User talk:Durova/Archive 1

Image:Claredanes stardust.jpg

If you don't mind I fixed your description of this image. You didn't identify the source image, you called Clare Danes an "actor", you said it was "GFDL" licensed (it is in fact PD) and you forgot to tag it. I have fixed the image for you. I assume you wish your enhancements to retain the same licensing, so I added a PD-retouched tag. -Nard 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Fine with me. Durova 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Neandertalwithlaptop.jpg

This media may be deleted.

File:Neandertal.jpg

This is GDFL uploaded by Nascigl.

This is GDFL uploaded by Husky.

File:Neandertalwithlaptop.jpg

...and then we get this.

Thanks for uploading Image:Neandertalwithlaptop.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Siebrand 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this is watchlisted, here goes. Please assist me in proper authorship notation. The image is a rather simple photoshop adaptation of two existing Commons images, both under GDFL and attributed to different users. My amount of creative input probably isn't enough to claim it as a new work. Would the authorship belong to both of those editors? Durova 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I added some author information,[1] which I think covers all the bases, as it attributes everything to everyone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beaded purse2.jpg

---

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be right on it. :) Durova 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation

Saw you on RC doing quite a lot of it - you might find this useful. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was uploading some museum images tonight and noticed the existing categories didn't really jibe with the Wikipedia articles. So I've been poking around a bit.  :) Regards, Durova 09:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This has its uses too. Use "advanced search" so see categories, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tartan ribbon featured picture candidate

I've pulled up some information from the English language Wikipedia where this has been a featured picture for a year.[2] Hope that's satisfactory. Durova 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not offering a countable opinion for FP or QI, just occasionally for delistings and for QI discussions. If I were, I would make a negative vote for the same reasons as Tony Wills outlined and because of my own lack of familiarity with this image. E and M and optics were not my strong point in physics back in the day, making it even more likely that I would have remembered this photograph had it been there. (Like, 'I don't get it, let me look at the pretty pictures and think about them....'). Nothing against you, and not that I think my textbooks were holy texts of indisputable information; they are all I have and I looked at many more books on the subject than were assigned to me to look at.

No matter how that farce of a contest goes, it was an interesting image to put there and I for one will remember it now (I am pretty sure). -- carol 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do wish I had more background on it. We'll see how it fares. Durova 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag colour disputes

Flag colour disputes turn nasty because:

• flags are some of the most widely used images, and any changes to them (eg. new version uploaded) are seen on any project that has a CommonsTicker.
• flags are symbols of national pride and thus inflamed debates happen very quickly. defending a "true" version of a flag can be a matter of national pride.
• colours are often specified generally if at all, meaning there is no single defined accurate colour.
• what looks good on print is not necessarily the same as what looks good on screen, and even while using defined colours something may look less-than-perfect on screen.

mainly it's the combination of nationalism + wide use. Image:Flag of Italy.svg is the worst one I know and if you do whatlinkshere for that page you will find archives of heated discussion... on the page where you asked about flag disputes, a few sections above is the latest: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg

Glad to see your good work on Commons of late. :) I hope you like it here.

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's much calmer over here. :) Durova 10:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You never received a welcome! :o

(NB: please don't be offended, this doesn't mean I think you're a noob ;) It's just useful...)

English: Welcome to the Commons, Durova!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mata Ortiz Pottery

Hi there... thanks for supporting one of my pictures. Also, I saw your picture of a Mata Ortiz Pot and your desire to start writing about the artists. I have a good friend who has a gallery in Ensenada with this pottery and represents many artists from there. In fact, he is the one that sets up the exhbits at Balboa Park at the Museum of Man or the museum of art, whichever it may be.

I assume you live in San Diego, and if you want to contact him, let me know and I will give you his email. He has been written about in the San Diego Union and LA Times.

Regards, --Tomascastelazo 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, responded. Durova 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag colours and nasty business

Flag colours are usually described as particular PANTONE colours. As those colours are often not exactly in the RGB gamut, they are approximated and simplified: green is the greenest green, dark green is the 'standard web dark green', white is white, red is red.

