User talk:W.carter/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Quill-shaped cirrus cloud.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quill-shaped cirrus cloud.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! A jar of sliced pickled cucumber.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Open refrigerator with food at night.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 Comment You shouldn't store tomatoes in the fridge, it's not the right place :-) --Basotxerri 17:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 Reply It's called artistic freedom. The fridge was "styled" for the photo op. W.carter 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts

Hello, cart. I really respect you and your artistic sensibility, so I'd be interested in your take on User talk:Ikan Kekek#comments. Do I "dominate" COM:FPC? Do I come across as rude and condescending? Was it inappropriate for me to suggest to someone who's submitting work below the current FP level that he should submit his pictures to QIC first? Should it be obvious to me that my words amount to "treating him like a second grader"? And if so, since he won't tell me what different form of words I could use so as to express my opinions equally clearly without causing offense, could you suggest any alternative wordings I might consider or specific words or phrases to avoid - or do you figure I should just chalk this up to someone being too thin-skinned, and carry on the same way as usual? I find COM:FP fun, and it's definitely no fun to get this kind of vituperation in my Talk page.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: Just to let you know I have seen this. I'm at work right now and I will not be able to read through it all and comment in depht until much later tonight. Just at the top of my head, let me reassure you that I don't find you dominating. You are verbal, just as I am. ;) Later, cart-Talk 10:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Colin addressed things ably (he was the other person I thought of contacting, in fact). Enjoy your day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So Ikan, I took some time off during my coffee break and here's what you get for your penny.
Colin made some very good points about the situation. You are very verbal and love to discuss art and photos just like I am/do. I sometimes think of us as the two old geezers on the Muppet Show who have to comment on everything. Such verbosity can be a bit overwhelming/tedious/intimidating/whatever for those who don't yak as much as we do. Since FPC is foremost a voting process and not a general discussion forum, I try to pace myself and give others a chance to be first to comment on a pic (not always succeeding though) and also refrain from leaving lengthy comments with every vote since I don't want to wear out the rest of the folks at FPC. I think you could take some pointers from this too. I also exercise my right to not vote if I don't feel like it, life is not all about the Wikimedia project. ;)
It is also good to wait a while to vote/comment since the first impression of a pic can be deceiving. Sometimes a photo can grow on you (or the opposite) and therefore it can be better to look at it for a while before you jump into the fray.
After making so many comments on so many photos, I think we all get a little "speed-blinded" and dulled. We tend to forget what our usual shorthand lingo may sound like to a newbie or someone who hasn't been at the FPC in a while. So yes, you may have been a bit curt in that particular review. If I see a name I don't recognize right of the bat, I always try to start my review with what is positive in the pic before delivering what I find faulty. I also try (not always succeeding) to think more carefully about how I deliver the bad news to someone not among the "usual suspects" at FPC. Checking how long a user has been on Commons doesn't tell the whole story since they may well have been active on other sections for years but are new to FPC. But it should also be noted that selling a pic at FPC is like entering the Dragons' Den; so some guts are required, as well as a little thick skin, from those who enter the process.
To answer your question about "alternative wordings" and such, you could add some 'IMHO' instead of stating something as a fact, or say 'I think that' / 'it is recommended that' instead of phrases like 'you should'. That way you make it clear that it is your personal opinion and that you don't speak for the community. You also signal that you expect to be contradicted at any time. Such small niceties help grease the wheels of communication. Phrases like "this is only for the very finest on Commons" are excluding (like what Calvin would say to Susie when telling her that The Club is only for him and Hobbes and not for girls) and unnecessary, try to avoid them since most people who submit their work are very proud of their photos and actually think that their work belong among the finest.
Hopefully this may help you in some way. All the best, cart-Talk 13:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and thoughts. Much appreciated.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

An homage ...

My version of your refrigerator picture ...

For your viewing pleasure, the results of my more quick'n'dirty attempt to do my open refrigerator at night, a few days ago. I had to get down on my knees, but I got that "bowtie symmetry".

But your picture is still better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha!!! Fantastic! Now we have a "left" and "right" version of the fridges since your door opens the other way. I also see that we have some tastes in common, i.e. in the un-styled every-day version of my fridge. I think we've started a Commons version of a Swedish TV show called This Is Your Fridge, a take on the old show This Is Your Life. ;) I also see why you didn't think of the bowtie first, you get the top down view while I see the bowtie at eye level each day. And you got some exercise in the process. Speaking of exercise, I had a go at my washing machine too. You can read all about it and the antics I had to go through to get it on Colin's talk page (plus heaps of unessential nonsense). :)
Incidentally, I'm heading to Ye Olde Fridge right now to see if it contains something for the insomnia I'm suffering at the moment. Thanks for the pic! :) --cart-Talk 05:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ooops! I realized that I forgot to 'ping' you... --cart-Talk 05:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, it came through now. (Wow, if you are still up, you've been up all night. As for me, I'm pushing my limit at this point, about five hours behind you, so the sun should be up in Lysekil by now, I imagine.

