User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2008/4

Valued image logo

i posted this some time ago but i havent got any answer from you. here are the final sketches please let me know wichone would be the final one so i can upload it. LadyofHats 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed with all, but the in middle one in the bottom row, "VI" is readable in the small image and that seems to me to be good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry if I have missed a post from you ;-( I have really tried to stay updated on the situation. You did see the feedback here I hope? Anyway I am glad to see your final sketches. I have posted them on the VI discussion page and also made an announcement on COM:VP asking users to state their opinion. -- Slaunger 08:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:VIC

Hi, Sorry, I did not see your message. Thank you for the correction and your earlier help at FPC. You are doing great work here at commons and I am sorry about the difference of opinions we have about the wikipedia VI. Regards Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried applying the geodata a few times, but I always mess up. Can you please help me out? The picture was taken in Mecca, near the Kaaba. Muhammad Mahdi Karim 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad, I have no problems with differences in opinion. You are welcome at COM:VI whatever your stance is regarding WP:VP and nomatter how much I disgaree with you on your view-point there. And thanks for you appraisal of my work here. I appreciate that.

And now to your geocoding issue. What methods have you tried to use for geocoding? I geocode my photos using this cross-hair tool in Google Earth. Have you tried that? With respect to the Kaaba, I have tried to look at at it, but I have some problems of getting a clear indication of the heading. the two towers in the background aligned with the Kaaba seen with one edge of the cuboid facing the photographer only leaves a few options I think. based on the background building it seems most likely for me that the heading is either North-NorthEast of South-SouthEast. You were there, right? Can you remember the heading of the camera? -- Slaunger 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Its so easy with the tool you provided. Thanks. I have added the geodata, can you please see if its ok? Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel's picture

Hi Slaunger; Regarding Jmabel's picture; I cleaned up his geocoding and I'm pleased that it looks good to you. I should have noted the fact in the review of the nomination.[[1]][[2]] I prefer to put the location tag after the information tag as well; will a location field be added to information one day, do you think? Also, is {{Coor dms}} deprecated now? Nice work on Valued Images. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Walter, For me your geocoding edit looks fine including your added parameters. I have no idea if geodata will once be added to {{Information}}, nor do I know if {{Coor dms}} is deprecated now. I just always use {{Location}} myself. Maybe some answers can be found on Commons talk:Geocoding? -- Slaunger 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit link

Sure, I was glad to add it, because otherwise I would never have figured out how to edit the nom. :) I took your suggestion of making the link status-dependent, but I set it to hide for withdrawn. That made sense to me, but if you want to try the other way, that's okay too. Superm401 - Talk 10:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lunar fogbow

Hi, Slaunger,
May I please ask you to describe a Lunar fogbow you've seen. I've never seen one myself. Was it under the full Moon? Wrere you looking down from a hill? Did you get anything at all at the pictures. If you did, may I please see some? Thank you.--Mbz1 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC).

Hi mila, Yes it was at full moon. I was not looking down a hill. On the image I took nothing but a very bad representation of the moon itself was seen, absolutely no trace of the fog bow on the photo. I think I deleted it, so I can't show it. -- Slaunger 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. If you've seen something like this, I am afraid it was not a very, very rare Lunar fogbow, but rather a very common Lunar halo. If it is the case, I am afraid my fogbow images are really confusing, hard to understand and badly explained. Thank you--Mbz1 13:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Oh my, I messed the halo and fogbow up when I wrote about it (I do understand the difference though)! What I saw was indeed very close to the image you refer to; that is, a lunar halo and not a lunar fogbow. Thank you for pointing that out. This messup of mine does not imply, however, that your image of a solar fogbow and glory was badly explained. I understood that alright. As I mentioned I think this image of yours is better at illustrating both the solar fogbow and sloar glory phenomena as here you can see more of the GGB and thus get a better feeling of direction. When I first saw your cropped version I thought I was looking at something from a cockpit in a plane, only when I saw the wider crop did I realize it was the GGB that was shown around it. But respect to the spectre of the brocken I think it could have shown a clearer representation of the shadow of an object. Although I see a shadow of something it is difficult to see if it is a shadow of a pillar of the bridge, the photographer or something else (What is it?).

  By the way I think it is a pity that you have withdrawn the VICs. It may be that now one of them are in good use in an en Wikipedia article, but there are many more Wikimedia projects than en, and if they were promoted to VIs within more precise scopes, chances are that your high value images would be used more in other projects using Commons as an image repository. -- Slaunger 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The shadow you see in the middle of the glory is always the photographer shadow. If a freind of yours would stay next to you, you still will see only your own shadow, while he would see only his own shadow in the middle of the glory. I've used 8mm fisheye lens in order to capture fogbow image. If I used a zoom lens, the Spectre of the Broken would have been seen much better. Thank you.--Mbz1 19:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

{{VISC}}

This template is still using most_valued_images_of. --MichaelMaggs 10:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'll fix that later today. Won't take long as there are only a few VISCs. Thanks for reminding me. -- Slaunger 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto {{VISC-thumb}}. --MichaelMaggs 10:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, thanks. -- Slaunger 10:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done I think... -- Slaunger 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hite Crossing Bridge HWY95 view2 MC.jpg

Hi Slaunger,

just to let you know: I created this image using the Nodal Ninja [3] nodal point adapter mounted on a tripod. This ensures that I don't have parallax errors between the individual images. The photos are taken with the same exposure settings in RAW format and developed with exactly the same settings in a RAW converter. This ensures same exposure and color balance in all images. For stitching I am using PTGUI [4]. The resulting panorama image is then just cropped and sharpend. Maybe--if there are moving objects--I need to use the clone stamp in Photoshop.

This is just a short description--not explaining the details of the individual steps. Do you really think all this information should be available in the image description? The image description would get very crowded and I am not sure if this information is valuable for people using the images for articles. I agree however that this information would be valuable for other Commons photographers. Maybe there should be a How-to-create-panoramas page here on Commons where we could put all this useful information?

Good night! Chmehl 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chmehl, thank you for providing this information. Yes in fact I do think it is of relevance to record this information in the image page. It can probably be done in more compact form though. The more relevant information the better. Especially when going for FP I think it is OK do demand a little more of the image page as this is an image many will look at and many including myself will wonder: How was this done? It is one of the ways I personally try to learn in improving my photography. Concerning making a panorama cookboiok, this is certainly also of relevance. As far as I recall User:Benh initiated such a task about half a year ago. It started out at Commons but as I recall the contributors were asked to move it into Wikibooks. User:Klaus with K has also made some descriptions here and there concerning panos. -- Slaunger 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, Slaunger, there was this startup attempt Photos_Stitching (red link) by User:Benh but I never noticed a wikibook to show up as a continuation. One may find some entries on wiki.panotools.org but usually with a scope different to a panorama cookbook. -- Klaus with K 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the short description to my latest panorama images. Now I will search for the Wikibook on panorama photography, maybe I can contribute there a bit when I find the time... Chmehl 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Draft template

Did you see my draft VI-former? You will need to look at the logic, I think. ps How do you refer to such templates in-line? t: does not seem to work. --MichaelMaggs 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that looks nice. There is a nuance in the image and scope thing, where i also sens a difference of opinions in the reveiw procedure. i will do a separate post on that on COM:VIC talk. About referring to templates, if you write {{tl|VI-former}} you get {{VI-former}}. Alternatively, you can do [[:Template:VI-former]] which results in Template:VI-former. -- Slaunger 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)