User talk:JVollenhoven

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

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"really quite unpleasant"[edit]

Using words like "really quite unpleasant" on an image while others chose that same image as one of their finest, shows a discrepancy in perception. Maybe you should calibrate your monitor. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jan. I wasn't looking for a response nor reproaching any editor. Thank you anyway for your very quick response!
You are referring to my Talk page comment at File: Jane_Digby,_Lady_Ellenborough,_by_William_Charles_Ross.jpg. I don't need to recalibrate my "monitor" (I use a large screen TV display in any case) because it's quite plain the image has been photoshopped as can be also ascertained by an inspection of the file's Metadata.
Rather than make a note in the file that the image had been retouched, I went the way of adding a gallery link to the original file uploaded by another editor and making a discreet remark on the Talk page. I am sorry that you don't consider that diplomatic enough, but don't see how I could be more courteous in the circumstances. Perhaps in the future it would be better to grasp the nettle and simply state in the file that the image has been digitally reprocessed, as I believe policy dictates?
As for "finest" etc., that was precisely why I didn't overwrite the file i.e. out of courtesy for the sentiments of other editors. In fact one of the contributors at the discussions noted the blue colour cast.
I don't see how i can be fault and I have to say you put yourself at risk of trying to suppress your processing here. Why? You're prefectly entitled to make a derivative file in the way you have and if a group of you decide that is amongst the finest images Wikipedia has to offer, who am I to say nay. All I ask is that the image is recognised as a derivative.
As you probably have noticed, the issue arose in the first place from your upload of the Zorn painting in the upcoming Sotheby's 3 November 2015 sale. Again that is a plainly derivative file and I overwrote it with the original Sotheby's image without retouching. You are welcome to make a different derivative file with a pink of your choosing and put that up for consideration as a Featured picture, but please don't overwrite existing files as you did in this case with an unsourced image (and one with the metadata removed?)
I hope you find this satisfactory and agree I have tried to address your issues in a collegial manner. JVollenhoven (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, there you are, TV displays are not known for their correct display of colours. As for the removal of metadata, I always take care that all relevant data is in the exif data of the file. As I see now, you deleted that by overwriting the Zorn image... As for the diplomacy, words like really quite unpleasant are not that diplomatic. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Beg to differ on TV displays. It's a professional set-up I have. Are you saying that Ross file of your was not processed? Why did you put it through Adobe Photoshop if it's not? Come on .. As for your Zorn image are you saying that blue pink of your was not digitally processed? Of course it was, even the wonkiest monitor would make that plain. The reason we use large TV displays is that modern LED monitors are inherently unfaithful because of their sensitivity to angling. Most of the complaints you see in Commons discussions about images being too dark and so on stem from that. What I want to avoid is that blue pink image of your becomes an article image and then a Featured image subsequently set in stone for that article. You and your fellow editors are entitled to your taste in pink I'm sure, but readers of main space articles are entitled to see an authentic image. As for "diplomacy" it was just a personal opinion I was expressing. Are you saying I'm not entitled to venture one. Your contributor in the forum called it "strange", equally signalling disapproval.
I'm on a hiding to nothing if you're not prepared to admit these images of yours have not undergone extra processing. JVollenhoven (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to run around in this discussion. You are putting words in my mouth: "Are you saying that..." I did not say that. I said I always take care that all relevant info is in the exif data. So it's obvious that I use Photoshop. Oh, of course, you deleted the exif data in de Zorn image (by uploading an image that is not even colour managed!!) Don't agree with you on your opinion on TV-displays, they are notably unpredictable on displaying correct colours. B.t.w., blue and pink are almost on the outer ends of the colour spectrum, so a blue pink might show up as purple. If you mean purple when you say blue pink you really should calibrate your monitor. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Ik ook. I meant you blued your pink in that image you uploaded. Just look at your image compared with the Sotheby's image I overwrote. And all you gave for file information in your Zorn image was "higher resolution" without a source (again Commons policy is you must indicate a source). What I meant is that I'm prepared to carry on discussing the issue amiably if you're prepared to agree you've been processing these images. But what i see rather is the claim that my monitor isn't "calibrated". I shan't feel a need to respond if you don't concede both your Ross and Zorn images were processed. JVollenhoven (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
That is not true, the source is in the exif data. I blued my pink... yet, it doesn't come out as purple?? I am quite sure if your monitor is calibrated you would tell me what software and hardware you used. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the last response I am going to make here. Regarding the Zorn image, you uploaded an image where you had clearly adjusted the salmon pink tone without giving a source and providing only minimum file details, just "higher resolution". It is plainly the Sotheby's image (same pixel size exactly) and if you had given the link, a viewer would clearly have seen that you had processed the image. Whatever you did had the effect of accentuating the blue channel to provide that pink, which indeed veers towards purple. It is not the warm salmon pink of the Sotheby's image. It was only because I was interested in uploading the best of this sale (I also uploaded the Liebermann and Millet drawings) that I noticed the image had been processed. I'm perfectly entitled to overwrite the original Sotheby's file and source it as such in the circumstances. If you want to upload your derivative file, with a view to perhaps nominating it as a Featured image, you are quite entitled to do so, but it should be a different file and you really ought to indicate it is a derivative file. If you do go on to nominate it, then I should have thought you ought to indicate in your nomination that it is a derivative file and why you have adjusted the tone. Perhaps you know better than Sotheby's what this painting looks like. However anderszorn.org, for example, supports the salmon pink of the Sothenby's image as does wikiart.org. I take it you do actually recognise the image you eventually uploaded is very different in quality from the Sotheby's image?
I am sorry we are off on a bad footing. I don't interest myself in Featured Pictures myself. Nom your stuff regardless without fear of retribution from me. But I am anxious to see that the images we download from auction houses and galleries are faithful to their sources.JVollenhoven (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's time we stop this confusing conversation. The only thing I objected to were your words really quite unpleasant, which you qualified as diplomatic. Now you are saying that I want to nominate the Zorn image as a featured picture, which I don't. You accuse me of not giving a link to the Sotheby's image, although I put that link in the exif-data. But of course you overwrote those. Now you are giving me two links to mediocre copies of that image on commercial replica sites as being a true reference of that image. However, the increased saturation of those images should raise the same objection with you, instead of putting them up stage as an evidence in your reasoning. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I saw that about the link in the exif meta-data. But the link should go in the file description. I challenge you to show me a source which has that blue pink of yours. What on earth do think might have inspired Zorn to use such a cold jarring tone in his delightful portrait of two small girls? Why won't you admit what is obvious, that you adjusted the tone in the Zorn image? Why are you putting these JPG downloads into Photoshop in the first place? It only bulks up the size of the file even if your aren't processing the file. It also means Commons can't auto-detect duplicates. Exactly that happened with our uploads of Modigliani's Paulette Jordain from the following day's sale. I do make an effort to check for duplicates when I upload, but I can't be expected to succeed every time. In this case, if you had simply uploaded the original JPG file rather than a photo-shopped clone, the duplicate would have been detected when I attempted to upload. Of course Wikiart isn't a mediocre site.

