User talk:W.carter/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birches in first snow.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Göteborg Opera restaurant with reflection of 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lilla Bommen dock area.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gothenburg City Theatre 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rooftop of Storgatan 20 west Gothenburg.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rooftop of Storgatan 20 east Gothenburg.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:20150425 Oberhausen Impericon Festival - Andreas Dörner of Caliban 0077.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20150425 Oberhausen Impericon Festival - Andreas Dörner of Caliban 0077.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birch trunks in snow and sunshine - 2.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Paraglider
Hi Cart,
thank you for your crop. What do you think is the best? Withdraw the current nomination and nominate the new crop? Or let it as an alternate version? Anyway, it seems that the picture is too regular for FP...
Best regards,
--Basotxerri (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Basotxerri, whatever you do, I don't think you should nominate my so-called "crop"!! It is not a valid alternative, only a crude manipulation to illustrate how different a pic can look with a low horizon. It is always more effective to actually see the difference instead of just reading about it. I never thought anyone would take that seriously as an alt. That pic is not so much a crop as a distortion of your nice pic. I "compressed" the landscape vertically and extended the sky bit between the paraglider and the horizon, plus cropped away a bit of the field at the bottom. It is not a pic that should be in FPC, QIC or whatever. So I guess the only option is to withdraw. Best, cart-Talk 22:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I thought so. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The top of 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Renominating FPCs
What's the best way to reopen Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mouse Kidney (23725924684).jpg and Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rat primary cortical neuron culture, deconvolved z-stack overlay (30614937102).jpg? Do I need to make a new nomination, or just remove/ disable the tags on the existing pages? Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Andy Mabbett! You can't re-open the old nominations since those are time stamped on the day you created them and that would seriously screw up the voting period. They have also been marked as closed, you can see that tag on the nom pages.
- To re-nom you need to create new nominations but add the "/2" after the file name so it won't get tangled up with the first nom. This is written just above the little box on Commons:Featured picture candidates where you enter the file name to create the nom:
- "For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2".
- The old noms will be archived from the candidates' page in time. Good luck!
--cart-Talk 12:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Both done; thank you for your help. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
_by_Lenny_Clarh%C3%A4ll_at_G%C3%B6teborgsoperan.jpg) |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Snäckan (The Shell) by Lenny Clarhäll at Göteborgsoperan.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Snäckan (The Shell) by Lenny Clarhäll at Göteborgsoperan.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Clip
- Hey Congratulations! You see, sometimes it's best to just relax, sit back and don't rush into anything. :) Yep, those clips work. Anything that's uploaded on YouTube is easy to access. Thanks, I'll watch it in full tonight when I get home from work. If you enjoy, really really restored photos, this here is a cool link to watch. Not much photography going on here right now. It's cold and dark, only vacationing vampires would find this place suitable at the moment... ;P cart-Talk 14:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's a strange video. I'm not really sure how they did it. Some kind of 3D computer model + retouching photos? -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Colin, I'm guessing they first retouched old photos, then uploaded their structure onto a CGI matrix converting the whole shebang into a 3D-file. After that you can do pretty much what you want with it, adding avatars and mixing elements from different photos. After it was done, they re-scratched it to make it look old again. Some if this tech is used in the latest Avenger movies where they make up computer generated younger avatars of some of the actors. There is plenty of footage of them from back in the days when they were young, so they load that into some programs and hey presto they have younger versions of the cast for the "memories/go back in time/this happened before"-sequences. I think this very subtle use of FX is much cooler and interesting than the normal flash-bang-spaceship-things that is normally used for. cart-Talk 09:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's a strange video. I'm not really sure how they did it. Some kind of 3D computer model + retouching photos? -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion
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:
Preemraff Lysekil.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion
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:
Snäckan by Lenny Clarhäll.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer
Please excuse me spamming you. As a regular on Feature Picture Candidatess you will recognise User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.
Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank You, I'll look into it. cart-Talk 13:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Product terminal at Preemraff Lysekil with tankers.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Small gully between fields in Brastad.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Borders of a stubble field in Brastad.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stubble field in Brastad.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stubble fields in Brastad.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Telecommunications mast in red sunset.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Kitchen sink pic
If you have looked far enough back on my Flickr stream you can find this, when I found that some used dishwater in our sink made a somewhat appealing abstraction. Seems that quite a few people have looked at it, more than I would have thought.
Not sure if my wife would like sharing our sink in the state yours is in, though. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Yes, I saw that pic and wondered a bit what it really showed. The infrequent/leisurely cleaning is one of the benefits of living single. I was a perfect wife once, now I live a more relaxed life.
cart-Talk 23:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Plastic polar bear with LED lights.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Re cats
Seeing you latest great photo of one of the big cats it reminded me of this pic. 
