User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/9

Dag Vincent Steenberg, volgens een anonieme editor is Ivo Lismonde niet correct. Kan ik dit hier wijzigen of is dit aan rules onderworpen? Lotje (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Lotje, Dat is dan een fout van het RKD. Wellicht heeft men daar 2 personen onder één naam geplaatst. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bedankt, ik zie dat het ondertussen door een vriendelijke anoniem werd aangepast. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vincent, I happened on provenance templates you created some years ago, such as {{Bought by the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}} and {{Ceded to the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}}. {{ProvenanceEvent}} can do the same job with the advantage of being much more used and of being translated into a lot more languages. On the other hand, these specialized templates allow for a more idiomatic languages. What do you think? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jastrow, there templates were created before {{ProvenanceEvent}} was. {{Bought by the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}} is not in use any more and {{Ceded to the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam}} only on a small number of files. As far as I'm concerned they can both be deleted. Their use is limited. I mean, bought by the Rijksmuseum. Bought from who and for how much. Of course you could add all of these parameters, but then you're just copying {{ProvenanceEvent}}. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I thought as much. I'll do the replacements, then I'll delete the templates. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vincent,

Please support or oppose this nomination: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Koch_%E2%80%93_Mayor_of_the_City_of_New_York.jpg

DmitryBorshch (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Vincent, blijkbaar is die website veranderd en het template werkt niet meer. Ik kan het niet actualiseren. Ik denk jij kan het. Nieuwe website is voor Category:Christ Carrying the Cross by Hieronymus Bosch (Ghent) http://balat.kikirpa.be/photo.php?path=KN3652&objnr=78628. Bedankt en VG--Oursana (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Oursana, ok, de redirect is kennelijk verwijderd. Als het goed is moet de link nu weer werken. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Vincent, het is beter maar het beeld verschijnt niet.

Warom heb je tl Category definition zonder discussie teruggezet? Dit wordt regelmatig gebruikt, vooral als die files verschillende informaties hebben en je kan daar ook die wikidata-link plaatsieren.

Bedankt voor File:Cross, Bosch.jpg.

ok, dat was misschien een beetje bot van mij. Maar, als ik het goed begrijp is {{Category definition: Object}} een poging om data horend bij een bepaald object centraal te beheren, vooral als er verschillende versies zijn van één en hetzelfde object. Dat is op zichzelf een goed idee. Steeds maar {{Artwork}} kopiëren is niet ideaal en de kans op fouten is groot, maar er moet toch een betere manier zijn. Voorbeeld. Ik probeerde laatst File:IngresOdipusAndSphinx.jpg te bewerken via Category:Louvre RF 218, door de nieuwe parameter "Place of creation" toe te voegen. Echter zonder succes. Tl Category definition: object maakt gebruik van tl Artwork, maar is het niet. Dus in feite hebben we nu dus 2 templates Artwork. Dit vind ik nogal vreemd.

En dan is er nog het aspect van gebruiksvriendelijkheid. We maken al gebruik van onnoemelijk veel templates, zodat het voor de beginnende gebruiker haast onmogelijk is om beschrijvingen te bewerken. En dan wil men ook nog tl Artwork (resp. tl Information), de basis van iedere beschrijving, vervangen door een duplicaat van tl Artwork, die zich ook nog eens in de Categorie-pagina bevindt? Zelfs toen ik dit voor het eerst tegenkwam, moest ik eerst een tijdje zoeken om te begrijpen wat er aan de hand was. Sorry, maar ik vind dat gewoon niet kunnen.

Maar hoe zit het eigenlijk met wikidata? Ik dacht dat dat het project was waar data centraal beheerd werd? Waarom wordt daar niks mee gedaan op commons?

Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your intention with this template redirect? For now I have removed your speedy tag as it drawed 1000+ images into speedy deletion. --Denniss (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to do is rename Institution:Rijksmuseum into Institution:Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Because the second currently exists, this is not possible if it isn't deleted first. Unless there's another way. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you delete the redirect if there are no links to Institution:Rijksmuseum. Your reasons I do not understand. VG --Oursana (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't. I'm not an admin. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Vincent, ik heb je category voor deze meester weer teruggezet, want het blijkt dat niet alles van deze meester staat op naam van Aert van den Bossche of Aert Panhedel. Zie bericht hier. Ik heb ook net een lemma gemaakt in de engelse wiki. groet, Jane023 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MFAonline 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 template, 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. 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Micione (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For all the work you did Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vincent, I took great care including relevant information in the meta data of artwork. By uploading higher resolution images you delete this meta data. Could you please consider the pro's and con's. I don't say an overwrite is denied, sometimes a present file is just not a good one, but I think the advantages have to outweigh the disadvantages. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan, I think I know what you mean, but just to be sure, could you give me an example. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I throw them out of my watchlist when that happens, so it took a while, but f.i. File:Cornelis van Haarlem - Bethlehemse kindermoord.jpg--Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I saved your upload for this file on my computer and found the following meta data:

Titel: De kindermoord te Bethlehem

Onderwerp: De kindermoord te Bethlehem

Waardering:

Labels:

Opmerking: *oil on canvas *245 x 385 cm *signed: CCornely. H. fecit

Auteurs: Cornelis Cornelisz. vam Haarlem

Genomen op: 28-11-2011 0:51

Programma GIMP 2.6.11

Verkregen op:

Copyright: http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/zoeken/asset.jsp?id=SK-A-128&lang=en

And so on...

So my next question is, why did you add this information and why is it an advantage? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be informed about the benefits of metadata it is best to look at appropriate websites. But I would like to point at the source and copyright information that is retained with the file whenever it is copied away from here. Furthermore, the metadata of an image contains the colour profile with which the file was processed the last time. F.i., stripping the metadata from an image that was processed with an Adobe colour profile will make the colours look way to thin. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I see what you mean. But isn't it better to put the source in the "Auteurs" field and put "Public domain" in the "Copyright" field? At the moment you give the impression that the Rijksmuseum is the copyrightholder. This is not the case. See for example http://hdl.handle.net/10934/RM0001.COLLECT.8164. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an old example. I uploaded that image 3 years ago. Since then Rijksmuseum changed their website and even put a link on the image page to the public domain declaration at Creative Commons. See File:Portrait of a 19-year-old man, possibly a self portrait, attributed to Pieter de Hooch.jpg for a more recent version of the metadata I am using, in case of Rijksmuseum images. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok. What I'll do is go all of these uploads one by one. See if these were realy an improvement and try and restore metadata. This might take a while. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, but you don't have to go back and restore metadata. The only thing is, just consider the pro's and cons when uploading a new version. Sometimes an image is mediocre and an upload is an improvement, sometimes it is just a higher amount of pixels, but not really an improvement. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vincent, File:Jan Steen 025.jpg is a good example of the effects of discarding the colour profile. This file contains a colour profile. This one doesn't. As you can see, even the Mauritshuis is at the process of learning. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that's interesting, because I have exactly the same experience with the Rijksmuseum. I already had to cancel several uploads of high-resolution images from their website, because although they were higher in resolution they were a bit greyish compared with what we already have. So something must have gone wrong there processing these images. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not go wrong, it is simply that they want to give professional publishers an advantage. When you download a file Rijksmuseum actually says in their pop-up "Rijksstudio voor professionele gebruikers: bestel een gratis TIFF bestand met kleurreferentie van deze afbeelding..." So you not only get an image without jpeg artifacts, but you also get the colour profile with the image. Amateurs like us, we have to make a reasoned guess what the painting looks like. Many museums do it like that. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just noticed that the comparison above only reveals the difference in the Chrome browser. Apparently, Internet Explorer discards the Adobe colour profile altogether. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that edit I made on the template. Don't know how I got there. I was updating a Featured Image originally uploaded by Durova with the new (public) version offered byu the Mauritshuis. I wasn't aware there was another file with the higher resolution version as well. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Historical Media Barnstar
		Thanks for working through the Rijksmuseum uploads. Your edits create a lot of extra value. Fæ (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all those wonderful uploads! Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Vincent Steenberg, om eerlijk te zijn, ik denk dat de eerste geupload afbeelding moet het recht blijven. Het principe zou anders uit de hand lopen. groet --Trzęsacz (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Collections F.W. Ross, La Haye, A. Durand, Paris et al., p 67.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) 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your edits in Dolls’ house of Petronella Oortman.

