Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
I'm curious... why ''"especially someone with a licensed copy of Adobe Photoshop"''? – [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta#top|talk]]) 06:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
I'm curious... why ''"especially someone with a licensed copy of Adobe Photoshop"''? – [[User:Jbarta|JBarta]] ([[User talk:Jbarta#top|talk]]) 06:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
:The DC montage was created with that program and it looks good. When I did montages in Paint, they did look amateurish. [[User:Cavann|Cavann]] ([[User talk:Cavann|talk]]) 06:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:40, 10 June 2013
The Graphics Lab is a project to improve the graphical content of the Wikimedia projects. Requests for image improvements can be added to the workshop pages: Illustrations, Photographs and Maps. For questions or suggestions one can use the talk pages: Talk:Graphics Lab, Talk:Illustrations, Talk:Photographs and Talk:Maps.
This specific page is the requests page for the photography workshop. Anyone can make a request for a photograph to be improved for a Wikipedia article. The standard format for making a request is shown below, along with general advice, and should be followed.
Advice to requesters |
---|
All requests:
SVG requests:
|
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
For graphists: |
Photography workshop: User requests
Kaʻiulani
Article(s): Kaʻiulani
Request:
- Please remove all the noise and strange color streaks from these images. Don't crop. -- KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s):
Lobatus gigas, the queen conch
Article(s): Lobatus gigas
Request:
- Please take out the reflection and the brown background markings on the lower left corner of this otherwise beautiful image. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Invertzoo, but your image/request got hijacked after I did to it what you asked so it looks as if you will have to deal with those who have taken it over to get the illustration resolved again the way you want it. Centpacrr (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like from a later posting of yours that I had misunderstood your original request which seemed to me to indicate that you wanted the reflections in the shell removed as I did not really see reflections anyplace else, and that understanding of mine was I believed to confirmed when you marked my image as being resolved. Sorry I got that wrong leading to the subsequent kerfuffle. Centpacrr (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Nagualdesign's gray version
Please note that the OP (Invertzoo) indicated satisfaction −I'd say endorsement- of the original overall composition with the exception of requested changes (e.g. "otherwise beautiful"). I'm inclined to agree. The bright pale blue is instrumental in making the orange tones of the shell pop. Centpacrr's version is sexy and satisfied the request. And the OP had already marked as "resolved". Of course one is welcome to upload the gray version under a new filename and cross link via "other versions" to provide options for future editors.
Graphists: Please see talk page for further comments.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted Kevjonesin's later version back to the one which the OP accepted as being "really great now" and resulted in her marking her request as "Resolved". Kevjonesin adequately points out the issues with Nagualdesign's after-the-fact "gray" version. The later cropped one made by Kevjonesin not only unnecessarily cut off part of the shadow, but also reintroduced the reflections from the photographic lights which the OP wanted removed and by doing so as by way of a transparency also made them look artificial. Unless there is some truly compelling reason to the contrary, there is really no reason for other editors to parachute in after a new version of an image has been accepted and marked "Resolved" by the OP as having fulfilled his or her request and start overwriting it with altogether different versions. Doing so just introduces unnecessary confusion, is generally counterproductive, and seems to me to be an ultimately unhelpful practice. Centpacrr (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thread continues on the talk page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's best to keep all this sort of discussion about a particular image/request in one spot (here). The Graphics Lab talk page is for talk regarding the Graphics Lab page.... not talk about specific requests. And I don't agree with this notion of "don't argue in front of the customers". Very often a better result can be had with a few editors hashing out various approaches... and no one needs to be shielded from it. – JBarta (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I hear ya', but in this case my reason for forking to the talk page was largely due to the inverse. Not wanting to clutter the requests section with Graphics lab procedural discussions as debating/discussing overwriting policy was the core of what I wanted to address. It didn't seem directly relevant (of likely interest) to the OP (Invertzoo) or her request. But, yes, it also got into broader discussion of the requested image which was being used as an example and inspired the discussion.
- I can see where keeping the discussion portions about the highlights and color levels here and the new file vs. overwrite portion on the Photo workshop talk page might be more in keeping with the overall themes of the two forums but I think it's also worth considering that request threads that lead to extensive debate may well have talk page value in that they serve to document precedent for the Photography lab. They contain community views on preferred standards which may well be relevant to future work. I considered placing the copy of Invertzoo's reply —to a request for her opinion— in the requests section but it seems to me it would be tedious at this point to try to separate the organic discussion into rigidly filtered threads and still have it parse well.