Yes, I don't get the view you do because, in addition to our fridge having the freezer on top (most American fridges are either that style, or freezer on the side, like our old one—there are a few out there like yours, but they're older and rare. Is the bottom-freezer kind more common in Sweden?) I'm about 6'4", or 193 cm, tall, so I don't see it in the course of everyday fridge use.

We should see if we can get more of these, "Noir-look fridges of the world". That TV show sort of reminds me of the common women's-magazine feature, "What's in your bag?", usually accompanied by a photo of the woman in question, the bag, and the perfectly-organized dumped contents (And, of course, the model who gets to do it almost always has some beauty products she was comped on by a major advertiser, regardless of whether it's what she actually uses. Insider secret, apparently). I will have to read the article and see how far my Germanic-language knowledge gets me with the Swedish before I hit Google Translate.

You may have noticed that I created a subcategory based on your image, Category:Domestic refrigerators with doors opened. So where will it end? Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I finally managed to get some sleep. Don't get a bad back, it wrecks havoc on your sleeping habits... Yep, the fridge is mostly on top of the freezer here since that is the one we tall Swedes want access to. Most people here still cook from fresh products. Thanks for the category, I hadn't noticed that before. And while I'm at it: A heartfelt Thank You for the behind-the-scene-work you do with the cats at FPC. Yes, I see you sneaking around there all the time. Re Noir-fridges, who knows where it might end up, that's the beauty of this site. Cheers, cart-Talk 11:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, as you can see from above, I'm pretty tall too ... I'd probably fit in well over in Sweden (a country I've only visited once, and that was for a day trip from Denmark, which did actually put us in your part of the country (our afternoon was mostly shopping, such as we desired to, in Malmö)). I don't know why fridges over here have the freezer on top mostly, probably because it's never a problem when I'm getting ice cream and frozen entrées—maybe a greater presence for the latter over here in North America?

Oh, I don't mind at all that you see me "sneaking around" doing categorization work ... to me that's a very important aspect of Commons (I just finished, earlier this week, jury work for the first round of the US Wiki Loves Monuments, and we used a beta tool called Montage that uses the categories on the back end and for which the developers have high hopes as a tool to improve categorization. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with you regarding cats. I'm a pest for always wanting correct ones at QIC and if I happen to stumble across some untidy cat, I can spend hours sorting things. Well some folks do crossword puzzles... ;)
About the washing mashine, sorry to disappoint, but I won't be nominating that for FPC. I don't think it has high enough quality even if its quirkiness may get some votes and I would 'Oppose' it myself if someone else nominated it. I'm mostly surprised it passed QI.
I deduce from the slack in the debate from time to time at FPC, that many of the regulars there have been enrolled as judges in WLM. Me and some others of The Usual Suspects (I love that movie!!!!) are sifting through the heritage of Bangladesh. :) cart-Talk 15:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Open top-loading washing machine.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments - Color noise on lid? -- Ikan Kekek 11:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not exactly sure if it's color noise or the different reflections from the drum below but I'll see what I can do about it. W.carter 11:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Whatever it was it's gone now. Thanks pointing it out and reviewing! W.carter 12:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Bad weather in Sweden? :-) --Basotxerri 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You bet!!! I have to keep the lights on in the middle of the day. Night pics is the only option. ;) W.carter 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 03:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, here comes the next FP nom. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Open refrigerator with food at night.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Open refrigerator with food at night.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Good evening,

Very annoying to you that my doing your editing is damaged. My apology. Will in future pay more attention.
Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know exactly what happened, just wanted to inform you. :) Best, cart-Talk 16:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gamlestan and North Harbor Lysekil.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fishing huts at Holländaröd.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 09:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Smooth granite cliff at Holländaröd.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice. -- Ikan Kekek 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bench by Brofjorden at Holländaröd.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Peaceful and nice. -- Ikan Kekek 10:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! White wooden hatch with peeling paint.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Chicago September 2016-14.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago September 2016-14.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! White cedar in the rain.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality and artistic to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 23:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Raindrops on white cedar.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 23:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

