Page talk:Arthur Rackham (Hudson).pdf/105

User:TE(æ)A,ea. I think that many of these images must be uploaded already, this one for example! Also, I was just getting ready to upload the last of the Springtide images.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: That’s good, on the Springtide images; it will be nice to get another work out of the way, especially now that the file has finally been fixed. (Also, the  for that index (and this one too) needs to be fixed.) I was thinking of uploading some of the images (that I scanned) manually, locally, seeing as how the ZIP doesn’t want to work. Which images would you like first? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:TE(æ)A,ea.: as soon as I am done uploading, I will look at these and find which ones I do not have already. For the ones I do have, maybe your scan is better or not, you should be able to tell.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: The scans I took for these images are the usual ultra-high-quality images that I send you; they’re not just copies of the grayscale images in the PDF file. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:TE(æ)A,ea.: Between the scans for the magazine/book (as in Mother Goose), sometimes the color scan for one was better than the other but not necessarily. All of the Rhinegold pdf was not as good as the ia scan.  I did not check Springtide against the scan.  The upshot is that there is no rule about which will be "better".  A good place to look to determine if the image is better is: to look at the blues.  They seem to get lost (sky and some of the clothing) and then when digging them out of the yellowed/pinked paper, they get even more lost.  Also, I saw a book that collected the Rackham images, and whoever put the book together went nuts with black pointing and then did not compensate for that.  It was ghastly; the point being that the reprint itself might be the lesser of the magazine scan. (that book and "positive negative critique" made me reconsider my ghastly changes to the images).


 * Then, there was this weird thing where the plate in one scan had a folded corner and in the other book, the same fold unfolded....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, I thought to write here because my notifications were not being canceled when I respond. And, the notification is still not being canceled....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: What do you mean by canceled notifications? I think that for the book vs. magazine printings, the book printings (the original ones at least) were taken from originals in Rackham’s possession (or in the publisher’s possession). It really amazed me just how different different impressions of the images end out: I remember well your rather green Undines. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * TE(æ)A,ea.: When the wiki is working correctly, responding should remove the number (red or gray) from in front of the little bell. That it works sporadically is annoying and reminds me of when it was very clear to me that a conversation had occurred on a thread but not where I could read it (that did not involve you).  About the magazines and the books, those images for Mother Goose were first published in the magazine!  The same with Poor Cecco.  Currently and though out much of the last century, books were printed nicer and on better paper, etc.  But early in the century, not so much I think.  They both turned to half-tones at about the same time.  "Poor Mans Color Calibration" from a book published in early 2000s, suggested to use online images of brands to calibrate your screen with and the same would be true of magazine ads (bigger companies set the digital color of their logos Ford for a certain blue, Coke for a certain red) for determining color drift.  Mathematically, that drift between reality and display is the same as how the planets stray from their positions at noon for chart calculation!  Log tables, whee! Okay, I am on a "ram(ble)page" and will cool it, but it is so nice to have mathy colors instead of puddles (like paints) to get all precise with!!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: Oh, that: for me, I’ve had 99+ 99+ for many months now, so I don’t bother with pings &c. I did see that Poor Cecco was originally a magazine printing, and I saw some of your St. Nicholas work on the Mother Goose poems. (I’m sure those Little Folks requests will come in. One day. Totally.) I have an old magazine (from 1910-ish), and the paper is better quality and less aged than books I have from that time. I see your Springtide images over at Commons: is that all of them? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, your images are Hansel and Grethal, not Grethel. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, crap! So many spelling re"Grets".  There is an equal sign instead of a hyphen in Snowdrop files also....  Springtide, H&G, Snowdrop -- should be all done, the first act of Sigfried also.  Maybe I missed something though, so the "done" is tentative.  Next are the generated caption pages for Grimm, that is scheduled for when I get Volume 1 (100 of 200 Grimm tales) cleaned up at large.  Finding and installing images here will be a nice little break from "Grimm at large".--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: I have move rights, so I can make “Grethal” “Grethel” and “=” “-” without much issue. That’s great, for the Hudson work: and for the remaining images, I can upload here (unless you want some higher-quality scans of the page images from here, which I can also provide). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Move rights! That's great!  Move as you see fit!  About uploads, upload as many as you will or want, I would like to see them and probably use them.  Consider my list (to be created) of "I don't have this" to be a minimum. I feel bad asking too much, as I am already so happy/grateful for the proofing....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: I have moved the images accordingly. As for the images, then, I’ll start soon; they will be placed in the intentionally uncreated Category:Arthur Rackham (Hudson). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Completely different from all of this, and no great rush. I have scanned a very very beautiful edition of The Complet Angler. I was patiently waiting for 2031 but sometime, if you are looking cpyrght stuff up....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: I have added some images to the category, through the first two chapters (excepting one image which was too large). As for the Walton, per Riall, it was published simultaneously in the U.S. and the U.K., and would thus require renewal in the U.S. A search of the Stanford Renewals Database returns no relevant results either for “Rackham” or “Compleat Angler.” Thus, Arthur Rackham’s illustrations of Walton’s Compleat Angler are in the public domain in the U.S. (For future reference, I copied down the information in Riall for post-1926 works before I returned my copy, so you can ask me about other books if you’d like.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yay for Compleat Angler! This work includes a plate from that!  The Dutch pdfs has The Vicar of Wakefield in their stock, so that should be looked into.  The IA Mother Goose does not have his little house, nor the fancy initials, but the dutch Moeder does.  Dutch moeder is 150 ppi; I tricked it up to 300, but the images are both blurry and wavy.  This work contains several images from the Wind in the Willows.  Since you blocked them, it must be you found that copyright renewed?  My copyright interests are limited to this book right now but that is plenty, the book is filled with images.


