Difference between revisions of "Talk:2464: Muller's Ratchet"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
On a number of occasions I've had to edit images given to me to submit to a resource. The original photographer ''insists'' on having a 'burnt-on' timestamp directly on the image (he's always done that, and won't accept metadata does the job); meanwhile, the resource's policies are heavily against such 'decoration' and moderators often reject such. When I can't easily clone a 'coverage' area from within the same image - and feather its edges to blend in - I sometimes find another original (but slightly different viewpoint) submitted image that has a sufficiently unsullied 'patch' to let it pass muster. That's a slightly meta-example, I suppose. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.161|141.101.99.161]] 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC) | On a number of occasions I've had to edit images given to me to submit to a resource. The original photographer ''insists'' on having a 'burnt-on' timestamp directly on the image (he's always done that, and won't accept metadata does the job); meanwhile, the resource's policies are heavily against such 'decoration' and moderators often reject such. When I can't easily clone a 'coverage' area from within the same image - and feather its edges to blend in - I sometimes find another original (but slightly different viewpoint) submitted image that has a sufficiently unsullied 'patch' to let it pass muster. That's a slightly meta-example, I suppose. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.161|141.101.99.161]] 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sexual reproduction pictures on teh Interwebz mkay, but I lament a certain underrepresentation of amoeba pr0n. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.134|141.101.105.134]] 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:33, 18 May 2021
I do this frequently: Seeking out the best quality of two media I've seen put together, in an effort to improve the quality of the resultant combined media.
I had no idea, all this time I'd been creating recombinant PNG. ProphetZarquon (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the first time I've encountered recombination, but I've seen the many versions of images scattered across the internet for sure --Char Latte49 (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
On a number of occasions I've had to edit images given to me to submit to a resource. The original photographer insists on having a 'burnt-on' timestamp directly on the image (he's always done that, and won't accept metadata does the job); meanwhile, the resource's policies are heavily against such 'decoration' and moderators often reject such. When I can't easily clone a 'coverage' area from within the same image - and feather its edges to blend in - I sometimes find another original (but slightly different viewpoint) submitted image that has a sufficiently unsullied 'patch' to let it pass muster. That's a slightly meta-example, I suppose. 141.101.99.161 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sexual reproduction pictures on teh Interwebz mkay, but I lament a certain underrepresentation of amoeba pr0n. 141.101.105.134 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
