Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Thu 18/04/24 05:35:47 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 26771.2.1.1.1.1

Subject: Re: wetlook on Wikipedia

Date: Tue 09/01/07 16:21:54 GMT

Name: Telcontar

Email: mrnemesis@ntlworld.com

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

I believe that I had already done the best job that I could do with the second attempt this morning, based on the 700x1200 image from your site, which was plenty adequate for the task. The larger image you've already sent me doesn't make any difference on top of that. It's already about as good as it will get.

If the image you see below is the slightly manky version (with jagged diagonal lines on the dress and excess speckling), just shift-refresh. The image below is the one I intend for posting.

In reply to Message (26771.2.1.1.1)

Re: wetlook on Wikipedia

By maxval - Tue 09/01/07 08:08:33 GMT

Website:

"under the false assumption that Anonymous was you"

I was not. .

"it seems only correct to provide the best quality work possible"

OK. Send me a message to maxval at abv.bg and I will send you the ORIGINAL so you can edit it. Then tóyou return it to me and I will post the edited version.

In reply to Message (26771.2.1.1)

Re: wetlook on Wikipedia

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Tue 09/01/07 07:49:49 GMT

Website:

Um, well, under the false assumption that Anonymous was you, I downloaded the full size image and re-did all the corrections, and reposted the image below -- might have to do shift-refresh to see the change since the new version is at the same URL. Like before, it's sharpened and rebalanced but without the ugly artefacts of my previous attempt, because I was able to scale down to 800 px in height (from 1200 px) to average out the compression artefacts. (Very useful trick ;)

And Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so it seems only correct to provide the best quality work possible even if that is often not what is found on there. The original photo is too dark and not in great focus, and did need a spot of adjustment.

I am posing a request to whoever posted the image -- maxval, I would imagine, not Anonymous -- to please post the adjusted version as it's that much brighter and clearer =) I'd do it myself except said option -- post new version -- is not present even though I am logged in. I know I've posted new versions of my own images but I can't do it in this case; there is no means for me to post updated copies. Otherwise, all I can do is post a separate copy of the image under a new name, and point back to the older, now orphaned version, which is bad practice. I might first need to create a Wikimedia Commons account? I don't know.

In reply to Message (26771.2.1)

Re: wetlook on Wikipedia

By maxval - Tue 09/01/07 07:20:18 GMT

Website:

No need to adjust anything. This is only a sample for Wikipedia. Original photo is mine.

In reply to Message (26771.2)

Re: wetlook on Wikipedia

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Tue 09/01/07 06:20:51 GMT

Website:

Ooh it's got a picture :)

Personally, I'd suggest it needs a bit of level adjustment (try to correct the brightness levels) and to be sharpened a bit, but it's a start ;)

I can't find a way to upload a cleaned-up image, and there is not a lot I can really do with an image that has already been JPEG-compressed short of a lot of painstaking touching up, but here is the sort of goal that I was thinking of:

I'd recommend the edits be performed on the original however.

In reply to Message (26771)

wetlook on Wikipedia [nt]

By Anonymous - Tue 09/01/07 05:15:06 GMT

Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetlook

(no text)

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)