Sadly, I didn't have a good camera back then, but if you look closely you can see the beads. Cheers, --cart-Talk 09:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it look very real. By the way, the cheetah was licking her lips because I told her she could Get Carter after the photoshoot... Charles (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- LOL!
I love that movie! --cart-Talk 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- LOL!
- Yes, it look very real. By the way, the cheetah was licking her lips because I told her she could Get Carter after the photoshoot... Charles (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Top of power line pole - east side.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Top of power line pole - west side.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Messy kitchen sink.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
A challenge for those cold winter months
Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - December - Home appliances
Requires two photos: one outside and one inside. The latter should show how the appliance works, but I don't think necessarily needs fully exposed.
Also
Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - December - Holidays
Is appropriate for this time of year: capture spirit of Christmas or New Year.
-- Colin (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Colin, nice of you to think of me, but I don't celebrate the holidays and yesterday I accidentally knocked my good camera from a chair.
The view finder is bent askew and some functions seems to be out of wack. It sort of works, but I'll have to get it to a camera repair place next week. --cart-Talk 14:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Gloves
I have yet to be able to experiment with this myself (last winter in the Northeast US was quite mild compared to the two that preceded it, so there was no need), but for that trip to the Canadian Arctic in the summer before (from which I am currently finally uploading pics) I got, at the outfitter's recommendation, a pair of full-finger paddling gloves (these are from the same manufacturer, but not the same model), and a pair of thin glove liners to be worn with them. They did the trick on the lower (paradoxically, further north) stretches of the Firth River where we were often advised to supplement the guides' oars with some paddling of our own as a way to keep warm in the raft (While one day got up to about 25º C early on, warm enough to wear shorts around camp, most of the time later on, well, July in that part of the Arctic is often more like October where I live, continuous sunlight notwithstanding (See how I'm dressed here, on the Fourth of July no less, if you haven't already) I don't know if it's that way in the Swedish Arctic, if you've been there). At least it kept the mosquitoes away. And the glove-liner combo did work ... I mean my hands did get cold after being lashed with enough water but that was probably on the high end of the design envelope for the gloves, and more importantly they did not get wet.
I am hoping we have more snow this winter so I can test this out while either a) shoveling snow and/or b) snowshoeing or even cross-country skiing, both of which involve keeping the hands in prolonged contact with metal while outdoors in cold weather. Usually I have worn ski gloves for that, which keep your hands toasty warm but at the cost of fine motor skills such as those required to handle a DSLR. I am betting that the paddling glove/liner combo would work when outside in cold weather.
I'm sure that that kind of paddling glove is available in Sweden, as the country seems to have abundant kayaking/rafting opportunities. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank for your kind advices Daniel, I will certainly look into the paddling gloves, they don't look as slippery as textile gloves can be. I'm certainly used to all manner of glove/mittens combos to work a boat in cold weather, not to mention scraping all the ice from my car twice a day. So far my digital cameras have been more of the point and shoot variety, the kind that can be operated with Lovikka mittens if need be. Now I have to get used to more fiddly controls. Fortunately my good camera is more suited for men-hands so my smaller hand + gloves are not that bad, just have to get used to it. And find the right gloves. What you don't see in the power line pic is the blasting wind that day. When it's already below freezing, the wind-chill factor is not to be trifled with. So doing handheld photos on such a day may not have been the brightest idea... ;) Damn, it was hard to keep still! But with the light finally showing up after two weeks of darkness, who cared! :)
- I used to do some kayaking before I damaged my back, hopefully I can go back to that once it's healed. May take another year though. As for the Arctic, the farthest north I've been here was Muddus National Park, so not so far, but it was in February and it was about −35 °C (−31 °F). Saw some glorious aurora borealis though. :)
- I recall that you said you didn't own a tripod. Right now I'm totally in love with my two new very inexpensive small portable tripods, this that I used for the sink photo (I just put it on a shelf across from the sink) and this (now permanently in my car) that I used for the polar bear. You can always find something to place these small tripods on and that way you don't need to lug around some big normal tripod. The smallest even goes into my handbag along with my ever ready small camera. Always prepared! cart-Talk 21:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- A tripod is on the Christmas list (As in, I have to take the bus down to B&H down in Manhattan with my camera, try them out and find the one I like, then buy it and bring it home (the Port Authority Bus Terminal is only a block away, and it was pointed out to me that if you're lugging something like a tripod back home on mass transit it's better to just walk it a block to a one-seat bus ride back home (well, back to the park'n'ride where I can catch it, at least) than to take it a few blocks to the subway, thence to Grand Central, then to a train station a little further away from home on the other side of a (one direction, anyway) toll bridge. And that would still probably cost less than having it shipped from the store.
