Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Archive/Jun 2012

=Stale=

Ah-Weh-Eyu
Article(s): none so far Request: Remove watermarks on top and blue tinge around (I'll take care of further restoration). Brand meister talk  19:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):

✅: Done as requested. PawełMM (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC) =Resolved=

Crowninshield's Wharf
Article(s): George Ropes Request: Can someone stitch these fragments into one, retaining its high resolution? One with the frame and another without the frame. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): --GianniG46 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC) ✅ - The derivative work loader doesn't work, so the file info has to be adjusted for both files. --GianniG46 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Download full size image
Article(s): Java War (1741–1743) Request: Please download the full sized image from the National Archives of the Netherlands. Posting here because I think this board's regulars are more knowledgeable in the area. Map is PD because it was published in 1741. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take note of article 4 on this page: http://www.gahetna.nl/en/terms-and-conditions, the conditions pertaining to the website that shows the requested image. Seems to me well covered for a hands-off approach. --VanBurenen (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The underlying image is PD; as a faithful scan of a two-dimensional PD work, under US law the work is also PD. (See Template:PD-Art for an example). The US does not recognise the doctrine of Sweat of the brow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s):

✅ - Grabbed file. I will leave it up to you to flesh out description, figure out who the author is and add a category or two. – JBarta (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Caxias (translucid background)
Article(s): Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias Request: Hi, everyone. I need a .png copy of all three files with translucid background such as in this picture. Thank you very much, Lecen (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):

Did my own thing to the steamship image. Left as jpg and squared off corners, didn't rotate (didn't think it was needed), adjusted colors. Hopefully it suits you. – JBarta (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks great, JBarta. Thank you very much. Now I'll only have to wait for someone else to work on the other pictures. Again, thank you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Also, I have rotated images 1 and 3. The files are:
 * File:Ana Luisa de Loreto wife of Caxias with siblings.png
 * File:Caxias in Paraguay.png
 * File:Angela fuerriol gonzalez 1832.png
 * --GianniG46 (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Duke of Caxias (crooked pictures)
Article(s): Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias Request: All the pictures above have the same problem: they are crooked. Please straighten them all. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅ - I have straightened the first three images, by rotating them very, very slightly. The last doesn't look crooked: in particular, the belltowers appear perfectly vertical. I have been careful to avoid overcropping the result. Not all the original frames are rectangular: for example, the top line in the third image is not perfectly horizontal; I suggest further cropping, there. --GianniG46 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Observation Deck at the Owen Roberts International Airport
Article(s): Owen Roberts International Airport Request: Remove watermark and decorative border 92.14.181.53 (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅ --GianniG46 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ZHP
Article(s): ZHP Request: fix perspective-artistic but not Wikilike... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):

First... what is "artistic but not Wikilike"? Second, altering perspective doesn't work very well with 3D objects... only 2D... like paintings, etc. Personally I think it's a fine image just the way it is. – JBarta (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JBarta, can you please stop leaving these drive-by comments on my requests? This is the second time you've done this to me, and it makes the section look like it is being addressed when it is not. Consequently the request gets ignored. The color commentary is gratuitous and unnecessary. Either fix it or leave off commenting, please.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll limit myself here to simply telling you this... be assured that my comments will not stop other editors from looking at the image and doing something with it if they wish. Good luck. – JBarta (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite your objections this little dialogue actually made me want to take a squiz, and having looked I concur with JB; the only way I can see to 'fix' the perspective would be to create a 3D model of the object, use the photo to wrap the texture to the model, then manipulate the 3D model to view it squarely (assuming that is what you meant by 'fix'). That ain't gonna happen. This information I give freely in order to help you, as was the case with JB's 'drive-by' comment. Stop being so combative or you may find your requests really do get ignored. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Calm down boys, you just need more firepower. Now, do you have a similar pin that is pictured from straight on, I could further adjust the perspective if I know what shape they are, as I've never seen one before so I don't know. Penyulap  ☏  11:53, 4 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha! Nice try, Penyulap, but liquifying the image isn't exactly encyclopedic either. It doesn't look too bad though, apart from the top part, which is neither symmetrical (left/right) or a reflection of the bottom part. Seems reasonable to assume that all 4 parts would share rotational symmetry when viewed squarely and that the centre should be circular. But even if you get those details down the finished image will be more art than science, based on speculation and assumption. Do you think that perhaps there is nothing wrong with the angled shot, which is factually accurate and nicely displays the 3 dimensional form? Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If someone want's a head-on 2D image image of that particular iron cross, why not simply draw it? Why insist on such a convoluted path to get from point A to point B? – JBarta (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm here to help ordinary editors making perfectly reasonable requests, according to whatsoever they ask me. Telling requesters that something can't be done because you are incapable of doing it, well I can't see the point really, that's not the primary purpose of the graphics lab, actually is that what the graphics lab is about at all ? Maybe we need to remove the word 'opinion' and replace it with something more helpful, as it seems to give some people the wrong idea about what the graphics lab is all about, maybe it is giving the impression that the graphics lab is some kind of wannabe art critics corner do you think ? It is not the place for the wannabe artist to debate with the requester that their request has no merit, it's simply a matter of if you cannot do it, then there is no need to tell everyone in uncertain terms that you cannot do it, just leave it for the next artist to give it a go.


