Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/Archive 2

Video help

I would like to use the freely licensed video of Ganoga Falls on Flickr here in the Ricketts Glen State Park article. I know this page is for photos, but where can I ask for help with this? I do not know how to get the video from Flickr, nor do I know how to convert it to .ogg format. Thanks in advance for help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My laptop has the proper tools to do this but unfortunately it's broken. When it gets fixed I may be able to help you but I don't know how long it may take. -- penubag  (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - I hope your laptop is fixed soon (for your sake and mine). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Luckily I was able to download the tools needed to do this. The file is here File:Ricketts Glen - Ice Waterfall on Flickr - Photo Sharing.ogv -- penubag  (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much - this is great and was very nice of you! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Title on Image

I wasn't sure where to place this, but for the image entitled "Ghost bat infrared Perth zoo.jpg" is misleading as the image is clearly shot by a nightvision sony camera and is not infrared by any means. Please correct - thanks 97.77.42.214 (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to commons tag for other-language Wikipedias?

Sorry, I know this is probably not the right place to put this, but is there an international {{Move to commons}} tag for other-language Wikipedias? I've found some images on other Wikis that are free-use, but don't know how to tag them properly. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that this isn't really the answer, but have you considered doing the image moving by yourself (using CommonsHelper 2, for example)? The migration process is quite simple, with categorization being perhaps the only challenging part. —Quibik (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not, as the world's biggest technophobe. If you have experience, may I ask your help? The second part of that, is how to delete the image from the home Wiki, once it has been moved to Commons? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help, though I must admit that I have hardly any experience with migration from non-English wikis. A good starting point would be Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If you gave me a link to an image that you would like to move, then I could write you a short step-by-step guide of the process. How does that sound?

About deleting images after moving – I looked into the template tags available at other wikis and all of the sampled ones had the necessary template with a shortcut {{NowCommons}} for the task. Also, about your original question – tagging images for moving to Commons – the sampled wikis all seemed to have the template, but unfortunately lacked a standardized shortcut like NowCommons. So you should be able to tag them, but you'll need to do some searching. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2010 Archive

Anyone know what has happened to all of the requests between January and March this year, because there is no archive of them? Fallschirmjäger 10:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, found them! It seems no links have been added yet, I'll get to that... Fallschirmjäger 10:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Help, I put the request in (see history), but it is not showing in your queue

I tried to follow the form, see history, but must have messed up somehow. Pic is not showing. Please help. TCO (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Make a request error?

Did somebody tinker around with the "Make a request" button? Because it is not automatically generating the gallery part anymore. Please help. Gryffindor (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Second that-it sucks, and needs to be undone, now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from this page everything should still be fine. I suspect it's to do with the new software upgrade, which I know modified the way preload pages work - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this solved it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be working now, thanks alot. Gryffindor (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it must be messed up again, I just tried it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This (misclick?) probably didn't help ;). I've reinstated the fix, so have another go now :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all a misclick. Undoing the BREAK stuff made it look like it used to. Per your suggestion I just tried it again. Same damn stupid random coding. It's not fixed, and it's not better.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, could you paste what you see in the edit box here into a <code> tag for me please? (p.s. please only use rollback for reverting vandalism) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've done that over on the content page, I'll have a look at that, in the meantime could you try clearing your cache, and giving it another go? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cache is cleared (wasn't he a boxer?-I'm punchy when I'm tired ;) ), still get <!-- nothing or {{resolved}} or {{Stale|user}} --> <center>?UNIQ3485ee49149f538e-gallery-00000000-QINU?</center> '''Article(s):''' [[name of article]] '''Request:''' Do something with them... ~~~~ '''Graphist opinion(s):''' <!-- This area is for wikigraphists: {{I take|name}}: when you accept the request ; {{Done}}: when the request is done. --> --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How odd, can you let me know what you get at this link then please? Also, not that it seems to make a difference, but what's your skin? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It shows <!-- nothing or {{resolved}} or {{Stale|user}} --> <gallery class="center"> File:IMAGENAME.EXT|Description of image File:IMAGE#TWO.EXT|2nd image (If there is one) File:ETCETCETC.EXT|Don't request too many at once, though </gallery> , so the gallery but nothing below. My skin is blue but it's cold tonight. You mean the unasked-for look change? I found how to go back to the original Wiki look. Or is skin something else?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I mean by skin, you're using monobook at the moment then (same as me). Yeah, nothing was meant to show up below the gallery stuff, I was just testing by changing the preload page to a new one (User:Kingpin13/glabtest) and then copying the exact same start from the old preload page (Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve/request filler). So it's probably some sort of caching problem. What browser are you using? Also give it another shot from the normal button on the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop page, but this time make sure you purge first (here's a link to do that). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, if it's still broken when you do that, can you paste me your url on the broken page? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A few words of appreciation

The long months (I could say a full year) working on Pedro I of Brazil finally paid off: it is now a Featured Article. It took me a great deal of effort researching and writing the article, but it would never look as good as it is now if it weren't for others. Astynax, my fellow colleague, made an extensive copyediting improving (a lot) the prose. Br'er Rabbit fixed a lot of things that made the article far better. However, the article wouldn't be as enjoyable as it is now if it weren't for the great pictures in it. I'd like to tell GianniG46, PawełMM, Jbarta, Fallschirmjäger and especially Centpacrr that I am really, really grateful for all your help in the many times I came here to ask you to improve pictures. I always say that Wikipedia is about teamwork, a bunch of people working together to allow millions of people to read for free great articles. The Graphic Lab is a fundamental piece in Wikipedia and that happened because of the great graphich editors we have here. Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Apprenticeship request

I would like to learn the steps on how to improve image quality so I can contribute to the Graphics Lab. I look at Wikipedia:How to improve image quality and it reads like blah, blah, blah to me. Anyone here willing to take me on as an apprentice Graphics Lab member. I know very little about editing images and know very little about photography or image quality, so I would need to learn via baby steps. The main thing I have going for me is a desire to have improving images as a skill in my life. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome and thank you for your interest in the workshop. The first thing you need to do is either purchase a commercial digital image editing application such as Photoshop or Photoshop Elements or download a free open source application such as GIMP or Photoscape, familiarize yourself with their tools and operation, and then practice using them on a wide variety of image files. As you become comfortable with them (and develop your own techniques of image editing that work best for you) come back to the project and try your hand some of the images you find posted there. Good luck. Centpacrr (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start with GIMP. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

New request glitch

There was a minor error when I just used the New request function. The section title was lost to the aether and the new markup was inserted like this. Is it an issue with detecting the spacing around <!-- This area is for wikigraphists: ... perhaps? nagualdesign (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just did a test request and everything turned out fine. Might I suggest user error? Is it possible you didn't actually enter a section title? – JBarta (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Test yourself again, and make sure "Subject/headline" is filled in with your section title. And the bit in the box that says "subst:null| Don't forget to add a headline to your request!"... don't edit/delete any of that. Just leave it alone. – JBarta (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the first thing I did was enter a title, but I never noticed the {{subst:null| until you mentioned it! Was I supposed to repeat the section title after the | ? nagualdesign (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No. As I said above, leave that alone. Anyhow, make a test request and see how it goes (you can always undo your edit). If the test works for you, then you probably didn't enter a subject/headline earlier. – JBarta (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Done" Tags

