User talk:Colin

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Converting to sRGB[edit]

Hi there. I was wondering if I could get your input on how I format my image files. Usually, I just open the RAW files in Photoshop, click the "save" button and get some options on which format I want. I just focused on saving them as JPGs with the highest quality possible. Now that you mention it, though, I do see that there is a box ticked with setting the colour profile to Adobe RGB (1998) - this was pre-checked and I've never really thought about it. But as I understand your input, there is an advantage to using a different one? I looked in PS and found that if I use the "export" function rather than "save", I do get more choices, among which is: Colour space - "convert to sRGB". I take it this is the preferred option, then?

As a side note, is there also a preferred file format for the high quality photos? Personally, I can't really see any negligible difference between a PNG and a high-quality JPG, but which do you think is the ideal choice? --Peulle (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Peulle, I'm using the latest Photoshop CC, which I get along with my Lightroom Classic CC subscription, which I think is good value. I usually use Lightroom for everything, only needing Photoshop for some stuff. When you say you opened the raw file in Photoshop, when I open Photoshop and use File/Open to open a raw file, it pops up the Camera Raw dialog. This dialog is similar to Lightroom but without all the digital asset management (DAM) and book/printing modules. I can then process the raw file and click "Save Image...". If I do that I get a huge dialog with one section being "Color Space" which I can change to sRGB. I can also create presets for different kinds of options I might want. If instead I click "Open Image" then it opens the raw file in Photoshop. However, before you leave CameraRaw look down the bottom of the dialog. There may be a line of text like "Adobe RGB (1998); 6000 by 4000 (20.0MP); 300 ppi". Click on this and you get another dialog. Change the Color Space to sRGB. You may want to save a new workflow preset. It seems that once you change that, ACR will now default to sRGB for future files.
Raw files don't have a colour space (well, they contain an embedded JPG thumb which does have a colour space, but that JPG isn't used by Photoshop) so it only gets one when it has been through a raw converter like Lightroom or ACR. Photoshop deals mainly with files that (should) have a colour space & profile and maintains that setting unless you convert or assign another one. If you open up the Edit/Color Settings dialog, you may see a working space for RGB images. Pick sRGB. For the Color Management Policies, pick "Preserve Embedded Profiles" for all. And for the profile mismatches and missing profiles, it is helpful to tick all those boxes so you get warned. Now when you use the Save dialog on Photoshop, it should have pre-ticked "ICC Profile: sRGB".
In terms of Photoshop quality level, I recommend 11. I've seen a careful analysis of the levels and there is no perceptible difference between 11 and 12 yet 12 creates a much much bigger file. The equivalent setting in Lightroom is 90.
For photographs for Commons I recommend JPG. It is a lossy format but suited for photos. If you used it for graphics and textual images then the lossy drawbacks come out -- high contrast edges get softened and when you magnify you see little gnats flying around. So PNG is for graphic art. Both PNG and TIFF can be used to save photos and are not lossy at all, but will result in much bigger file sizes. Their main use is for saving an intermediate file you will work with in Photoshop and perhaps combine with other files to create a final image you save as a JPG. The main use for those on Commons where the image is a photo or a scan is when someone is restoring a document or historical photo and wants to preserve their work lossessly. But it is typical to also upload the JPG for use on Wikipedia.
You can use the Save dialog on Photoshop (it always saves a copy for JPGs) or you can use the Export dialog. With the former, ensure the "ICC Profile: sRGB" blue text is ticked. With the latter, make sure you tick the "Embed color profile" option. I think it is easier just to use Save. But overall, it is much much easier to just use Lightroom. There's even a plug-in for Lightroom that lets you edit all the fields you need for Commons and handles the upload to Commons. Lightroom also lets you geolocate your images if they don't already have that. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I have noticed the "Adobe RGB (1998); 8 bits; 4928 x 3264 (16,1 MP); 300 ppi" line in the past, just never paid any attention to it. Clicking that gives me a lot of options, including "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" (as well as e-sRGB" further down but I take it that's not the correct one). Not sure whether changing from 8-bit to 16-bit means anything, but changing that workflow thing does indeed seem to be set to sRGB every time I open a new RAW file now, so I guess that means my future uploads will be like that. Thanks. :) --Peulle (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Peulle recommend changing to 16 bit also. I assume you do most of your adjustments in ACR (which is usually the best place) and then just use Photoshop to save the file as a JPG. But if you did any further manipulation in Photoshop, it would be best to work with a 16-bit image than 8-bit. When it is finally saved to JPG, it is just 8-bit, but keeping it 16-bit while you are working on it is very beneficial. The only reason to not do that would be if your computer didn't have enough ram to comfortably edit a 16-bit photo. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that too. I usually do it the way you described; when open in PS the only additional work I do is perspective correction or cropping. :)--Peulle (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Hi, I think you missed this edit. Jcb (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jcb I see that now. Yann responded to you. The text in the policy has been there since 2014 (per this discussion). I don't think "Notify the blocked user, preferably using a user block template." would have been written if the automatic information provided by the UI was considered sufficient. I think you need to respond to Yann's reply and to confirm you will use a block notification on the user's talk page in future. IMO you need to improve your engagement level when being discussed at AN/U. All too often I seen an inadequate or no response and they you appear to ignore the discussion, waiting for it to die out. This pisses people off. If you provide the appropriate response, meeting community expectations, then the whole discussion ends in a good way and it makes you look like a constructive collaborator. Currently, it just looks like you are (understandably) defensive but (unacceptably) argumentative and restiveness to changing. It would also be helpful to respond more fully to the issues raised concerning your DR closures. I don't think you've got much community-patience left for you just to continue as you are. -- Colin (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Over the years I have adjusted my actions a lot. I have always been responsive to questions at my user talk page. Responding more than necessary to an AN/U topic like this leads to an explosion of reactions by a certain category of users, I think you are well aware of that. I follow the discussion, but I also do what I can to minimize the waste of time it causes for the community as a whole. I think my message to Yann was explicit enough in the context of this abusive AN/U topic. Jcb (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Jcb You asked Yann several questions and made it clear you thought adding a template was "IMHO not adding anything", arguing the system message was sufficient. That to me suggests you are not yet prepared to add the template and are unconvinced. What's missing now is a statement where you acknowledge Yann's response, the previous community discussions, and explicitly agree to following the practice that your fellow admins/community think is necessary. You need to ignore the bad aspects of the AN/U and recognise there are good users/admins reading it and seeing genuine problems with your admin actions. If you choose to ignore the discussion, you just give fuel to those who say you think you are above the community, and I can only repeat that I am out of patience with this. You might think "that's an angry stupid mob i can ignore" but you can't and the angry stupid mob will keep wasting our time with long and longer lists of "how bad Jcb is" each time you make any mistake. It isn't good enough to claim "Over the years I have adjusted my actions a lot." -- you have to explicitly acknowledge when you agree to change. Perhaps you think we all monitor and see what you are up to and have some visibility of changes you make. We don't. The only time most people see what you are up to is when you engage on a file that matters to them or when you turn up at AN/U. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Kilchoman Cross Back 2018-08-19.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kilchoman Cross Back 2018-08-19.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.
Kilchoman Cross 2018-08-19.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kilchoman Cross 2018-08-19.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Statue on column, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Statue on column, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 1.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mount Stuart House[edit]

