Talk:Tamachi: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
m Reverted edits by 220.159.17.132 (talk) to version 54033684 by Ianb using VandalProof |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I removed this image because I'm not convinced it's a genuine Meiji Era photo. It gives the impression of a contemporay digital photo, possibly taken from a moving vehicle, which has been given a sepia coloring and a "bevelled" border. The image has a consistent quality with no visible blemishes, and the dimensions of the original image (1600x1200) are certainly typical of digital cameras; a true scan of an old photo would produce more irregular dimensions. Maybe the poster can provide further information? [[User:Ianb|Ianb]] 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) |
I removed this image because I'm not convinced it's a genuine Meiji Era photo. It gives the impression of a contemporay digital photo, possibly taken from a moving vehicle, which has been given a sepia coloring and a "bevelled" border. The image has a consistent quality with no visible blemishes, and the dimensions of the original image (1600x1200) are certainly typical of digital cameras; a true scan of an old photo would produce more irregular dimensions. Maybe the poster can provide further information? [[User:Ianb|Ianb]] 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
Hi Mr lanb<br/>This photograph takes an original photograph with a digital camera. Since it was such, you would feel the question. In Japan, the rice field had spread in Tokyo in Meiji Era.Japan had not civilized yet those days. 02:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 02:54, 26 May 2006
Picture of rice fields
I removed this image because I'm not convinced it's a genuine Meiji Era photo. It gives the impression of a contemporay digital photo, possibly taken from a moving vehicle, which has been given a sepia coloring and a "bevelled" border. The image has a consistent quality with no visible blemishes, and the dimensions of the original image (1600x1200) are certainly typical of digital cameras; a true scan of an old photo would produce more irregular dimensions. Maybe the poster can provide further information? Ianb 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)