A white background for the first image, please. It is a bit off-white. I request the second image be like the first image with both chargers behind the e-cig. The second image with a USB charger has an e-cig in it. It may be better to remove the e-cig that is sticking out of the USB charger. I haven't decided which image works best for the e-cig page. I am using them for a draft for future consideration. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first image is aligned and improved with a bright white background. For the second image you might want to start with using this image because it is white and has a better reflection. QuackGuru (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I guess that image could simply be rotated and cropped, retaining the shadows and relative positions, but it still looks quite unnatural to me at that angle - I wouldn't really use the image rotated like that myself, because the perspective seems wrong, and to attempt to correct it would unacceptably distort, imo. See also the additional comments in the discussion above. --Begoon02:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This retouched image was added to article space. The image next to it is slightly off-white. This image needs a white background.
I deleted both rotated images from Sand3. The distortion does look unnatural.
The reflections on that other image come from the original because that photograph was taken on a reflective background, but are adjusted for the white background, so are "natural", not "added". That scenario doesn't apply to this image, unless you know of a different original. I straightened the 2 items you mentioned, though. --Begoon11:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried creating the gif, but need help. The dimensions of each image are different. Also the centre focus of the object is unfortunately off with each image. Ideally the gif should show the image from the three sides but without it moving off centre when switching. It would probably mean that in the middle image the background would have to be expanded before combining the gif. Please keep the distance of the object to the frame as in the first picture. The final image should have the aspect radio of 4:3. -- Gryffindor (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
(Not a graphist, just a passer-by.) I am not a fan of these kinds of animated pictures in articles. I find them distracting and annoying. I think it would be better to make separate pictures of the different aspects. Mypix (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with the sentiments above - but here's this. Mediawiki was doing something odd to the frames with shadows (check the file history), although they all preview fine in Photoshop and display ok in Firefox locally. At time of posting the image on the Commons file page is broken, but thumbs seem to work ok - I'll leave it alone and hope the servers settle down... --Begoon09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I think I finally worked out what was going on with this. If I use decent shadows, they are ok when the image is viewed full size on Mediawiki, but when it makes thumbnails it corrupts the shadows - probably something to do with ImageMagick on the server and its settings for compressing animated gifs and frame transitions. The frames are set to "dispose", which means each frame should completely replace the last, but somehow Mediawiki "mixes them in" when thumbnailing. For instance, this version works ok at full size, but the shadows corrupt when it gets thumbnailed. So, at the moment, it's working ok with a static, false shadow, which is not ideal. What might work is if you tell me the size you want to use the image in the article, I'll generate a reduced size gif at that size with better shadows and you can use that without thumbnailing - we can only try... Or we can leave it as is, and it seems to work at any size, but is very big for an animated gif, which might not be good for slow connections. --Begoon04:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This request is a duplicate of a request made on the Commons Photography workshop, (actually, that is a duplicate of this request, as it was going stale here).
Done cutting out the oval. I cut the signature out but the quality of the picture of the signature is so poor that I opt'd to delete the signature. Better to wait for a better quality image for the signature image. Offnfopt(talk)09:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kintetsubuffalo: It is perfectly possible to adjust the perspective so that the large cloth is a rectangle and the swastika is square. The resolution is high enough to not be a problem. The trouble is that after such an adjustment some parts of the image don't make sense. For example, the metal object (belt buckle?) #29 should be seen from above but actually the front side of it is still large and the rear side is still invisible, which makes it look weird and distorted. The flatter objects are not so bad. Zerotalk03:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My purpose is actually not the image itself for display in an article, but to extract some of the individual insignia for their articles. Should I have posed it differently?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This is one of those cases where one looks at it, and thinks "Oh my deity, I could never fix that...". There are so many details obscured by the distortion with no easy way to recreate them that one tends to give up. How would you do the white king, or the window views opposite, without just making it up? I'm really just trying to give a response so you don't feel ignored. Perhaps perfect is the enemy of good and so we don't fix the small things we could without addressing the bigger flaws, because we think the resultant image would still be badly marred by those remaining flaws - that's my excuse anyway. --Begoon16:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one is more for advice than anything… I just uploaded this, I don't know anything about photographic rules for portraits, like you have the aspect ratios and all... Should he be full-torso or cut off below the medal? Thoughts?-- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - there are some "wider" alternatives in the file history. The pearls are a bit unfortunate... I actually think I prefer the image that is currently on that article, but ymmv. --Begoon19:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I darkened the background. I still think the face is over-saturated. Why do you want a png? It might be useful as a master if you want to do further edits, but for photographic content to be thumbnailed in articles jpg is the best format for wikipedia. Png is useful if you want transparency, and it's lossless, so good for keeping master files that won't deteriorate through editing and re-saving, but Mediawiki (specifically ImageMagick, I think, on the servers) often blurs png thumbnails noticeably so that they are poorer than thumbs created from jpg files. For a handy example see the images in this thread and the ones directly above and below it, which are identical at full size but the png thumbs are noticeably "blurry". It constantly confuses me that people ask for photographs for wikipedia article use to be converted to png for no apparent reason - perhaps they like the blur? --Begoon03:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a png version anyway - it's from the identical master, and if you look at the 2 file pages on Commons [1], [2], the full size images indeed are identical. You can see the thumbnails side by side above. --Begoon06:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First image, nothing to be done about that. Search for his native name on google image and pick a different/better image to use under the fair use terms.
Second image, Done - I also made the image smaller due to the fair use image size requirements.
Begoon That could be her. Is the book a cookbook? If so then definitely. I've only found two photos. The one I gave, and another where her face isn't really shown at all [3] Comparing yours to this one in Pépin's book, I'd say definitely the same. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Begoon Woo Hoo! It is from one of her cookbooks! Look at all the tiny "hers" on the front, they are the same as the one on the back. She published this cookbook in 1970. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW I updated the image with one of the images of her from the back cover of that cookbook. I was able to get a large image, but had to make it smaller due to the fair use requirements. Offnfopt(talk)16:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did something to the eyes, because they scared me ... I probably watched too much 80s sci-fi. Feel very, very, very, free to revert me. --Begoon17:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at restoring it, using another similar image I found online. I also increased the resolution. It could do with more work, or starting from scratch probably. nagualdesign01:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. This is better, and I shrunk the digitally restored image to 325px. Someone else might disagree and demand more improvements. However, it's better than the image of the worn-out product. George Ho (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: I uploaded a alternative version to choose from (uploaded with 316x316 resolution to meet fair-use requirements), feel free to revert if previous version is preferred. Offnfopt(talk)02:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a famous figure, in a Chinese museum. The editor who took it has edited it to remove (most of) a red background - you can see the original via the image file. But he has missed the red area inside the figures crooked arm at right. The projection to the right at knee level seems to have taken on a reddish tinge too, and the area below his feet. There should be no actual red in the figure, just browns. Thanks, -- Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
first image
.jpg)
_(retouched).jpg)
Done - Offnfopt(talk) 19:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
.gif)
please remove punch holes
Quarles van Ufford
.jpg)
.jpg)
All three now done. -- Begoon 12:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
PNG
PNG
PNG
.jpg)
Honorary doctorates Utrecht University, a.o. Jean Carbonnier
.jpg)
pixellated
Tomb guardian
cropped version.jpg)
_cropped.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(retouched).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).png){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Secretary_Kerry_Sits_With_British_Prime_Minister_May_in_the_White_Room_No._10_Downing_Street_in_London_(28376382456)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Secretary_Kerry_Sits_With_British_Prime_Minister_May_in_the_White_Room_No._10_Downing_Street_in_London_(28376382456)_(cropped).png){kind=link}