Hi, Your uploads of Mount Stuart House are nice, but please do not violate COM:OVERCAT. Category:Listed buildings in Scotland is not for photos, but for more specified categories. --A.Savin 08:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A.Savin, I am using the WLM upload from map interface. This automatically adds the category. It also, because I clicked on a known listed building, added the {{Listed building Scotland}} template with that ID. I also added the Category:Mount Stuart House which in turn is classed as a listed building in Scotland with known IDs. It seems that whoever developed the upload pages should not be adding Category:Listed buildings in Scotland when there is a known ID. Perhaps you should speak to them. There were 14,000 files uploaded by 471 people in WLM UK last year, so that's a lot of people for you to personally ask to not violate OVERCAT. I will try to remember to remove the category but I am reluctant to fiddle with "listed" or "wlm" categories at all during the competition, in case the image disappears from the competition. I also have an aversion to doing edits that can be done by a bot, and removing the Category:Listed buildings in Scotland is easily automated since my image is already in the category via two other means. A script that looked for the template {{Listed building Scotland}} and Category:Listed buildings in Scotland in any page would do the job (though getting the upload wizard fixed would also be good). Similar for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, etc. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 2.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.
Mount Stuart House chapel lantern 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House chapel lantern 2018-08-25.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.
Spire, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Spire, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25 1.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.
Beehive well, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Beehive well, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Mount Stuart House marble hall 2018-08-25.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Mount Stuart House marble hall 2018-08-25.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Stuart House marble hall 2018-08-25.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Spire, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Spire, Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25 2.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.
Mount Stuart House hall 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House hall 2018-08-25.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.
Mount Stuart House, west side 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House, west side 2018-08-25.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Mount Stuart House, dining room 2018-08-25 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House, dining room 2018-08-25 2.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.
Mount Stuart House marble stairway 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House marble stairway 2018-08-25.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.
Mount Stuart House conservatory 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House conservatory 2018-08-25.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.
Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 3.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Mount Stuart House swimming pool 2018-08-25 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House swimming pool 2018-08-25 1.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.
Mount Stuart House marble hall gallery 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House marble hall gallery 2018-08-25.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.
Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House chapel 2018-08-25 4.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.
Mount Stuart House, dining room 2018-08-25 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mount Stuart House, dining room 2018-08-25 1.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Wemyss Bay ferry walkway 2018-08-25 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wemyss Bay ferry walkway 2018-08-25 1.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.
Wemyss Bay ferry walkway 2018-08-25 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wemyss Bay ferry walkway 2018-08-25 2.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.
Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 1.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.
Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 3.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Wemyss Bay railway station from car park 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wemyss Bay railway station from car park 2018-08-25.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 5.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.
Wemyss Bay railway station platform 1 2018-08-25.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wemyss Bay railway station platform 1 2018-08-25.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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)