 * Anyhow, giving me a long list of critique is kind of moot/pointless unless you ARE the requester. It stands to reason that the only expert here on what is wanted is the person who is doing the asking in the first place. Penyulap  ☏  00:13, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Kintetsubuffalo, I await further input or commentary, from you Penyulap  ☏  00:15, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to get so irate, Penyulap! :-/ Nobody reprimanded Kintetsubuffalo, just questioned the request and offered some feedback (albeit without any unnecessary pandering). This is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, so any deviation from the facts should be fair game, whether it's written or pictorial. I asked a pretty simple question; Do you think that perhaps there is nothing wrong with the angled shot, which is factually accurate and nicely displays the 3 dimensional form? If you think that was rude of me and that I should keep my opinions to myself then you have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. I wasn't 'critiquing your artwork', I was pointing out the errors you made that misrepresent the object pictured. If the requestor had said it was okay as it was that would not make it so. nagualdesign (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you're talking a lot of big talk... and that's fine... but it would probably be a little more convincing if you backed it up with a little big action. Your effort is a reasonable start... but it is hardly impressive at this point. If manipulating the existing image is the route you wish to go, then then it needs to be improved. And you certainly don't need Kintetsubuffalo or anyone else to tell you that... you should already know it. If you think that altering perspective on a 3D object is indeed a simple task for someone like you, then just do it. It needs to be symmetrical and presentable. Bang out a great job the first time and I promise no one will argue with you and you'll get all the props you're looking for without having to squabble for it. – JBarta (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nagualdesign, I'm not being combative, I'm pointing out what I see as a regular unconstructive pattern. JBarta does some great work, but the "I think the request is no good" type comments don't enhance the project. After the comment, the request just sat until I said something.　That being said, JBarta does good work and I hold no ill will. Request on my part, nothing further needs read into my comments. That being said, File:Krzyz Harcerski HR 1.png (the middle image) is very close to what I want, save for a transparent background. That's what I am going for.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this what you'd like Kintetsubuffalo ? If you can help by altering the description and licence on my works that would help me. Penyulap  ☏  08:18, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * You other 'big talkers' are most welcome to further improve the image and nominate it for featured picture. Please, be my guest. However, if Kintetsubuffalo is happy, then I am happy, and considering this seems to be something to do with kids reading about scouting (correct me if I am wrong) and the image is used 100pixels or so wide on a dozen pages, I'd say the job got done while you lot were trying to convince everyone it couldn't be done. I am very satisfied. Penyulap  ☏  08:18, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * oh, and please ask for the draft to be deleted. Penyulap  ☏  08:20, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, as you can see, altering perspective on a 3D object can be a little rough. Can it be done? Sure... anything can be done. You can build a barn out of toothpicks, but that doesn't mean someone will do it or that it's even a good idea in the first place. Penyulap's half-baked attempt above is one way to go about it... alter, mirror, cut, paste, etc, etc. The result, if done well, can look decent and may be what you had in mind, but it takes a lot of work and the results still probably won't be optimal... especially compared to a perfecly respectable original photograph or other methods. Another possiblity is to draw it from scratch. You might drop that request into the Illustration workshop. Someone might draw you the cross and it might look a hundred times better than a manipulated button. And lastly, if I offer an opinion and you don't like it, that's fine. You're welcome to think I'm a complete idiot. But don't think the solution is to tell me just to shut up, and definitely don't think that actions of other editors hinge on my utterances, they don't... as you can plainly see. Though you must admit, the results of this tortured excursion bore out the correctness of my original comment. And I'm still wondering... what is artistic but not Wikilike?? – JBarta (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Lolz. It means what I did, not what you lot talked about. "artistic" as in artists impression, something that does not require perfection or even accuracy. "not wikilike" as in something that doesn't have to pass the test of a dozen wannabee art critics on commons holding their chins in their hand and saying 'anti-aliasing is a problem' while hoping that it's an image with aliasing in it, cause they don't know what aliasing is. lolz. It's not intended to be over-encyclopedic, Have you looked where it goes ? I think it's 150 pixels wide in a template and 72 pixels wide in the articles. So please be my guest, in fact I will help you write the application for an allotment of time on the government mainframe normally used to model climate change and particle physics so that we can get an 'encyclopaedic looking' 72pixel version through 3D rendering.


 * Personally I think the very top of the image could use a little bit of a stretch myself, and would be happy to, however I'd need to be asked first, because the only person in this equation who knows what is wanted is the requester, not me. So if he/she says it's ok, it's ok, as in finished, if they say oh please do fix the top a bit more, then I shall. If a dozen people on commons say blah blah blah I don't know cause I was doing something else. Oh that reminds me, I have to check my watchlist. bye. Penyulap  ☏  22:51, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you need to be asked? Why not just do a good job all on your own? – JBarta (talk)
 * if someone wants you to sell them a scooter so they can go to the local library and occasionally the shops there is no need to build them the space shuttle. It's a function of prioritising, and telling someone there is nothing wrong with the original image is ownership, compounded by the fact you know nothing about the article(s) in question. Penyulap  ☏  00:14, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more like if someone asks for a scooter and you give them a scooter unpainted, with only one wheel and you know it's a poor scooter but you ask them if they like it anyway and you *could* make it a decent scooter but they have to ask first. Seems to me if you have any pride as a craftsman you'd want to do a good job right up front and not need to be asked to make it decent. Pride comes from a job well done... not a half-assed job and a lot of talk. – JBarta (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny that; I thought Kintetsubuffalo was saying that the original image was artistic but not Wikilike, meaning that the replacement should be more Wikilike and less artistic. Just goes to show that the simple question first asked by JB was a valid one. By the way Penyulap, if you read through this you might notice that the only person here being intentionally rude is you. Even Kintetsubuffalo's combative response was kind of understandable (the straw had broken the camel's back) once he/she explained it. You on the other hand have gone down the path of unnecessarily spouting vitriol whilst purporting to be against such behaviour. I laughed at your 'calm down boys' because I thought it was witty, then I said you'd made a nice try and that your effort didn't look too bad apart from the top part. There was no 'long list of critique' as you saw it. Throwing out comments like 'wannabe' or that I/we don't know what anti-aliasing means is just childish. I certainly do know what I'm talking about and have been gainfully employed as such for many years. That said, there should be no reason for me to prove my credentials as the mistakes that you have made are pretty self-evident. Take a look at the dodgy top bit and tell me "it's okay, because this is only for kids reading about scouting" or "it's okay because Kintetsubuffalo says it's okay" and I'll refer you to the appropriate guidelines. I might even start a new request myself for the same image. You'll do whatsoever I ask then, right? Pfff... nagualdesign (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, do you mean you're employed as a polish scout ? my, I am impressed. no but seriously, what are you saying here, you've been employed for many years so you own the article, own the image, err, we should all listen to you ? this just gets worse by the minute.


 * I was thinking an artist makes art. Whilst a critic criticises. How wrong I was.1 See, this is why I don't normally criticise my own work, as a rule, because it's giving bullets to your critics who would be better off without them. But go ahead and make your request, be my guest. Penyulap  ☏  00:14, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * As a graphic designer. So I'm not a 'wannabe' and I don't pretend to understand anti-aliasing (or anything else) whilst knowing nothing. And as a Wikipedian I like to offer my informed opinions. Why must you be so childish and rude? I never said that your images were crap, and you seem to understand that it needs more work. You even agree with me about what exactly needs to be changed in order to bring the image up to standard. (Although you lack the impetus to just get on with it!) So what part of this do you percieve as 'bullets'? If you make a poor quality edit to an article do you insult people when they revert your edits? Get a grip, for Christ's sake. You're behaviour is unwarranted. nagualdesign (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see a few problems here, there is an assumption that I am making any attempt to follow any image suggestions from people other than the requester. There is also the idea that my conversational draft was intended as final product, not necessarily the case (re-reading helps here for both points).