The tag for "Done" is not a "posting", "comment", or "opinion", but simply a small bit of html code (or "device") that provides notice that a requested action has been addressed. Most other such tags on WP are not "signed" and thus this one does not require a formal "signature" to be included with it when added either. Anyone who really cares who placed a "Done" tag here can simply look at either the history of this page or at the image file's own hosting page where all the information can be found about what was "Done" and who did it in that page's own file history section. Not including a formal signature with a "Done" tag therefore does not in any way constitute a lack of collegiality, collaborative acumen, or being inconsiderate. Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done tag or any of your other posts should be signed by four tildes. This is basic Wikipedia stuff and your dodge above is just plain silly. At some point in the recent past you've decided you're special and you don't need to sign your posts here anymore. Other editors shouldn't have to sift through the history to see who posted a reply to a request. – JBarta (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, "tags" on WP are not "comments" but simple standard notice devices. Any editor who wishes to include his or her signature to a tag in addition I suppose is free to do so as a personal option, but I see nothing at in the cited guideline about "signing tags" as they are simple standard notices, not editorial comments or the expression of an editor's personal opinion. Centpacrr (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In this context, "Done" is a comment. In the past you've signed your comments properly. Everyone else here signs their comments properly. Knock off the passive-agressive bullshit and just please sign your damn comments like everyone else. – JBarta (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for your gracious and I'm sure sincerely offered advice with regard to this issue although with respect I must again reject your speculation about and characterization of my motives. As any editor you are, of course, free to disagree with me, but personal invective is unhelpful in that process. Centpacrr (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• It seems reasonable —to me— to use name & time stamp tagging on entries following the heading "Graphist opinion(s):" as other editors may well wish to clearly and immediately ascertain who communicated the information and when such occurred.

Also, —whether or not this seems consistent with the use (or not) of name & time stamps with notice templates in other parts of the WP project— it seems useful here and the intent for doing so —to keep other image editors informed— seems clear. IMHO, consideration as to whether being technically right will be effectively useful should be used in this instance.

WP:PETTIFOG and WP:OSE may shine some light on this issue as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how to change a Photo

Hi do you know how to change a photo slightly because I would like this to have the circle around it on this And this and this please it is for Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox Paladox2014 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As these are svg files I'd suggest that you post a new request at the Illustration Workshop, where they work with vector graphics. nagualdesign (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there an established protocol for rotating in/out page content?

Hi, I've noticed that the "eight requests" section and most of the more detailed requests below have been addressed. So, I'm wondering how to (whether to) go about archiving the numerous threads which have been marked "done" for multiple days. Also, does the "eight requests" template refresh automatically from a list or category or does this need to be done manually? Any tips and guidelines regarding established/existing page maintenance practices would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll just go ahead and "be bold" and 'wing it' (i.e. improvise). :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else run into this bug/feature?

See Graphics Lab talk page thread:

Is anyone else here irritated by the same filename restriction?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

...continued from "Collaborative remix"

I must confess to have raised my eyebrows and bit my tongue when I read Centpacrr's somewhat personal response placed brazenly in the file history comment section attached to the reversion. The story of a certain pot casting aspersions upon a certain kettle came to mind. Made of cast irony. It seems to be a quirk of the human condition that one's blind spot tends to line up with reflective surfaces. "Introspection is a rare bird and precious are it's feathers."

That said, I do think the image looks rather nice in the article and well complements the info graphic which precedes it. Sure it's more than the OP asked for and to strictly adhere to guidelines it would have to have been uploaded under a new filename and marked as derivative but personally, at present, I'm becoming inclined to put readership over rules and to accept pragmatism over persnickety process if no obvious harm is done — (I'll confess this pains me at times. It's a work in process. >wink<).

Scallop is the only article linked to the current filename and the original image is clearly retained in the file history and may be recovered if someone desires it. It's just so much simpler to 'click' "Upload a new version of this file" than it is to make a new file page (especially if one likes to be thorough about updating "other versions" and article links and such). Perhaps if derivative file page creation was more automated the incentive gap would shrink. In the mean time, I strongly endorse taking a moment to add the Commons {{Retouched}} tag after doing any noticeable alterations. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know, but I do wish the graphists here would stop bickering in front of the 'customers'. I used to contribute a bit here, but there's no way I'd consider returning with the current atmosphere. At one point, I did move a conversation which seemed inappropriate: [1], but that's just one of many. This picking at each other has gone on far too long, in my opinion, which everyone is, of course, free to ignore. Begoon ^talk 07:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Re. Bickering in front of the 'customers' ; differences of opinion, as I like to call them, are par for the course on Wikipedia. The idea is for others to chip in in order to help reach a consensus. Image edits are no different from text edits insofar as they stand or fall at the mercy of the community, and all edits are apt for discussion. It's only when certain editors take offense at constructive criticism that normal discussion becomes fruitless. That said, all editors do good work sometimes and everyone is encouraged to contribute. *wink*

..By the way, Centpacrr, the current edit looks good (as did your first edit) but may I suggest a little whitespace around the image? (~10%?) That way the extremities of the shell don't touch the borders of the thumbnail. Also, I quite liked your original dropshadow. I wonder how that might look on a white background, to help 'lift' the image. nagualdesign (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Differences of opinion are fine. I just wanted to share an outside perspective of how it often looks - that can sometimes be useful. I'll leave you to keep up the good work, and if I see something interesting I may pop in - managed to keep busy enough anyway recently. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 10:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input Begoon. I think you've brought up a very good point. It's due to such concerns that I chose to fork my reply here, to the talk page. While "differences of opinion" can be quite constructive and are certainly a valued (though sometimes annoying >wink<) part of wiki world, I find petty personal snubs all to often get mixed in — or simply take the place of — analysis and explanation.

As to the Centpacrr's latest revision, I suspect he's followed Nagual's lead by inserting a sarcastic response. I'm afraid I'll have to apologize for laughing along with Nagualdesign's reveal of his previous entry having been a spoof. I'd failed to take into account that this is an image displayed in main space. It takes us back to Begoon's concern — which I would sum up as regarding 'professionalism'. I actively encourage humor as a way to communicate, but in this case it should really be done under separate filenames and kept out of main space.

Furthermore, to be more direct, my issue with Centapccr's previous file history comment...

Image not meant to be "artistic" but to illustrate the subject encyclopedically without distracting digital twaddle

...was not just that it was ironic and included a slur but that it was directed at Nagualdesign specifically. I think the file history comment section should generally be limited to informing all editors who may come to the page about how one upload differs from another. Please try to keep direct personal — person-to-person — comments to the talk pages. While I've used Centpaccrr as an example here the sentiment is directed to everyone. Myself included. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled that anyone would interpret my file history comment as a "slur" especially when it was in the reversion of a an image the poster of which has now admitted was not intended to be taken seriously or kept in the article but was only uploaded in an apparent attempt to get me or someone else to revert it as being inappropriate. So I would appreciate it if you would please tell me what exactly is the "slur" being referred to here? The comment I posted when I reverted the image made no reference to the poster or anyone else. Unlike the myriad of negative and personally disparaging comments directed at me over the past year or so in file history comments, Graphics Lab threads, and other talk pages by both the user who posted the reverted image (and by his primary associate, chief speculator as to my motives and ways I edit images, and erstwhile self proclaimed former "...enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate..."), my comment wasn't anything other than stating the reason why I reverted it. If anyone is offended by the word "twaddle" (which means "nonsense") that's exactly what I found the addition of "sunshine, all artistic like" was -- digital nonsense having nothing to do with the purpose of the illustration.