If you are a purist, this cannot satisfy you. Like for example the red in the the Polish flag. There are versions in circulation where the red looks pinkish. The reason behind it was some complex colour conversion calculation. Personally I am for being able to recognise a digital representation of a flag in the simplest colours possible. Maybe you are a fan of another point of view, and there we have it... My advice: best try and stay out of it... Cheers! Siebrand 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'd just like to understand the lay of the land over here at Commons. Durova 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:William Tecumseh Sherman.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:William Tecumseh Sherman.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Durova 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict on QI noms

Since it's 4 a.m. here I will let you sort it out :) Happy New Year, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Piotrus. It's only seven in the evening in my time zone. I'm enjoying milk and cookies. Cheers! Durova 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wild fires

Hi, I took the liberty of slightly denoising your pretty image with this as result. What do you think? Lycaon 03:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 04:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Ansel Adams - Farm workers and Mt. Williamson.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ansel Adams - Farm workers and Mt. Williamson.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Durova 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mt Etna and Catania.JPG

What do you think? This is straight from the camera. I do have the raw, so I can regenerate it at a higher level of quality, etc.

I'm aware of some spots in the sky, but I'm not sure how best to address them. And I think it's a bit light, but my attempts to darken it haven't been especially successful. Your thoughts? Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing, of course. Do they let you get away with this in QI? Smog sucks. Durova 23:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically the bottom 20% messes up your histogram. There range of tones on the rest of the shot is actually quite narrow. Crop first, then toy with the levels. I also sharpened it, notched up the contrast a little, and added gobs more saturation than I should have. If I were spending more time I would have followed through on the sky with the healing tool. Durova 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Durova 21:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. At the risk of being greedy, shall we try for Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sfearthquake2.jpg? Ben Aveling 07:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a day to clean the artifacts? Durova 10:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben, do you have a better scan? I looked at that one at 300% and remembered a reason I didn't address it sooner: it looks like a second or third generation JPEG up close. This particular version would run into problems at FPC no matter what I did with it. Durova 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. We could ask User:Madmax32, though he hasn't been around for a while. Maybe we just let this one go. Hmmm... He did upload a lot of images while he was active - maybe have a look at Image:Frenchmanweeps1940.jpg? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If only it didn't clip off the top of his head. I've got a color shot in my workshop of the liberation. Maybe I ought to go to work on that. Durova 08:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Can we clean these up? These are images of the same glacier taken 96 years apart. I don't know if the embedded info should be deleted though.--MONGO 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Grant Glacier 1902

‎

Grant Glacier 1998

‎

The 1902 photo has potential, but the 1998 one is far too noisy to stand a chance at FPC. I'll go ahead and clean up the older file. If you'd like to try to feature this as a pair you'd need to choose a different glacier. Durova 10:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion, presuming that they were taken around the same month, that the two images be joined into one aka the Nagaski one which before/after the A bomb was dropped. 124.178.143.17 05:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ooh, good thought - thank you Durova 08:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FP oppositions

Hi. Please don't take these personal. I just don't like all this old pictures as FP. I do appreciate there historical value but for me FP is more for stunning images of great technical quality, with a large WOW-factor. It looks as if a lot of people promote those old BW images only for there historical importance and overlook the their quality. If this continues, next year's POTY may consist of 50% BW's. I feel a bit like Don Quichote fighting wind mills ;-). Don't get discouraged though and just ignore me ;-). Regards. Lycaon 08:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do my best to locate the best quality I can find and address artifacting, etc. That means I wind up passing on a lot of subjects with encyclopedic value that just aren't up to snuff technically. Durova 08:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Firesunset2edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Thank you. :) Durova 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image request

I have a little problem in which I think that my intentions were misunderstood at english wikipedia. I became involved with GIMP for many reasons, one of those reasons was that I was offended by the price tag (and price tags offend me for many other consumer items as well). The softwares are natural enemies, even if they were made for completely different purposes and completely different users.

The people who are editing the article for GIMP have placed a photoshop advertisement quite firmly into the article. I actually and honestly would like to remove it for the dignity of Photoshop -- which was once a very classy act! But the consensus is that the advertisement should remain there.

