User talk:CaroleHenson/NRHP

Initial discussion

From the article talk page:@CaroleHenson: Later: I just found the NPS gallery for RMNP here. I wonder if we can use some of these photos? And here are a bunch from Flickr that have license suitable for upload to Commons, using flickr2commons —hike395 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like instead of a download, a link comes to something like this and then I save the file. I've been stumbling around... but that's what it looks like I need to do.

Yes, that's right. —hike395 (talk)

And, I have to watch out for this:

Multimedia credited to NPS without any copyright symbol are public domain. Multimedia credited with a copyright symbol (indicating that the creator may maintain rights to the work) or credited to any entity other than NPS must not be presumed to be public domain; contact the host park or program to ascertain who owns the material.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hike395, I am just playing around right now - downloading images and pulling ones that already exist on commons... but I would like a smidge of input so that I don't go down a track, put a lot of time into it, and then find out that you disagree with the approach.

I am thinking of galleries about the size as they are right now on this page... but of course, they'll get fitted better together once I get more images of varying sizes and panographic vs. portrait. Do you have any thoughts about where this is headed right now? Is this the way you foresaw it going? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: I think the size and shape are about right, for an overview of the Ecosystem section (as opposed to one per ecosystem) I don't know if you want to try to pack many little images in (trying to roughly reproduce what the Teacher Guide did, although 60 images is probably excessive) or leave it more like the Example from {{Photomontage}}. I bet if we had a montage 3 wide and 4 high, that would be ok.

One other possibility is a horizontal strip, one per ecosystem. But I couldn't get {{Photomontage}} to do a good job at that. (I haven't figured out how the template works.. looks like you have.) Maybe {{image array}}? That would be more like a 4x1 montage. But I like how Photomontage mashes the photos together into one picture with a little bit of black, rather than having white borders.

Sorry I can't get more specific -- part of it will depend on the pictures chosen and what the final thing looks like.

Part of the problem with image galleries is that editors tend to add random photos to them with no rhyme or reason. I hope people won't do that to your photomontage. —hike395 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is creating templates, because there's more control. The size of the photomontage seems to change with every image change. See {{Bierstadt Lake}}. I'll take a look at image array.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395 and Brian W. Schaller:

Hike395, The image array has its own challenges. I brought in Brian W. Schaller, too, in the event he has some thoughts about this.




Clockwise from the top: Reflection of the dense pine forest in the lake Bierstadt Lake's mountain view Horses at the corral on Bierstadt Lake Trail Bierstadt Lake, with the sedges that give it a serene appearance

I think I should create a template, like I did for Bierstadt Lake. The photomontage is kind of a cool concept, but it's tricky to work with. It doesn't deal well with different sized images. I think I will have much more control making a template. And, I should be able to create a black border like the {{photomontage}}.

So, I'm going for about 12 images, about 3x4 inches, for a combined ecosystem image, right? And, then there will be the one picture per ecosystem as it appears right now?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395 and Brian W. Schaller:

I'm regrouping... the images are in far too many shapes for the template approach or the montage functions to work. It's just become an exercise in frustration. Maybe nps.gov has some sort of montage already. I know that there are several 2x2s.

I also have an application on my computer that will create a 3x3 or 3x4 grid. It's a simple app where the images are all the same shape (i.e., I'll crop to the right shape, likely a square.)

This is just really frustrating, because I was really happy with the small galleries per ecosystem -- and with the one ecosystem picture and one picture per section scenario.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collage

@Hike395 and Brian W. Schaller:

After all that craziness, it was really easy to create a collage using the app on my computer. I posted it on the article. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: YAY! I was just about to suggest this. It looks great! If you want this as an overview, I think you can safely add another row. Or, if you want something per ecosystem, I would go for a 5x1 or 4x2 or something more horizontal. But, if you like this one, I'm happy with it, also.

Given that the subimages are square (and you know the size of the squares and the size of the gaps), it would be super easy to make an imagemap with wikilinks to articles. I can do that, if you like.

Happy that it worked out. —hike395 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hike395, I'm happy with it as it is now. It was so easy using the app, I could just select an image and move it around. Super easy to use. Yes, if you'd like to do the imagemap, that would be wonderful!--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: I can measure it, but if you happen to remember: how many pixels high/wide is each square? [Looks like each image is 250x250] Also: are all of these from the NPS.gov link? [Looks like yes] —hike395 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: I can measure it, but if you happen to remember: how many pixels high/wide is each square? Also: are all of these from the NPS.gov link? —hike395 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hike395 It's 800 x 800

Globe flowers is NPS, meadow is NPS, alpine wildflowers is NPS

Center: Alluvian fan is from a person, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep is NPS, Colorado River is from a person

Bottom: Cow elk on the tundra is NPS, aspen trees is NPS, moose is NPS

I am going back to sleep, and I am glad you like it!---CaroleHenson (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hike395 Thanks for the imagemap, that's a really cool feature!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Thanks for the complement and making the collage! Remember: for the images in the collage that didn't come directly from NPS.gov (i.e., they were Wikipedia photos or they came from NPS through flickr), you have to put a credit to the photographer up at the Commons file page to properly obey the attribution license. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]