 * The idea that I am agreeing "about what exactly needs to be changed in order to bring the image up to standard" is just labouring under the misunderstandings outlined above. You might be agreeing with what I outlined in the first place, but I'm hardly going to be putting in effort agreeing with you agreeing with me, as my focus is on the needs of the requester. Just because the draft may seem impressive to you, doesn't mean it's anything except me asking 'is this the sort of thing that you want', you guys should have already noticed that your written text based conversation was failing, or at least, you didn't seem to know what 'artistic but not Wikilike' meant. I understood both, but to make sure everyone is on the same page, just drew the thing. Easy, fast, end of story and the image-related conversation continues.


 * You're don't seem to want to help the requester at all, didn't you say "That ain't gonna happen." that was what you said wasn't it ? and agreeing with the abrasive 'drive-by' comment, and then going on to suggest "your requests really do get ignored". So go ahead and insult me, it takes one to know one. :) Penyulap  ☏  03:01, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * I only understood about half of that. (You might be agreeing with what I outlined in the first place, but I'm hardly going to be putting in effort agreeing with you agreeing with me. Err..?!) Also, I'm not sure why you've moved this discussion to my talk page (where I'm likely to delete it), but let's stick to the original issues. We still don't know what 'artistic but not Wikilike' meant, do we? In fact, if the requester wanted the finished image to be 'not Wikilike' there will almost certainly be an issue there. I said that the 3D modelling thing wasn't going to happen. (Though it doesn't require a 'government mainframe'. SketchUp will probably do.) I don't think JBarta's comment was in the least bit abrasive. And I actually said, "Stop being so combative or you may find your requests really do get ignored." Which is a fact (note the word 'may', right?) More importantly, I didn't insult you at any point in any way and I challenge you to point out where I did.


 * Back to the discussion, the points of which you repeatedly failed to address; Your edit wasn't too bad apart from the top part, which ought to be fixed whether Kintetsubuffalo asks you or not. And do you think that perhaps there is nothing wrong with the angled shot, which is factually accurate and nicely displays the 3 dimensional form? You never did answer that.


 * Finally, you are rude! Whether or not you appreciate being pulled up on this issue it is a fact. I read through some of your contributions and discovered that I'm not the first person to tell you this. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not an asshole in person, you just have poor communication skills on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should take the collective feedback onboard and stop insulting people, even if you are only trying to be humorous. It isn't funny and it comes across as childish at best. Case in point; "It takes one to know one. :)"


 * I expect that you'll take none of what I've said in the way that I meant it, even though I have earnestly tried to be clear and unambiguous. It seems that once you've interpreted a comment as threatening to your self-image you can only focus your efforts on inflicting as much pain on others as you have felt, rather than working towards an amicable resolution, and I haven't got the energy or inclination to help you with that. I will say this though; Virtue its own reward. All the best, nagualdesign (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What do they say in American, 'tell someone who cares' ? no wait, it's "have a nice day", yes, you "have a nice day" and I'd like to warn you that your comments contain numerous personal attacks and are disruptive to the functioning of the page. This is not the place to continue your discussion. Penyulap  ☏  05:08, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, very mature response. I'm not sure what you meant by tell someone who cares, or what your warning means. Please feel free to mention 'my' discussion on the ANI. Perhaps someone might be kind enough to tell me where I made numerous personal attacks. nagualdesign (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As it seems to be quickly going nowhere good, it's probably best that both parties drop this particular line of discussion right here. – JBarta (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, I'd like to know how you feel about the second image I have made. Penyulap  ☏  05:35, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Lolz, it was only when I collapsed it, that I could see that the matter was resolved to Kintetsubuffalo's satisfaction. Penyulap  ☏  05:38, 6 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Falkland House
Article(s): Politics of the Falkland Islands Request: Crop out the buildings on either side of Falkland House 92.14.181.53 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):✅ Image cropped and perspective adjusted. Centpacrr (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

