User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2015/7

Reverted to FP version

Thanx Slaunger for noting it. Agree, FP shouldnt be changed but if some dont like it can make derivate work. I put all my FPs on watchlist to take care for this in future. Thanx again. --Mile (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Mile . -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Visit Brazil someday!

Hello, Slaunger! I recommend you visit Brazil. This vast country is home to unique natural life. It is abundant in splendid landscapes. Visit Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Brasília and many other cities! Visit Brazil someday! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile

Hi, Regarding the 2 images for which you mentioned this issue, is it fixable for the TIFF files? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Pops Restaurant, Route 66, Arcadia, Oklahoma, 04404a.jpg
• File:Rock Creek Park, Washington, D.C., 04259a.jpg

Never mind. Thanks to Revent, I fixed that. Yann (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, Yann, I was too slow there. Glad that Revent could help. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sign

Hi Slaunger, you forgott your sign. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Alchemist-hp. I have now added the missing signature. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nørresø 2015-07-04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Laitche 21:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

POTD

What a mellow POTD !--Jebulon (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

+1! :) Jee 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, or, a muh-low cow . -- Slaunger (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

POTD

Again ???!!!! "Commons" is now your private garden !! Did you pay, or what ? Lol !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes, they have been piling up, although not from my private garden, but spread over countries and over subjects. Yesterday a cow in Switzerland, today a miner's change room in Germany, and next time: Barracks used by the Special Operations Command in Spain that you showed me (remember?)! Very diverse, but still with a common theme: Mountains! That is why none of them are from Denmark, lol. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)-

POTD

(Work in progress, to be ready for tomorrow)--Jebulon (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah, it is over to you now on July 29, where it is exactly one year ago you studied a certain watch tower in Andalusia! I am taking a short break until August 7, where it is exactly one year ago you showed me Pico de Veleta! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

EXIF bug

What's this EXIF but that you are working around? Your File:Facade, Kollhoff Tower, Potsdamer Platz, Berlin, Germany, 2015-07-13-3381.jpg is now missing the colour profile that was in the previous version. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Colin I am using the exiftool script devised by Bawolff on Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2015/04#Error_in_metadata_viewer?. I guess some arguments for exiftool eliminates the colour profile. Exiftool has plethora of options, and I have just used it as some kind of magic. Maybe Bawolff knows how the script can be improved such that it retains the rather important colour profile? I do see the problem. In the original export from lightroom the color profile data are there, but after running it through exiftools with the script it is gone. Not good :-(. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message for Bawolff. Can you look at my uploads to see if any of my images are affected. I use Jeffrey' Friedl's Creative Commons and Metadata Wrangler as part of my export routine for Wikipedia (I use his Flickr plugin too). When I use my "Wikipedia" preset export, it helps ensure I have CC properties set up to record CC BY-SA 4.0 in the EXIF, etc. The Metadata Wrangler is also useful to remove private info from the EXIF file, but retain what is necessary. The Flickr plug-in is not easy to set up, but I have it configured to create folders like on Flickr and to recognise the "Family" tag as meaning the image is restricted to family only, rather than for public view. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Colin: I've checked the most recent version of your 10 most recent uploads. Your EXIF data are very pro, and I do not see the kind of corrupt data, that I have been seeing after exporting from Lightroom (I do not use any plugins). The only slightly peculiar thing I noticed were some gibberish characters in the 'user comments' field in File:Gherkin from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That field is generated by Hugin. Must be a bug in the recent version. EXIFtool shows the same bad characters. Well, if you want to consider those plug-ins then that would seem to avoid the EXIF PHP corruption problem. -- Colin (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm the User comment field is odd there. 
 and 
 are how you escape a windows newline in HTML, and then replacing # with \# is how you would escape a # sign in something like a shell script. Does indeed look like a bug in the tool you're using to write exif. Bawolff (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Colin for trying to help. I cannot get Bawollfs updated script to work, it still looses the colour profile. I think I will now bite the bullet and have a look at the plugins you are referring to (except the flickr one as I do not really use flickr). -- Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

After installing and enabling Jeffry Friedl's Metadata Wrangler and Creative Commons plugins it works! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

For a simple projection like that, have you tried the built-in panorama feature of Lightroom to see how it compares? -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you know if, when this bug gets fixed, the file description pages will be automatically fixed. Or does MediaWiki store the EXIF information it scrapes out of the JPGs on upload? Is there an official bug report for this? Lightroom is extremely popular software so this could potentially affect thousands of files (but ours and externally transferred) and affect important fields like creator and licence information. Is there somewhere we can add +1 to getting this fixed? -- 17:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Colin: What I know about it is now summarized here. So, there is filed a bug on Phabricator. Have no idea about how that works and how to influence its priority. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Colin: I have created a Phabricator account and commented on the issue asking it to be prioritized. I have also asked if the metada view will be fixed retrospectively after deploying new mediawiki software, where this is fixed. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet another colour profile question

Hi Slaunger, thank you for your comment on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont de Chancia02 2015-05-10.jpg. After some googling I understand that a color profile could be added with exiftool. Would adding a standard gamma=2.2 metric be acceptable? My main issue is that the stackoverflow help for exiftool recommends to obtain an icc file from another image. Defies the purpose. There is a Canon Powershot G12 icc file out there, but I suspect it is not meant for JPG file but for the CR2 raw files. What are your thoughts? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

KlausFoehl, the cropped image lacks the sRGB colourspace tag in the EXIF but your original wide one has this tag. So what software did you use to crop it? It should be possible to redo the crop in a way that doesn't lose the EXIF data. You shouldn't have to worry about specifying the gamma if you specify sRGB (because that standard => 2.2 gamma).

