I have collected these photographs from the Oxford University Museum of Natural History (OUMNH) with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs in mind. Some of them are a bit disappointing (I was particularly disappointed with the T. rex skeleton and forelimb photographs) but some of the others may be better than nothing! If any receive approval for the Project's articles, I'll promptly upload them with proper captions (BTW - I assume we're OK to upload photographs taken in the museum?). The museum bans commercial use of images taken in the museum. User:kevinzim
Please review and discuss uploading into relevant articles. For convenience, comments can be entered on THIS PAGE, beneath the relevant photograph. Thanks - Ballista 05:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't miss
There's some great photo-editing done by Firsfron - (included in the images below) - Ballista 07:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Any images that have found a 'home' in their relvant articles are shrunk so as to allow concenratioin on the remainder of images. (N.B.: Firsfron was going to edit one or two that may already have been uploaded & now shrunk) - Ballista 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Bambiraptor
WARNING: - these photographs (originally labelled 'Velociraptor') refer to Bambiraptor.
It's good, but the jumbled background is a bit distracting. Do you know Photoshop, Ballista? You could fade out the background by about 10% and remove the brilliant red ribbon there, and create a much more focused picture.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree about the bg, but the more Velociraptor pics, the better!Dinoguy2 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Bambiraptor skeleton, red ribbon removed, converted to PNG, wet floor sign removed, foreground 10% sharper
Comments:
Do you think this works? I can still work on it, if there are further suggestions. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks but the bg is still terribly 'fussy'. Knowing the position of the display, I don't think a better image can be taken (by me, anyway) so it's down to PhotoShop to sort it. I don't know what the capabilities are but wonder whether the ribbon's post can be removed, the right hand frame of the cabinet is most unfortunate and, lastly, the display sign is a bit of a distraction. - Ballista 04:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean. Sometimes a better pic is just not possible. From what I can see, that museum is really packed, and we're lucky you took so many different shots, from different angels. OK, I'll try to remove the post, the display sign, and try...something.. with the wooden cabinet, tomorrow. Maybe the extra dinosaur head in the background can go, too. That's the easy part. I can easily remove a few of the distractions. That post there will be the hardest part, because it's the same color as the claw that overlaps it, and because it covers the pattern of the tile floor, but I think I'm up to the challenge! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Love the skull cutout! Do you know which specimen it is/is based on? Looks a bit like IGM 100/1015. Would be good to know in case that one gets a new genus and/or species name.Dinoguy2 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this cut-out is GREAT! Maybe the newer images, on User:Ballista/images/OUMNH2 could also be useful for full skeleton (after all Firsfron's painstaking work!!!) - Ballista 07:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S.:I'll have to see if I can obtain info on the specimen - (certainly we can, anyway, if ever a renaming shockwave goes thru'!) - Ballista 07:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded to article today - Ballista 18:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
What becomes of this little orphan now - now that it's been removed from the article? - Ballista 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh! It's now in 'pride of place'! Justification of your editing prowess, Firsfron. - Ballista 05:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if Im too confused, but is that skeleton really Velociraptor? It looks like Bambiraptor to me...--Dudo2 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Best intelligence I have is that it's Velociraptor. - Ballista 22:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why I thought it might not be V. mongoliensis. IGM 100/1015 looks a bit more Bambiraptor-like.Dinoguy2 02:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll double-check one day, with the museum AND see if I can get the identity of the actual specimen. - Ballista 07:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Our Cetiosaurus article is quite small and is in need of expansion. A couple of images like this, and the one below, would certainly help. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded to article today - Ballista 18:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Much better than the existing dark green image on Coelacanth page. Also, check spelling:image is misspelled.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - stupid spelling error now corrected. - Ballista 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded to article today - Ballista 20:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Strange angle of photo. And there's the missing tail of Utahraptor! But as with Mosasaur, there are only two images on Plesiosaur, so this would probably work.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Have other shots of this model (incl. one horizontally aligned) but difficult not to amputate tail if not angled to take advantage of the diagonal. - Ballista 09:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded to article today - Ballista 20:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Which dinosaur is this? Do we know? Might work well for the Dinosaur article, I suppose, if the genus isn't known... --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Genus unknown - Ballista 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Edmontosaurus
Edmontosaurus skull (I have other shots of Ed-- skulls)
Comments:
What do the other pictures look like? --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
This is the head shot I really liked. Sorry I didn't mention it here sooner. --Firsfron of Ronchester 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded to article today - Ballista 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