edits

Phew. A couple of these recent touch-ups have been more challenging than usual. Do you have a go-to link/book you can recommend? I feel like it took a while to figure out workable approaches, and in neither case are they ideal results. Speaking of File:El Prado Balboa Park 2.jpg (neither the sliders nor the blurred layer mask trick worked for the thick palm tree CAs, so I wound up using a desaturation layer along with the clone tool) and File:Mastodon cast at the San Diego Museum of Natural History closeup.jpg (blurring/denoising different parts of the image to different degrees...eventually decided to just smooth out the background and keep the detail of the figure). Eh. On the plus side (for pictures I upload, but not for my entertainment viewing pleasure) I see CA everywhere now. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  03:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW I have to ask: how much time did you spend cleaning/arranging your refrigerator? :) I have to in particular commend the utter absence of branding and distracting labels. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Removing CA is never easy and quite a toil. Cleaning up a photo can take hours, which is why I thought it was money well spent to invest in a camera with a good lens that leave litlle or no CA at all. There is no cure-all for fixing this. Toggling sliders very seldom works and you end up using a mixture of tools. Cloning is best for CA on sky, on the San Diego Museum detail I would have gone with a color substitution brush and some desaturation tool. For the mastodont, I would have cut out the head from the background and made them into two layers, then I would have blurred the background layer (behind the head layer) and then merged them and as you said used blurring tools on some parts. Many programs also have some denoising options. Adobe Photoshop has a splendid one you find under Filter→Noise→Reduce noise (not sure these are the exact word in that since my version is in Swedish). For go-to links I can recommend YouTube where there are hundreds of "how to" guides for all possible post-processing things. Just enter some search words.
Re seeing CA everywhere, I hear you! ;) Please take a look at the comment/quote on my user page.
The fridge, yes, that one got a lot more attention and comments than I ever thought it would! :) Having seen soooo many discussions on copyvios re logos and labels on WP, my first objective was to have none for the photo. I even glued a white paper over the Elecrolux logo on the top shelf in the fridge, funny no-one has seen that or asked about that. Fixing it was relatively easy. I didn't have to clean the fridge any extra for this, since that is its normal level of cleanness. I don't enjoy cleaning but I'm not a messy person so here is rarely any need for it. I went on a special shopping trip for the shot and selected nice-looking things with easily removable labels and went to work. Shooting with so many different settings and focus stacking actually took more time than setting it up. ;) Fixing and shooting took an evening and the post-processing an additional evening. An average FP (for me) normally takes about 4-6 hours of tinkering to get everything right. Best cart-Talk 11:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Will come back to the lens below, but yes that's how I did it with the mastodon. Basically selected the background (easy enough contrast) and applied surface blur. Can't say I've had much luck with the denoise feature in photoshop. Well, I should say that I've typically just been using the noise sliders on lightroom and haven't had [apparent] cause to blur different parts until now. When I tried to use it on the mastodon background I couldn't find a setting that didn't leave artifacts and general messiness, so I just nuked it with surface blur. Regarding CA, do you always aim to remove all of it? Any image I've gone in to fix based on specific instances of CA, as soon as I start zooming in I find it everywhere. Perhaps another symptom of the lens I'm using or maybe I'm just going overkill for QI?
Thanks for the backstory on the fridge :) I was having an IRL conversation recently with an artist (visual arts, but not photography) friend about getting more into fixing up pictures, and I commented about how I was learning that nothing is quite as simple as it seems, and so many things take more time and attention than I thought. She let a couple beats go by before responding with a longer, more articulate version of "well DUH!" :) Deserved. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
(butting in) Cart, your RX-100 isn't quite as optically perfect as the Zeiss logo suggests. See Review, Review and The Most Distortion-Ridden Zeiss Lens Ever (and Why You Won’t Notice It). Same for your Panasonic Review. Even if you shoot raw, Lightroom/ACR will automatically apply lens profile and CA removal using hints embedded in the raw file, and you can't turn it off. You have to use some open-source raw converters to see what the real raw file looks like. The same is true of even Sony's top of the range full-frame pocket camera, the RX-1 Review. While Zeiss still aim for optically perfect lenses with their Otus range (and probably also their cinema glass), most manufacturers now figure that if the camera can fix it, and it makes the lens lighter, smaller, cheaper, then it is worth sacrficing optical pefection. There may be other things they want to aim for optically, like pleasant bokeh or a flat focal plane. And for pocket cameras the incentive to use software rather than bigger, heavier glass, is huge. As the Gary Friedman article says, this is a perfectly reasonable engineering decision. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok Colin, I get it. In your professional eyes my cameras suck! That's ok. But they are all I have and all I can afford at the moment and they are so much better than what I had before. So from now on I'll stop talking about them and I will not recommend them to anyone. I will simply be thankful that they give me a lot of recreational joy photographing things that may or may not result in photos that are acceptable as QIs or FPs. cart-Talk 12:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh no you get me wrong entirely. In fact, I keep asking Santa for one of the RX-100 cameras and my letters keep going missing. Hey for years at FP I had an entry-level DSLR with a crop 14MP sensor and only a handful of focus points and the prime lenses I have are all Sony's cheapest most plastic that I picked up in sales for £100 +/- £30. When I use manual focus, the focus ring isn't smooth and rattles and if I do stitched photos I have to fix it in place with Sellotape otherwise the focus shifts when I point the camera up. I'm absolutely a fan of getting the best out of basic equipment, and I see plenty people using $3000 full-frame DSLR with $1000 lenses and taking boring photos. I like the fact that computers mean my stitched photos are sharper and with higher resolution than any photo taken with Zeiss Otus lenses and the most expensive DSLR. This photo was taken with a £75 lens. And this older FP was taken with my old camera+lens that costs about the same as a RX-100. There's no reason why you can't compete with a full-frame DSLR too. And so I like the fact that the computer in your pocket camera is able to achieve results that otherwise would require huge expensive heavy optics. As a self-confessed hacker, do you not find that amazing? That's why I mentioned it. And I'm no "professional". Feel free to recommend both of your cameras. -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: Ok, thanks for explaining. Yes, I find my little pocket computer amazing. It's just that I'm so fed up with that many discussions on this site often are the camera equivalent of "...so you have a Toyota, okay... why on earth are you driving "that" when BMWs are sooo much better...". I'm not pretending to be in the same league as the top snappers here. I do what I can with what I have in my boring little town and I have fun doing it. If you ask Santa for one of the RX-100 be sure to get a RX-100 II or higher since those can be fitted with a small ring and then there are a range of all sorts of lenses and gadgets that can be added to it. Unfortunately, my money only got me as far as Mark 1. "Professional" is a level of competence, not an occupation. Now I have to get back to work. See you around, cart-Talk 13:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com/ -- Colin (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Part 2

