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

King João VI of Portugal

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


 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * ✅ - Regards, Fallschirmjäger &#9993; 18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexander von Hesse

 * Article(s):
 * Alexander von Hesse


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


 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * ✅  nagual  design   04:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Borgo Nuovo, Rome

 * Article(s):
 * Borgo Nuovo (Rome)


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

✅ MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Hallo, thanks, but some watermarks are still there... Alex2006 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hallo, 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)
 * It was a "p" from "sparita" watermark. I fixed it.--Carnby (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Now it is about time that I finish the article! The iconographic part is ready ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Fragments

 * Article(s):
 * Fragments


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

✅ 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)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Nice work. However, Commons says not to use progressive jpegs per c:Help:Progressive. ( Hohum  @ ) 02:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


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

Gascogne

 * Article(s):
 * Gascogne


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


 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * ✅  nagual  design   04:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethiopian birr

 * Article(s):
 * Ethiopian birr


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


 * Graphist opinion(s): ✅ Centpacrr (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Gaston, Count of Eu

 * Article(s):
 * Gaston, Count of Eu


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

✅--Carnby (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Thank you. Looks much better. Vinícius Oliveira (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Josiah K. Lilly, Sr. signature

 * 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)

✅ Is it OK?--Carnby (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Yes, looks like a clean copy, thank you! Seattle (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Concept drawing for UASF Long Range Strike Bomber

 * 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)


 * Graphist opinion(s): ✅ Centpacrr (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Cropped image of Christopher Coyne

 * 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 AgrippaTalk 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Graphist opinion(s): ✅ Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Clever work in the bottom-right corner. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 08:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

✅ 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)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Illlustrated London News etching

 * 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)
 * Excellent,, many thanks indeed! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

✅  nagual  design   09:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):

Alfred Emmott

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


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


 * Graphist opinion(s): ✅ Centpacrr (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (Re)✅. 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * Sorry, a grainy face with poor flesh tones is not an improvement. ( Hohum  @ ) 00:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * God Save the Queen. ;) Centpacrr (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)

Double_H_High_Adventure_Base
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)

✅  nagual  design   21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Clean up of wonky image

 * 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 AgrippaTalk 16:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Graphist opinion(s):

MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  18:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)
 * 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 AgrippaTalk 19:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ That also resolved the issue with the edge of the podium. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thank you very much. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 19:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Senghenydd colliery disaster

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


 * Graphist opinion(s):

✅

Manchuria

 * Article(s):
 * Manchuria


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

✅ by User:Centpacrr.  nagual  design   23:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yaudheya

 * Article(s):
 * Yaudheya


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

✅  nagual  design   23:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Graphist opinion(s):
 * Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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).
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * MjolnirPants version looks perfectly fine to me.  nagual  design   19:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Pink background
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)