General improvement of the picture: hue, contrast and luminance balance, rectifying geometric distortion (upper right corner seems to lean away from the camera).
This is the only pre-war coloured image I could find of the castle. I tried some work from the original source to make it look as if it was taken today. Maybe someone else can do a better job than me? What needs to be removed in any case are the black marks on sky, water, etc. And the tint is somewhat bluish, but I noticed that if I removed the bluish tint, it made the trees look browner again. Thank you very much. -- Gryffindor (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded an attempt. Is that any closer to what you were trying to do? Feel free to say it isn't - we can always try again... . Begoontalk12:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks great. Unfortunately the new image is now cropped, could you upload a version where the 10x15 dimensions are restored? Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually thought that was a better crop from the original, which I had to go back to to regain the quality - more castle, less sky - but if the 1:1.5 ratio is important to you, and you prefer it cropped where you decided to crop it, I can redo it. Begoontalk14:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - done - I also brightened the shadows a little, because those trees that "came back in" are very dark - but that's the very last edit, so you can just revert that if you don't like it. Begoontalk15:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a blob - there's no face, really, just a vague hint of shape. Is there no better source? Google seems to think he's in this one, but that isn't going to be much better... Begoontalk14:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the large BMP format of the titlecard in Flickr. Therefore, creating a PNG and SVG derivative of stand-alone logo is easier when in high resolution. If created, then I'll delete the image from Flickr permanently. -- George Ho (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Various images are available. Editors of the article can choose the one they prefer, and the edited versions are obviously freely available to the kind donor. I also encourage the donor, if desired, to request other work, which I'm sure would be gladly done. Thanks all. Begoontalk22:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
photograph of Thomas Wakem Caldwell
greyscale version
duotone PANTONE 144 CVC bl 80% shad and some additional cleanup version
Great grandson of Thomas Wakem Caldwell who was a member of the Canadian Parliament just donated a family photo of his great grandfather.[5] I thought it would be nice if Wikipedia improved the photo for his family and Wikipedia's use. Please improve based on your own judgment. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - sorry Centpaccr, I started playing with this before I noticed your "take", so now there's a greyscaled version too, in case that's any good. I'll leave it here to look at... I guess it's a matter of taste - I'm never sure whether to greyscale or not - but I kinda liked this one as b/w. Maybe the grandson will like to look at both versions. Great minds think alike with the background - our blurs look almost identical.
Would someone please rotate the image about 90 degrees until the shell is straight up and down (aperture at the bottom), remove the lines in the blue background (and possibly lighten the image a little? it seems a bit dark to me). Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We might also consider trying to remove the square outline of dirt in the aperture, which is where a piece of tape was stuck to the inside of the shell. Only thing is that the subtle underlying pattern of color there must be retained, and that might be a bit difficult to do. Thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A really huge improvement, very well done, thanks so much Centpacrr; could we rotate the shell just a bit so that the long axis that runs through the shell is completely vertical on the page? Invertzoo (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the handwritten logo copyright-free? There's a place you can discuss that. I know you know where it is, and it isn't here. Thanks, Victor by the way, that's cool.Begoontalk18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both pictures need touching up before they be approved for the DYK. The first one especially. As far as I can see, it is too dark and the quality is not that strong. Would love to see any sort of improvement. -- Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick touch up before heading to DYK would be nice. I think it should be a bit darkened and the background seems to look not so old. I'll leave it to the experts. -- Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request:
If some kind wizard would help me with this I'd be so very, very grateful.
See Phineas Gage#Portraits and the Notes section just below it to see the original portrait, and the detail image I extracted from it, which is meant to show the inscription but doesn't do a very good job.
I created the inscription detail by (1) rotating the portrait a few degrees clockwise (so the tamping iron is exactly vertical) then (2) cropping it down to just the tamping iron.
I believe that the rotation fuzzified the image substantially -- I probably used come crude software, don't remember -- so that the inscription is much less legible than it could be.
What I'm hoping is that someone can redo the creation of the inscription detail so that the inscription is as legible as possible -- use brightness changes, contrast, color, anything in the toolbox that will help bring the lettering out.
Other points:
If it's not possible to do the rotation without impairing the legibility of the inscription, then un-rotated would be best. That means the image will be wider but that's OK if it means better legibility.
The length of the detail image I created was cropped vertically to the portion that was at least arguably legible. If your techniques make a larger portion legible, then crop less. "Legible", for this purpose, should be very forgiving. For example, if a person wouldn't be able to read a section of the inscription just by looking on his own, but could make it out with the assistance of the transcription (Phineas Gage#inscription) then that section of the inscription should be kept. Maybe after (possibly) rotating, then applying whatever other corrections you find help, you could crop it to just the tamping iron horizontally, but the entire length of the tamping iron vertically -- it can always be further cropped vertically later, to suit however it will be used. (I hope all this makes sense.)
Thanks! It will be thrilling for the reader to be able to make out the words for himself. "This is the bar that was shot through the head of Mr Phinehas P. Gage..." EEng (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please crop out the photo of Kenneth E. Baker for use in a head shot at 75px and/or an infobox. He is the sixth from the right and you can see another photo (non-free) of him here Please improve the image as needed. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please used one of the above photos and crop out an image of David Altwegg that can be used at 75px and/or an infobox. Thanks! -- Jreferee (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]