While I fully appreciate that I am the weak link in my camera set up, the idea of having a lens that produces less CA is very appealing. The thing is, I have a relatively inexpensive body (Olympus PEN E-PL6). I primarily use the 14-42mm it comes with and have its sibling, the Olympus 40-150mm. In other words, the lenses are pretty cheap, too. Given the body and the photographer does it even make sense to upgrade to something like a Panasonic Leica 25mm/F1.4 or Olympus 12mm f/2.0? (not that they're equivalent -- this is hypothetical anyway, as I certainly not in a position to buy either in the near future. might as well substitute even more expensive lenses in there.) I'm considering picking up something like a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 to see how I like that style (and a pancake lens seems nice to have given the camera is small). — Rhododendrites talk |  17:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I don't agree at all that you are any "weak link" in your photography. You'd be amazed how much your way of composing images and seeing views can improve once you know you don't have to worry about some pesky little details. Besides just being in the QIC circus with all the feedback always change how people take pics for the better. I took a look at the photos you've uploaded from San Diego and overall they are far better than your earlier photos. You frame things in a much better way and you are aware of how you hold the camera. QIC is very much a "wax on, wax off" thing where you get better without knowing it. :)
Since I'm no expert on lenses for system cameras, I can't give you any advice about what to buy. Maybe someone like Colin knows more about this. But I can give you a tip on how to judge for yourself, same way I did when I bought my cameras. Yes, I'd heard about them but I wanted to see if they were what I was looking for so I turned to Flickr. Unlike many of the users here I don't have an account there (Commons is enough for me, thank you very much!) but you don't need one to browse the pics. Anyway, you can search photos by what equipment has been used to take them, and since Flickr don't have a pesky QIC panel of pixel peeping nerds looking for things like CA, the photos are usually more "au naturel". I did a seach for photos taken with the pancake lens you are thinking about and there is a group for those. I looked at photos that normally would have a lot of CA with an inferior lens.
Examples:
This will give you an idea in any case. I think you could also do a search and combine the lens group with the make of your camera body and see exactly what photos would look like.
Tip number two is to go to a camera store and try out the lens you are after in the shop. Just point the camera out the shop window and look at some white/black thing or the top of a building. By now you are so used to spotting CA that you will actually see it in the view finder if you really look for it. ;) cart-Talk 19:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize Flickr had that feature. That's helpful. Got me a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 over the weekend. Haven't taken a good look through the pictures yet. Will keep you posted :) — Rhododendrites talk |  23:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at a few of Rhododendrites's recent images where there's a second version that "removed CA". I had to look really really hard to spot the CA on the original. I'm wondering: if that level of CA is causing you to fail at QIC then there's something wrong with QIC. But then I've felt that for a while. IMO QI should be about images that are good enough to have wide use in print and online. But instead it seems to be about fussing over perfection on a technical level and not caring at all about the things that matter like good light and an interesting subject. I've never heard of someone selecting a lens with "minimal CA" as their No. 1 priority. Most reviews I've read comment widely that CA of the order of 1-2px is easily removed in software, often by just checking a checkbox, so usually isn't the most important defect in a lens. The only time I've spent any serious amount of time removing CA has been with my fisheye which can have several px wide CA in the corners on high-contrast subjects. I'd recommend looking at reviews for objective analysis of CA on any lens you are considering. Most photos online will have CA corrected automatically (to some degree) by the camera or by raw development software, so hard to judge what was caused/eliminated by optics or software. It's only really with very cheap optics (the stock lens that comes with a camera) that really bad CA is typically found online. Many photo on Flickr are downsized, and I chuckle at the idea that Flickr images are more "au naturel". Not as bad as 500px, but the degree of post-processing and downsizing is usually much higher on Flickr than on Commons.