Looks like Muddus is just over the Arctic Circle, though ... too bad you weren't there in late June.
As for using cameras in cold weather: On the day I took this picture, I went down to another parking lot on the other side of the highway where a lot of people had parked, just marveling at the expanse of temporarily crystalline forest visible from it (nobody dared walk into it, even with proper gear, there are just too many ways in that situation to get seriously injured or even killed in ways that you would have no control over). All the ice coating the trees, rocks and snow seriously chilled the breeze blowing through it. It might have been -5--10 ºC on that day to begin with, but standing there I could feel it getting down to -25 or so (We don't usually get temperatures that cold around here, but I know what below zero Fahrenheit feels like, and the only other place I've ever been with temperatures as cold as the air coming out of that woods was Perm, Russia, in late November. I'm not sure other people there realized that, in the middle of a winter day we were all effectively standing in front of a huge refrigerator with its door wide open (hey, that sounds familiar
)I was using the small Kodak DP/S that I took all my pre-2014 pics with (well, a predecessor to it) and that's all exposed metal. Handling it with bare hands and fingertips in those conditions got it pretty cold pretty quickly, to the point that my fingertips were in pain after less than a minute. The kind of serious cold-induced pain that takes longer to go away than you'd like it to, even after you get back in your car and fire up the heat. I knew from that it was better to get into the car again sooner rather than later, because I was looking at some serious frostbite risk (and not just in the colloquial sense, in the real sense).
That is the sort of thing I'd want to test the paddling glove/liner combo against (I mean, they're so great. The thin neoprene keeps your hands very warm but allows you to manipulate all the buttons and switches on the camera body, and the palm side is rubberized for better handling. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- A tripod is on the Christmas list (As in, I have to take the bus down to B&H down in Manhattan with my camera, try them out and find the one I like, then buy it and bring it home (the Port Authority Bus Terminal is only a block away, and it was pointed out to me that if you're lugging something like a tripod back home on mass transit it's better to just walk it a block to a one-seat bus ride back home (well, back to the park'n'ride where I can catch it, at least) than to take it a few blocks to the subway, thence to Grand Central, then to a train station a little further away from home on the other side of a (one direction, anyway) toll bridge. And that would still probably cost less than having it shipped from the store.
- Well, good luck with your Christmas shopping, bring back three legs. Your transportation system sounds a lot like ours, where the train will take you for a ride in every sense of that word. Comfier to park by the ferry and board the bus to Gothenburg terminal actually on the ferry. One of the world's few mobile bus stops!
- Since Sweden is totally digitized, we now buy most things online. The shipping companies are very competitive and make sweet deals with the online stores so you seldom have to pay more than $4 for shipping and you can return it free of charge within two weeks if you don't like it. This is where new companies like Klarna step in and act as middlemen so no money is transferred until all parties are satisfied.
- That looks like a serious ice storm! I've seen similar and know that is not to be trifled with. And I've got frostbites (the real thing) when I was young and stupid(er). Even here down in the middle and south part of the country, we get the occasional freaky days with temperatures below -30C, but it mostly stays around -8 to -20. Like most folks here, I don't particularly like the cold; winter is to be endured. It is the price we pay for having such great climate the other 3/4s of the year. We also look and sound more hardy talking about it, than we are. ;) --cart-Talk 10:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
C.lion
.jpg)
Thanks. :) I was surprised to see this. More surprised by the one you chose, though I liked your explanation. My La Jolla folder has too many that I like -- sea lions are still coming). There are a few in the last batch that seem pretty decent, and I wonder if any of them would have a shot at FP: This, this, this, etc. Eh. Don't know if I'm ready for that anyway :) — Rhododendrites talk | 04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- You are never ready for FPC, it just kind of hits you all of a sudden. I think it's a great picture and worth a shot. The sea+lion combo is fantastic, but I also know that as soon as there's an animal in the pic, the crowd at FPC tend to want it front and center and not part of something. Had it been a woman in the pic, this would have been totally fine. I'm usually the one with the outside the box pics at FPC so I try to get folks to broaden their view.
- I hadn't seen the last of your uploads, thanks for alerting me. :) The fist of your suggestions are great, but unfortunately there already is a
similar FP so those are out. The full figure one 
is definetly FPC material. If this nom doesn't work, I'll go with that one. I also think this one 
is fantastic! ...or... you could nominate those two yourself if you like. I've both my nom-slots filled at the moment but yours are free. I was looking at this 
too since mom+cub always sells an FPC but I don't think it's sharp enough. Many of them are exceptionally meme-able. :D - Anyway, "You've taken your first step into a larger world".
