MOH.pdf Image:Davidbarkeley.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GregML (talk • contribs) 05:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC).


 * As noted above, I replaced the original upload of Image:David Barkley.jpg with a grayscale version from that source.
 * Incidentally, your file is too large (almost 6&#189; times larger than mine). In the future, try using a higher level of compression.  &mdash;David Levy 05:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This still looks really weird, but I guess it's the best we can do. --Liface 05:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Still looks doctored. If nothing else, the background's probably been changed. His right ear (the one on the left) is too bright. Some guy 06:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it does appear that the background may have been replaced (given the fact that it contained color information). &mdash;David Levy 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, GregML! I don't think that this one is too large; we can always use the "thumb" tag to shrink it when using it in articles.  It's a shame that this image is also doctored, as SG and DL indicate, but at least it doesn't look quite as strange. --M @ r ē ino 13:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the size of the file, not the physical dimensions. GregML didn't compress the image enough.  The version that I'd already uploaded is from the same source.  &mdash;David Levy 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. If you can compress it more without harming image quality, go for it. --M @ r ē ino 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Before GregML uploaded Image:Davidbarkeley.jpg, I replaced the badly doctored image with a monochromatic version derived from the same source that GregML used. Does it not look acceptable to you?  &mdash;David Levy 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is making a lot more sense now! I never looked atImage:Davidbarkeley.jpg.  I was just looking at the image on which this discussion is based, Image:David Barkley.jpg, and wondering why you thought 20K was too large.  Yeah, Image:Davidbarkeley.jpg is no longer needed and should be marked for deletion. --M @ r ē ino 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)