Generally I don't worry about CA. I have the "Remove CA" boxed checked for import on Lightroom. If there are high-contrast (black/white-sky) details in the corners then CA can be more of a problem and I need to use the CA tool. But using that tool with too high a px size can lead to loss of colour in the edges of some areas of your photos (especially purple/blue areas). You can also defringe using the local adjustment tool (which can also be used with a negative value, to counteract and aggressive global setting). My worst lens for CA is the fisheye but it is my favourite lens! The primes are best. There's another kind of CA: axial (longitudinal) CA. This occurs especially with primes that have a wide aperture (f/2.8, f/1.8, f/1.4 etc). Out-of-focus areas in front and behind the focal plane can have green/purple fringing on them. I recently took a portrait photo with my 85mm lens (equivalent to 135mm on full frame) at f/2.8. The eyes were in focus but his grey hair was behind the focal plane and affected by purple fringing. Some use of the defringe local adjustment tool reduced this enough. This kind of CA affects even the most expensive lenses, but disappears by stopping down to a smaller aperture.

In summary: I think other factors should be your priority when choosing a lens, but usually CA improves along with other factors and to some degree you get what you pay for. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Again Colin, you are in a higher division than me. I compare the present very low level of purple fringes and CA I get on photos from my cameras with the one I had earlier, which left such things on just about everything. Along with noise, jpegs and assorted "bad" things no one wants in their pics. Please compare this old pic with my latest and you might get an idea of what kind of improvement I'm talking about. Also, when I was speaking about "au naturel" on Flickr, I was only referring to the level of CA, since that was what I was looking for. Of course I know that the pics there are heavily doctored, but if I gave you a good laugh, you are welcome. I'm sure it won't be the last one you get at my expense... I'll be here all week, please remember to tip your waiter on your way out. cart-Talk 21:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Phases of photography. I have been shooting cameras all of my adult life and 7 years of my efforts have been donated here, for a number of reasons but for the most part. to learn. Lets us all not forget that we are here to learn and contribute in the effort of improving that site. Over the 7 years I have been here you see "fads" come and go. I am not saying that correction of CA is a "fad" I am saying that its too easy at times to take this all too seriously. I am guilty of that myself and considering I kind of come and go based on what I am unto at any given time it can be easy for me to see things from a neutral point of view. I was, before this last week unaware of the effects of CA. In years past that was not a consideration from what I recall in FP voting. I admit that I too a bit baffled as in a few shots that I did CA adjustment, little if anything happened. IMHO, any camera should be able to take a FP, regardless of cost or investment and getting too particular about any one aspect of the technical issues should be able to be overcome in other mitigating factors are in place. Colin, perhaps we could put together a page on CA, in commons that teaches people how to make the corrections, why its required/makes for better contributions and give our friends like Carter a place to learn and be "brought upto speed". I admit that this is not something that I have ran across before. Nither Getty nor Wire Image EVER had any complints about CA on my shots for them back in the day, so this does seems a bit like its the "attribute di jour" so to speak right now in the FP program. Carter, don't let this get you down, I say we just get you upto speed as I would love to understand the CA aspect of current concern myself. Cheers!! --WPPilot (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@WPPilot: Thanks for your concern, but I think you missed some of this discussion. I have no problem removing CA or correcting faults with software, I've been using such programs since they first became available so I don't think I need to be "brought up to speed" on that. I know the physics behind it and how to best avoid it. ;) I have even held small "CA-removing-classes" for newbies here on my talk page and I was having a quiet conversation here with another user about how to best avoid unwanted things in photos. But, like so many times on the Internet, that conversation has now thoroughly derailed and turned into something different. With that, I'm closing this thread and move on to other things. Best, cart-Talk 07:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinions and advice, all. Interesting to hear about CA in terms of trends at QIC. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The extent to which various stylistic details become essential to this or that peer review process certainly changes based on who's active. I don't have a great deal of experience with those either, but it is interesting to take a macro-scale look at trends in the application of interpretations of policies and guidelines that otherwise don't change as much. Anyway. As I mentioned above, I did get a new lens. Haven't gone through the images yet, but we shall see how much difference it makes--for me, anyway--when it comes to CA. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  23:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You want washing machine pictures? You got 'em

Yes, really. We do wash clothes here ...

Again I was inspired.

Like yours, I am not satisfied enough with this one to nominate it for FP (QI, maybe, but let's wait on that). But I think you can see how there's possibilities ... it makes a pleasing abstraction, could it be done right. I suppose if I can get a tripod in there and focus-stack it ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Haha!! :D Yes, that does have some possibilities. I think I would have gone for a narrower angle (=gone closer to the row) to obliterate the "gap" between the washing machines and the dry tumblers in the back (upright format could actually be an option here since that would also get rid of the floor drain) and get the perspective even more extreme, perhaps a little higher to loose as much as possible of the ceiling, temporarily remove the flowers and also made some shot with one of the hatches ominously open (ajar or full). There is also an option for a panorama view, head-on shot of the whole row of machines side by side. You can have all the hatches closed or have one open (perhaps place a flashlight in it for fun ;) ). Whichever idea you use, be sure to bring a rag and some window cleaning product (works on all surfaces!) and wipe down the machines first. Ok, the good folks using that Laundromat will think you're a nut job, but that's something I think all photographers are used to. I often find that carrying a camera is also a "master key" to doing crazy stuff. And wear black/grey clothes! I once made the mistake of wearing a red jacket while photographing some shiny stuff. Big mistake... cart-Talk 19:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm ... I like your critique; I will have to go back when I get the chance and try it that way.