I have now replaced my white background version by a cropped one with a darkened original background and thumb (for perspective) so that the OP (who as the requester is the appropriate final arbiter as to which image to use) now has a variety of versions to select from. Let's just leave it at that. Centpacrr (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry Centpacrr, "slur" might have been a poor choice of wording. I must admit I questioned — after entering the comment — whether it might have too many — or too strong — connotations but didn't have a better word at hand. But you seem to have grasped that I was referring to "distracting digital twaddle". I'm not asserting that the comment, taken in isolation, is clearly a direct response to Nagualdesign; however, in the actual context of the file history section it seems clear to me that it is a response to Nagualsdesign's edit rather than a comment about yours. It reminded me of the personal tit-fot-tats that occur (all too often, IMHO) in edit summaries posted to page histories. I suppose I'd have preferred something like "I found the sun dappling distracting" or "thought sun dappling effect distracting to readers". Something with less flippant overtones than "twaddle". I suppose my own peeves and predilections are coming out at this point. Ah well, making mountains out of molehills seems to be a grand tradition in wiki world. >wink<. :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a professional writer (including seven published books) for more than 45 years, my language and vocabulary probably tend to be more colorful and descriptive than most, however I do not consider "twaddle" to be in any way a pejorative term, but a word I use often in my common everyday speech to mean nonsense, prattle, hooey, claptrap, stultiloquence, or the like. Had the poster been someone else I may have chosen a more "common" word (but not necessarily), however based on my previous interactions with this and one other user associated with him who also posted earlier in the discussion of this image, and suspecting (apparently correctly) that the post was made as a troll-like provocation directed at me to revert it, this is the term I chose and I think appropriately so under the circumstances even though I still do not see it as pejorative in any way. On another point, I have reverted the left-for-right horizontal flip you made in one of your derivative images as it had created a false representation of the organism's true anatomical layout. Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't bicker in front of the customers.  :-( This really is one of the sweetest parts of the Wiki. There is so, so much of this website that has endless edit warring and re-re-rebutting. I know there are these little differences, but I really love the image peeps as something nicer than the typical on Wiki and talk you all up like crazy. This, the help desk, reference swap, maybe Gadget for templates...are really some of the most supportive people to article writers. (If you want worse, try the MOS.  ;-)). Go images, go design, go supporting our readers with clean layouts! Peace, ma bruddahs.TCO (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing TCO. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:GL Photography reply now has a /doc page

{{Photography reply}} now has documentation explaining the parameters (options) and such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I gave it some polish last night. Addressed some of the concerns noted here. It now displays added parameters in a more balanced layout and places sig's towards the bottom. Syntax as follows:

{{Photography reply|1=request's section heading|2=signature and/or custom message}}

Example:

Hello, Graphics Lab/Photography workshop. Greetings from the Photography workshop. A reply has been made to your request. You may view the reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Photography reply}} template.

Found a nice promotional template

{{GL workshop}}

Example:

This image was worked on in the image workshops of the Graphic Lab, at which you can request image improvement

---

• The rest y'all perhaps are already familiar, but was new to me. Esprit de corps! File:Bouncy boy.gif --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Icon Ideas

p.s. Anyone have any suggestions for a different icon to use with the {{Photography reply}} template?

IMO, the Crystal Clear app gimp.png () seems kinda' drab and indistinct at small icon scale.

Hmm, it occurs to me that much of what I've seen in the FOSS world —Linux distros and free apps and such— may be freely re-purposed. Post some examples, please, if you come across anything or have custom ideas. SVG skillz anyone? --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

— I think it's a start. Orange contrasts with light blue well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

[[

— This stylized camera shutter is crisp and graphic. Makes the previous two look way blurry in contrast. Has a bit of a 'bullet point' affect when combined with text as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

— Whimsical — and topical, as delivering photos is kinda' what the {{Photography reply}} notice template is all about. (I guess I'm seeing it more like Fido delivering slippers than Pacman munching. Is that just me?)

— Basic and to the point. Might combine well in a custom icon.

— Simple clean graphic. May combine well.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

— Remix 2013: Recursive camera icon-(02-3 4-2))-.png — Holds up at various scales, except for the frame when against a light field. May need a version with an opaque background included. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

— Opague back version. Hmm, maybe it needs canted at an angle a bit to emphasize the photo paper element over the solidity of the squared off camera body. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding overwriting vs. new filename

Please, can we we make an effort in the future to more closely comply with guidelines regarding when to overwrite or not? I'm not asking for anal-retentive orthodoxy, but please, please, please, let's start uploading versions which significantly* depart from the original in appearance and/or source under their own filename.

It's more considerate of the original uploader's efforts and less likely to initiate edit battles.

By the way, I'm not claiming any any past holier-than-thou status. I've taken the easy route and overwritten at times I likely shouldn't have as well. I'm asking that those of us who enjoy contributing image edits make an effort to be more considerate of the guidelines —and our fellow editors— regarding overwriting in the future.

* "significantly"

"Aye, there's the rub."
— William Shakespeare via Hamlet

I guess the hypothetical reasonable person would be a good place to start. Sesame Street's "One of these things is not like the others?" also comes to mind.

Some instances where I'd suggest uploading under a new filename:

• Heavy cropping (e.g.more than trimming off some border text)
• digitally constructed backgrounds which no longer contain any of the original file data
• digital restoration/reconstruction of original artwork that goes beyond fixing a few JPEG artifacts and/or specks of dust and dirt
• Differently sourced images. Images of the same subject but built from files sourced from a different website, photographer, etc. I run into this quite a bit with image files of original paintings. I'm not completely opposed to this in some cases if one makes the effort to accurately update the file page information so that it documents the change.

I guess I'd 'cut some slack' to most any of these in certain specific instances. For instance, if the original unloader has requested the change and there are no intermediary edits by other editors. But please, please, please, clearly note the changes. Preferably, in the main space of the file page, not just the upload summary. Please, take a moment to add templates like {{retouched}} when appropriate.

Thanks in advance for y'all's, time, attention, and consideration,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, broadly speaking, but since DerivativeFX stopped working some time ago I've all but given up uploading derivatives. It was good when it worked though. nagualdesign (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Lobatus gigas, the queen conch

Following is a thread copied and continued from the main Photo workshop page:

Lobatus gigas, the queen conch

Resolved

 – Invertzoo (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Explanation below. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• 

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)

Thanks so much! It's really great now! Invertzoo (talk) 23:38, 6 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 Kevinjonesin'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". Kevinjonesin adequately points out the issues with Nagualdesign's after-the-fact "gray" version. The later cropped one made by Kevinjonesin 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)

• The compelling reason is that upon closer examination significant portions of the image had been digitally constructed 'from whole cloth' and the shell detail had been altered. As such, it should not have been overwritten under the same filename. It went beyond the OP's request and beyond guidelines for overwriting. Please note that in deference to Centpacrr's efforts the version I uploaded included his artistic creation merged with detail from the source so as to both retain accurate detail and preserve the efforts of another editor.

