User talk:Jan Arkesteijn/Archives/2012/May
 |
|---|
Of course I am not modifying the painting, but the photograph of the painting, which looks evidently underexposed in the upper part. If you look at the hair and at the beard you see clearly that in the upper part of the original photo they are nearly undistinguishable against the background, whereas they can be clearly distinguished in the lower part. With my modification the are nearly homogeneous. So I think I have approached the appearance of the original painting, rather than distorting it.
I believed you had reverted my edit only because of the very heavy compression of the jpg (and surely I have no idea of why this happened, usually my procedures preserve more or less the original compression), but if you think I'm distorting the appearance of the true painting, feel free to revert again my edit. Regards --GianniG46 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I bring to your attention that in your last edit of File:Rembrandt - Zelfportret 1640.jpg there is a bad operation: the top of the hat has been partially doubled by the paste procedure.--GianniG46 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I had to look twice to see what you mean. I am surprised I missed that. I will fix it, the first moment I am able to. Thanks.
- As for Degas, the photograph was made by professionals of Christie's, and I am quite sure there is no partial underexposure in that image. If there is underexposure, it is in the entire image. I am quite sure this is what Degas intended to show. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)