@Colin: The crop, cut-and-paste with gimp, was a brief reply to than one person deeming 180-deg images out of place. I might even withdraw that alternative at some point. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For your original image, if your images are out-of-camera JPGs rather than created by a professional tool like Lightroom or Photoshop, then they often do lack a colour profile. I think manufacturers do this to save 4kb per JPG. One would hope that the sRGB colourspace tag was sufficient for web browsers to display the colours properly. Sadly it is not (I mean to write an essay on this) and without a profile, such images can look bad for people using wide gamut displays. Currently, though, that's a small percentage of the internet users and I hope the situation with browsers gets fixed in the future.

I think missing a colourspace tag is a valid reason too oppose at FP (our guidelines require it), but we don't go as far as to insist on an embedded profile. Too many people's images, and images uploaded from Flickr, lack this. So I'd regard it as a "nice to have" and I wish more people took care to include it.

If you are keen to find and embed an icc sRGB profile, there are several places to find them (I assume you did create the JPGs as sRGB rather than AdobeRGB!!!!) Have a look at ArgyllCMS. I contains tools for extracting and inserting icc profiles from/to images. But also it comes with their own freely-licensed versions of the sRGB profile (and others) which are highly regarded and could be used instead of trying to find an image to extract one from. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: Thank you for the link, but I have not yet explored it. From previous searching today, I came across sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_black_scaled.icc md5:4b699a4c3a7d97acf0a356aed883fd85 which by the name sounds reasonable to me. I also came across an icc file with my camera name in it, but is it for JPG or CR2 files? I assume that the camera does some internal magic (i.e. enhancing colours) when creating JPG from the sensor data, hence there should be a JPG-specific color profile, better tuned to the camera than a generic profile. For the panoramic I have used the camera JPGs as input, but most times I also shoot RAW so there are also CR2 files for the same images. I wonder whether one can obtain a visibly better end result starting from them. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

KlausFoehl, I think there are some unusual sRGB icc files around and different versions numbers too. See this link which I don't pretend to fully understand. My suspicion is that the Canon Powershot G12 icc you found is used by programs like RawTherapie to profile the camera raw file. Every camera raw file is different. Perhaps some raw conversion programs use icc profiles to calibrate that aspect. But what one wants in a JPG is a standard colour profile rather than one peculiar to your camera. And sRGB is the most compatible choice. If your camera output JPGs in sRGB format then it will be using the standard sRGB profile (or Canon's implementation of it) and so that is what you want. If you have some CR2 files and your raw conversion software has generated JPGs from them, do they contain sRGB colour profiles? If so, then you could extract the sRGB icc from those. Otherwise I think the Argyll CMS one I linked would be a safe bet. One can use icc profiles for all sorts of colour calibration: cameras, monitors, scanners and printers. But when we publish to the internet, the only reliable profile choice is sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: Nope, neither CR2 nor JPG files from Canon G12 contain colour profiles. Checked with exiftool. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. The CR2 files won't have a profile (they are raw files, which need to be interpreted) but you presumably use a raw converter that outputs JPGs and you could acquire an sRGB profile from one of those JPGs. I suspect that you and I can't tell the difference between a Sony/Canon/Adobe/Argyll sRGB profile as they are all trying to implement the same standard. It is frustrating that camera manufacturers don't embed the profile in their JPGs and doubly so if someone creates an AdobeRGB JPG because that is even more likely to be displayed incorrectly. -- Colin (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: I think we agree that RAW gives one value per sensor pixel (disregarding foveon). But what is the function to map intensity to value? Is it linear? What is the relative sensitivity of R, G and B sensors, short of asking for their spectral response? The profile should be a container for such informations, even for a RAW file. Now as regards JPG, I usually shoot dual CR2&JPG, so no need for a converter. When I test-converted from CR2 to TIFF with dcraw, from the TIFF I could extract a rather short (476 Bytes) icc file using exiftool. So I now have the choice of sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_black_scaled.icc and the profile that dcraw added "autogenerated by dcraw". One would hope that the latter profile harmonises with how my camera records images, but it is not manufacturer-provided. Ok, whether manufacturers do a good job, valid question, but that's a different topic. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mapping from the raw numbers to meaningful intensities and colours we see does indeed require some kind of profiling but how this is done is proprietary to each raw converter. I speculated that perhaps the open-source raw converter might use an icc profile to store the information about your particular camera sensor / raw values (and it seems [https://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.1.html it does indeed do that). JPG, TIFF and PNG can all embed color profiles within them so if they are in sRGB then they would contain a usable sRGB profile. I think some implementations are bigger than others so I don't know if the 476-byte profile you found is as good as another more complex one. I think when I use Lightroom, my JPGs contains profiles created by Adobe. My point is that a profile for sRGB is absolutely nothing to do with your camera. I assume that any raw converter translate the raw file into some internal colour model of its own choice and then on export saves it as a standard colourspace such as sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc.

I'm confused when you say you have no need for a converter. If you shoot CR2+JPG then don't you sometimes choose to use the raw file (e.g. to extract greater dynamic range)? Otherwise, what's the point? -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Colin: So far I dual-shot just in case. At the start motivated by the fact that my current camera only saves JPGs in moderate quality. Maybe I will just try with a few images if starting from RAW/CR2 does make a difference. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

KlausFoehl In my limited understanding the colour space are just a recipe for how to convert the numbers in the file into colors. The camera specific profiles, where a certain amount of vividity in colors, sharpness, noise reduction, etc is applied happens in the camera in the conversion of the luminoscity data in the raw files to the data values in the jpg. Thus, I think these two aspects are separable issues. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

POTD

Again and again and again.

Please see THIS in the french wikipedia.

You are the Almighty ! 👑--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Jebulon, the POTD emperor is you! -- Slaunger (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20150509172554 - Estação da Luz.jpg

If you want, you can edit the picture to fixing the error. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)