I had sort of liked having the flowers up there because they're a contrast to the otherwise cold and industrial feel of the place, which of course is a bit problematic because that's exactly what IMO makes the image work. But at the same time I see your point.

Don't worry about the owners; they have known me for a long time and I think they'd tolerate me if I came in with camera and the tripod that believe it or not I don't yet have and told them I was going to take a brilliant, artsy photo of their laundromat. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you're on a quest. :) If you don't own a tripod, then color me impressed! That means you have a really steady hand, taking all those nice photos free-hand. Are you a shooter too? I do sports pistol, very good training. ;) When trespassing somewhere, I always have the perfect excuse. I say I'm in a photo club (true of sorts) and that this week's/month's challenge is → insert appropriate subject related to what you want to shoot ←. Works like a charm! People like it. When I needed access to a farm for this, I said that the theme of the challenge was "Autumn approaching" and that I connected that with harvesting. The kids on the farm followed me around and I now know the names of all the cats and pet rabbits there. :) cart-Talk 18:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Fishing huts at Holländaröd - 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing huts at Holländaröd.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Corner on the west side of Lilla Bommen office complex.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 15:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Evening mood on the docks by Göta Älv.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skanska high-rise at Lilla Bommen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 13:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Snäckan (The Shell) by Lenny Clarhäll at Göteborgsoperan.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 15:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flags outside Göteborg Opera.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Kostol sv. Vavrinca, Zliechov.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostol sv. Vavrinca, Zliechov.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Skateboard ramp between Göteborg Opera and Nordstan.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 21:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fisherman having a smoke on the docks by Göta älv.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Decisions decisions

I recently took and uploaded three photos of Peter Tatchell, who is a very notable LGBT activist in the UK (though he also campaigns on a number of other human rights and political issues).

  • Red Wall 8:10
    Red Wall 8:10
  • Rainbow 8:10
    Rainbow 8:10
  • Foliage 2:3
    Foliage 2:3

I also uploaded two other crops of the rainbow photo Square crop and 4:3 crop which include more of the rainbow flag and may be useful if those aspect ratios are more appropriate.

I'm considering nominating one at FPC but can't decide which. The rainbow one has stronger LGBT imagery, with the flag background, but the red wall photo has a nice colour contrast with the deep red and the black shirt, and the bokeh in the last one might please some. The last one is the least cropped, so higher resolution (none are downsized). What do you think? Can you help me decide? -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I'll do my best. :)

First impression: Not the middle one. All the colors of the flag distract, he gets lost in all of it and it also becomes a bit like a cliché, something like photographing a Native American Senator in front of a tipi. The portrait should be about him and not his views. (And Obama doesn't have to stand in front of an American flag in photos, for people to know what he stands for.)

The right one with the foliage would be the one for the article about him in an encyclopedia or a book, he looks pensive and it is relatively neutral and light. But his forehead looks a bit too bright and that might raise some comments, it's also a bit unsharp on the left side.