- As the discussion is blended, I do think it's important that a cross link was provided in the relevant Photo workshop request subsection). Well, I suppose I actually added two links to the talk page. As one only addressed procedural issues I flagged it specifically for "Graphists:". It didn't generate nearly as much interest as the next one regarding the overall thread about the specific (Queen conch image) request. A free standing meta-topic (one which I've tried to bring up before) just isn't as sexy as one in which editors have an active immediate interest I suppose. Personally, I'd really like to have more discussion before edit conflicts arise, rather than after.
- As I look at Jbarta's preceding comment —and my reply to it— it occurs to me that we are once more discussing Graphics lab/Photography workshop procedural issues within the context of a user request section rather than on the talk page. I'll copy it to the talk page for posterity and further comment. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
-
An individual of Berthella martensi live and in situ on a coral reef in East TimorAn individual of Berthella martensi live and in situ on a coral reef in East Timor
Article(s): Berthella martensi and also Berthella
Request:
- Please crop this image of a side-gill sea slug. The image may possibly also need lightening just a little bit, so you can see the hind end of the animal better. (We are also asking the photographer to give us higher-res images if possible.) Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s): Done Centpacrr
Rissoina shells
Article(s): Rissoina and Rissoinidae, also eventually Rissoina crassa
Request:
- Please adjust the color. These tiny shells should not be greenish at all. They should be a semi-translucent white. Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s):Is this shading correct? Centpacrr (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Is that reduced to a black and white image? I say that because they look a bit grey, but that may be the best we can do without losing some detail. Invertzoo (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- How about now? Perhaps the shadows ought to be more yellow/less blue? If you play around with the pearlescence too much, mind, you'll end up with a grayscale image. nagualdesign (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I just desaturated the greens and yellows but did not change to greyscale. You said it should be translucent white and I made it as close as I could to the shade of this species in other color pictures I found of it on the net (see here). The Nagualdesign image looks distinctly blue to me, not white. Centpacrr (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Umm.. I thought the requestor was supposedly the ultimate arbiter? Shouldn't you give Invertzoo the opportunity to reply to my question before deciding for yourself what the answer might be? nagualdesign (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The fact is, Nagualdesign, I was the editor who took this request and made changes based on the OPs request. I then posed a question to her about what I had done and was still in a discussion with her when you parachuted in and unilaterally overwrote the version under discussion before I could even reply to her comment to me thereby disrupting what the OP and I were doing to adjust the image to her satisfaction. Centpacrr (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Invertzoo commented on the desaturated version so I chipped in to offer an alternative. This is an open discussion, right? And I think you take far too much offense at having your uploads 'overwritten'. The way I see it, adding another version is contributing; all versions are available for comparison using the thumbnails at the bottom of the image page. Whereas all that reverting does, while the subject is still being discussed, is to cause arguments (see WP:OWN) and clutter the image page with unnecessary duplicates. Let's just leave the images alone and let other editors (including the requestor) contribute to the discussion or proffer other alternatives.
- @Invertzoo, you do realize that you can open several versions of an image at once (in separate tabs), right? You just (ctrl/command-) click on the thumbnails at the bottom of the image file page. Then you can switch between one tab and another to compare versions. ..I assume I'm teaching my grandma to suck eggs here! Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- .."Parachuted in." LOL! Good one. nagualdesign (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did not "revert" this image to an earlier file, but in fact made a new version from scratch as anyone can easily tell by looking at the files sizes (the earlier one is 526KB, the later is 683KB). The OP asked for the shells to be white like the ones seen here; the version you uploaded made them distinctly purple/blue. The comment the OP made was also addressed to me in response to a question that I asked which you took it upon yourself to usurp before I had a chance to address it, upload a new files, and then complained when I responded a short time later both in writing and and by producing a new version of the file to meet the OP's concerns.
