Please make some general improvements to both pictures. I think the first picture needs a crop. Other general improvements will be great. Thanks in advance, Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want the same images used as part of the same collage. Cropping of the images must be the same. The size must be larger without ruining the quality of the collage and/or images. The uploader hasn't been active since 2008. -- George Ho (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
Done, assuming the request was to recreate the collage at the largest possible size. The limiting factor was the width of the 3rd image (267px), so there isn't a great increase in size. I reframed some of the images. Hope that satisfies. nagualdesign18:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago, I uploaded an image of a flame shell from Flickr, it had the right license, etc, and it used it in the article above. Only thing is, I was unaware of the "Wikipedia Graphics Lab" at the time, so instead of bothering to request someone remove the watermark, I just cut it off. Having stumbled upon this corner of the vast and sprawling Wikimedia Empire, a corner of which I was previously unaware, I now know where to take image related requests in the future! Anyways, If anyone could be bothered to do so, I think it would be best to remove the watermark, re-upload the image and delete the chopped off version I made in a crude (but admittedly successful) attempt to get rid of the pesky thing. Oh, and given that this is the first time I have ever made a graphics request here, don't be surprised if I messed something up. I am unfamiliar with the protocol, see? SarrCat∑;317:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bot wants to reduce the size…instead, please trim to the gentleman with the lei, perhaps the guy he's talking to for context, to conform with Wiki size issues -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image is horribly green-tinted! Most of these shells were probably quite red, although some might have been somewhat greenish. For comparison see this image:
I wrestled with it for a while. There are lots of issues with this, so I wouldn't say the job's done. It may be impossible to get an encyclopedic image out of this. Perhaps someone else might give it a whirl? nagualdesign22:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..Okay, I redid the colour adjustment using a much simpler method and it looks a bit better. The colour fringes are gone at least, although a green glow remains. Whether the image is realistic is another matter entirely. nagualdesign00:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first attempt got closer to the desired color, although the second attempt cleaned up the weird glow more effectively. Is it possible to color-adjust your second attempt to make it much redder/pinker? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps as well as making the shells pinker/redder, we can also make the background black, and crop the image a bit? Thanks so much. Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced some of the blue to allow the warmer tones to come through, and square cropped the image. More forceful shoehorning of colour information would guarantee that the finished image was unencyclopedic. I don't think that blackening the background would help, to be honest. Regards, nagualdesign18:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that looks great!!! Thanks so much. That is very useful now and really does give an idea of what these shells are like. Thanks a million! Invertzoo (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please trim closer to subject. Photo was provided me by the subject, I know there are rules of photography, but I don't know them, so please use your judgement, I trust you :) … -- Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can spruce this up? It's a low-quality image, but the museum that has the original does not want a high-quality image to be available for free. Please see what you can do with this. Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. That museum (the BPK) does make available a higher quality image but it has a watermark plastered on it. One might use the image above to supply pixels in place of the watermark. Or maybe I could buy the image and use that at the top of the Wikipedia article. Or we can just brighten up the image above. Whatever you folks think is best.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not a good idea to upload 4-year-old snapshots of your personal life to Wikipedia. The images of (your?) children will probably be deleted and the rest are of such low resolution and poor quality that they are unusable. Also, your contributions to National Museum of Natural History, New Delhi are mostly unwelcome and disruptive by the look of it. Sorry, but it's a no from me. (See WP:NOTFACEBOOK) nagualdesign23:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Template:NoCoins. Could you add scales to these images? Either please add text to the images themselves saying how big the coins are, or please add something 1cm long; there's no need to indicate fractions of inches, because the only people who need inches are Americans, to whom the coins themselves are sufficient indications of size. For your reference, the silvery coin is 17.91 mm, and the copper one is 19.05 mm. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concern was raised that this image is blurry. It is however a superior image to the current one as it represents the vast majority of cases of this condition and the main causative factors perfectly. Therefore my request is to enhance/sharpen the image if this is at all possible (or will I have to retake this image?). It may also be good to have a bit more cropping, while retaining visilbity of the skin folds at the corners of the mouth. Many thanks if you can help. -- Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One little downside of this camera is that all the images are equally tall (I wish I could get it to take images with lesser heights), so that's a plus, as well as fixing the tilt. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]