User talk:Clouzzo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Clouzzo!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pussy Riot image[edit]

File:Pussy Riot by Igor Mukhin.jpg has been used in the fr.wiki article and others for a long time. There's no need to upload an inferior version for use on fr.wiki, where your change is also arbitrary and undiscussed. Please leave the original image as is, or open a discussion here or on fr.wiki regarding the change. INeverCry 19:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Chypre01.jpg[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Chypre01.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Noebu (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No reduction of resolution when modifying photos[edit]

Hi, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo_Merisi_da_Caravaggio_-_The_Conversion_on_the_Way_to_Damascus_%28detail%29_-_WGA04134.jpg Please, when you modify photos, don't reduce the resolution (pixel size). Thank you. Noebu (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, another request not to reduce the of resolution when modifying photos[edit]

I've reverted to the previous version of The Bookworm as you've overly compressed it and, in doing so, have lost much of the detail. Please be cautious of damaging the integrity of images. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In the first instance, do NOT leave abusive comments such as, "are you joking ? look at the ceiling ! increased contrast only gives you the false impression that there are more details" next to a publicly accessible file! You are an extremely discourteous and intrusive 'contributor' and have provoked me into responding to you in kind.
In the second instance, to not presume to tell me about contrast and false impressions. Having worked in web development for many, many years, I probably knew my way around Photoshop when you were still in your nappies. I'm afraid that it is you who believe that you've somehow improved the image. In fact, decreasing the contrast was a clumsy attempt at making a cracked oil-painting look a little smoother. The previous contrast settings allowed for a closer resemblance to the actual physical piece and the contrast methods deployed by Spitzweg in order for his composition to draw the eye to the character's face and stance. It had been adjusted years ago to a point where everyone using it was satisfied. Suddenly, you come along and decide that you're going to work on it simply because you can. I only left a brief comment (out of courtesy) as to why I reverted to the previous version. Here are a couple more reasons why your 'improved' version is inadequate:
A. You've lifted the greens, a problem that would have been inherent to the photographic reproduction as it turns blacks green in a manner similar to old video footage in lowlight conditions, and already a sore point in the reproduction;
B. Lifting the contrast also lost the crisp definition of the books and other details.
I'm reverting back. If you have any further queries or quibbles, discuss them here or on my page in order to avert an edit war. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)