A bit of photoshop to take off the glare from the glass, and maybe remove...whatever that black thing is in his mouth. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking good but shows the limitations of the original photo, unfortunately - still, it's visible and IMO could add to the Eustreptospondylus article OK now. Great work on these tricky jobs! - Ballista 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded edited version to article today - Ballista 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Taxobox material. Can replace existing (and very dark) WWD image, IMO. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we 'go for it'? - Ballista 21:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. I don't know how you feel, but this one, I feel, is better than Spare Shot 7, with the red ribbon sticking out of his mouth. I also think this should go in the taxobox, and the Walking With Dinosaurs image should go in the popular culture section, where it won't violate Fair Use.--Firsfron of Ronchester 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for re-affirming your suggestion - done (uploaded to taxobox & WWD image moved). - Ballista 09:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, could easily replace one of the outdated images.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This reconstruction model could 'go up', as is - where to put it & what to remove (if any)? - Ballista 21:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
IMO, one of these (this one or above) should go in the taxobox, replacing the WWD image, which could be moved to a 'popular culture' section. The WWD image should never have been in the taxobox to begin with, per Fair Use.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this one have a home, now, in view of above change? - Ballista 09:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this looks like the head of that other kind of Iguanodon from WWD. Ditto. --Sneaky Oviraptor18talkeditstribute 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
We've already got an illustration showing the outdated tripod stance of Iguanodon. IMO, this one is not as good because it's harder to see the bones clearly.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Not too different from the existing illustration on the Megalosaurus page. Still quite good, though. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfect for the taxobox, IMO. Are you sure this is Pachycephalosaurus, though? Looks like him, but your caption just says Pachycephalosaur, indicating it could be one of the other family members. We don't want to stick him on the wrong page. Otherwise, great image. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's Pachycephalosaurus - now corrected caption - Ballista 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is an amzingly striking image - brilliant job! I believe it comes from the second batch of images that were uploaded to User:Ballista/images/OUMNH2 late last night (UK time)? I'm really thrilled with this one. - Ballista 07:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It does indeed come from the other page. I accidentally stuck it on this page. Silly mistake. --Firsfron of Ronchester 15:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded to article today - this is one amazing image, now - Ballista 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurus
Tyrannosaurus rex skull (I have other shots of T. rex skulls)
Comments:
Better than several of the existing images on the T-rex page, but still a somewhat distracting background. Photoshop? --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Much better than the existing full-skeleton picture on our T-rex page, where the head and tail are cut off. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments: This is great but may be a little 'dark'? Does the one uploaded last night, on User:Ballista/images/OUMNH2 make a more useable substrate for editing? (I hate to say anything in the least negative about all this brilliant editing you're doing). - Ballista 07:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Too dark. What was I thinking? Will try to rework. --Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking good now. Awesome editing. Glad I didn't try to fiddle with photoShop myself! - Ballista 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we upload? - Ballista 09:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Only if you think it's light enough. Should I lighten some more?--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fine 'as is' - great job. - Ballista 22:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My problem with these Utahraptor is that they're a bit outdated. Aside from the lack of feahters issue, the arms are (as usual) incorrect. Guess it'll take another century or so before people catch on to dromaeosaur arm/hand anatomy... Dinoguy2 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, a lot of your images from OUMNH replicate creatures from Walking With Dinosaurs. That includes all you Utahraptor images. --Sneaky Oviraptor18talkeditstribute 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This one is fine, at least one of the foot photos should be on the page.Dinoguy2 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the other foot photo. This one makes it look like Utahraptor only had two toes, an impression we don't want to make. The other picture shows the whole foot from a much better angle, IMO.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No reason this can't go on the Utahraptor page. Background, wet floor sign aside, isn't as distracting: a good example of the swiveling "terror claw". Nice!--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Cropped version uploaded to article today - Ballista 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Utahraptor reconstruction (with this chap's socks, it looks like he's in the FIFA World Cup!)
Comments:
A pity the tail's cut off in the photo, but otherwise pretty good. Background again a mite distracting, but this is offset by the model's brighter color. Should go in the taxobox, IMO. --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Tail amputation was stupid error - I've another shot, now added to this page, with more tail. - Ballista 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
