User:Ballista/images/OUMNH3

A 3rd trip to the Oxford University Museum of Natural History has yielded these images, again offered for review to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. I was able to improve on some previous shots (not least because some of the barriers/tapes had moved) and obtain some new shots. Since Firsfron has done such incredible rescue jobs, on previous questionable images, it has widened the scope of what can be taken & uploaded for possible rescue. - Ballista 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

See also

• User:Ballista/images/OUMNH
• User:Ballista/images/OUMNH2
• User:Ballista/images/Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre June 2006
• User:Ballista/images/Natural History Museum, London

Image galleries:

Archaeopteryx

(The link)

• 
• 
• 

• Our current article has this same animal (same model and everything) on the page and everything. However, there is also a missing (red linked) image of the Berlin specimen. I guess the Humbolt Museum specimen would be a quite fitting replacement!--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• How right you are! Well spotted - I have to sign off again now - real-life calls - it's good to talk but more later. - Ballista 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I need to sign off soon myself!--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bambiraptor

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Camptosaurus

• 
• 

• A pity much of the head is missing, but still a nice shot of the rest of the skeleton.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I like these, the reason being it actually shows what we know of the animal. I have a problem with 'complete' skeletal casts where an observer can't tell the difference between known and hypothesised bones. Cas Liber 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Image reversed, Firsfron, as you suggested. Nice idea. However, can the reversed writing be removed in any way? Yes, Cas, the honesty of this display is attractive. - Ballista 05:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggested a flip-over for Eustreptospondylus, below, but this works too. Yes, I think the text can be removed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, so you did! Now, how on earth did I do that????? Put it down to too few hours of sleep, perhaps. - Onwards to Eustrep, in that case! - Ballista 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheirotherium

(Ichnofossil)

• 
• 

• Possible additions to the ichnite page? --Firsfron of Ronchester 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, added to Cheirotherium & Ichnite. - Ballista 05:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Compsognathus

• 
• 
• 
• 

• Our current Compsognathus article has just one image, so both of these might be suitable. The first image appears to have some pronated hands, but it's a bit hard to tell. Also, the glass of the case is a bit reflective. The second image has some minor spots, too. --Firsfron of Ronchester 08:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Hate to impose on your work time and good nature but any chance of removing/reducing glare/reflections? The horizontal cabinets have reflections of the glass roof, almost from any angle. - Ballista 09:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's no problem. Glare reduced on the cast image.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't get a real "clean" look on the other image: too much glare. Reducing it made it look artificial. I was unhappy with the final product. Maybe this will suffice instead?--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Brill job on the cast - thanks! Ref the model: the head shot is useful, thanks - do you reckon the full shot is useless, then? - Ballista 04:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all, actually. I just couldn't do much for 'clean-up', is all. I wouldn't call the shot useless by a long shot.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that's encouraging, as the article is a bit low on pics. - Ballista 06:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cryptoclidus

(Plesiosaur)

• 

• Do you think the WWD dinos are based on OUMNH's ones? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dodo

(The extinct bird)

• 
• 

Aww...he's so adorable. I have a soft spot in my heart for dodos, especially considering their cause of extinction. Aww....--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ever one for taking liberties, me. If there's merit in this image, for uploading to an article, any chance of reflection/glare doctoring? - Ballista 18:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Here's my reworked version. I did not remove all the glare. I just removed the glare I felt would hinder seeing the actual skeleton. So I left the background with quite a bit of glare, and just removed the glare that was in front of the skeleton itself. If you want me to work it further, I certainly can. What do you think?--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's really nice, now. No-one's denying it's a museum exhibit, in a glass cabinet, so a bit of residual glare is fine IMO. I shall upload it and await reaction. - Ballista 04:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus

• 
• 
• 

• Added left side pic to Dinosaur article, as it is better to have LHS to match drawings - Ballista 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Eustreptospondylus

• 
• 

• Despite the missing bottom jaw and forearms, this is a rather good shot. I don't know how you avoided the glare of the glass, but good job! I wonder if it might be better to flip this image over. Both of the images currently on the page face to the right, and I feel a third shot of the animal facing right might be too much. Just a thought.--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Here we go - I wuz just testing you when I flipped the other one! Writing issues with this one, too. - Ballista 06:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hypsilophodon

• 
• 

• This image is not as good as Sheep's images because of the distracting background. However, if the current article was slightly expanded, there would be room for all the images, though I'm not sure there's a need for two full skeleton images on such a small page.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not seen Sheep's images - how/where did I miss them? Your comments show your usual common-sense approach - no point in over-egging the pudding. - Ballista 06:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember? On the image review page? Two photos, one of the head, and one of the full body? Sort of a brown background?--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I do remember those very striking images - were they Hypsilophodon or one of his rellies/chums? - Ballista 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Hypsilophodon [1]--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can't read! Hee! You're right, of course. Sorry for the confusion. --Firsfron of Ronchester 01:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, since there are no photos on the Hyps. page, this one gets my vote! Also, ignore the egg on my face. ;) --Firsfron of Ronchester 02:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no probs. I did play, yesterday, with trying to paint out some of the background and made a ........ mess. I have brightened the image and increased contrast, so I'll upload that, in a mo, to see if it helps. - Ballista 04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded new version, as promised. - Ballista 05:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a lot better! --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback - just had an editing clash with your message, so here's my 'P.S.' to the above message - Was this dino peeing on a prehistoric lamp post? He looks like it! - Ballista 06:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Iguanodon

• 
• 
• 

Maiasaura

• 

• No need for adjustments on this one, I guess.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for review. - Ballista 04:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Struthiomimus

• 
• 

The hand shot looks pretty unique. That's not something we have on a lot of our pages. Maybe something like this should be used.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for positive comment - I'd have liked a better shot but the backgrounds were really tricky, wherever I stood & whichever angle I tried. - Ballista 04:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Triceratops

• 

Is there a need for a nose-horn picture? The article already has five photos, all of the head, and including the nose. Dunno what anyone else thinks.--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That was precisely my own thought, as I took the darn thing. Had it been a roll of film I was wasting, I'd never have pressed the button! - Ballista 04:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus rex

• 
• 
• 

• What say everyone to substituting one of the pelvis shots for the one currently in Saurischia article? I think there may be clarity advantages, to illustrate the features. - Ballista 06:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. You're right; the current image there isn't very clear.--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. I chose the left side, to 'match' the drawing. - Ballista 08:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Also uploaded LHS to Dinosaur article, to match the drawings there. - Ballista 08:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

William Buckland

• 

Would make a nice addition to the current article, which has only the print.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - done. - Ballista 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

William Smith

• 

I assume this is William Smith (geologist)? A second image could definitely be added.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - done. - Ballista 08:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)