Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Archive/Jun 2019

Rotation needed?

 * Article(s):
 * Glencairn (Chance, Virginia) and National Register of Historic Places listings in Essex County, Virginia


 * Request:
 * In my opinion, this photo could stand to be rotated a little to the right, but I don't have software that rotates anything except in 90° increments. Could you either rotate this picture properly or tell me that you don't think it needs rotation?  Thank you.  Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

✅ (Hohum @ ) 15:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * Yes, it looks better with that rotation; thanks! Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

resolved

Request

 * Article(s):
 * Arthur Rostron


 * Request:Hello!, my question is: how do I remove the little points when you look closer, zoomed. Or it's just impossible because it's of 1912? Very very very kind regards. -- LLcentury (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * If you mean the film grain, I think it's best left as it is, in this case. (Hohum @ ) 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, your current attempt to repair the image has damaged the area of the mans shoulder. (Hohum @ ) 17:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done a new cleanup from the original file. (Hohum @ ) 17:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

you use the pencil tool at a very low opacity setting and the smudge tool, also on a low opacity. You zoom in until you can see the square pixels themselves. Colour them in slowly. Zoom back out to check if your alteration is noticeable. Smudge any noticeable edges or revert and try again. Repeat. If you open the original file in Windows photo viewer and a saved version of the altered version, Windows will update the altered version when you save it, so you can flick back and forth to compare the alterations without zooming out or opening and closing the file all the time, handy. Marks such as the scratch on the mans ear can be easily fixed. However, removing the scratches and grains from the womans face and still leave it looking like a photograph could be difficult, so start by simply removing large obvious scratches and dirt marks. Try desaturating the picture if you notice any colour differences in the gray scale. Larger stuff is probably easier with the cloning tools ~ R.T.G 13:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the clone and heal tools in GIMP or Photoshop correctly is far more effective. There are plenty of tutorials online for this. (Hohum @ ) 14:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd assume the clone tool is cumbersome for pixel sized work. ~ R.T.G 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Less cumbersome and more effective than pixel editing. This isn't the venue for a a full discussion. (Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 18:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the reference was to mostly pixel width scratches and blemishes. ~ R.T.G 00:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever "the reference" was to, Hohum was correct in both the things they said (1) "Using the clone and heal tools in GIMP or Photoshop correctly is far more effective.", "Less cumbersome and more effective than pixel editing." and (2) "This isn't the venue for a full discussion.". Sometimes it can be best just to listen to what you are told, especially by someone more experienced. -- Begoon 02:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , try this... ~ R.T.G 23:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Your contribution to this thread is the opposite of helpful. You are playing edit wars with my comments. You don't have the "experience" of when to give certain advice. ~ R.T.G 18:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * RTG - Have you forgotten that on a wiki anyone can see the page history? Anyone examining it will see that all I have done is revert your alterations to comments that had been replied to, which is perfectly in line with TPG. Now, I know you're embarrassed about being wrong, and it's understandable in some ways that you'd desperately try to make yourself look less wrong by changing your comments after the event - but really, don't assume that readers are stupid. Now, frankly, I've seen your nonsense around the place before, so this is as far as my engagement with you will go. If I was wise I'd have remembered that thing about wrestling and pigs, but it must have slipped my mind. Don't ping me and don't engage me - I have better things to do than indulge your peculiar penchant for nonsense. That is all. -- Begoon 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't even read your comment. There is absolutely no need for what you are doing. A question was asked. I answered it. Your friend disagreed. Well I was right after all. There is no need for a big deal. It is obvious you have only contributed to this to be confrontational. When they talk about dropping a stick, this is the stick you should drop. You are only holding it because it is a stick. I don't want your stick, boy. You haven't even faulted my advice. Step back. No. Step all the way fricking back behind the line and stay there and don't bother anybody until this thread is archived. ~ R.T.G 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Request: Carl Zuckmayer

 * Article(s):
 * Carl Zuckmayer


 * Request:
 * Please remove stain halfway right (if possible). Vysotsky (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

✅ PawełMM (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * Thanks! Vysotsky (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC) resolved

Marj Heyduck
PawełMM (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Article(s):
 * Marj Heyduck


 * Request:
 * I don't know if this falls within what can be done with fair use photos, but this particular one is so awful that I'm hoping someone can do something to improve it. She was a newspaper columnist and this was probably what headed her column that day; the photo is likely a photocopy of a newspaper page. -- valereee (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussion:
 * I think this may be a case of GIGO. Attempts to improve lo-res images scanned from photocopies of newspapers usually result in something that ends up looking worse; at the very least, they end up looking cartoonish. It looks like someone already worked on it, and stopped just short of that point. I’ll look around and see if I can find the original pre-retouched version anywhere. - Timothy Williamson woof 21:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite everything, I tried to improve. You can always restore. PawełMM (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PawełMM. It’s a sign of a good retouch when you can’t immediately spot the difference. I found the “original” online, and it’s got a bad moiré on it. Definitely a scan of a halftone. I changed the link to the image, because it’s fair use, so it can only be used on the article. I made the same mistake yesterday and it got dinged by a bot. - Timothy Williamson woof 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ PawełMM (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , wow, I think that looks SO much better! Thanks so much, both! --valereee (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Swiss medal
PawełMM (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Article(s):
 * Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir)


 * Request:
 * Please reupload this coin as a new file without the obverse (left), thereby only keeping the reverse (right). Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

✅ PawełMM (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion: