User talk:Nagualdesign/Archive 2

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Sobo 1909 260.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 12:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It was hardly created by me! All I did was a little editing. I'm pleased it's been promoted though. nagualdesign (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to vote on whichever image you like in Featured Picture Candidates, even though you created one of them. I cannot advise you which way to vote, because that would be canvassing, which is not allowed. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that. And of course I'd vote for my own version (if I didn't think it was an improvement over the original I wouldn't have bothered uploading it), but how am I going to get the warm fuzzies in the event that an image of mine is promoted if I'd voted for it myself? ...Then again, I did nominate this Featured Picture. But that was exceptional, even if I do say so myself. nagualdesign (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Understand. Having successfully midwifed a couple of scientific illustration candidates through the Featured Picture process and watched several favorites of mine emerge stillborn, I know the feeling. I don't see how I could possibly vote for a picture that I created myself. Translating text as in the Wu experiment illustration, changing the timing of the frames and adding phase numbering to the lower left-hand corner , or changing the timing of the frames and adding a title frame are different — in those cases I just gave the original author a bit of assistance. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally got around to swapping the image in Wu experiment. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. If you want to work from the original jpgs or raws, just let me know... might be easier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been. Oh well, I'll ask next time. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

..Looking again at my edit, there's room for improvement. If you can leave me some links here to the originals (raw files) I'll see what I can do. nagualdesign (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Slowly but surely uploading to Dropbox. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

1 2 3

Okay, I tried about a dozen different ways of processing this, including applying lens corrections to each image before merging, but none of the results could be wrestled into shape. The best I could do was to take the edit I already did and just skew it 0.4°. I think the main problem is that although the middle image is okay, the other 2 aren't equally balanced; you panned a little to the left for the left image, but panned further to the right for the right image, so when all 3 are combined the software doesn't think that the middle image belongs in the centre anymore. If you live close to the monument, perhaps I could offer you some advice for re-shooting the images?

• Shoot in portrait, not landscape, and take more shots (5 or 7)
• Make sure your tripod is perfectly level and stays level when you pan
• Don't tilt upwards; excess tarmac (and sky) can be trimmed later
• Keep the overlaps consistent; pan by the same amount each time, regardless of the subject
• Take more photos than you think you might need, even when the subject has almost left the frame
• Avoid distortion by not using the extreme wide angle (18mm) of your zoom lens, if possible
• Use your camera's 'rule of thirds' overlay as a guide for leveling and panning

I hope that helps. nagualdesign (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was having the same problems (and thus gave up after about 10 versions). Surakarta is about 60km away, so not readily retakeable... but once the dry season's come I could probably find a reason to go back. The main issue with photographing the site is the traffic going back and forth in front of it.

I tried going taking photographs in portrait mode with this, which turned out much better. Different object though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I've uploaded the slightly skewed (ie, straightened) version. That's probably as good as it's going to get. I may have another crack at it at some point though. The Sambisari panorama is really good. The only thing I would say about it is that I would maybe shrink it, just a little. I realize that when you put a lot of effort into making multi-megapixel panoramas you want to keep every pixel (and if it's intended for print then you definitely should), but if you shrink the circle of confusion down to (sub)pixel scale the whole image becomes pin sharp. You'll still have an impressively big image, but when it's viewed at 100% (on screen) it'll be even more impressive, because everything's in perfect focus. At the moment, though it genuinely is in focus, the CoC makes it appear like it isn't, if you get what I mean. nagualdesign (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I was considering downsampling to about 10,000 or 9,500 wide, but I figured the extra (admittedly somewhat blurry) pixels might be useful somewhere if someone reuses this. Giant poster or something? But yeah, I agree that a little bit of downsampling shouldn't be an issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the traffic, have you ever tried using a 'black glass' filter, like the Hoya NDx400? Great for making people and traffic invisible. Not necessarily good for panoramas though. I dunno. nagualdesign (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking into it, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(I hope my thanks is properly located here . ??)

I apologize if not, as well as for my inferior-newbie knowledge of wikipedia.org formatting, as I seek to make the ISS page ready for my son's future first-visit to it.

"All the best; intended."

- Chris

PS: I almost forgot: Speaking of "Nagual"(s), ...

Nagual

Sincerely: Christopher James Francis Rodgers

Rarecloud (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right up my street. Thanks for that, Chris. And don't worry, you'll get used to the Wikimarkup. For future reference, you can sign your posts (on talk pages) like this: ~~~~

Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Torres's 2nd book - Online 'evaluation' version (first seven chapters).

Rarecloud (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Cheers. nagualdesign (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I did google it after reverting, and attempted to undo my reversion. It always has more credibility when a new account changes a celebrity's relationship status and includes a source. For Christ's sake, as you might say. JNW (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

MMc9c (43 edits since 2009) made an edit then Nymf undid it with the summary "Source?" Then Serenaspratt repeated the edit followed by you reverting with the same reasoning. If you feel that a factoid ought to be backed up with a source, look for a source! Especially when the edit had already been reverted and repeated by an independent user. Don't judge a contributer by the colour of their user page link, and please do not bite the newcomers. nagualdesign (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The

WP:BURDEN is on the person adding information. There is a source now, but when I reverted the user there was none. Nymf (talk

) 14:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

All true. I was quick on the draw, then, as I said, looked for sources and found them. Thank you for beating me to the punch in restoring content and adding a source. No newcomer was bit in the process...nor did I vent frustration in my edit comment, as you did. That's perfectly alright, but I don't think any of this necessitated lessons in policy or wiki etiquette. Happy new year, JNW (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Nymf, your revert was reasonable; You had a doubt and you would not be expected to set off on what may be a wild goose chase looking for a source. I took exception only to JNW's additional revert, for the reasons I have already stated. I did not vent my frustration, I was shining a light (somewhat overzealously, perhaps) on the ridiculousness of the situation. The edit had been there for maybe 3 minutes. Would it have been such a big deal to spend another 30 seconds to verify the edit, rather than hitting the revert button? Of course not. Here endeth the lesson. Peace be with you. nagualdesign (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As for that comment here, the source clearly says that it was posted on January 1, 2014. Not December 31, 2013. Nagualdesign? Nymf (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The source says, "Big Bang Theory" star Kaley Cuoco married Ryan Sweeting Tuesday night during a New Year's Eve wedding for the ages. Again, take a few seconds to think, then act. No hard feelings? Happy New Year. nagualdesign (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Happy New Year, friend. Nymf (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please

I've started a discussion there, which I'll continue after I've had my tea. In the meantime take all the time you need to respond. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Charles Frohman presents William Gillette in his new four act drama, Sherlock Holmes (LOC var 1364) (edit).jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice picture but at risk of deletion on Commons as it doesn't attribute the source pictures and therefore confirm that the licencing is correct as per commons:Commons:Collages. It really is a nice combination so I'd hate to see it go because the technicialities haven't been dealt with. Hope you can fix it. Nthep (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I left out the description as I wasn't sure of the requirements. I'll endeavor to bodge it though.. nagualdesign (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a licence of CC-BY-SA-3.0 which I think is applicable although I've asked at Commons:Copyright for verification. Nthep (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help on the Georgian letters but could you please if you can SVG vectorize them by uploading them as seperate files? Jaqeli (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As Victor pointed out at the Photography workshop, those images aren't really suitable for vectorization. Because they contain lots of textures there won't be any reduction in filesize, and because the original images are small there won't be any improvement in scaling >100%. The only benefit would be a transparent background, which begs the question; where do you intend to use these images?

You see, they could easily be converted to transparent PNGs, but the Wikimedia software makes a mess of scaling PNGs (they look blurred), so they're generally used for infobox images. If you'd like me to make PNGs, perhaps we could avoid the blurring issue by scaling the image beforehand, so it can be used in the article at full size. Again, where will they be used?

Of course, Victor and I may be mistaken. You could ask at the Illustration workshop, where they deal with SVGs. They may have some experience with this kind of image. Hope that helps. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help anyways. Jaqeli (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nagual,

Can you please give this image the same bacground as you did with Niko Pirosmani?
And if you could please give some good background on this image if you can.
But please upload them as seperate files.

Jaqeli (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done(ish) - The background I made for the Niko Pirosmani image was blended to that image; the colour, texture and noise were intended to match the cut-out. A different approach is required for black and white images. I cleaned the backgrounds of both images and uploaded over the originals. Separate files aren't necessary in this instance. nagualdesign (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nagual. Jaqeli (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nagual again, can you please give this image a darker background which would suit it? Jaqeli (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a crop? Jaqeli (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Jaqeli, I got sidetracked and forgot to post a reply yesterday. I played around with the image but nothing really suggested itself. Being a bit like a line drawing it looks okay on white, and changing the colour might make it less useful for other pages. So I thought, if we're going to colour it for a specific page perhaps you could suggest a colour? Something based on similar artwork maybe? nagualdesign (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to give it the same kind of background as this image has? Jaqeli (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done How's that? nagualdesign (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that is great. Thanks a lot Nagual. Jaqeli (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nagual, can you please also give the same background colour as you did with the above to this image? Jaqeli (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that that would be entirely unsuitable, to be honest. It's a greyscale image. nagualdesign (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you choose maybe some other color? White does not suit it at all. Jaqeli (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see that you're trying to flesh out the

list of Georgian monarchs. Context always helps. And I've had an idea. Bear with me, this may take me a while... nagualdesign (talk

) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, only those whose pictures are damaged or need some work on the backgrounds. Jaqeli (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done How's that? (

context) Please don't ask me to do many like that. It may look pretty but I've added little encyclopedic value (and arguably reduced it, as I'm employing artistic license) and it's very time consuming. Regards, nagualdesign (talk

) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that coloring is brilliant. Thanks a lot. Can you please help to colorize some more pictures? :) Jaqeli (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL! ..The hardest part is actually deciding what colours to use. And just making stuff up could easily be classed as

original research

. It was fun to see what I could do with that image, and I like the result, but there's a limited palette to work with here. If we continued to impose our own styling it would also become difficult to tell the originally coloured images from the phonies. That sort of practice isn't conducive to making an encyclopedia, so I won't be continuing. Sorry, Jaqeli. I hope you understand.

Having said that, if you have any images that require recolouring, and you have reliable reference material to work from, I'd be happy to consider any suggestions. But don't be offended if I refuse! Kind regards, nagualdesign (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've got a joke for you: How can you tell

David X

?

Answer: The shoes! nagualdesign (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

:) Shoes and the moustashe :). Okey, can you then colorize this image based from this? Jaqeli (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Good example. nagualdesign (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That is brilliant. Many thanks. Nagual, can you please clean a bit around Peter there are some spots at the right and left and also can you please remove that black thing down at the left? Jaqeli (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I've removed the more obvious blobs. There's a lot of texture left that may or not be original, but looks passable, so I left it. nagualdesign (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but there's a big spot at the left just next to his hand. Do you see it? Could you please remove it somehow? Jaqeli (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes. That's about all we're going to be able to wring out of this image, I think. nagualdesign (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That is just brilliant. Thanks Nagual for your help :) Jaqeli (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nagual again, can you re-colour this image from this? Jaqeli (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Regards, nagualdesign 01:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Anything new? Jaqeli (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Jaqeli, I have made a start on that image but it led me to doing other things. I wasn't particularly happy with the results I was getting with the edit, so decided to do a bit more investigating. One of my main motives for editing images on Wikipedia is to learn something new. At the moment my efforts at colourizing resemble Andy Warhol-esque cartoons, in my opinion, and I'm in the process of developing different Photoshop techniques to deal with it. The hardest part is that everyone who posts videos and blogs online about colourization techniques are pretty sh*t at it too! I'll get there though. It's still on my desktop. nagualdesign 20:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Take your time if you need Nagual. What's the hardest part in Luarsab II's picture exactly? The dress? Jaqeli (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's getting the blending modes right. If I use the standard method of painting colours onto layers set to 'color' mode, the result is a set of white→colour gradient mappings, and when I add the blacks back I loose overall saturation. Mitigating by upping the saturation leaves a cartoon-ish look, no matter how carefully I mask... It's all very technical, with a lot of trial and error thrown in. nagualdesign 21:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Nagual. Happy Easter! Jaqeli (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I had added spaces in the article Grape , reason for this was that the LINE under the heading is not fully visible if there is not enough space between predecessor paragraph and the new heading.
For this I am reverting your edit.
--Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, Aftab. Per

MOS:BODY, "Between sections (and paragraphs), there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article." (Emphasis included.) It may not look right on your monitor at a particular text size, zoom level, resolution, window size, etc. but Wikipedia is designed to be viewed on multiple platforms. Besides, is an image crossing from one section to another such a bad thing? If so you've certainly got your work cut out - they're everywhere! Please will you now revert your edit. Regards, nagualdesign

04:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

'Zionist Agenda' [1] is a weird name to call someone. Calling names like that can get you blocked, so this is a warning. Undid revision 606419569 by Nagualdesign. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a warning is it? Ooooooh! ..I've said it to you before and I'll say it again; please read Wikipedia:No factions of belief. Your advocacy editing is not helping the project. nagualdesign 12:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Advocate for what? You made a racialist or ethnic slur about another editor. I have no idea why. Zionist agenda? What are you actually saying? I am a neutral editor on these articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Nagualdesign.... that's uncool and not going to be tolerated. Don't pull that again please.--MONGO 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, take a closer look at people's contributions and the history and talk pages of those articles before you decide what's cool and what ain't. Regards, nagualdesign 16:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please post any further comments at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement#Should we do re-directs of the movies to here.

Hi Nagual,

Is there anything new on the image? Jaqeli (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Jaqeli, I've been a little preoccupied with other things, and frankly I'm not impressed with my efforts on this image. It looks cartoony, and I'd rather not upload something that I consider below par. nagualdesign 18:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. What about recolouring this from this? Jaqeli (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll give it a whirl. First of all I'll ask for the noise to be removed... nagualdesign 19:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

...I've had a go at aligning the images in anticipation of Quibik's edit, but they won't register because there are too many differences between the two. Again, preliminary results are looking cartoony. nagualdesign 23:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you please show how that cartoony looks? Maybe you could upload on other free host site just to have a look. I am sure it would be better than the B&W version. Jaqeli (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned. Is there any source on the coloring of Alexander II of Imereti image? It is false to base the coloring on another king's fresco.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I share your concern, as noted in the section above (Image backgrounds). Feel free to revert my edit(s) and/or discuss this with Jaqeli. nagualdesign 18:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The image gives no concerns at all. Original image is here. Jaqeli (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a difference! The original is predominantly red, my upload is green. nagualdesign 18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Any slight difference is going to be false and inaccurate. If you had the original Jaqeli, you should have shown nagualdesign before requesting the change. I'm reverting to the original. Feel free to correct it. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Big History (TV series) title card.jpg, which you've attributed to Self. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Sorry about that. The image is a screen capture of the DVD that I scaled down. I wanted to use it under Fair Use policy, so I cancelled my upload to Commons and uploaded it here. Unfortunately the drop-down licensing box wouldn't work so I just copy/pasted the file description from another title card image. Please could you fix that as I'm useless when it comes to licensing issues (as I have just demonstrated). I'll have a go at your suggestions above. nagualdesign 00:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done

open channel

) 00:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Muchos grassy arse. nagualdesign 00:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm

Hi. You've edited Zeitgeist material before. Do you think this edit[2] giving Joseph zero weight is neutral? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, provided that the reference checks out. The problem is that you're up against a proverbial brick wall with some editors. While garnering opinion from previous contributors normally helps, in this case you'll almost certainly be accused of cherry picking, followed by a futile exchange that will sideline the issue you're trying to raise. Shit, isn't it? I highly suggest that you go straight to RfC or one of the noticeboards and/or ask an (uninvolved?) admin to weigh in. There's little point in trying to discuss something rationally with editors who believe it's a "colossal waste of time" dealing with you. Regards, nagualdesign 02:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of assistance with these scans. My aim was to create high-quality PNGs for all of the 48 lithograph plates in Squier and Davis. There is a List of Plates on pages xxi–xxiii (PDF pages 32–34), and I planned to work through this once I was sure I was using the right technique.

Currently, I am doing the following:

1. Open the source PDF in Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro.
2. Extract the relevant plate(s) to a new PDF (Document > Extract Pages)
3. Export each page as a PNG (File > Export > Image > PNG). This file (about 20 MB) is later uploaded to Commons as the source image.
4. Open the PNG file in Paint.NET.
5. Crop/rotate the image. Some plates cover multiple sites, and so this is the point where I would generally iterate through the remaining steps for each figure within the plate.
6. Convert the image to grayscale (Adjustments > Black and White).
7. Adjust the levels to set the background to white while preserving the detail of the original hatching. Usually this means knocking out all pixels with values lower than 228–235.
8. Save a new version of the PNG.
9. Upload the original image and edited version to Commons.

Extracting the images seemed pretty straightforward. It seems that step 3 preserves all the detail present in the PDF. My trouble comes more with steps 6/7. I'm not sure what combination of transformations will result in the best combination of the following:

• Preserve maximum detail from original plate
• Remove artefacts, such as shadow from scanning
• Convert image to gray-scale, as color information is of no significance in a monochrome print

If you would like to help out with some plates, that would be great. But if you're willing to share the techniques you're using (even the Photoshop ones, as I should be able to figure out the Paint.NET equivalents), that would be even better, as I can learn these skills myself. Alternative approaches I have been considering/unsuccessfully experimenting with:

• Adjusting the levels for the color image (before converting to black and white). I am essentially looking to remove the color of the paper, so this seems like it would be a better approach. Seems like I should de-emphasise the Red and Green curves. However, I'm not yet having much luck with this approach.
• Selecting all the areas with paper color and replacing them with white. This really doesn't work well with this amount of detail.

Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, I've tried a few different methods with varying results. My general workflow has been:

1. Open the PDF image directly into Photoshop. The image opens as an 8-bit RGB, which you can immediately save as a PNG if you wish.
2. Convert to 16-bit. This helps to preserve the working image data when applying adjustment layers, and provides more subtle tonal control.
3. At this point you could convert the image to CMYK, delete the yellow layer then convert back to RGB. This gives you an image that not only has greater contrast, but also has black blacks and blue/cyan midtones, allowing you extra control when applying a Black & White adjustment layer. Results varied for me. I recommend that you try this yourself then try again without.
4. Convert to grayscale using a Black & White adjustment layer. Whether you're working with the original (yellow) image or a CMYK adjusted (blue) image, a B&W adjustment layer allows you individual control over each hue. Do NOT attempt to make the background white at this point, just aim for a bit of improvement in contrast.
5. Add a curves adjustment layer to lighten the whites. To avoid adding contrast to the whites at the same time, I added an anchorpoint close to the whitepoint. (input:~245 output:255) This creates a tangential curve with a flat top. I altered the input until the lightest part of the page was almost white, then pop in a few more anchorpoints until the lower half of the curve is a straight line (input=output) and the upper part runs in a smooth curve. You may also wish to darken the blacks at this point, depending on the image.
6. Add a second adjustment layer to whiten the whites. Depending on the scan, some areas of the page will require more lightening than others to make the background pure white. Start by creating a similar curve as before, but this time alter the input until the darkest part of the image that should be white is white. Once you've prepared a basic curve, invert the layer mask (effectively disabling the layer) then, using a soft white brush set to a low opacity, paint the mask back in by hand until the image background appears white, being careful to preserve the fine details.

Phew! I hope this makes some sense to you. I don't often find myself trying to explain what I do with Photoshop, and I must have rewritten the above a dozen times to try and make things clearer. I think it's best if I just leave it at that for now and let you ask more questions. Regards, nagualdesign 23:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that. I do understand that trying to describe UI manipulations in words is a real pain, so I appreciate the effort. I'll try to see if I can replicate that process using Paint.NET (or other free tools), and upload the results I get. Of course it's possible that my more rudimentary skills and toolset will be a barrier, but I think I can probably improve a lot on what I'm doing so far. Cheers, Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a sample image, which I first converted to 16-bit, then applied a Black & White adjustment layer with the yellow turned up to 130. I didn't bother with the CMYK thing. The best curve turned out to be an inverted hockey stick with anchor points at (I/O): (0/0), (64/64), (128/128), (192/197), (251/255) and (255/255). Because 3/4 of the tonal range remains almost untouched, the same curve can be re-used on subsequent (masked) layers without affecting the blacks/midtones. In the end it took several layers to whiten the left edge of the scan. I converted to 8-bit grayscale before saving as a PNG. Note that the image would require further retouching. nagualdesign 02:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

...I've also just applied a levels adjustment to set the black point (to 50), slightly sharpened the image (unsharp mask) and cleaned some spots off the background. nagualdesign 23:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you get on okay with those images, Rupert? nagualdesign 22:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, real (work) life intervened. I need to set aside some time to work through the process you outlined and see if I can match your results. Really, though this is going to be a big help. Many thanks. Rupert Clayton (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't seen you at the Graphics Lab lately, you doing okay?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'll also join you. How are you Nagual? Jaqeli 12:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm good, thank you for asking. I hope you're both well, too. I just haven't been spending much time on WP recently. Less so the Graphics Lab, as I don't have the energy to deal with all the bullshit from certain contributors. Present company excepted, of course! I'm still lurking though. Kind regards, nagualdesign 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)