I was wondering if you could put that $600 investment of yours to work and make a few of the graphics for GIMP's article that GIMP cannot (or perhaps refuses) to make. I could actually fake much of it with the plug-ins and stuff that is available to me, but learning how to edit the exif information is just not where I want to take my skill level yet. Here is a list of graphics that would greatly enhance the Photoshop portion of GIMPs article:

1. screenshot of pantone colors palette
2. screenshot of CMYK color picker
3. screenshot of gamma correction in action (you could use one of the old photographs you have been cleaning to demonstrate how to pick the gray part perhaps)
4. screenshot of the folders in the layer window for one of your images
5. a situation where a tool to rotate, scale and move at the same time is necessary and an example of how you use this in your daily work
6. some snazzy text blending effects like drop shadow and glow
7. actions that you have written and what great image enhancements they do

A gallery of these examples would be just great there and if you would like, I could make a psd of GIMPs mascot for you and you could put a speech balloon over his head that says "I am unable to do this!" using some of those same text blending tricks -- and put his head on a soapbox and that can go at the top of that part of the article. -- carol 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just looked at that discussion. Actually I agree with you: the comparison article is a better location for that discussion. How about we initiate a content request for comment and seek broader input? Durova 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I lost that battle already and it is one that I did not want to fight. The reason that I did not want to fight it is because it is not the way that the GIMP users and devotees worked when I first became involved and getting a consensus for things that should be obvious -- this is not much fun. I did not buy my copy of GIMP, my investment is time and love; this time and love discourages me from attempting to make things correct via the established methods. Well, Photoshop is the 'established method'....

I have had an interesting few years since becoming involved with the project and the people. My contribution (other than my web site) has recently rotated into the history of the application and it was time. http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/ and do not let its humble appearance fool you. Under the hood of that web site is a powerful enough mechanism that lately I sit and wonder if some of the more popular web sites (not wiki) started with this mechanism. I didn't write it, btw. It was developed to fit my specifications. Also, inkscape -- when I finally had a reason to work with svg, it occured to me that I could use my web site tools to automate the making of them (svg). I mention all of this now not to brag, although it is a snapshot of my child so there is some bragging occurring -- this cannot be avoided. I'm just not going to go and beg for a consensus is all. It isn't how the real developers of that application work and it isn't how great things are accomplished. They are real people; they are volunteers -- they also have invested time and love.

Our paths 'cross' at an uncomfortable place for me. When I first looked at the FP of the Wright flyer image, I laughed and felt bad for the FP consensus because there is a GIMP script on my user page which automates this kind of improvement to images. My pride in the software that I love made me make a better version of this. When I nominated it for FP there was one vote, it was a vote of Opposition from the person who brought you into that whatever the FPC thing is. Had there been more opposing votes, had the contests that allow old images to be entered not been spammed (sorry, that is my opinion and my opinion only as far as I know) with similarly renovated old photographs -- I would feel very very very much more comfortable with everything. I don't really care that it was not accepted -- I care more about the fact that I made prints of them and mine was superior. And I do not think that mine would always be the best -- there is a good chance that there is some obvious clone errors with it. I don't really care, it is not in any contest and I will not be putting it into any contest. What has suffered is my opinion of FP -- and who gives a damn about what I think.

But you, that is a different thing now, isn't it? You have the investment of money into your software. Money is not love and money ceased being equal to time -- if it ever was. Photoshop thrives on being the best and on being able to do more than the freesoftware applications can do. You have spent your money and time using Photoshop to do things that GIMP does and I really thought that you would appreciate the opportunity to use it to show some of the things that the free stuff can't do. Users of free software can ask for a consensus so even that is not something that makes Photoshop particularly worth the $600. If you do not want to show off the things that you can do with Photoshop that I cannot do with GIMP, perhaps you can explain the mindset of the Photoshop user that causes them to invest the money but not really use the extra stuff they get from it?

Thanks for the time you spent thinking about this already. -- carol 04:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for me it happens to be the imaging software I know how to use. I dug into my pockets after a stint at a miserable job where the owner cut all the wrong corners: he was selling "professional websites" to small business owners who didn't know a thing about the Internet and having me create the things in FrontPage - and ordering me to do "professional graphics" on a nickel-and-dime program using a trackball mouse. I just wanted the industry standard after that ordeal. No disrespect to GIMP; it's just easier to stick with the program I already know.

As far as Commons FPC that was serendipity. I was playing Commons ambassador with portraits of physicists when I stumbled upon the first color photograph. Noticed that image was already featured on Wikipedia so I put it up here also. Voting is quirky between the two projects and they didn't like that one so much over here, but I got curious about other historic photos and started going through the public domain slush piles. Did a lot of legwork on my own before anyone lent a helping hand. I've reviewed over 100,000 images for that search now and fewer than 1 in 1000 are worth a second look.