Do you know how to download pictures from Google Art Project page? I want to upload a better version of Madonna col Bambino by Jacobello del Fiore?

I think it's necessary to create Category:Google Art Project works in Museo Correr and upload pictures there. --AnatolyPm (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anatoly, You're welcome. I'm afraid I'm not able to help you with that, but User:Dcoetzee will know. Ask him. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --AnatolyPm (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked the question as to how to add paintings to the page on this painter, but now I see this is done automatically if the correct category is given. BUT could you have a look at this and - if you know how that is - add a sub-category paintings with details, since I uploaded one painting and several details out of it. Or tell me how to do it? Thanks! --Haendelfan (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haendelfan, Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. To create a new category you open a file for this new category, for example File:L botan instit 1878.jpg, then click on edit (bearbeiten) and add a new category or rewrite te existing one. For example [[Category:Botho Straußberger]]. Then save (Seite speichern). The new category (if it doens't exist already) should appear in red, like this: Category:Botho Straußberger. Click this link and place the new category in an existing one, for example by adding the text [[Category:Printmakers from Germany]] in the work field. Press save and you're done. For more information, see Commons:Categories. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volgens deze gebruiker zou deze afbeelding een foto zijn gemaakt in het Dordrechts museum. Gelet op de resolutie van de afbeelding heb ik daar zo mijn twijfels over. Jij bent meer ingevoerd in de museale collecties dan ik. Is dat schilderij uit een particuliere collectie ooit tentoongesteld geweest in Dordrecht? Zou jij daar eens naar willen kijken. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Volgens het RKD is het werk voor het laatst gesignaleerd in 2012 op een veiling bij Christie's. 'Huidige verblijfplaats onbekend' dus. Op de webpagina van het Dordrecht Museum over Schouman komt hij niet voor. Maar het schilkderij kan wel in bruikleen aan of tentoongesteld in het Dordrechts Museum zijn geweest. Maar een concrete aanwijzing hiervoor kan ik niet vinden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Vincent, ik zie dat jij een hoop creator sjablonen hebt aangemaakt hier op Commons. In de afgelopen tijd hebben we een hoop van deze sjablonen aan Wikidata kunnen koppelen. Er zijn op dit moment zo'n 18.000 creator sjablonen en daarvan zijn er minder dan 3000 nog niet gekoppeld aan Wikidata. Ik ben nu voor de Nederlanders (alle varianten) de missende items op Wikidata aan het aanmaken. Heb je er wel eens aan gedacht om wat meer actief op Wikidata te worden? Dingen zoals d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings zijn volgens mij best wel in jouw straatje. Multichill (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Multichill, Ik draag heel soms bij aan wikidata. Ik heb bijv. zonet een wikidata link toegevoegd aan Template:Infobox artist. Dat scheelt een hoop werk in het beheren van interwiki links op gallery pagina's hier op commons. Zie bijv. Jan ten Compe. Misschien dat m.b.v. een bot een wikidata link op alle pagina's die een dergelijke infobox bevatten toegevoegd kan worden. Alleen, hoe ik ook andere data vanuit wikidata naar andere projecten kan importeren is me niet helemaal duidelijk. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Die link toevoegen aan Infobox artist lijkt me niet zo handig. Elke gallery zou gewoon gekoppeld moeten zijn aan Wikidata. Dat ook nog eens handmatig in de infobox zetten is wat dubbelop. Dat sjabloon zou gewoon automatisch moeten kijken of er een koppeling is met Wikidata en als dat het geval is, een icoontje met link laten zien. In de software staat dit nu nog uit, maar dit gaat wel ergens begin volgend jaar worden aangezet. Tot die tijd overleven we het toch wel met de links in de linker balk?