New Pictures
Request: Remove watermark and sharpen color a little bit.--Lil&#39;Monster Heart (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅ --GianniG46 (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

king plate
Article(s): king plate Request: reduce glare, remove excess odd space in border... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅: Howzat? nagualdesign (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At the risk of committing the dreadful sin of a "drive-by comment", I think this image could be improved by evening out the lightness of the object. As it is, there are still remnants of reflection on the left and right. – JBarta (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Looks worse than it did last night, if you know what I mean. nagualdesign (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweeked it some more. Comparing my 2 versions it looks like there's a few patches where I've accidentally desaturated it, but viewed on its own it isn't too bad. T'll do. nagualdesign (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen, I have already explained myself-nothing negative in this comment, in fact you're right. Can you do it?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Translucid background
Article(s): Pedro I of Brazil Request: Picture to the left: I'd like to see a new .png version of this picture with translucid background, with everything else but the oval part removed, similar to this picture. Picture to the right: It's a little brooked, it must be straightened (rotated a little bit). Id like to have a newer .png version with translucid background similar to this picture. Lecen (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JBarta! You did a great job as always. That was precisely what I was looking for. --Lecen (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s): I noticed that the png thumbnail above (Independence or death sketch) looks pretty blurred, so I compared the before and after image file pages and that too looks blurred. It's only when you look at the 2 images full-size that you can see there is no blurring, just a pretty shoddy job of resizing the png done by the Wiki software, whereas it does a pretty good job at resizing jpegs. Maybe this should be brought up at the Village Pump? Just thinking out loud really. nagualdesign (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly well known issue with PNG's on Wikimedia... thumbnails are blurred. Personally I prefer jpgs for all but simple drawn images, but there are many editors who are so enamored with transparent backgrounds that the blurriness becomes unimportant to them. In this instance I just made the images as requested and left off the commentary. – JBarta (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Well they are good for infoboxes, which have an off-white background. But I'll certainly bear this issue in mind when I make uploads in future. I don't suppose there's any point going to the VP though. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the tradeoff of a blurry image kills any benefit from a transparent background in an infobox or anywhere else. My opinion. – JBarta (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True. But if an image is intended for use in an infobox it can be scaled appropriately before uploading then used full-size, avoiding the resizing issue. Now that I'm aware of the limitation (and a limitation it most certainly is, I agree with that) I can work with it. nagualdesign (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, sizing the image to fit precisely in the infobox can be a bit of a house of cards... doesn't take much to break. The default image size changes from time to time. Editors change images sizes from time to time. Browsers may also change the effective image size under certain circumstances. Not to mention you also have low-res versions of images littered about. And all this nonsense is completely avoided by using jpgs for what they were intended for. – JBarta (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll just do the best that I can do with the information at hand and hope that other editors do the same. I normally set infobox image widths, as I didn't think they had a default size as thumbnails do. If another editor comes along and changes it without considering the result, and without my knowledge, I probably won't loose any sleep. So long as I've done a good job I'm happy. Browser-based resizing isn't much of an issue. I've got mine set at 125% (hi-res screen) and it works way better than WP's resizing. And if a jpeg with an infobox-coloured background were used there would be similar issues if and when the default colour changed, right? Ultimately a software fix would sort this out. Give it time and keep your fingers crossed. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for high quality color photos, could GIF's (which are limited to 256 colors, but support transparency) be the right format? --GianniG46 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. It would render better than a png (I think), but there are still issues. If a reader were to click on the gif thumbnail, where would they go? To a little gif? To a large, but 256 color gif? This is also the issue with creating separate small thumbnail images. Click on the thumbnail and all you get is the thumbnail instead of a full sized image. We forget that thumbnails (whether in infoboxes or elsewhere) are just that... thumbnails to a full sized image. When we focus too much on trying to make the thumbnail pretty, we may end up defeating half the purpose of this encyclopedia... large and wonderful images. Using gifs I think would be ultimately not useful. And the only argument for PNG's that seems valid is the one Nagualdesign mentions above... put up with the crappy rendering and hope that some day the Wikisoftware can render them better. For me however, the best route today for photos and paintings is still the good old JPG. – JBarta (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Jill Stein speaking
Centpacrr (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Article(s): United States presidential election, 2012 infobox Request: Please remove the black object behind Stein on the left side of the photo. William S. Saturn (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):✅ Centpacrr (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That was fast. Thank you very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle Creek Depot - remove regular noise
Article(s): Michigan Central Railroad Depot (Battle Creek, Michigan) Request: Remove regular noise with FFT, please. I'm pretty satisfied with the colors at this point, but the regular noise is nasty. There are horizontal lines in all three colors, plus hex noise in the blue component. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion: ✅: Done as requested. PawełMM (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Beautiful work. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

