File talk:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington by John Jackson.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2021 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
National portrait gallery version
[edit]
Please do not upload a worse image with terrible colour problems and then blow out the highlights with a bad repair job, instead of using the National Portrait gallery version. Hohum (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, and I will warn User:Richard Harvey. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, this is not the NPG version because the colour tone does not match the tone on the site it apparently comes from, indicating it is either not from there, or has been edited pre-upload, as the NPG version is redder. Secondly, the image is a photograph of a painting, there is no other way of capturing a large image, without damaging the original, so the colour tone depends on the camera that took it, including quality and white balance. Thirdly, the image is clearly poorly exposed, dull, and cannot be easily fixed.. the highlights have to rise with the rest, and I created a new layer which dealt with that and reduces the highlights, so don't accuse me of a fucking "bad repair job" when the upload is as dark as stale shit to begin with, until you have Photoshop experience of your own and can prove any more capable. Finally, better watch those ownership problems you present, as well as the uncivil attacks on people's efforts. I suggest you look to recalibrating your own monitor, or turning the brightness down, if you think my edits are bad, as I don't hear anyone else complaining about the dozens of other paintings I have improved before this. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 21:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have plenty of experience of image restoration and my monitor is carefully calibrated. The previous "repairs" totally blew out the highlights which is completely unacceptable. Also, they randomly changed the image resolution, so I doubt they were repairs to the original image. It's true that it doesn't seem to be the *current* NPG image, but was at the time it was transferred by bulk script, as far as I can tell. If you want to make another version, I suggest you upload it separately. There is no need to be aggressive and abusive. Hohum (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, this is not the NPG version because the colour tone does not match the tone on the site it apparently comes from, indicating it is either not from there, or has been edited pre-upload, as the NPG version is redder. Secondly, the image is a photograph of a painting, there is no other way of capturing a large image, without damaging the original, so the colour tone depends on the camera that took it, including quality and white balance. Thirdly, the image is clearly poorly exposed, dull, and cannot be easily fixed.. the highlights have to rise with the rest, and I created a new layer which dealt with that and reduces the highlights, so don't accuse me of a fucking "bad repair job" when the upload is as dark as stale shit to begin with, until you have Photoshop experience of your own and can prove any more capable. Finally, better watch those ownership problems you present, as well as the uncivil attacks on people's efforts. I suggest you look to recalibrating your own monitor, or turning the brightness down, if you think my edits are bad, as I don't hear anyone else complaining about the dozens of other paintings I have improved before this. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 21:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