Jan ten Compe ziet er nu heel raar uit. Ik dacht dat het door jouw edit aan de infobox kwam, maar het is zo te zien iets anders.Multichill (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, dat is helemaal makkelijk.

Die pagina van Jan ten Compe is nog niet af en bestaat nu slechts uit twee losse schilderijen en twee schilderijen die bij elkaar horen. Vandaar zoveel kopjes voor zo weinig beelden. In de toekomst wordt het hopelijk fraaier.

Ik zie nu trouwens dat die pagina wél is gekoppeld aan wikidata. Super! Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vincent, I noticed you uploaded a higher resolution image of that painting. Thanks for that. I also noticed you uploaded it because it shows the "original colors". You might want to look at http://www.rembrandtdatabase.org/Rembrandt/painting/3064/laughing-man to see that these are not the original colors. The varnish protects the painting, but it starts to turn yellow, the moment it is applied. And it collects dust, dirt, smoke and sticky fingers. It is hard to imagine that Rembrandt willingly wanted to make the subject look this green. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan, yes, it is rather green. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with any restoration. I'll undo my changes. Thanks for noticing. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize that Schalcken's 'painter by museum' category was itself a subcat of 'Dutch Golden Age' (the subcategorization of Rijksmuseum paintings seems to be a bit inconsistent). Thanks for catching that. Revent (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. The idea is not to diffuse categories that don't need to be diffused. For example Category:Paintings by Jacob Spoel in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam has almost completely taken over Category:Jacob Spoel. If possible I try to avoid that. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my main interest in messing with these is to add additional data that wasn't imported by Fae's bot, and 'fix' the licensing (his bot didn't use the autocalculating templates or know the death year, so there seem to be a lot of 'PD in areas with a copyright term over 70 years pma' for artists that died 150+ years ago). As far as the categories like that, most I've looked at seem to be using a 'files in this category are also in' notice pointing at the artist's own category, with some images in both, and not listing the 'painter by museum' as a subcat of the 'painter'. I don't know if that's the 'accepted' method though, or if there really is one. There doesn't, tbh, seem to be a consistently applied method. I'm not really 'opinionated' about it, other than thinking using a consistent method would be good. Revent (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You moved this out of 'Paintings by anonymous artists in the Rijkmuseum Amsterdam', which I had created and intended to populate, and into 'Paintings by Nicolaes Berchem in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam'. Per the Rijkmuseum, this is not the painting by Berchem, but an anonymous 18th-century copy. The painting by Berchem is File:Het ponteveer Rijksmuseum SK-A-31.jpeg. This was misclassified by Fae's bot. Revent (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 2 reasons. Firstly, even though the painting is a copy, because the painter is unknown, it is still part of a group of paintings by Nicolaes Berchem and his school. Like this all paintings related to Berchem are in the same category instead of being scattered around. Secondly, without any context a caterory called 'Paintings by anonymous artists' is not very useful. According to Commons:Categories categories are there to find files. Why would someone be looking for something that is unknown? Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, not really arguing with the decision to do so (I didn't change it back). I just wanted to make sure it was 'intentional', and not a misunderstanding going back to the way the bot had attributed it. Revent (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, there is still a lot of work to do. Many files in Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam that are copies, school of ..., attributed to ..., etc. are listed as "Anonymous", making it difficult sometimes to find files through search. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you have any comments about how I'm filling out the data on these, feel free to let me know. I'm trying to include all the given data from RMA, RKD, and Bild (if I can find it in the latter two), and use as many of the internationalization templates as possible. If there is something I'm missing, or a 'better' way to include the info, just ping me. I'm not really an 'art person', just a gnoming-type that migrated over here from enwiki because I got tired of the drama there. Revent (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say! I know all about it.

