@Cygnis insignis: I attempted to clean up the cover illustration, but it was too difficult for me. I found another version at IA to touch up and upload to Commons. Quality is not the best (lower res), but it may be usable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- As always, a barnstar for your efforts. Your version does looks a lot tidier. As you can see, I tried a a slight rotation and crop to neaten my version up, not very successfully. Looking at again, I could have sliced it up to get the picture aligned with the title block. I confess to holding a prejudice against using CU as a source, because I felt that some indices I worked on had inferior text layers and lossy images, so I barely glanced at it when choosing a source. My bias when choosing a library is toward Toronto's scanning dept (NYPL is my 2nd choice), because they take a lot of care, note any problems they observe (eg. missing pages), and offer richer raw data for images. Anyway … I thought the background in the title block was deliberate, now I am not so sure. Is that what think needed cleaning up, that that is damage to the copy? Or was it the wonky verticals? If you are more sure than I am then replace it. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was not really sure what it was you thought needed improvement. I had Photoshop opened up, so I thought I'd try playing with the image and started getting carried away. The results would have been less than faithful, so I went to IA in hopes of finding a 'cleaner' version to work with. I also searched for similar versions for sale online for comparison purposes, and several had 'cleaner' title block backgrounds, so I believe it to be damage? As I said, not a great quality scan (that I have presented), and no hard feelings if not used. Just an opportunity to sharpen my untrained skills. I appreciate a quality scan, and will keep your library preferences in mind. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)