So agreed. Let's stop this interaction. I should have been happy to discuss these issues with you. Your sense of entitlement regarding your Ross derivative for example, but there's no basis for discussion as you insist my monitor isn't properly calibrated, my sources inferior and so on. Please respect our right to authenticity and I should be grateful if you would stop wasting my time like this if you are not prepared to enter meaningful discussion. JVollenhoven (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the discussion was about you choise of words, and the quality of you monitor, that's all. The rest is your red herring. Bye Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
There was no "discussion". I noted on the Talk page of a file that a valued image had been processed and ventured my opinion that it was unpleasant. Without actually denying that the image had been processed, you suggested on the contrary that my monitor is at fault (I would call that' a red herring, kipper whatever). But everyone with eyes to use can see that's not so, that the image had indeed been processed and that there is no "discrepancy in perception" on my part (for example, perhaps, that I was not stoned, cannabis intoxication noticeably interfering with blue-channel perception). Don't come back here Jan, if you're not prepared to discuss the issues. The mere fact that you are unnecessarily uploading these bulked up files (they have the potential for concealing hidden information) means you are calling on the good faith of the community and you should show better faith in return. When uploading from auction houses and museums, please provide links in the file description. If the file is PNG, as sometimes happens, then we are obliged to use software to convert to JPG. Otherwise I don't see why the file, if a JPG, shouldn't be uploaded as found. In rare cases it might benefit from processing, in which case you should indicate that on the file description.
Your further trivial contributions in the same vein here will be shunted off. JVollenhoven (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Added: As for the Zorn image, I note that the Sotheby's lot notes, which you thought not to link, talks about a "sun streaked orange carpet", exactly my warm salmon-pink I describe. I defy you to justify your cold blue pink in the circumstances. JVollenhoven (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have supplied an article stub A Portrait of the Daughters of Ramón Subercaseaux in English Wikipedia for others to expand. Of course I welcome discussion here, but please don't tinker with the image without good reason. Sotheby's has to be the best source at present. JVollenhoven (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your files, the problem seems to me that you're saving these files in sRGB color space. But galleries and auction houses don't generally save their files in this colour space as far as i can see (for example Christie's, Sotheby's, the National Gallery of Art and the Van Gogh Museum certainly don't), so when you do this you are essentially processing the image. When something is close to the limits of the gamut, or so I surmise, then perhaps you get this noticeable differences of tone you see in the Zorn image. Even a file such as the Van Gogh Paysage sous un ciel mouvementé is affected, where a typically van Gogh sky in cerulean and cobalt blues is a shade too saturated in your file. I'm sure you're misguided in this procedure of yours. Surely you will want to review it? I can't understand how you can be satisfied with it when results are so different from the source. For the time being I shall proceed as I did with the van Gogh file i.e. upload a separate file and indicate other versions. JVollenhoven (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Dürer's Rhinoceros[edit]

Hello. The woodcut may deserve a special category, but why did you delete the old one—Woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer, 1511-1520 ?Ant 222 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. God, I hope I didn't. I'll check and back in a moment. JVollenhoven (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Still there! Phew. For individual files I'm replacing the category "Woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer, 1511-1520" by the new one "Dürer's Rhinoceros" I created (since there are 14 examples and I'm about to upload a fifteenth). This is because the new category is a subcategory of the old and what I'm doing is standard (though I have also made it a subcategory of the larger "Woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer" - some would frown at that I think).
But if you're bothered with some particular upload of yours, by all means re-insert "Woodcuts by Albrecht Dürer, 1511-1520". But please don't do that for all the files, when I should intervene.
Cheers. JVollenhoven (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. No problem then. Ant 222 (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I put that very nice derivative file of yours as the category image (and that was before you signed your post, so I wasn't trying to court favours). Excellent file. JVollenhoven (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)