User talk:Pixel8tor

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Pixel8tor!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Overwriting existing files

--Oursana (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

after this edit, explaining commons policy you did continue overwriting 16 files, please revert--Oursana (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

---

I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:Attributed to Bernardino da Asola - The Madonna and Child - Google Art Project.jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

- Revent^talk 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to make it very clear, I'm not attempting to say that your versions are not 'better', merely that they are not minor changes. Such overwrites of artworks with color-corrected versions have been very controversial on Commons in the past, and so you should simply upload your version as a new file, and link it as a 'derivative work' of the original (see {{Derivative versions}}, and {{Derived from}}). This allows re-users to choose which version they prefer, instead of forcing the decision. - Revent^talk 22:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note explaining Wikimedia's policies about overwriting files. It's an unfortunate policy in my view. You've probably heard this before but I'm sure the original artists would be insulted that their art is being represented by images that mainly show how poorly their work has been conserved. (varnish yellowing, soot damage, poor lighting, bad camera technique) Especially these days when we have digital tools that allow us to mitigate some of the degradation the artwork has suffered -- so that the image can more closely represent the artists intent and not the yellow tinged perversion that most of us associate with older artwork. Having worked at National Geographic Magazine photo lab for 30+ years, I have a fair grasp of photography, image retouching and color correcting -- in all those years I have never met a professional photographer who feels the exposure captured by the camera is an accurate representation of the scene and should be published without adjustments. So saying the original capture is somehow sacrosanct is just silly. A camera isn't an eye. Sorry for the mini-rant but, as maybe you can tell, color is a passion of mine and seeing it mangled so badly turns my stomach. To me, it does a disservice to the artist, and the public for that matter, to represent the degraded images as their artwork -- since they *obviously* aren't.

So, while I will respect WikiMedia's policy about overwriting files in the future, I certainly don't endorse it.

If you have a second, a quick question: You suggested some templates or links I might use to publish my "versions" -- I'm relatively new to editing Wiki pages and not familiar with these. Would you point me to tutorials?

Thanks for your time and help. I do appreciate it. Pixel8tor (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not that I don't, in principle, agree, it's that such choices (how, exactly, to adjust the colors) are subjective, and so the community has chosen to offer all the versions, and allow reusers to choose. Instead of overwriting the existing files, you should upload your versions under new filenames, and then edit the other wikis where they are used to point at your new file. Also, many of the files that you overwrote are attributed to very specific sources (such as the Yorck Project, Web Gallery of Art, or Google Art Project) and should continue to reflect the exact version provided by that attributed source. One major reason for this is that editing the images creates a en:generation loss, and other people that wish to do their own retouching work should start with the original files.

As a practical measure, the policy about not overwriting files with major changes is intended to help avoid disruptive upload warring about whose version is 'better', which has been a repeated problem many times in the past.

There is not, afaik, any explicit tutorial, but you should simply use {{Derived from|Example.jpg}}, with the correct link, as the indicated source when uploading a new version, and then add {{derivative versions|derivative.jpg}} to the 'other versions' field in the information template on the file page of the source image.

File:OPEC01.jpg and File:OPEC headquarters.jpg are an example of this, though not 'art'. - Revent^talk 16:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for helping out a newbie. I've tried to follow your instructions. Would you mind looking over these pages and let me know if I've missed anything in the execution? Orig:File:Diego_Velázquez_016.jpg -- Derived:File:Diego_Velázquez_016_FXD.jpg Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixel8tor (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

File:Carlo dolci, san girolamo in preghiera, 01FXD.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Philippe Chaperon - RigolettoFXD.jpg

Just as a heads up, I finally went back and finished the restoration on the underlying image.

I like your colour edit a lot; I just don't like changing colours on Gallica files, as they seem to have pretty good colour fidelity. But that's why there's room for both: Yours is more likely to be how it was back then, mine is probably nearer the current colours, sans the poor treatment it got. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Y.haruo (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Template Artwork

Hi Pixel8tor. There is a discussion on the talk page of template:Artwork, that might interest you. It is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Artwork#Use_of_parameter_%22other_versions%22. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for making some neat "other versions". But I still need your support on the issue. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Museo Correr Tapisserie Nativité 03032015 1FXD.jpg

Copyright status: File:Museo Correr Tapisserie Nativité 03032015 1FXD.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Museo Correr Tapisserie Nativité 03032015 1FXD.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Pixel8tor,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Pixel8tor,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Pixel8tor,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories and assessments