The left one would be the one his media strategist would choose if he was ever to campaign for something. He looks strong and decisive and his face has very good light. It would also look great on his website. Even if this is smaller, it is sharp enough to count the dandruff on his collar! So since this is a web-media-thing where people are impressed by good light and color, I'd say go for the red brick wall. Hope these ponderings can help you in some way. cart-Talk 13:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of adding that photo as main photo in his article, since it is common practice to have the best, most recent photo up there. The old one was nine years old, so that one is now in the timeline instead. Plus I tidied up the article a bit. Hope you don't mind. cart-Talk 14:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow, I didn't expect you to do all that tidying, I don't mind, thank-you!. It's a pretty long article. However, I guess you didn't see the comment I made on the talk page. When I first got in touch with Peter, the lead image was this tiny one and I offered to take a better one for Wikipedia, which he readily agreed to. But it took a long time for us to get a free weekend when we were both around. Meanwhile he uploaded what was the current lead image that had been taken by a friend for Wikipedia many years ago. I think he'd had problems with the image being deleted in the past (the authorship won't satisfy any fussy copyright admins). We discussed using one of my images in the article and he asked that I retain this current one as lead. I guess some sentimental/personal reason -- he also uses it elsewhere, and he does look 10 years younger :-). I did warn him that I have no control over the article, and someone else will likely replace it with a newer one. I don't know if that would influence you, or whether even if you put it back, someone else would do the same tomorrow. I'm glad you have kept it lower down, rather than just delete. But I see you've also kept my rainbow one. Perhaps two photos from the same session with the same shirt & tie is too much? I wouldn't mind if the weaker one was deleted, though the article is more than long enough that there is room for plenty photos.
I get your point about the rainbow flag being too obvious. It was Peter's suggestion for the first background we try, as the flag fills part of one wall in his office. You can see it in this photo for The Pink Humanist. The Guardian also uses it as a background. His own publicity photo has a rainbow flag background. It also appears in this environmental photo in The Guardian -- I had hoped to get a similar environmental photo but his office was piled full of boxes and lacked the spread of posters and campaign material that would make it interesting. I think an advantage of the flag is that for people who don't know/recognise him, it makes it more obvious that there is an LGBT connection, provided one knows the symbolism. Obama is better known, but not afraid to be photographed in front of the American flag.
I probably should have increased the DoF (f/4 rather than f/2.8, say) in the third photo to get more of his face in focus, and the trees were distant so would stay blurred. His near eye is absolutely in focus but the far one perhaps a little too out-of-focus. I can reduce the highlights on his forehead if you think that helps.
I'm glad my red wall photo turned out better than this Guardian photo. I don't think Peter Tatchell can afford to hire a media strategist so will have to make do with your free advice instead. There is never a time when he's not campaigning for at least a dozen things simultaneously. I had already put that photo on the Peter Tatchell Foundation article. Ok, decision made. Thank you very much. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: Well, I'm a Wikipedian and writer first and a photographer second. ;) I've worked on some rather high-profile biographies and articles (I specifically remember the mad hunt for a photo of Jo Cox the days after she was shot when I wrote to dozens of magazines and agencies asking for a photo donation) and I very seldom check the talk page before I do any editing, so I had no idea about the photo conversation. Having spent a lot of time at the Teahouse trying to explain to people that they have no say about the article about them, I probably would have ignored any pleas that went against the WP article policy anyway. But at least you're off the hook since I did it all without consulting with you in any way. After some missteps as a newbie at WP, I always try to keep a great distance between me and the things I write articles about and not get involved with the subject.

I think we all want to stay young and pretty forever, but to tell the truth, I as an objective observer also thinks that he looks soooo much better in the red brick wall photo that the former. There is no problem with keeping the former in the timeline and the rainbow flag one is good to illustrate the section it is in, regardless that it is from the same photo op. As you say, the article is long enough for it. A great article to look for how photos should be inserted into the timeline is the Clint Eastwood article. Please compare.

My own very modest photo contribution to the LGBT movement is this photo used in Gay pride. I saw it while having a burger across from the station and once again I saw how important it was to always carry a camera. Looking forward to see your new FPC nom. :) cart-Talk 16:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Also when one of your photos turns FP, as I have no doubt it will, there is no way a recent FP could not be the main pic instead of the old one. Such things go hand in hand with improving an article. cart-Talk 17:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree with you about the subject not having any authority on the article editing decisions, but I felt it only right for me to pass on Peter's request, at the talk page and to you. And as photographer, I also have to respect I have no special authority on the images chosen. It is just a third-party-request, and I'm not upset at all for you to make the perfectly valid decision to choose what you think is the best image. I very much remember Jo Cox's tragic death. It is strange how someone you'd never heard of before can touch you with their death. Amid all the nastiness of the Brexit campaign where politicians were competing with each other to tell the most outrageous lies, she seemed to be highly respected as an honest politician and decent human being. Your pride photo is good for showing a subtle support by the police station, rather than a more obvious photo of marchers and painted faces. -- Colin (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment W.carter You are so clear sighted! I agree 100% with your assessment above, but you are able to express why so much more clearly than I was, when Colin asked my by mail. The conclusion was the same though :-) -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Why, thank you! That was very kind. Yeah, I guessed he'd emailed you since I didn't see any discussion on your page. Maybe he don't think he "knows" me well enough to do so with me yet. Unlike a lot of other users who have no trouble sending me letters right from the start. ;) Thanks for lifting my mood. The first winter storm is raging outside, icy cold sleet is pounding on my window. But the tea is hot and I have new warm socks so I'll survive. Cheers, cart-Talk 21:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Part 2.

Cart, I see you had bad weather last night. Here it was a great clear mild night for fireworks! I walked to the council-run free display at a local park with my daughter, who was skipping with excitement the whole way. As I mentioned to you before, portraits at FPC are never easy. Several complaints about the close crop. I've uploaded File:Peter Tatchell - Red Wall - Uncropped - 2016-10-15.jpg which is largely uncropped and a little bit expanded on the left. I don't suggest that's an ideal crop, but wide open for folk to suggest their own crop using the "Add Note" tool. I'd be interested in your opinion, or whether the current candidate is fine. And Slaunger's opinion too. -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Ha! you beat me to it. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