 * It is a pity that Rackham named his book Mother Goose, as it has nothing to do with Perrault.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: The Vicar of Wakefield was simultaneously published in the U.S. and the U.K. in 1929. The Wind in the Willows was published in the U.S. only in 1940; it was only published in the U.K. in 1950. Consulting Stanford again, no records are found for The Vicar of Wakefield, but this record indicates that The Wind in the Willows was renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, would you mind extracting the images from this file for use in this index? Thanks! TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * So, 1.5 years for the Vicar and no WitW until 1936? Maybe I will do and upload the Vicar images and have them put into commons "not yet" storage until 2024 (I think that's the year).


 * That image will be done pretty soon. Cool image, btw.


 * I am going to upload the images from Hudson into my image for the work (so the grimm image goes into the publication named file, ex.) and the others, like from Pall Mall Budget, they will go into the publication they came from for the date given maybe. And a cat for this book there (?) filled only with allowed images?  I'm just working through where they should land; if you see a problem let me know.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, is this file ready to move to Commons?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: For The Vicar of Wakefield, it is in the public domain now, and can be uploaded at your pleasure; as for The Wind in the Willows, we must wait many years. Thanks for the (upcoming) image work! There are some images in Hudson (especially of his letters) which have not been published elsewhere, and thus a category of some description is warranted at Commons. This file can be moved to Commons; it was originally uploaded here because it was broken, then kept because of a copyright discussion.In other Rackham news, I have scanned a copy of Gettings; although it is copyrighted, so I shall not be able to upload it. There are, however, a number of illustrations of Rackham’s in Gettings which are in the public domain but which have not been reproduced elsewhere. (These include “A Fact” from Scraps, his first published work.) These I will scan in high quality and then upload soon. Gettings’ appendixes are also very interesting. His bibliography of early magazine illustrations reflects on Latimore and Haskell’s errors and omissions, which were reduplicated in Rota. It also mentions a second edition of Hudson from the 1970s, which is likely copyrighted. There is also a “Selected Bibliography” of works about Rackham, from which I might take some inspiration in finding more Rackham works. At another point, it declares Hudson Rackham’s first biographer, discounting the inconsequential notices in Coykendall and Latimore and Haskell. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Had a power out here, approx 48 hours! So, sorry for the delay. The lock image doesn't have as many figures as the proofed page thinks! Also, if my first image is better than what I can do with your scans, I am of the mind to use the first. They are not as large, but many of them were from a different printing process. Uploading the images I managed to finish before the battery here gave out...--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * RaboKarbakian: I was really worried; I hope you’re okay! The page that you’re thinking of was folded in the available scan; my (images) scan has the page unfolded, here. In the meantime, I have uploaded the rest of Hudson’s images and have scanned the Gettings mentioned above. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's this page: Page:A Dissertation on the Construction of Locks (1785).pdf/40 this page: [] is folded in yours and the one I used which was the non-grayscale of the same. Chatting on this page causes me troubles (restart the browser troubles).--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)