"...reflection and the brown background markings on the lower left corner"
— Invertzoo

"Lower left corner", not: 'remove and reconstruct detail from the body of the shell and artificially extend and reconstruct the background'.

Please recall that the image is really meant to more serve the function of an encyclopedic representation of a real conch which clearly shows what the shell looks like without too much emphasis on the "artistic". Removing and digitally reconstructing shell detail, IMHO, conflicts with this goal.

Upon comparing to the Flickerviewer source file it became apparent as well that Cenpacrr's background is a digital construction which extends beyond the boundary of the original dimensions. Pretty much the same problem as Nagualdesign's version but with blue and a different aspect ratio. It's welcome, of course, under another filename but differs too much from the documented source file to justify overwriting. As I've listed relevant guidelines fairly recently in other threads, I'm not going to bother looking them up and citing them now. Others are welcome to do so. In fact I strongly encourage it.

I'm reverting to a version which more closely represents the source file. Let's avoid hassling WP:ANI with a WP:3RR battling issue to resolve shall we?

Please, please, please, restrict future versions to those which preserve detail and dimensions of the original image. Otherwise, upload under a new filename, tag as needed (e.g. {{retouched}}), and crosslink via "other versions". --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ya' know, it strikes me that there's no harm in 'sleeping on it' and giving Centpacrr a chance to consider reverting his reversion and restoring my upload which blended source and digitally constructed versions. Of course, under a strict orthodox application of guidelines that one should be under a new filename as well. I'd prefer to find a point less 'anything goes' but avoid going full on bureaucratic orthodoxy though. Thoughts and opinions folks? --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, life is too short to be drawn in to yet another one of these omphaloskeptic harangues with threats of ANI and 3RR so I'll bow out of this one now and let others negotiate the resolution of this image with the OP. Centpacrr (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Dang, "omphaloskeptic". I learned a new word. Nice. Thanks Centpacrr. p.s. Rock Lobster was just playing on the radio. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The reason I re-edited the photograph after it was marked resolved was because, as Kev stated above, it's one thing to remove the reflections in the lower left corner, but another thing entirely to remove specular reflections which would appear under any lighting conditions. There was also significant colour noise on the dark parts of the shell where Centpacrr overdid the fill lighting. Up close it looked a mess. Oh, and there's a lot of banding on his artificial background. It doesn't matter a fig to me that this image had been highlighted in the Photography Workshop then marked as satisfactory by a single user. I alter lots of images on Wikipedia without being asked to do so, just as readily as I might correct a spelling error that I'd spotted. I don't go in for the whole "the requestor is the ultimate arbiter" rubbish that Centpacrr often spouts.

IMO the blue background doesn't help the colour 'pop', so much as bleaches it out. The background being highly saturated detracts from the vivid colours of the shell. On a neutral background (recommended in the guidelines, IIRC) the colours of the shell stand on their own and allow you to see their subtle variation. It's unfortunate that the 'tail' of the shell isn't particularly well lit, but the detail can be seen without lightening, and any natural shading (both on the shell and beneath it, using the original background) helps to show the three-dimensional form of the shell. My edit kept the original dimensions of the image, the original composition, the original background shadow (minus the colour and the stuff in the lower left) and the original shell* (with a tiny bit of curves adjustment and sharpening). I still think my edit's more appropriate but I don't want to get into a pissing contest with editors who wish to scent mark their contributions.

One thing I will say about mine is that, on closer inspection, the masking looks a bit slap dash. I wasn't over-awed with Centpacrr's cutting out, but mine's no improvement really. I'm not sure at what point I let that slip and I was too lazy to re-do it from scratch. If I'd done a top job of the masking I'd probably point out all the issues raised above to Invertzoo and ask them to take a closer look at the images at full-size, and perhaps ask them to clarify that the reflections refered to in the original request were not those on the shell itself. That said, I'd rather just leave it there. Let's not start getting our panties in a wad, eh? Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

* Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is supposed to be an image of a shell, and any prodding and poking at the hue, saturation, contrast, etc. has to be done with subtlety and never misrepresent the subject (in order to remain 'encyclopedic'). Comparing various edits with the original I can see the tampering with the shell, particularly the saturation and lightness. The image is of a beautiful shell, and anyone who thinks they can improve that with digital manipulation ought to tread carefully IMO, otherwise you get cartoonish edits like we have here. nagualdesign (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it does kinda' look more like a classic illustration plate and less like a photo at this point. I'll consider tossing up a toned down (i.e. closer to source levels) version and forking my most recent one to a fresh "digital retouch" filename (tomorrow). That would give one latitude to play with some FX and go full on faux illustration. Of course Nagualdesign, if you get inspired in the mean time feel free to tone mine down or replace it with another true to source version.

Also Nagualdesign, thanks for pointing out the heavy bleaching of the tip on a previous version. I'd missed that.

As the option exists to freely upload alternate versions under other filenames (e.g. ) it seems to me there's generally not much sense in making a stand when objections about divergence from source have been raised. And of course it's worth considering that the relevant guidelines are strongly weighted towards uploading under new names. I'm not even sure if the earlier resolution upgrade would hold up under some interpretations actually.

Of course, as it's a wiki, if we continue to discuss, in detail, we may eventually reach some sort of consensus about adapting the guidelines themselves to better facilitate practical workflow. Or to make complying with the present guidelines more automated and/or streamlined. Simplify uploading new filenames and the accompanying file changes if such replaces previous versions on the wikis, for example. Basically, it seems to me that a gap has developed between de jure and de facto and that this gap contributes to contentious situations arising. Narrowing this gap seems likely to decrease bickering after edits by increasing shared understanding before them. Even if it's just an 'understanding' at the local (Photography workshop) level.

Would it perhaps be a good idea to start a subpage for general meta-discussion about the workshop and images and graphic editing in general rather than just focusing on specific 'issues' in isolation as they arise?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Toned down as per Nagual's observations. "Give a man a hammer and every problem starts to look like a nail." A clincher was that it looked sorta' garish next to on the Conch page. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My 'little' brother has mentioned that they keep a version of [this poster] on the wall at his software development firm. It came back to mind while reflecting on the thread above. Here's an extended [contemporary version]. Fun way to elevate the point. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So, back to discussing the gray version..

I've uploaded 1 more 'neutral' version for consideration. The masking is much better than my previous effort, and the background is only partially desaturated. Consider the image in context in the article. There's a reason that we don't see many images with highly saturated backgrounds on Wikipedia, and that's because they don't play well with other images. Colourful≠neutral. nagualdesign (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "One more edit for consideration. (Please see discussion before reverting.]]"
  

— Nagualdesign's upload summary

First off, fyi, the "discussion" wikilink doesn't parse correctly as entered on Commons. Not on Wikipedia either actually. On Commons, assuming you were attempting to link here you'd need to have used the cross site prefix as so: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_talk:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Regarding Nagualdesign's gray version|discussion]] and if it had been made on Wikipedia it still would have needed to be prefixed with "Graphics_Lab/".

Also, "One more edit for consideration." seems misleading in it's current context as by overwriting a filename which is linked to via multiple articles it went out for publication as opposed to simply having been presented "for consideration". IMO, uploading under a new filename would have been much more considerate.