- The fact is, Nagualdesign, I was the editor who took this request and made changes based on the OPs request. I then posed a question to her about what I had done and was still in a discussion with her when you parachuted in and unilaterally overwrote the version under discussion before I could even reply to her comment to me thereby disrupting what the OP and I were doing to adjust the image to her satisfaction. Centpacrr (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Umm.. I thought the requestor was supposedly the ultimate arbiter? Shouldn't you give Invertzoo the opportunity to reply to my question before deciding for yourself what the answer might be? nagualdesign (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The practice of constantly jumping in virtually immediately to ongoing requests that are being actively addressed with the OP by an editor who first accepted it only introduces unnecessary confusion, makes extra work for both the OP and original editor, and is ultimately counterproductive. So why not show a little courtesy and restraint when an editor and requester are actively working on a particular project ... at least unless and/or until there seems to be an impasse of some kind. If the editor and OP can't find a solution in a reasonable amount of time (two or three days), then that would be an appropriate time for others to offer alternative views as opposed to just creating chaos by immediately asserting themselves into every ongoing graphics discussion as self appointed doyens of the Graphic Project. Centpacrr (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- In this instance, no, you didn't revert, you contributed. I guess I was talking more generally, as our paths cross a lot. But your edit is still devoid of any discernible colour, and doesn't address the issue that "they look a bit grey". Mine was an effort to show what colour (hopefully, correctly balanced) was available in the original image, minus the green. I'd actually desaturated a lot of it, but it does look a bit surreal. If the colours of a real shell (what little of it there is) are similar to what I'd uploaded, we'd only need to turn down the saturation, I thought. White shells can look blue-ish, can't they? Perhaps not.
- Regarding the practice of constantly jumping in virtually immediately, I'm sorry about that. We often edit at the same time of day, sometimes we clash, ce la vie. I pop my head in here, I look at images, at conversations and join in. I didn't look at the timestamps. I do my bit, whatever I fancy doing, then I'm outta here until I next come back. So yes, I do 'jump in', if that's what you want to call it, though not constantly. nagualdesign (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The practice of constantly jumping in virtually immediately to ongoing requests that are being actively addressed with the OP by an editor who first accepted it only introduces unnecessary confusion, makes extra work for both the OP and original editor, and is ultimately counterproductive. So why not show a little courtesy and restraint when an editor and requester are actively working on a particular project ... at least unless and/or until there seems to be an impasse of some kind. If the editor and OP can't find a solution in a reasonable amount of time (two or three days), then that would be an appropriate time for others to offer alternative views as opposed to just creating chaos by immediately asserting themselves into every ongoing graphics discussion as self appointed doyens of the Graphic Project. Centpacrr (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Funny, I don't see Centpacrr's "{{I take}}" tag (e.g. " Request taken.") anywhere. Must be my monitor setting, huh?
"
<!-- For wikigraphists working on the request: {{I take|~~~~}}: when you'll be working on the request {{Done}}: when the request is done. -->
"
Quoted from the bottom of this section's edit page. And every other request section's edit page for that matter as it's automatically inserted every time.
Plip!
- --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The indication that I had taken the request and was working on it was that I had made and posted an edited image and posed a question to the OP in "Graphist opinion" section at 22:44 on June 8 asking if the shading was correct. As this was apparently not enough, however, in future I will use the "I take" tag as well and leave it there until the OP marks the request resolved. This, I trust, will avoid future confusion. Centpacrr (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- After reading all this, I feel compelled to chime in (old habits die hard I suppose). Centpacrr, try as you may, you cannot carve out a little piece of the wiki as your own. Any editor may make any contribution and at any time they wish. You may of course use the "I take" template... and as a courtesy editors may allow you first dibs on the request. But the second you post something, expect that other editors may "parachute in" as you say with their own suggestions. At no time do you own any image or any request. And while we're on the subject... again, the requester doesn't own the image either and is not "the final arbiter" of which image is best for the article or how an image should appear. ALL editors may offer input and (ideally) a consensus should be reached. – JBarta (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Istanbul Infobox Image
-
Current pic, with the bottom two images to be replaced
-
The image that will replace bottom left image
-
The image that will replace bottom right image
Article(s): Istanbul
Request:
- We need a new montage. In Talk:Istanbul, there was agreement to replace the bottom two images. Can anyone (especially someone with a licensed copy of Adobe Photoshop) create this image? It would also be great if the resulting montage looks similar to Washington, D.C. infobox image [1], with the larger panaroma pic centered. Thanks! Cavann (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Graphist opinion(s):
I'm curious... why "especially someone with a licensed copy of Adobe Photoshop"? – JBarta (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)