This page, part of the Graphics Lab Wikiproject, is an archive of requests for 2018.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. You can submit new requests here.
In all honesty, both of our tape removals are obvious on close inspection, but neither are obvious at typical viewing size. With that in mind, I strongly suspect you did yours in 1/10th the time I did, which evinces a keen artistic eye. Also, did you notice the evidence of airbrushing near the top right? I'm always amused to see an image I'm working on has been worked before, especially by hand. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RE File:Girl-Scouts-Competion-Letter.jpg.
Hello. I uploaded this 1931 Girl Scouts letter, about six months ago. The original was in very poor shape, especially along the sides, and beyond repair. Nonetheless, no text was affected (except ending of last word "Division".) It's important to save, as contains original info which would be otherwise lost to history. It backs up detail in the Wikipedia article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." The letter is reachable there through reference #46.
Anyway, I was hoping that someone at "Commons" can lighten it up while maintaining its focus. The letter looks too dark. I think it would look more presentable if lightened up. (Convert to gray scale?) I don't have the ability to make any proper correction with my basic image editor. I can lighten it up, but then unfortunately, the text also becomes lighter. Thanks. Jim Percy (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
@Centpacrr: I appreciate your effort (and the straightening it out which wasn't even requested), but why are the words in lower right on light side. Can't those words be made darker to blend in with rest of letter, which would also be truer to the original. Namely, "Cordially yours, Harry L. Gilchriese Secretary, Public Relations Divisi" (also signature and date "Feb. 9, 1931", but those are not as important.) Okay. Thanks. -- Jim Percy (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC) PS. Maybe by lowering the brightness level on the lower half or third. The top portion seems to be about the right brightness level (or at least in the way my mind thinking).[reply]
@MPants at work: I'm dealing with this copy: https://vgy.me/5JV0ih.jpg (I only blanked out street address & lowered size a spec.) There are age and distance factors, that make getting a better copy to work with, not possible. Your fix might be good enough. I'll keep it in place. I know another editor at Commons worked on it several days ago, and appreciated that person's efforts. But, a few bogus partial-letters in the farthest upper right of letterhead shouldn't have been there. Also, the strength of typing was seemingly compromised, by the lightening of the item. I just thought it would look more presentable &/or natural if not so bright. Hence, re-uploaded the image a couple so days ago. I was able to position the item so that the entire word "Division" in far lower right was included (instead of just the Divis" part). I had to blank out a tiny spec of the middle right edge letterhead for that to work though. One has to look real closely to notice that. Jim Percy (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JimPercy:I might be able to do a better job with that full color version. Do me a favor and leave a message on my talk page so I'll notice it when I get to my home computer tonight. I might be able to focus, straighten, clean and enhance the color version way better than I did the greyscale one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I received assistance from this workshop four days ago, which was much appreciated. However, there is one more of my uploads in somewhat dire need of imaging assistance.
I uploaded this 1932 Foreign Service letter, about six months ago. The original camera shot was in sub-par shape. Nonetheless, I felt important to save, as contains original info which would be otherwise lost to history. It backs up detail in the Wikipedia article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." The letter is reachable there through references #60 & 217.
Here is how it looks in its original state, with bright yellow camera date and folded back corners: https://vgy.me/ODtczj.jpg
IMPORTANT IMPORTANT Today, I did clean up to a degree, three of the sides (lower right too difficult or best left as-is) and along the margins, but not the dimensions or anything else. I think this would be the one that someone at The Workshop, would find easiest to work with: https://vgy.me/W1pe8J.jpg
Anyway, I was hoping that someone at "Commons" can lighten it up while maintaining its focus (too dark). Also, the alignment and/or dimensions are off, due to the (wrongly angled) original camera shot. Outline of edges needs to be leveled out. The size is 3,000 x 4000 pixels, which reckon should be lowered to 1693 x 2161 pixels or less. General detail: I received it on a CD mailed cross country, hence, not possible to retake the image.
Thanks. Hope not overly time consuming. Jim Percy (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graphist opinion(s)
Request taken. I've got much of the work I did to fix the other one stored as actions in Photoshop, so I should be able to handle this one fairly quickly. Uhh, once I get home, that is (I'll still take a crack at it at work ;) ). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: In my post of earlier today, I had links to three different images of the same. It seems that there was enough to work with, in my upload of July 7, 2018. Yes, today's fix-up is an improvement. Lighter and even darker text. Thanks. Jim Percy (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: I did lighten up your effort a little, while trying not to lose much in text darkness. I suppose this is closer to what I had in mind. However, reckon what counts is the preference of Commons. It can always be changed back to the previous one. I only have a basic (free) desktop image editor to work with. I figured there's a slight tear in the original, hence, it should stay in rather than compromise the integrity. Jim Percy (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JimPercy: Ha! I used to have IrfanView on my original Pentium machine. The one with the 56k modem and a whole stack of AOL "free trial" CDs that I used to use to get on the BBSes and talk about the latest episode of The X-Files.
Please crop the white spaces or upload a file without the. If you do the former, just use the original file and shrink that down rather than use the one already there. Thanks in advance -- 109.79.245.133 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The holes in lotus seedheads elicit feelings of discomfort or repulsion in some people.
Trypophobia is a rare phobia in which an image of a pattern of holes can elicit strong feelings of discomfort or repulsion in some people. The image you see here is an example. There is an Rfc going on currently at Talk:Trypophobia, about whether to keep the image at the top of the article, collapse it, or move it down, where presumably phobic individuals would be less likely to see it.
I see a possibly better alternative, but I don't know if it's a reasonable one, technically speaking, and I need your help and advice. I would like to propose a 5-phase progressive gif based on the lotus image, where the disturbing part within the circle (or perhaps the whole image) starts off quite blurry, sufficiently to prevent the distress in those who are phobic, and then progressively sharpens after 3- or 5-second intervals, giving the phobic individual sufficient time to bail out before the distressing effect becomes acute. (We have at least two individuals on board at the discussion who have the phobia and could be queried about how blurry is blurry enough to start. For non-phobes, the caption ideally would have a link which would jump to the fully-sharp image.)
My first question is, would it be possible to create a progressively sharpening gif based on this image? (I'm not asking for it yet, and it would be a waste of time to create one, if the consensus of the Rfc doesn't go in that direction.) Secondly, could you go to the Rfc and comment about whether this sort of image would be possible, and if so, how to request it?
There is already a long discussion going on about the image placement problem. The best place to comment on this would be at the Rfc discussion location here. (Other links:
Rfc begin,
Rfc survey,
Rfc discussion.) Any advice you could offer on the feasibility of a progressive gif of this nature would be appreciated; feedback requested --> here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, PawełMM, that's awesome! I'll link to the image from the discussion there. (P.S. I meant awesome in its original sense, not its newer, slangy sense, but actually both apply; thanks again!) Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Film Commission Boilerplatedo not create a new image as it is not needed.