File talk:Phineas Gage Cased Daguerreotype WilgusPhoto2008-12-19 CroppedHeadOnly EnhancedRetouched Color.jpg

Question: This seems to be a crop of (link 1) https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/df/50/98df502d5a2499e35901335c5ad9f950--phineas-gage-brain-injury.jpg not of (link 2) File:Phineas Gage Cased Daguerreotype WilgusPhoto2008-12-19 EnhancedRetouched Color.jpg -- the white "lint" in the hair at subject's left (viewer's right) is still there. Right? Why not crop File:Phineas Gage Cased Daguerreotype WilgusPhoto2008-12-19 EnhancedRetouched Color.jpg instead? EEng (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(link 1) is higher resolution than (link 2), where the head was scaled down and retouched. The only thing I did to this file was crop and desaturate, which is why I removed the part that said, "Enlarged using Waifu2x and retouched by Joe Haythornthwaite."[1] So this isn't actually a derivative of a derivative (link 2), it's a derivative of the source file (link 1). I could remove the lint if you wish. nagualdesign 02:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But I thought that link 2's head (plus some more, though I don't know how much) was got from link 1 i.e you took link 1's head and carefully overlaid it onto link 2. So if we crop link 2 to just the head wouldn't we get the same thing as you'd get by cropping link 1, but with the lint removed? Sorry if I'm being dense, I'm just trying to understand. One way or the other, if we call this "retouched" then it needs to match the other "retouched". EEng (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you read my mind -- removed the lint. But still I'd like to understand, just so I'll know. EEng (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You're correct. The only bit you're missing is that I actually scaled the original (link 1) down in order to match the rest of the image that I'd scaled up. Waifu2x, as the name suggests, only upscales by a factor of 2. If memory serves me I had to reduce the head to 60.9% to match. This file (the headshot) isn't scaled down. Having said all of that, I've now redone the spot removal on this version (compare before and after). Again, I was extremely careful. nagualdesign 02:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Just the one "bit of lint"? I'd like to be able to say in the description something like, "Retouched to remove an apparent image defect in the area of subject's hair". so it's clear nothing else was changed. EEng (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I take it that you're struggling to compare the before and after images. Assuming you're using a computer rather than a smartphone, hold the CTRL key down and click on each of the links to open them in new tabs then, still holding the CTRL key, tap the TAB key to switch between them. If you do that you'll see exactly what I've done.

Since this is slightly higher resolution than the full image (link 2) there was slightly more visible lint. I've already written "Minor spot removal" in the edit summary, and since it hasn't materially changed the content of the image (the subject) I think that will suffice. You really don't need to hold up every bit of dust for public inspection, it's just lint, but if you want to add that to the file description I won't stop you. It's going to get a bit wordy though. There was a hair-like mark on his collar and several white dust spots dotted about, which I also removed. nagualdesign 02:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize there were those other changes. That's fine, as long as we can say there were no changes to face/neck/anything with skin on it. Can you express that somehow? -- maybe "Hair, clothes and background retouched"? I know you think I'm worrying too much, but trust me I'm not. It's not only important to maintain the integrity of the image, but for readers to be able to understand that integrity was maintained. EEng (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There were no changes to face/neck/anything with skin on it. In fact there were an infinite number of possible edits that I didn't do. If I'd made any material changes then, I agree, it's important to make that clear. If you want to start listing things we didn't do you may be here for quite some time. What I did do is some minor spot removal. Minor being the operative word. nagualdesign 02:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

...If you want to be absolutely thorough you could just link to the source file in the description. nagualdesign 02:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to annoy you, but I assure you this matters. Maybe you know, but maybe you don't, that I am The World's Second Foremost Expert On Phineas Gage (there are only two of us, and I'm #2) so I'm an authority figure and I say it matters. Anyway, is my suggestion -- how about, "Minor spot and defect removal on background, clothing, and hair" -- correct? EEng (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not annoyed in the slightest. Yes, if you like you can add "Minor spot and defect removal on background, clothing, and hair." It's 3:16am here and I'm off to bed now. Feel free to post any other questions, and please don't think I'm refusing to answer or anything. nagualdesign 03:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)