So do you want me to dig up these shots for you or would you rather ask someone whose verion of PS is current? I use CS. Regards, Durova 05:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up what the word 'serendipity' means and it is extremely difficult for me to reconcile the one vote of opposition I received and the influx of renovated photographs to the consensus driven claptrap called FP which began after the one vote of opposition I received and also began with the support of the one vote of opposition. There is no serendipity for me in this situation. Also, I do not know if I am using the word claptrap correctly -- it's meaning here is 'nice, give us some more'.

It is the same 'claptrap' that I am attempting to do to get that advertisement off from english wikipedia GIMP article. My votes and opinions do not ever seem to count. Giving the consensus a chance to see what their consensus does feels like it would be more productive and even more professional.

My reasons for becoming involved were for choices. I don't care what software you use. I was accused of being on a soapbox for my software, when for the most part, all I have left about that software is exif information. The fact is that the algorithmic manipulation of pixels is a mathematical sentence and a world in which those are owned will not work.

When I go to the grocery store and 2 of the 5 self-checkout lanes are down and the people I know there tell me that the individual stations are running one OS that is known to crash while the lower layer of the store computer system is using an OS that is known to rarely crash -- in my mind it is not about what the OS is; it is about the flow of peoples lives not being interrupted and about the machines we use to be working at their best.

My frustration in that same situation is that it is a large chain of stores and I have no idea who to talk to and mention that the stable OS which is the base of their financial and accounting transfers and tallying also has touchscreen capabilities. My frustration surpasses this example more than even this example first shows because it feels like there are so many people who have put themselves in between me and the real people who make the decisions. I have been qualified for better things for a very very long while.

I am actually qualified enough to say that you should have the choice of what software you use. The country I was told that I live in is built on this idea.

How can the serendipity of your appearance in FPC being supported by the single opposition vote that I received become serendipitious for me? -- carol 03:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize; I was raised by bookworms and picked up weird vocabulary. I just mean my interest in historic photographs (and luck getting some of them featured) started as a happy accident. The first couple of tries didn't fare very well, but I followed up with a lot of hard work. Back on en:Wikipedia I've done a lot of dispute resolution. Maybe I could help find a resolution to your dispute? Durova 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned my renovation on my web site -- the opposition vote I received mentioned 'noise'. I have since then decided that it was a rude acknowledgment that my web site gets read. I get rude acknowledgments or I get to see industry giants finishing my jokes. All of that being said, if noise was an issue -- I would suggest how many times you personally have mentioned Photoshop in the discussion of your candidates. I am not interested in word counting software -- there is a quality issue that I prefer in my reading. However, Microsoft seems to be the the Operating System that supports word counting software for wikis more so than mine. With such a fuzzy understanding of noise -- it could be a similar fuzzy at the point where the voting is being accomplished and perhaps Mr. Aveling review his use of the word and get back with me on his intentions in all of this? I brag and whine on my web site -- where is noise more noisey if that is how the word was intended when used? -- carol 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Durova 21:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

an apology

I studied physics as well. I enjoyed it.

Just paste some of your action files then. Make those things I asked for. I am sorry that I was treating you like you were an intelligent make-up sales woman -- I will try to be less condescending now.

You know that concensus doesn't make reality. So I would love to see you and your curious about how things work mind make that list I started with.

I have met some very intelligent make-up sales women, it was not an insult, it just changed my language. I appreciate that I do not need so many words now.

Can you put up or shut up? -- carol 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you give me too much credit. My father was a career NASA scientist. Werner Heisenberg and Max Planck were as familiar around the dinner table as...well...Estee Lauder and Elizabeth Arden in some other households. I'll see what I can do about those image requests. Might take a little bit. Cheers, Durova 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource

I've replied at User talk:Jayvdb#Wikisource. John Vandenberg 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:PalmercarpenterA.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:PalmercarpenterA.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Durova 18:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Please use the {{withdraw|~~~~}} template instead of erasing the nomination. It better retains the history of the nomination. Thanks. Lycaon 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. Durova 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear...could you fix that? I'll try to remember afterward. Durova 19:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Just use {{withdraw|~~~~}} as the last line in the nomination. without the nowiki tags ;-)) Lycaon 19:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

rofl... ty Durova 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Delisting Attempt

For whatever it is worth -- I have maybe read the rules of the contests; maybe not though. I do know what I thought about them and how they do not seem to be the way I thought.

I assume that you read the rules and have your own opinions of them. Before sending people with images to QI, perhaps you should look at this delisting attempt that I made for FP a while back.