Hi, when you make edited copies of pictures, please do not copy assessment templates like "Fetured picture" to you version. Only the original has been through the assessment process and deemed suitable for FP. I've corrected some of them now ( [1] [2] [3] [4] ), but if you know you have done this on other photos, please remove the 'Featured', 'POTD', etc. templates and categories. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. I've tried to pay attention to this, but obviously not enough. Sorry. Is there an easy way for me to check this myself? How do you do it? Thanks again. Pixel8tor (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

One easy way is to, once you have added all info and stuff to the new file, open the whole page in an editing window and do a regular browser search of the page for the words "featured", "quality" and "assessment". Check in what context these show up and remove templates and categories for such things. I discovered your copies when I was looking for other photos in some of the Featured pictures categories. Since there is only supposed to be one of each, I took a look at them. --Cart (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:David dessinant Marie-Antoinette--van den Büssche-IMG 2385FXD.jpg

Copyright status: File:David dessinant Marie-Antoinette--van den Büssche-IMG 2385FXD.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:David dessinant Marie-Antoinette--van den Büssche-IMG 2385FXD.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

--Killarnee (T•R•P) 18:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Killarnee, thanks for the heads-up . . . it's fixed. Pixel8tor (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mona Lisa

FYI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Der Kaufmann Georg Gisze - Google Art ProjectFXD.jpg

Copyright status: File:Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Der Kaufmann Georg Gisze - Google Art ProjectFXD.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Hans Holbein der Jüngere - Der Kaufmann Georg Gisze - Google Art ProjectFXD.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's fixed! Pixel8tor (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Istanbul asv2020-02 img19 Topkapı PalaceFXD.jpg was recently deleted

File:Istanbul asv2020-02 img19 Topkapı PalaceFXD.jpg was recently deleted by A.Savin for reasons below. If you disagree with the deletion, you need to file an undeletion request.

Reason for deletion: Exact or scaled-down duplicate (F8): unused crop of File:Istanbul asv2020-02 img19 Topkapı Palace.jpg

It's best to discuss with the administrator who deleted your file before filing an undeletion request. Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:DrRobertStickgoldPBS2012.jpg

Copyright status: File:DrRobertStickgoldPBS2012.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:DrRobertStickgoldPBS2012.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, JuTa 02:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Ca' Rezzonico Sala Lazzarini - Ercole e Onfale - Antonio BellucciFXD.jpg

File:Ca' Rezzonico Sala Lazzarini - Ercole e Onfale - Antonio BellucciFXD.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment. I don't see where it's "Heavily degraded". Can you point out where. And as for "does not respect the original colors", how do you know the original colors? The contrast and color are better than File:Ca' Rezzonico Sala Lazzarini - Ercole e Onfale - Antonio Bellucci.jpg Do you imagine an artist would paint such a dull image? Are you just jealous that it looks better than what you uploaded? Pixel8tor (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:(Agen) Portrait de Joséphine de Savoie, comtesse de Provence - François-Hubert Drouais - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'AgenFXD.jpg

Copyright status: File:(Agen) Portrait de Joséphine de Savoie, comtesse de Provence - François-Hubert Drouais - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'AgenFXD.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:(Agen) Portrait de Joséphine de Savoie, comtesse de Provence - François-Hubert Drouais - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'AgenFXD.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 21:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Ballspiel in AtzenbruggFXD.jpg

Copyright status: File:Ballspiel in AtzenbruggFXD.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Ballspiel in AtzenbruggFXD.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 20:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Andrea Mantegna - The Presentation - Google Art ProjectFXD.jpg

File:Andrea Mantegna - The Presentation - Google Art ProjectFXD.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

MenkinAlRire (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pixel8tor Hi. I am keen to learn how you came about to "fix" the colors of all these paintings. What is the idea behind. I suppose you believe you can somehow reconstruct the original, the "real" appeararence of these works; maybe you take a whitepoint from somewhere in the picture, a white highlight that you set to be neutral; or you uncover the pictures by removing the yellowish varnish by reducing the yellow; or you go for the skin tone... I don't know. I have to admit they look really crisp.

Apart from the question, what your guidelines are and how you achieve your version, you might allow me to take an example and explain why your work is a delusion and may be rather an irritation for some users than a 'clarification', a recovering of the real thing.

Take [:File:Albrecht Dürer - Portrait of Dürer's Father at 70FXD.jpg Portrait of Dürer's Father at 70]. At first the man himself looks really good, particularly the skin tone, and also his coat. But if you look closer you'll see many red lines and reddish parts that seem to be a bit too much, the eyes for example, while the red cheeks and the red nose make him appear to be a bit of a drinker.

