File talk:Keith Richards (1965).jpg

Note that this file is a fake: is has been “blown up” from the original version, size 464 × 468. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop emptying talk pages. It is vandalism. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense. A fake is an object that is made to look real or valuable in order to deceive people. The description says that this file has been extracted from that file. That means undoubtedly, that this file is not the original. After this is made clear, i´m of course allowed to resize or remix it. So where is the scram? This file is also not a duplicate. It is cropped, so that the proportion is better. Keith Richrds is more in the center. And it is brighter for better use as a thumb. -- Waterborough (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Das ist kein Fake. Offenbar Ahnungslosigkeit in Sachen Bildbearbeitung. --Ralf Roletschek 21:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Blowing up a small photograph digitally or photochemically does not add any real detail to the image – only unwanted artefacts. The uploader of these distorted images merely wants to appear grand. He shows no grasp of photographic techniques. (Emptying discussion pages repeatedly is another sign of a rather low level of integrity.)

If he really wants to help, he can buy the image in full resolution from Lehtikuva press agency with a proper licence and donate the image to Commons. This is, however, not prone to happen. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wenn man die richtigen Werkzeuge benutzt, dann werden auch Details hinzugefügt und Artefakte werden beseitigt. --Ralf Roletschek 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Leider sind solche „Details“ immer nur unechte, und die Artefakte sind klar zu sehen. Es ist unehrlich, solche Bilder hier zu bieten.

One must really be careful with everything this person uploads and claims. He has a different conception of integrity altogether, and he fails to respond to essential arguments. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Programme wie S-Spline werden weltweit von Ermittlungsbehörden eingesetzt, um Details aus Fotos zu holen, die im Original nicht existieren. Aber du weißt es ja besser als FBI, CIA usw. --Ralf Roletschek 19:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It is dishonest to add such details to a picture that do not exist in the original photograph or a scan of it. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (not as an investigator of crimes) does not need such fictive images. If you really want to help, you can buy the image in full resolution from Lehtikuva press agency with a proper licence and donate the image to Commons, as noted to you repeatedly. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons ist nicht nur für Wikipedia da. Commons braucht Bildverbesserungen. --Ralf Roletschek 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)