And concerning the new gray version, — as previously mentioned — in this instance I strongly object to overwriting with an artificial background color. Please revert to your previous version and upload the gray option under a new filename. I'd suggest then adding a note with a thumbnail/link on the Conch talk page —or simply editing the link in the article. As Invertzoo has expressed a specific interest in the image, it might be more polite/considerate to go the talk page route. Perhaps along with dropping a cross link on her talk page as well.

Thanks for noticing the "white outline", I hadn't. I'll take a closer look at my workflow and see if I can pin down how it got introduced. I suspect it may have to do with how I feathered my selection while isolating elements of the image. I'll confess that toning down the brightness a bit further makes the shell detail easier to distinguish as well. I'm referring to this version. --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw my dodgy link (in the edit summary) as soon as I'd uploaded, but there was nothing I could do to correct it. Oh well. Regarding filenames, derivatives and wotnot, I see no problem with 'overwriting' a file in order to assess an edit. In fact it makes it much easier to view an image in context within articles, without having to code then uncode each page separately. WP is a work in progress, so there's no reason to be aghast that an image with a partially desaturated background is live on the web for a day or two. And if and when an edit has been rejected it can simply be reverted without any fuss, and there's no need to bother other editors to ask them to delete your derivatives.

Unfortunately Centpacrr, as usual, found it impossible to keep his finger off the revert button, preferring to act unilaterally than discuss the edit, as requested, so we're no longer in a position to view the image within the article space. Please note that my edit had nothing to do with Invertzoo's request at the Photography Workshop, so constantly making reverts on the basis that 'Invertzoo didn't request this' is moot. I was simply offering a version with a neutral background, as per guidelines, just as we have done with many images in the past (without all the forking about), so that other editors have an opportunity to assess the final product, which in the end is all that counts. It doesn't matter how we got there, only whether the new image is an improvement or not.

Since this subsection (Nagualdesign's gray version) had been created, but nobody had actually discussed the image, I thought it fine to offer a new version. As I said, the masking on my previous version was subpar, but I've corrected that. So, how did it look? If it wasn't an improvement, fair enough, but for an edit to be rejected for having not followed proper procedure, or having stepped on another editor's toes, well that's just ridiculous.

Regarding the white outline, Kev, sometimes if you use a mask to separate the foreground, and an inverted version of the same mask to separate the background, you get translucent pixels at the edge of the masks. Often you can't tell there's any transparent pixels (especially if you have other layers/versions underneath) until you flatten the layers and the default (white) matte colour fills the gaps. One 'trick' is to merge the layers (retaining the translucency) then stack several copies on top of one another (and re-merge them) until the the offending edge becomes opaque. Hope that helps. nagualdesign (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I think it was bloody rude to overwrite when you already knew it was a contentious issue. As I've said before above:

As the option exists to freely upload alternate versions under other filenames (e.g. ) it seems to me there's generally not much sense in making a stand when objections about divergence from source have been raised.

Furthermore, I think we're all aware of the 'official' guidelines on the topic, and hence, by proxy, of where the chips would fall if the issue were actually taken to administrative arbitration.

But, setting that aside for now, I think we'all may be developing horrid Photo workshop myopia, tunnel vision, or both. There are other kids at the playground. One may easily link to a new filename in an article to preview (in edit mode) how a different image would appear. If one would then choose to 'save' it other editors watching the page would then be kept abreast of the change. As opposed to overwriting where the image automatically gets substituted and posted to main space without offering notice to editors following that page. Or any of the other pages on any of the various Wikimedia Foundation sites which may happen to be linked as well. Someone in Romania may have designed a whole image scheme around a particular background color for all we know. :-P . I likely exaggerate a bit but the idea gets through, right?

I think your latest 'gray version' is much improved over the previous one. Much more natural. Rather nice actually. ...Taken on it's own as an image. But... (there's gotta' be a 'but')... But, taken in the context of having placed it under another file's page data by overwriting, I think it... well just insert a string of expletives and you'll likely get close to my opinion at this point. Cussing with a smile as we seem to be progressing from SNAFU towards FUBAR around here.

Seriously, Nagual, is copy/pasting the file info from the blue version into a new upload's text field and tweaking it a bit so difficult as to warrant ignoring a guideline (Commmons & WP) compliant objection? Would it help if I posted a nice pic of a fire hydrant and offered it up for no holds barred alteration?

Hmm, we could likely use an active female editor in the workshop as I think all three of us (Cenpacrr, Nagualdesign, and myself, Kevjonesin) are suffering from a dose of what I've heard called "acute testosterone poisoning". It's a syndrome that appears to be rampant throughout much of the wiki unfortunately.

As to Centpacrr's "unilateral" action in posting another version rather than reverting to your preceding blue one as suggested, I assume you'd also endorse your blue version as a reasonable compromise? I'll happily endorse the change if you'd like to revert to it as Centpacrr's latest still contains questionable alteration within the boundary of the shell. Despite his adamant protestations of authenticity in the edit summary. I left a comment on the file's talk page regarding such. And asked him about his (to me unintelligible) edit summary abbreviations on his talk page as well actually. He's ignored the inquiry last I checked.

I'm amazed at how many people who seem to dislike shared creative collaboration choose to interact on wikis. Masochism perhaps? Or blood sport?

The file's talk page would likely be a good place for some of the file relevant parts of these discussions to take place so that future editors have a better idea of what's going on with the file history and as to what considerations are being taken into account. Also, it's sort of a '3rd option' to the comments below about where-to-post-what that user:JBarta's and myself made.

Thanks, Nagual, for going into detail on the 'white border' masking issue. I think you were likely 'spot on'. I'll try to take the advice into account in the future.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Invertzoo's opinion: About the Queen Conch image

The following is quoted from User_talk:Invertzoo#About the Queen Conch image.

---

G'day Invertzoo,

There was recently some confusion amongst editors at the Photography workshop surrounding a previous edit request that you made. Mostly regarding wiki procedural issues, but it also included some differences of opinion over how to interpret your original request. It's occurred to me that we may have been a bit silly in not having asked you to 'please clarify' as you likely know what you meant better than we do. So —in the spirit of 'better-late-than-never— when you requested:

"Please take out the reflection and the brown background markings on the lower left corner of this otherwise beautiful image."

...in regards to this (unedited) version of "File:Sea shell (Trinidad & Tobago 2009).jpg", did you intend "the reflection" to refer to the light source reflections on the shell itself (i.e. 'highlights' on the shell) or just to refer to the reflections on the background surface below the shell?

Also, how do you feel and what are your thoughts about the current (edited) version of the image?

Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk)

p.s. — I also left a link to a stylized version on the Conch talk page. --16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kevjonesin! G'day to you too! Thanks for asking. In my original request I meant the reflections on the glass surface that were below the shell in the same area as the brown geometric bands. I thought that the reflections/highlights on the shell itself were just fine. I really like the current edited version, I do. You are welcome to copy these comments onto the workshop page if you like. (Your slightly surreal version, which is shown on the talk page of Conch is very pretty indeed, but almost overwhelming. Would make a great backdrop at a shell show or similar.) Invertzoo (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The above is copied from User_talk:Invertzoo#About the Queen Conch image.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

JBarta raises another procedural concern

The following is quoted from #Lobatus gigas, the queen conch

---

I think it's best to keep all this sort of discussion about a particular image/request in one spot ([in the Requests section]). 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 [in the request section] 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) 10:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It ocurred to me while responding to Nagual (further up #So back to...) that another thing to consider is that a good part of 'request section' discussions (particularly when it involves multiple versions under one filename) might actually be better suited to the file's talk page so that future editors from outside of the local workshop have some idea of what's been going on (and why) regarding the file history. Especially as upload summaries connected to such often devolve into comments directed at and/or referring to users and threads here on the English Wikipedia's Photo workshop. This seems to disregard the interests of other wikis which link content from Commons.