I know this, there is what I would like for FP and QI to be and there is what they say they should be. The record actually shows what they want though and what works for them and the quality of images that they want in their featured collection.

I tried to get them to think about better things and they liked that crappy, blue scan that looks like it was a summer project (some kid scanning images and making a web site for NOAA). I worked in the 1980s for a similar government group, maybe things have changed a *lot* since then, but when I went to visit my old workplace, things hadn't changed that much there. -- carol 14:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of bad scans, believe me. It's one of the most frustrating things about surveying archives for potential FPs: Ooh, great composition, important subject. Is the focus good? Yes! Aw drat...dirty scanner. Same goes for lossy third generation .jpgs, newspaper scans, and folks who thought nobody would ever want more than 400 pixels on a side. I wrote to a Holocaust museum recently when an important en:Wikipedia FP was on the block for delisting, and they uploaded a higher resolution version. But life is short and most of the time all I can do is look elsewhere and hope to find a better file. Durova 20:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Agarplate redbloodcells edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Agarplate redbloodcells edit.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Collections

Hey Durova, I know you are doing some interesting things with old photographs at the moment. If you make some nice galleries out of it they may be good to put up on this page. cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're doing. It does dovetail with my work. You're more patient than I am about uploading. It takes so much time to really restore one image that my total upload count isn't particularly high. Do you have any suggestions for organizing a gallery? I don't think I've ever made one but might try my hand at it for a change of pace. Thank you for leaving word. :) Durova 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I didn't create either of those collections. I just noticed them and linked to them. The patience is of others, not me. :)

As for organising a gallery, my only suggestion is - not alphabetically. ;) There is room for a lot of creativity in galleries, I think it is a little-explored part of Commons. Arrangement may not seem very creative but it can be very suggestive and ordering is really everything in learning, where new stuff builds on old, complex on simple.

I also dropped by again to say great work on nominating Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg, I noticed it on the FP feed and it is totally breath-taking. Your work nominating historical images is also extremely important and shows great leadership I think. :) (which is probably nothing new to you but it never hurts to be said)

cheers, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm still getting used to the ways that Commons FPC and Wikipedia FPC are different. It's really enjoyable to hang out in Photoshop and restore old photos. Cheers, Durova 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:USSArizonaSurvivor.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:USSArizonaSurvivor.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your FPC nomination

There should be no second or third generation jpeg artifacts, since it is my scan from a printed photo in my possession, and the photo is from pre-digital era. But there might be 1st generation artifacts, in case I did something wrong while converting from TIFF to JPG. I can rescan it and and convert it again. Any does and donts there? I have some more high resolution scans on User:Jarekt page, and even more on my HD I still have to up-load. --Jarekt 03:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe the JPG overwrote and degraded while you opened it. Would you consider reconverting the TIFF and reloading? I'd like to give this a go. Best regards, Durova 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I went back to the print itself and some "artifacts" are just grime and fingerprints on the print itself. I can probably clean those off, but there also is something on the left that looks like fingerprint on the wet negative those I can not do much about. I will try to clean the image and rescan. I can probably send you the original scanned tiff somehow. And thanks for your interest and help. --Jarekt 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This looked like JPEG artifacting along dividing lines. Please be conservative in your cleaning; I can get rid of most regular problems. Here's an example: Image:AdmFarragut.jpg Image:Adm2.jpg. Durova 03:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up some stuff smeared on the image. Scanned it again ti BMP file and exported to jpeg with no compression. Let me know what you think.--Jarekt 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! Durova 08:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks great. I usually do not like cropping of historical images that people are familiar with, but in this case I agree that most the content is in the center of the image. The wasteland on the bottom and smoke on the top do not add much, but also they do not distract from the subject either. I probably would not crop it, but I will not be upset if you do, and I will trust your fresh look at it. If you keep before and after images you should use the same license. Thanks again for your help. --Jarekt 03:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Cropping can be a touchy issue. Since it's your upload (and probably your national heritage) I want to be respectful. Photographically, it enhances the sense of movement to crop top and bottom. I'll get back to it now and see about wrapping it up. There's a lot of work to be done at high resolution. My standard is to bring things to where I can't see the artifacts or my fixes at 300% resolution. So that'll take more attention. Cheers! Durova 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rust Mite, Aceria anthocoptes.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 11:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Mywood 16:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you twice. :) Durova 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:MonroeStreetBridge.jpg

Ping! :) giggy _(:O) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)