User talk:Pixel8/Archive1

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

why, if I may know, did you erase the short description that I had added from your image, namely Image:Amstrad CPC464.jpg? It did not do any harm, did it? best regards, Blueshade 09:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt that no description was needed. If the viewer wanted to know about the rest of the CPC range, they would be better served going to the appropriate article. I apologise if my deletion caused you offence. ADSR6581 13:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
no need for an apology, it didn't even cross my mind to feel offended by this ... I only think that short descriptions to images are no harm to them and can serve to quickly provide the user with something more than just image... I thought that, this being your image, you had some serious argument for removing the description... best regards, Blueshade 11:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ps. i will restore the description, is that ok?
If you feel it is really necessary, then I won't object. ADSR6581 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FPC: PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your editing of this image Image:PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg. I think there is some confusion about the technical quality and the cutting of the image - at least you might observe that the voting preferences vary. My idea was to remove both versions from the FPC voting and change my own version of the image again. My plan was to adjust the cutting or Marlen to the image you anhanced technically. I now wonder how to proceed. I used

jpegtran -crop 2393x1620+576+288 ../PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg > PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse_cut.jpg

for lossless cropping of an image and got this result - I just do not want to get an extra compression loss to this image. What would you think about this plan? Another alternative would be to crop my initial PNG and ask you for doing you smoothing work again which I feel unable to do because of a lack of knowledge how to do this. Andreas Tille 06:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better I apply the filter to your original, then you can work from there. Also your picture seemed very blurry at 100% size. If you reduced the image size slighty, the image will look much sharper (increased DPI resolution). I think 2048x1372 looks much nicer, try it out and see what you think. ADSR6581 06:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are right in principle but shouldn't this shrinking be done by the user who is using the image. In normal WikiPedia views you mostly get 1024x768 or smaller views and people who are using the hihgh resolution might have reasons or better tools to cope with it. Perhaps I'm wrong here - I'm quite new to digital image processing - just doing slides and let them scan in a lab.
My suggestion would be: I grab my original at home again, try to save you the work of dealing with the speckles from the scan which I first detected after your enhancement. Then I would upload it to a place where you can download it to enable you to do the filtering I do not really know how to do this and leave it to you whether is shrinking good or not. If you would like to do this for me (or rather wikimedia ;-) ) you might like to send it back and I can do the final cropping to the section which seemed to be prefered by some voters. I have thought about it and I think I see the point. I was used to see this image as it is every day in our living room at 75x50 cm^2 so it is quite hard to think it should be different. ;-) Andreas Tille 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to help out. Everything sounds fine to me, but I'll leave the resizing to you. ADSR6581 10:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As promissed I yesterday took my PNG once more worked a litle bit on the colors and removed the speckles I found - if you see some more and would apply the filter you think it would be necessary - PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.png is yours. ;-) Andreas Tille 05:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've applied the filter again, removed some scratches on the bottom left, plus some more specs. That's about it, it looks good :-) I've uploaded it as Image:PotsdamSanssouciChineseHousV3.jpg -- ADSR6581 12:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks. Could you also provide a format with lossless compression (PNG or TIFF). This would keep further editing closer to the original. But if you did only stored the JPG it is fine as well. Thanks in any case. Andreas Tille 13:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately I only saved it in JPEG, sorry about that. ADSR6581 13:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new version of Image:PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg. My suggestion would be to ask for removal of your temporary version to reduce confusion and safe WIkiPedia disk space. Thanks for your help. Andreas Tille June 27, 2005 11:59 (UTC)

You're welcome, and good luck with the picture! ADSR6581 27 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition[edit]

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 22:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image licenses[edit]

You take fantastic computer pictures. Much better than the few I've contributed[1]. (hmm. I have some I need to upload still)

While looking at your images, I noticed that you currently license them exclusively as cc-by-sa-2.5. This is a fine thing, but it means that someone republishing a document under the popular GFDL license now has two licenses they must obey, cc-by-sa-2.5 and the GFDL. On commons we allow people to specify more than once license so that downstream users make pick the one they want. Because the GFDL is similar in overall action to CC-By-SA, many people license under both CC-By-SA and the GFDL. Would you be willing to dual license your images? Since you are using a user template, it would be trivial to fix all your images... Thanks for your time, consideration, and the great images. --Gmaxwell 02:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


QI Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Amiga500 system.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}}}

--Jnpet 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing the above banner on to it's rightful owner. Alexj2002 09:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80s PCs[edit]

Hi, I have noticed that you had created a lot of high quality photos of retro PCs. On Wikipedia some other (not yours) images are about to be deleted due to copyright violations, in particular of the Commodore SX-64, the C64 Gaming System and the Compaq Portable. Would you by any chance happen to have some photos of these lying around that you would be willing to upload?--Konstable 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know how I didn't find these before, but I have found images of all of these already on commons :D --Konstable 08:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Gadget Guide[edit]

When published, your picture of the C64 will be used here:

http://holidaygadgetguide.federatedmedia.net/263

Should come out in a couple of days.

I've just nominated your Greenwich panorama for Quality images candidates. It is a nice picture though a bit oversaturated IMO - Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Greenwich Park Vista.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}}}