A Commons file's talk page is likely to be archived less often (if ever) so the info would remain at hand for others in the future. Perhaps leaving a link in the 'request section' and forking the thread to the files talk page if a discussion appears to be growing relevant to a wider audience or simply copy/paste relevant bits as they arise or after the fact. Have more of the discussions about Commons files on Commons. Food for thought.

Yet another thought about what/where procedures.

Seems to me that a number of our discussions in the 'request section' of late have strayed heavily into debating what's appropriate for the article rather than an image. Of course context has relevance but it's a two way street so if setting starts to become a deciding factor affecting choice of versions perhaps it would be considerate to add a note and cross link to the relevant article's talk page or simply fork the relevant part of the discussion there. I'm also thinking that, in general, we may benefit from having a larger pool of opinion for awhile. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Many of these request discussions contain elements that suggest moving it to article talk pages, image talk pages, the Graphics Lab talk page or elsewhere. We'd end up with a fragmented and confusing mess if we tried to break up discussions and move pieces around to where we think they belong. I think a simpler approach for the great majority of discussions here is to simply leave it alone and let the discussion evolve where it began. Is this a flawless method? No. But it's a simple and workable method. And links to a discussion/request here can always be posted to an article talk page if we want more input... though don't be surprised if we graphic editors are far more concerned about the image edits than just about anyone else ;-) – JBarta (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty I see with linking from a Commons/Wikipedia file page talk page to a thread in the local WP:Photo_workshop (instead of vice versa) is that the local thread will eventually be archived by a bot —hence creating link rot— while file talk pages are much more likely to persist.

I also see it as a respect for Commons issue as well. It's easy, in practice, to come to consider them as an extension of en:Wikipedia but in actuality Commons is it's own separate international part of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I think what's fair and helpful (considerate) of all —present-&-future— needs to temper what's convenient for 'us' in the here-&-now. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s.— I will agree that it's a bit woolly in our case as article context may affect image editing consensus (at times) and expecting folks to adhere to copying stuff after the fact is unrealistic... Encouraging more verbose detailed upload summaries would be one way to better inform the Commons side of the equation. Or simply make immediately forking all request dialog to file talk pages a new 'best practice' guideline... not quite optimal either though... a bot to mirror stuff would be handy. We really could use a local tech guru. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Easing tension

I think some of the issues of contention in our Workshop are systemic. How practice and practicality are currently laid out having a tendency to lead to push/pull contention. I encourage folks to give this some thought, as Nagual has also suggested, and start making some individual notes to outline best practices. Then we can bring those together to compare and discuss. Being careful not to invest so much ego into one's individual notes that it becomes difficult to consider others when the time to compare arises. hmm, an experiment might be to each start editing our own outline in a personal sandbox but leave a link on the Workshop talk page so others can drop in to compare. With a gentleman's agreement to withhold commenting about them directly until mutually agreed to do so. I'd also recommend taking our time with it. Something to work on over a coupla' weeks instead of a coupla' days. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

err, setting aside my own suggestion: Some of my ideas at this point...

—(soory, I realized that I'd been using somewhat vague terms and decided an example of what I meant by "systemic" was likely worthwhile)

I'm thinking that some sort of allowance at commons for uploads with no page info beyond a template-tag or prefix of "Temporary" might be helpful. It could be set up so that —unless fleshed out into a real file page— they could be automatically flagged for speedy deletion after 30 days or whatever. This would allow for easier discussion and comparison on the talk page of the file. The main file page could then be updated after consensus had been worked out. Personally, I'd also like to suggest that request discussions be forked and/or copied to file talk pages as they often involve the sort of discussion that would warrant such if it was a text article being discussed.

Musing on how "File:" pages are currently being handled differently from regular text articles was a source of much inspiration to me. Restructuring to better facilitate existing text guidelines being applied to files struck me as a way to go. Much that would normally (optimally) be proposed on a talk page in text articles has been done through real time overwriting on file pages. I think a systemic side of this is that it's much easier to write an example in text on a talk page or in a user sandbox than it is to create a new (likely soon to be redundant) Commons file page. At present the path of least technical resistance is the "* Upload a new version of this file" link under "file history". File sandboxes (or some such 'temp' file format) and the means to easily move them to the main file page would be helpful. Perhaps Commons already allows for this in some way and it's just a matter of researching, designing, and implementing a practice of doing so. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Social primates

It seems to me that much/most conflict arises around direct requests from individual editors.

I think there's some basic human buttons getting pushed in this context. In addition to structural issues mentioned above. Classic 'need-to-please' urges coming forward. Quite frankly, I think all of us (myself certainly included + Nagualdesign, JBara, Centpacrr) have shown a tendency at times to act like unruly children clamoring for attention when presented with direct (named) requests. When the requestor is —ostensibly— female, additional human (male) dynamics may be kicking in as well.

It seems to lead to an exaggerated sense of urgency and importance. And a rapid chaotic cycling of images displayed in main space. --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As regards the gender of OP requesters, I personally never consciously consider that for the simple reason that unless the the OP specifically states it (I don't recall that ever happening but it may have) or their username makes it clear (although that could be misleading as well), I have no way of knowing whether the OP is a he or she. (For that matter I don't even know for sure the gender of all the editors either.) A small point, perhaps, but that's the way I see it for myself. I try to please and deal with all OPs equally irrespective of gender. (This applies to editing outside of the Graphics Lab as well.) Everybody has their own approach in WP, of course, but this is mine.

I personally find that problems far more often arise when OPs' requests are ambiguous or unclear so that various editors working on the same request interpret what is being asked for very differently and therefore end up working at cross purposes. I find for me that this is where a great many editing conflicts arise. In addition some editors tend to have very narrow interpretations of how to do things (the "fundamentalists") while others such as myself have much broader views/approaches on what can lead to acceptable outcomes (the "liberals"), and as in life, religion, and politics(!) this all too frequently leads to friction as well. Centpacrr (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Anonymous/Eight_requests display deletions

A recent drive-by-deletion struck me as silly, ill-considered, and rather rude so I went to the offending editor's talk page and shared some of my opinions.

It's led to a coupla' threads which seem to deserve being linked here as they involve Photo workshop procedures.

#Regarding_your_recent_deletions_at_the_Photography_workshop...

#Please_add_the_Graphics_labs_to...

