The file not displaying: Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or PNG file with more than 12.5 million pixels. Geagea (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what it says: 7,998 × 1,653 = 13,220,694 which is bigger than 12,500,000. PNG and GIF image files with more than 12.5 million pixels are not resized to limit the amount of resources used in resizing... AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Downloaded the first 100k or so of this, and this one is in fact progressive (offset $9b7a SOF2 (progressive DCT Huffman) (length 17)). You might fix resizing (thumbnails) if it were converted to non-progressive format... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, could you extract the U.S. customs flag near the center top as a separate image? It would be nice to have as a historical reference, but I'm having problems doing this without downloading the whole 13meg image file (which is not very convenient for me...). Thanks! AnonMoos (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if "Saved with highest jpeg quality setting" means an IJG setting of 100 or equivalent, then you should be aware that settings beyond 95 greatly increase the size of the file, without a corresponding increase in real image quality... AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. But anything below degrades quality (even 100 is not completely lossless AFAIK). If a file is saved at settings below 95 several times (eg by subsequent editing) you will even start to see it. Just for fun and illustration: q50 and q20 (2:1:1 quantisation) - good enough for viewing (especially when downscaled). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to avoid JPEG Generation loss, then you should always edit a losslessly-stored master (and only save a JPEG copy in order to upload), or in some cases you can use a specialized lossless JPEG editing tool. Setting the so-called "quality" setting to 100 provides only very limited (and ultimately rather unsatisfactory) protection against generation loss, since DCT JPEG is an inherently lossy format... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have problem with SVG maps that I uploaded, some weird circles appear in thumgnail display, but when I click on map and open in browser everything is perfect. Does anybody now where is the problem, and wht should I do to avoid this error? Thanks. Look here in history of upload.--Ivan25 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have fixed it, but the "circles" were letters whose sizing instructions were not understood. For example the "11:58, 14 January 2011" version of the SVG file contains the code style="font-size:65.00091553% but the RSVG rendering software does not understand percentage font-size specifications. The file Image:Tabla_periodica_completa.svg had the same problem... AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, a lot. Well, I have the same problem here, so telle what exactly should I change in file? And something else - originally I uploaded version with texts on the curves, but it disapperes in thumbnail version, so I changed it in manual postition. Whats the problem with text on curve option? Thanks again...--Ivan25 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you what to do within Inkscape, but Inkscape is trying to set font superscript/subscript sizes in a "smart" way -- and unfortunately, it's a way that Wikimedia software doesn't understand. I used simple text search-and-replace to change "65.00091553%" to "7.8px" in font size specifications... AnonMoos (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While trying to see the image on the right on detail to identify some buildings in the city I'm getting some weird error. I've already toned the original image in an attempt to resolve it, to no avail, Can someone please have a look at this? The original image is still available at the flickr link.
Can you be more specific? The image looks totally fine to me. It's opening normally in browser. I downloaded both the original Flickr image and the one that was uploaded by the bot (the first in the file history), I put them on top of one another in Photoshop and compared them, and they match pixel for pixel. By the way, the color modification (levels?) you've done to the image is very harsh, it has blackened a large part of the image, buried many details, and lost the natural feel of the photo. So you might want to use masking and apply the modification only to the well-lit areas, and maybe turn it down a notch. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk11:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have problems with using the file on your local computer, but the image seems to be working fine on Commons/Wikipedia itself, then you should try to fix it on your computer, instead of uploading new file versions. I ran the originally-uploaded file through the IJG jpegtran program to put it in a somewhat "canonical" form. If that doesn't solve the problem, then you should describe the problem in more detail (and upload any new versions of the file made by you to a separate name, instead of overwriting the existing file). AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos: Thank you very much, I don't understand what you have done, but the image is now working fine. What's boggling my mind is that the versions that yesterday I couldn't see in the browser are now working fine as well (including the botchered version pointed out by Orionist). The problem was not with my laptop, as I could see the image in detail in my local software with no problems, but it could have to do with firefox, maybe. The error being displayed was plain boiler plate, something like "This image as an error and can't be displayed", but no additional details were given, so I didn't cared to paste it here. Anyhow, it's now working fine, thank you very much.
Orionist: Only today I realized the extent of the damage done to the image with the automatic tone levels tool of Paint.NET. Gladly enough, I never used it before (though I used the auto-correct tool of the MicroSoft photo app occasionally, which usually whitens the image a bit, and hides some detail, but the resulting image looks more prettier and bright). The problem, you see, is that I'm like an Hun trying to use a table fork when it comes to graphic software. Most of the time I can only decide between "pretty" and "not pretty", and I'm too much of a caveman to use most of the tools properly. The software I use is not exactly top gear as well, it's either paint.NET (which has the awful habit of saving something different than what I commanded to save, as in the case you pointed out), or most currently, the MS photo tool for cropping, flopping, and occasionally colour correction. I already noticed that it destroyed some detail in the original image when doing the auto-correction, thus I use it sparingly, only when presentation is more important than detail. In some cases, such as the dolmen in the right, I could only see the actual image after using the auto-correct tool, as it was very dark. Those photos were taken after sunset without flash, and were all very dark in the originals (digital photo machine is not top gear as well). After the correction the sky lost detail and went white, but it was not important for the subject, so I didn't cared very much about it.
Anyway, thank you both for the time and patience you spent with this. If you can counsel me some free graphic software of better quality to improve my photos, especially brighting them, I would gladly appreciate. Any further advice from your part on this subject would be greatly appreciated as well.--DarwinAhoy!14:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can use GIMP (Windows version can be downloaded here). It's a sophisticated software and very useful for image manipulation. You might find it hard to learn at first, but you'll find the results worth it. Brightening and similar modifications can be done effortlessly, but learn how to use layers and masking to do selective, more complicated modifications. Meanwhile you can post requests for image improvement at the Graphic Lab here at Commons (Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop) or if you prefer at the English Wikipedia (en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop). Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