William Gowland
Article(s): William Gowland Request: any way to reduce the pixellation?... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):


 * At least some of it is regular noise. I'll make an attempt but some of the others here will likely be able to give you a better result. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Made an attempt. Further improvements are welcome! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅: PawełMM (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think based on the source material, that's pretty good!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tongan seniti
Article(s): Tongan seniti Request: remove funky background since rotation... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):✅ Centpacrr (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fantastic, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Pomare II

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Article(s): Pōmare II Request: Please look at the past five different versions in revision history, linked above, and choose the best one to clean up. Don't crop until after cleaning, crop as a seperate upload. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅ - Cleaned third file - cropped in File:Pomare II, engraving by R. Hicks cropd.jpg. Tell if you want color adjustments. --GianniG46 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you change the color and crop the original? There is no need for a second file. You can place a duplicate template on it and delete it--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done --GianniG46 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you make it completely black and white?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --GianniG46 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Florencio O'Leary
Article(s): Daniel Florencio O'Leary Request: crop background so even all around... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):

✅ – JBarta (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oerip Soemohardjo
Article(s): Oerip Soemohardjo Request: Remove giant crease. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅ - Of course, there is some arbitrariness in the eyebrows. Further, I suggest regular noise to be removed by FFT techniques (I don't have FFT in my software). --GianniG46 (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't think I have it either. Thanks. I'll leave this up in case anyone wants to tackle the FFT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I retouched the eyebrows - hope that now they are more similar to the original. --GianniG46 (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Cleaned and desaturated. PawełMM (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great! Thanks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

John Pascoe Grenfell
Article(s): John Pascoe Grenfell Request: Hi, I' like to have a newer .png file with translucid background, please. Lecen (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):


 * Thank you very much, PawełMM. That's precisely what I wanted. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

✅: Done as requested. PawełMM (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Arsaos
Article(s): Arsaos Request: remove background... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅: Done as requested. PawełMM (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've refreshed my browser, sometimes still showing the old background. Glitch?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my browser I have the same problem, but see this, please. PawełMM (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up a bit and restored the "ears" which had been removed in the previous attempt. Centpacrr (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those "ears" are pins holding the coin, do we really need the pins?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that these were pinheads and thought they were some intended part of the original coins as these "ears" appeared to be the same copper color as the coins. I have therefore removed them from the image. Centpacrr (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Thank you also for bringing them closer together!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Scout Association of the Isle of Man
Article(s): Scout Association of the Isle of Man Request: rotate so the three dots are at the bottom... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):✅ Centpacrr (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but for some reason it has changed the color and made the border pixellated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have redone the rotation using a different technique. I'm unclear as to why the original rotation technique caused a distortion of the border. Centpacrr (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You got it!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove background
Article(s): Doug Sisson Request: Please remove the woman with the flower-covered shirt in the background, or if it would be easier, replace the entire background with a different image. Delaywaves &bull;&#32; talk  03:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):

✅ – JBarta (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kuhio Funeral
Article(s): Abigail Kapiolani Kawānanakoa, John C. Lane Request: Please crop this higher resolution of these two figures and upload over the existing two images... KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s):

✅ – JBarta (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Persecution in Hawaii
Article(s): Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu Request: Crop (with or without text, whichever looks better) and clean up the paper around it (retain yellow color if possible rather than having it black and white). Can the cleaning be done seperately first and the cropping second? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅ sequentially cleaning and cropping on the same files. --GianniG46 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

L'Artemise
Article(s): Laplace Affair Request: Crop away white space first, then lossless crop to the edge of image... KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Graphist opinion(s): ✅: Cropped and also cleaned up a bit. Regards, Fallschirmjäger &#9993; 23:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)