--Kevjonesin (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's some related reading: [1] [2]. all of this has happened before.... Begoon ^talk 01:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, thanks Begoon, I love clever/topical image and vid clip links! Adds a bit of color. Was actually the first bit I clicked on. Suppose I should go and read the preceding linked stuff now.... :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I can certainly see the similarities. wow, you must have had to dig for those links! It seems sensible/practical to grant an exception to the Graphics labs but unfortunately 'common sense, isn't'. Isn't all that common that is. I imagine an inclination to rigidly control will beat out concerns of being conducive to functionality as is so often the case. Oh, well, it's easy enough to simply ignore the images with {{non-free reduce}} tags when refreshing the requests display. A bit sad though. JBarta worked out a good compromise for now, mind you. I just don't see people as being likely to want to make the effort to do so in the future. Not when there are so many other backlogged images to choose from. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s.— Nice/handy to know about {{GLNF}} I suppose. Perhaps something should be added to one of the opening notices about it. hmm, and JBarta's fix might be worth noting on the display maintenance page. To stave off future kerfluffling. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No digging required, really - I've been active on and off in the Illustration lab for quite a while, and I remembered it - so just a search for 'illustration lab' at WP:ANI found it for me as 3rd result.

{{GLNF}} is fine, but it's really just a graphical link, explaining why the image is not displayed. Useful as a placeholder in formatted pages such as the '8 requests'. The big red warning triangle should go, though - unless we're trying to scare people off. Jbarta's fix is cool, too. Maybe we should improve the template.

One of the issues is that, whilst dealing with a non-free reduce is a request which helps enforce the NFCC, there are many other cases, such as users who post metric craploads of non-free logos to the illustration lab, looking for vectorisation. Many times these are not actioned, and the request falls into the archives, so now you need an exception for the archive, too. The NFCC enforcement people will argue that [a] it was a cosmetic request [b] it's a 'slippery slope' etc... To a degree they might have a point. I thought you might like to see some of the history, is all. I think it's a shame - because, like you, I'd prefer to see the thumbnail as a quick indication of the task, and because the thumbnail itself could encourage an editor to look, and do the work. I'd be very surprised if the exception was granted, though - but I've been surprised before... Begoon ^talk 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seems a pleasant surprise would become a bit more plausible if more folks from the labs would weigh in with opinions on the talk:Non-free_content#Please_add_the_Graphics_labs_to... thread. >wink<

At this point , I've come to realize that although the text of the non-free guidelines allows for some exception to be made, it has become the customary practice to not actually do so. A strict "No non-free outside of main-space" is straightforward, cut-n-dry, and I can see where trying to keep it so might be useful to minimize debate, even if inconvenient and obstructive to Graphics lab editors. A de jure/de facto situation. While I may personally dislike being restrained by such, I can accept it. The rationale is not without foundation.

While I can accept the underlying why I still take issue with the how —in the case of Werieth's drive-by-deletion. I find it noteworthy that this aspect was a major point of contention in the archived threads Begoon linked as well. I've come to suspect that some who choose to focus their activity on edits relating to non-free content have come to view their contributions as somehow more important and urgent than those of others. Like arrogant cops who've come to see themselves as above the law and not bound by the restraints of courtesy. I can only hope that they might see the light and curb their enthusiasm so as to reshape themselves into something more closely resembling peace officers serving the public good. Or perhaps better yet, simply as fellow wiki editors. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Commons Global Usage Badges tool: a handy gadget

JBarta and I were discussing this recently. Seems others may find it useful as well.

• Gadget-GlobalUsageUI

The Commons Global Usage Badges tool can be quite handy. Makes it a breeze finding files to prioritize for editing and review by adding a small red square beside gallery thumbnails which displays the number of articles linked to the file.

Enable it in Commons via: Preferences>Gadgets>Interface: Files and categories>Global Usage Badges.

Initially, when first viewing gallery pages (such as maintenance categories) one will see a "?" mark displayed beside all thumbs. Once one 'clicks' one of these "?" marked red buttons the gadget will be activated within the current gallery and will scan all entries. At which point the "?" marks disappear and a number (1+) in a red square will be shown beside only those files which are actually currently in use (0 = 'blank'). Scrolling over the numbered red squares then brings up a list of linked pages .

Happy editing y'all! :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

New display name & red button

I changed the displayed name of the "Eight requests" page to "Tagged requests" in response to a bit of confusion.

This has inspired me to look into adding a 'red button' for the "New request" link(s) at the top of the page as well.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• I added the button. Any opinions? --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

not archived anymore?

Are these not being archived anymore?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Policy regarding colourisation of images

I've stated two, separate discussions about our policy regarding the colourisation of images:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Colourisation of images (about when such images may or may not be used, and how and when the fact that a colourised image is shown must be declared)
• Commons:Village pump#Colourising and replacing images (about overwriting b&w originals vs. starting a new file)

Please make your views known. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about colorizing old photos (if it looks good, at least), as long as in the file description it's clearly said that it's a modern colorized photo. Having said, the original photo should never be replaced by the new colorized photo. The colorized photo must be uploaded into a new file. --Lecen (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy governing the colorization of images on Wikipedia. That isn't to say that there shouldn't be one. I feel that this discussion should probably be more aimed towards arriving at a consensus that requests for colorized versions of grayscale images should follow certain guidelines, so as to establish such a policy. To that end, I would support the following guidelines:

• Colorization should be limited to restoration work instead of improvements, with respect to images which are considered depictions instead of illustrations.
• Colorized versions should always be created in a new file which is labelled as such.
• Colorized versions used to illustrate a subject should be labelled clearly as illustrations, and be linked back to the original file.
• Historically notable greyscale or monochrome images should never be colorized.

Despite participating in an argument taking place on the main page (which is inappropriate to the page, inappropriate to the spirit of cooperation which should drive WP, tangential to the issue of whether there should be a policy and which I have already ceased participation in), I concur wholeheartedly with the concerns expressed on this issue. There may be some illustrative use for colorized versions of certain images, however these uses are bound to be (rare) exceptions, and not the rule.

To that end, assuming we agree on a set of guidelines, there needs to be a way to communicate these guidelines in the future. There have been multiple volunteers colorizing images, and multiple users requesting the colorization of these images. There is a header at the top of the photography workshop, which is a template of Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop/top. I believe this should be modified with information on these guidelines, and any other guidelines the community may have achieved consensus on for the benefit of anyone visiting the page.

I am one of the volunteers who have colorized images at the request of other users (and the specific user to whom Pigsonthewing began this discussion in reaction to), and while I will not capitulate to individuals who insist upon using reactionary and accusatory language to demand I take certain actions, I have no problem with cooperating with those individuals to develop a policy governing this issue, even if previous edits of mine would find themselves in violation of this policy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the intent was to discuss the various aspects at the two linked threads, not here. (Hohum ^@) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. I'll post my piece in those, although it seems needlessly complicated to discuss changes to how this page is used elsewhere. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 15 September 2014

(UTC)

My comments on this issue appear here. Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

RSS feed

Nice addition folks. 'Kudos' to whoever came up with it [RSS feed] and implemented it. The page layout and notation looks nice overall as well actually. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential new graphics volunteer questions

I have some computer graphics and photo editing training from college but had a life threatening disabling illness and need some pointers and practice. I have older, but full versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, and Aftereffects. I have been looking and searching for only 3 days and have seen a great deal of overwhelming but disorganized info....or at least this dyslexic person hasn't been able to find this info, so I apologize if this info is covered elsewhere.

Do you have any kind of introduction page specific to potential graphics volunteers?

Is there a master style sheet I could refer to, not info on the templates, posted somewhere?