The highlights of the hair are obviously blue now, as the dark parts of the hair too appear to be blueish. I hope we can agree, that except for really dark blackish sorts seen in a shadow, hair usually does not reflect blue light. The setting has no identifyable light source, and noone can simply expect it to be a window with day light rather than candles or an oil lamp.

Apart from that the background color is nice, but also unreal. It might look like a creatively painted wall from today, but doesn't seem to fit into a 16th ct. northern European environment. The background is probably meant to be neutral to harmonise with the figure and emphasise it. On the [website of the National Gallery] it is stated, that a color like this was not ever used by Dürer himself (he always used a black background or a window setting). In this presumed copy now the background was applied in one single thick layer of paint. One can expect it to be monochrome, instead of seemingly washed on with such an uneven thickness and pigmentation, like it appears in your version; particularly the streaks around the figure's contours are too obvious to fit the accomplished portrait. The background has the flair of a sketch now, something done very quickly. That is obviously not the case. By removing yellow the homogenous background color fell apart.

Following the text on the NG page, there is "an inventory description of 1639, where the sitter is described as having a black cap, and ‘a dark yellow gown wherein his hands are hidden in the wide sleeves painted upon a reddish ground all crack’t.’" The cracks are restored.

In the English language of the UK they certtainly would have found a more appropriate adjective to describe this now more violet or pink color than just "reddish", since it would have been very uncommon then. The coat in the pristine reproduction of the painting might not be as "dark yellow" as when it was described in the 17th ct., but it shows exactly how it appears today.

But now let me describe shortly what is the main point of my objection to your interpretation of the paintings. It is true that the oil used as a binder and an often applied varnish are the main causes for the yellowing of older paintings, since the components react to light in this way. This painting I took as an example is about 400 years old. Beside the varnish and/or the binding oil itself, some considerable amount of dirt has accumulated on the surface and bonded with the varnish. Dirt tends to be rather grey or even black, often for a huge part caused by the smut of candles and open fire.

You cannot assume that nothing else has changed with the painting. Although restorations (like that of the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel for example) have recovered a splendour of perfectly preserved colors under the grime of the centuries, it seems. There is lot of chemical reactions going on over the centuries, you can't take into account in a simple way. There is variable deterioration and color shifts with particular pigments (Take for example the ugly greenish skin tones in some frescoes of the 14th ct.) I am have no specific clue about these reactions, and I presume, neither have you. So I conclude by repeating: your sort of 'restoration', your "fix" is a misguided illusion, and it doesn't help anything but to irritate people. You have to accept the works of art as they are right now and wait for a restoration by experts. Their achievements might satisfy you either, but it is as far as we can rolling back the years.

Thank you for reading and reflecting upon it. I would like to hear from you and discuss your approach. MenkinAlRire (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at my adjusted images. While I do agree with some of your comments, overall I must say you sound very arrogant. If you find them objectionable you are free to ignore them. Thanks for your time. Pixel8tor (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, arrogant, I didn't see that coming. Maybe my wording is not so well tuned in English. But I understand when my 'judgement' on your work you spend much time on seems too direct and harsh. I should have been restraint and more friendly on that part. I am sorry about that, I didn't intent to hurt your feelings.

I specifically took an example to be able to describe the what and why, to illustrate my concerns. And sure, it would be easier for me to ignore your versions... but I come across them all the time searching for a good reproduction of a work and I always have to think about them. That's why I finally decided to adress you personally. The significant difference to all the small, blurry and false colored reproductions is that you put effort and time in yours, and, sincerly, it concerns me.

Still I would like to discuss your method of digital restoration with you. You must have some good arguments, since you do it systematically. And you certainly have skills, that I would argue, would be better invested in really problematic images, where there is no better reproduction available. But, ok, maybe it is just my personal quarrel and I am alone with my view. Again, I apologize. MenkinAlRire (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And yes, I consider requesting a take-down for *your* opinion to be quite an arrogant move! I can't tell if you're trolling me or what. If there's something I can help you with, ask. And of course you are always free to produce your own versions. Okay, unless you have something constructive, this will be my last post on this subject. Please take a hint. Pixel8tor (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Maria Alexandrovna by Winterhalter (1857, Hermitage) 2FXD.jpg, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Alexandrovna by Winterhalter (1857, Hermitage) 2FXD.jpg. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)