'Corse I did. I hopped to it as soon as You Rang, M'Lord. ;) It's never fun when winter comes about six weeks early, but it provided one good shot when the horizontal snowfall ceased. The magpie was pure luck!! In the next photo it's sitting in one of the trees. When I saw it fly right in front of the camera, I thought: "Darnation, now I'm gonna have a blurred bird somewhere, better do another." Little did I know... :) As I was walking away two happy kids showed up with a pulk and made the slope into a racetrack. I thought about trying to shoot something with them, but the light was not enough for action shots. cart-Talk 20:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I've added my proposed crop, not sure about the LHS edge though, but it's like a bit more room at the top of his head, and I like for some reason if the RHS intersects the intersecting seams in his shirt. I cannot explain why I like that, but I do. I am not very sure about the crop, so give my opinion little weight in your "compromise crop".
Here the weather has been dreadful. Heavy rain, a few degs above zero and stormy. Not a single person outside when I walked the dog this morning. And this evening the first snow, melting as it hits the wet ground and very, very dark. Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Slaunger, At least we had about the same idea for the size of the crop, Colin just have to move it around a bit. :) I prefer to have some space in front of a person so that they can breathe so to speak. Too much space over someone's head can look like you are looking down on them IMO. And I tried to avoid the creases on the shoulder. But that's just how I see it. Hopefully others will pitch in too. I think it was a very smart move of Colin to fix it like this instead of having the endless unproductive alt discussions we get otherwise.
So you got the outskirts of this "Winter is coming" too. Commiserations. I was hoping the forecast would have it gone by tomorrow but no such luck. Hopefully I can find my car in one of the snowdrifts. :( cart-Talk 20:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
You are challenging my vocabulary. I had to look up "Commiserations", but now I get it. :-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I will probably now end up with 5 conflicting crop suggestions and offer a compromise alt that nobody likes :-( We'll see. Giving your rationale certainly helps, well, except for the conflicting opinions about the creases. Aaargh!
Just finished watching "Planet Earth II", the latest David Attenborough documentary. I don't know if you will get that series. There are some clips on the link I gave, if they work in your country. The penguins on Zavodovski Island in the South Atlantic have a tough commute to and from work. The worse peril I face is nodding off on the train and missing my stop. And the clip on the hatchling marine iguana chased by racer snakes is like something out of a horror movie. The program has a longer section than this clip, and we were all shouting for the little iguana to make it. That's a tough first day of life.
As a Scot, we get some snow but not as much as you guys. And living in England half my life, I miss it. My fond childhood memories are of jumping into snowdrifts up to my waist, building igloos, and getting so cold that you can't undo the button on your trousers when you need go to the loo. Ok, that last one didn't end up so fond. England's weather is boring, but the autumn colours this year have been wonderful, though the wind this weekend has removed most of the leaves now.
Your magpie photo is cool. I admit though, my first thought on seeing those black branches contrasting on a white sky was "CA nightmare". Well controlled. The bird reminds me of File:Glamaig from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye (crop).jpg. Hmm, you definitely make me tempted to get a wee camera to have always. Even my crop-sensor camera gear is still something you have to decide to take with you. However, this Brexit nonsense has devalued the pound and made cameras 20%+ more expensive. -- Colin (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
We never said that life at the COM was easy, you ask for advice, you sure gonna get them! :P BBC are stingy about showing their online flicks to us foreigners but we get those series here from time to time on national telly. The beauty of my little camera is that that pic had no CA whatsoever straight out of the can. The only thing with birches is that their bare branches have small red/brown shots ready for the next spring, and these always give those branches a reddish tone. I removed some of that simply because most people don't know that part and would have started to shout "CA". Other than that, a slight perspective adjustment and some more light, very little had to be done in post. The HDR night pic was also done with that little thing. Quite amazing.
Nice Highland shot! I have a bunch of Scottish pics taken many years ago with a very inferior little camera. I'm thinking of maybe uploading them someday just because they may have some use on WP. The Brexit vote was a huge disappointment in many ways. I had far-reaching plans about maybe moving to the gentler climate of Cornwall or Devon, but as of now all such plans have been put on hold for an unknown period of time, since they can kick me out whenever they want once Brexit is done. Until later, cart-Talk 22:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted an update message to the FPC but didn't upload anything last night. I look again at the current candidate and think it looks fine. There are 10 support and 3 oppose, one of which is a little unclear, so only two people with clear opposition to the crop. It would pass currently, and there is a danger if I offer an alt that it splits the vote, turns some supports into opposes, and just derails the whole nomination. I wish it were clearer what crop to choose. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a wise move for you to wait a while before offering an Alt. We don't need to hop every time someone mentions that they might prefer some change. The photo is very nice as it is. cart-Talk 09:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Got the gold star in the end! Thanks for your help. Btw, can you watch the Planet Earth II clip here? -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fans cheering for the iguana
@Colin: So clips seen, thanks for sharing. :) Creepy as hell though, "Snakes On A Plane" has nothing on this! Go Iguanas! --cart-Talk 19:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
...starving Ursus maritimus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:W.carter/Archive_4&oldid=214819101"