Is there a graphics spec sheet or is it scattered among all the posts?

What techniques are you using to remove watermarks? (Never ever though of doing this so not sure where to begin and I have never edited or posted at Wikipedia so not sure where to look/search format.)

I was looking at the pictures needing watermarks needing removal, and I was wondering what do you do when there are other problems or it isn't a watermark but a bad copy or a copy/scan error? Do you just try to fix it anyway or try to request a better image, etc...

Is this where I should be asking these questions, or is there some where else I should be looking?

Ambre P (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ambre P, you might want to post the above to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop and Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab as well. I've not dropped by here in quite some time, so may not be able to fully speak to the present state of things, but as the present crew haunting the page have apparently been too absorbed in other things to respond to a polite request in a timely manner I guess I'm what ya' get. Sadly, there's a history of courtesy issues arising at times around here. Don't take that to be too daunting though. Some have been known to give helpful feedback on occasion as well and the users requesting help are generally quite nice and appreciative.

"Do you have any kind of introduction page specific to potential graphics volunteers?

Is there a master style sheet I could refer to, not info on the templates, posted somewhere?

Is there a graphics spec sheet or is it scattered among all the posts?"

There wasn't such when I was hanging out before, but such might very well be useful and help defer some of the contentions that arise. A local list of links to existing wiki policies which have particular relevance to handling images at Wikipedia would be helpful as well. Guidelines for dealing with copy righted 'fair use' images for instance, in addition to Wikimedia Commons stuff regarding when it's appropriate to upload edits over an existing image or to place them on a separate page and cross reference them. Commons comes into it as most images are actually hosted on Commons and basically transcluded to Wikipedia. Anyway, things are pretty much 'learn as you go'. Many are happy to leap in with criticism/reversions if one wanders into a 'transgression', if you're able to avoid taking such personally you'll likely pick up quite a bit fairly quickly. ... And eventually find that as there are few (if any) established local standards beyond the process notation displayed in the templates on the main page, folks tend to have there own de facto interpretations of what the 'rules' are.

"What techniques are you using to remove watermarks? (Never ever though of doing this so not sure where to begin and I have never edited or posted at Wikipedia so not sure where to look/search format.)

I was looking at the pictures needing watermarks needing removal, and I was wondering what do you do when there are other problems or it isn't a watermark but a bad copy or a copy/scan error? Do you just try to fix it anyway or try to request a better image, etc..."

When I was image editing on a regular basis I used the (free) GIMP program. I think it shares most of its capabilities with Adobe Photoshop though. Perhaps under different terms, but anyway ... As it's freely available for Mac, PC, and Linux and there are many free tutuorials on youtube and such you might just want to take it for a 'test drive' and judge for yourself. Tip: 'Single window' mode might be more like what you're used to in Photoshop.

The only time I would generally request (or search for on my own) better images were if resolution or scan quality were particularly bad. Otherwise, I'd usually address the flaws while I had the image at hand removing a watermark or whatever. Perhaps gently tweak color balance and such or ad a bit of unsharp mask if called for. Subtlety is usually a plus IMO. Moderate tweaks rather than radical caricature. i.e. Aim to adjust the quality of the digital image, not the artist.

Come to think of it I did have a surprising amount of success in getting museum staff to email (free) high res original scans of classic oil paintings when I asked nicely and explained how/where I intended to use them. Just had to be patient, often took a few weeks to get a response.

As to method specifics, when removing a 'watermark' I'd generally use the 'heal' and 'clone' functions, taking samples from nearby to rebuild what I was cutting out. Feathering edges to smooth transitions and such. Even if early attempts come out a touch rough they'll probably be less obtrusive than what was removed and fellow editors are often inspired to (perhaps pragmatic, for the wiki) 'one-up-manship'.

@Ambre P:, I hope this is helpful (and not too crotchety). G'Luck and feel free to ask more questions, --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is good advice. I think we do need an introduction to volunteering here. I've seen quite a bit butting (and smacking) of heads over people not understanding what to do or how to do it. I think I may start a draft page for new volunteers, and I'll post here when I do, so it's not just me working on it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea, MjolnirPants G'Luck, --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Group of Seven members not correctly listed?

Just a quick inquiry about the photograph depicting the Group of Seven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_Seven_%28artists%29#/media/File:Group-of-seven-artists.jpg

I'm thinking the first two people in the photo are actually A.Y.Jackson and then, Frederick Varley not the way the caption reads; the rest of the people represented are right. This photo has probably been wrong for some time. Anyway I know this is splitting hairs, but they are rather famous after all. Cheers. 64.56.236.33 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Dave Hlavacek64.56.236.33 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer conflict

I really think we need to all agree on a set of guidelines when multiple volunteers work on the same request. Virtually all the headbutting and arguing I've seen here arises from that issue. I don't want to drone on about how we're all here to help, but we all have egos and opinions, so let me cut to the chase. Can we all agree to operate using the following rules?

1. Always put up an {{I take}} tag when you start, and understand that if you don't, someone else is likely to overwrite your work. We're all here because we want to work on these images.
2. Always offer suggestions before taking it upon yourself to 'fix' someone else's work. Give the original volunteer the chance to fix it. Everybody here has made some good images and some bad images. Also, everyone here has made some good 'corrections' and some bad ones. This includes me, I know, but it includes you, too. This could cut out a lot of the arguing.
3. Don't take it personal! We're all trying to improve the images submitted here. Remember that the other guy is trying to help, not trying to blast your work.

I know this hasn't been a big problem, but it could be. I'd rather we all agree to follow these rules now, so we can avoid a big fight later. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with number 2. If you think something is broken, fix it. If consensus is to revert, that's fine. Which is essentially the same as editing articles. (Hohum ^@) 23:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Number 2 seems like unnecessary ego pandering, but the rest I agree with, and I appreciate the peace-keeping efforts. nagualdesign 00:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggested number 2 because it would cut off most of the bickering at the bud, before it got started, and because it's far easier to not make an edit than it is to not get upset over someone undoing your edit. In principle, I agree with you guys that we should fix whatever needs fixing. But we've all seen firsthand that this causes conflict in practice. Of course, I can't force anyone to do it, so if everyone can agree to 1 and 3, then those two would be the standards we'd expect each other to maintain. And that's what I'm trying to accomplish, here. Coming up with a few standards of behavior beyond normal WP policy that we can expect each other to meet. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Appreciation

I'm not sure the editorial community at large realises how much Wikipedia owes to the skill and work of you unseen heroes in the Graphics Lab. Thank you all for helping us prose writers make better articles. Tim riley talk 08:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"Photography workshop" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Photography workshop. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Photography workshop until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Newbie

Hello all, have been editing for 3 1/2 years in Indian films (saw hundreds) and now wish to picture-edit many of the film posters, beginning with early Tamil films. Thai Ullam of 1952 is a good example. Many aren't pictured squarely, have tattered edges, creases, stains etc. Have GIMP program and have used it on a couple hundred of my own pictures. I just want to restore original appearance as much as possible. As Lincoln said "It is above our poor power to add or detract. I may not be programmed for etiquette and protocol, but I wish to get the procedural stuff right. I've read that you don't have to be in the graphics lab list, but i'm announcing that I will be doing it. Comments? Suggestions? Menjobleeko11 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)