Some other interesting references templates are Template:Origins unknown (for http://www.herkomstgezocht.nl), Template:Linz Collection (for http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/linzdb). These concern art looted by the nezis in WWII. Most of the art restituted to the Netherlands ended up in the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art Collection (the so-called NK Collection). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something you might find interesting... I had realized while looking at these that the Rijkmuseum website actually offers higher resolution images of most of these works than are available through the API (See 'Le voeu du faisan' Rijksmuseum SK-A-4212.jpeg for the 'drastic example' I uploaded... began talking about this in IRC with Multichill, and it turns out he knows the collections director at the Rijk... he sent her an email, and hopefully we'll get a bulk import of the 'better' images sometime soon. It looks like (from the 20 or so I looked at) that these average between 2-5 times higher resolution... the one we started out discussing here, 'Het ponteveer', is currently at 4.7MP here, but the downloadable one is 37.6MP, which is a massive difference. Revent (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. The files from RM are higher in resolution, but the color on these are slightly duller. Higher resolution doesn't always mean better quality. I think the resolution of the images uploaded by Fæ is sufficient. Maybe you should discuss this with User:Fæ. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the "zoomed" version of RM images, as I could potentially have de-zoomified to grab the higher res version. There were some oddities that stopped me going ahead, possibly colour or blurriness, though this was quite a while back so I don't recall the reasons. Multichill understands the issues, so let's see what he comes up with. It might be an idea to have a test sample or set uploaded and compare the quality. I would be happy to automate going back over the uploads and refreshing them with higher versions if these become available (either on the internet or via a shared disk somewhere). --Fæ (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fae: I had noticed, from looking at about 20 or so, the differences you are talking about... the 'higher resolution' ones are saved as jpeqs with a quality setting of 79 and 4:2:0 color (and no EXIF), while the smaller ones are saved at a 90+ quality setting and 4:4:4 color, and an EXIF that indicates they were processed in Photoshop. As far as 'detail', the higher res ones seem, to my eye, to show finer details of the painting, but there is a color difference... the question, really, seems to be which is more 'accurate'. The Rijk has a form for requesting 'corrected' tiffs via email, and I just got one for comparison (SK-A-2347), but it came with a disclaimer (I had mentioned a desire to compare the colors in my request) that it was an older photo, and not up to their current quality standards. Glancing at the file, the issue might be that it has only a greyscale calibration target, not a color one, but it is at approximately the larger resolution. I'm on my laptop, atm, and it's not the best for comparing images, but I'll compare the color maps on my desktop in a few, and ping back. As far as comparing, I'd uploaded the one I linked earlier, and also the one I just mentioned ('Bij de wieg' Rijksmuseum SK-A-2437.jpeg) in the web versions, but I'm not going to mess with any of the others (other than adding metadata) until we reach some sort of conclusion (and a bot doing it if needed would be great). 'Bij de wieg' does seem to have a bit of a greenish cast in the higher-resolution, though. Revent (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to myself, lol. Upon examining the color map of the tiff version (and it's visual appearance) it is much closer to the appearance of the original API version. I uploaded it at 'Bij de wieg' Rijksmuseum SK-A-2437.tif for comparison. I also converted it to a jpeg (using higher quality settings than had been used for the 'web' high-res) and put it up over the 'greenish' version at the 'original' location, 'Bij de wieg' Rijksmuseum SK-A-2437.jpeg. My 'experiments' using the greyscale calibration target included in the tiff showed that the image seems to be /slightly/ dark, but not enough to be noticeable without directly flipping back and forth, so I didn't 'correct' for that... it was an extremely minor difference. Examined closely, the tiff-derived version does appear, IMO, to be more detailed, though it's not 'obvious' at a quick glance, I think because the processing of the API version enhanced the 'whiteness' of the cracks in the paint, making them 'appear' sharper though they are not... the difference is more visible if you look at things like the details of brushstrokes.

Please, btw, don't take this as me trying to be 'pushy' about a particular version, btw... if you want to revert the images I overwrote, and have them up separately, or replace them all with better images direct from the museum, that's fine with me... goal here is just to get the best images we can. Revent (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]