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Lenny_Clarh%C3%A4ll_at_G%C3%B6teborgsoperan.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Lenny_Clarh%C3%A4ll_at_G%C3%B6teborgsoperan.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_closeup.jpg){kind=link}
a.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Sea lion rolling
- he is one with sea and surf
- waiting for a star
- "This user writes HAIKU - but poorly." --cart-Talk 10:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- but unfortunately there already is a... - I did see that. And to be honest I don't think mine is better (well, I prefer that mine is of an animal in the wild vs. in a zoo, and I like that the background is intelligible/adds context, but it's not as sharp/vivid and ultimately not all that different). I'm starting to get a bit more of a sense of what QIC and VIC reviewers are looking for, but not so sure about FPC. From what I gather -- and maybe this is just from talking to one of the outside-the-boxers -- it seems like FPC combines QIC, VIC (without strict need for defined scope), and some sense of originality... and strength in one may be able to compensate for weaknesses in others. I suppose I should really just take a watch more of the discussions. Maybe the best way is to nominate some stuff (through I'll probably hold off on nominating any of my own in the near future -- although I made my first attempt at focus stacking yesterday...possibilitiesssss).
- The power lines set is very satisfying to look at, btw. I'm not a big Reddit user, but I came across the "Oddly satisfying" subreddit recently that some of your images kind of remind me of. E.g. this sort of thing... (examples of the subreddit topic rather than direct comparisons to your own work btw) — Rhododendrites talk | 20:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites, I think you're quite right in your observations about FPC, and it also tend to be a tad unpredictable. Submitting anything there, you need to have a good thick skin and be ready for some really 'honest' comments. But I take it such things are not something new to you given that you have been active on dear ol' WP for some time. ;) The best way is really to just jump into it and hope you can swim! Seriously, I've learned tons from the comments there regarding photography and most of it from the 'Oppose' votes, which is why I always receive those with a smile. Constructive criticism is always better than someone just say "Wow!". Warning: focus stacking is addictive! :) When I started out here I thought that making a really good photo was to just get everything right in one single untouched photo. Little did I know... Most FPs take hours of tweaking and combining shots in some photo editing program, but laaaaazy as I am, I still try to get as much right in the original shot as possible.
- Reddit is not something I've looked at before, I have a hard time having time for the three-four social platforms I'm on at the moment... I need to work too. But you are right that those examples are some things I could have been suspected of. Most of what I shoot is sort of from necessity, I live in a boring little town and don't have any fancy camera equipment, so I shoot what I see the way I can. :-/ If you are interested in some other "beginner's tricks" you should read the discussion here. I'll let the current c. lion nom stay for a while and see if the tide turn, otherwise I'll replace it with another now that there are more options. cart-Talk 20:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Responding to Quality Image Review
I uploaded several pictures for the Wiki loves monuments campaign in September. Yesterday I noticed that one of them, "Parham, St Peter's Church.jpg " was nominated (not by me) for Quality Image Status. You reviewed it and thought it needed a more detailed description. I have now made the suggested change. Is it too late to be promoted? Even if it is, I would like to thank you for this advice. I am new to Wikimedia and really appreciate it.Michael Coppins (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Michael, and since you are new, welcome to Commons. Pics nominated for QIC usually have to be dealt with within a week or so from the time they are nominated, otherwise they will get washed out of the nominating process by the maintenance BOT. The picture in question, File:Parham, St Peter's Church.jpg, is fine now so it would be alright to renominate it for QI. Do you want to try to do that yourself (see how to nominate something at: COM:QIC)? Or do you want me to nominate it for you? I think it would be a good exercise for you to try out the nominating though, you seem like a good photographer and probably have many more photos to contribute with and some may be QI candidates. :) Just tell me how you want this done, and don't hesitate to ask here again if there is anything you want to know, I'm one of the users who help "newbies" around here. Best, cart-Talk 13:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for the prompt reply and your welcome. I'm sorry if I'm not replying to your message properly; I'll no doubt get to grips with the procedure eventually. I'm going to try nominating the picture myself. If I manage that I might take up your suggestion and nominate some more! If I don't manage it you might hear from me again. Kind regards Michael Coppins (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Michael, you never have to reply immediately to a message, I just happen to be working on the computer right now and that's why I was fast. :) At some other time a reply may take days. Good luck now or we'll speak again soon. cart-Talk 14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
| 75px|center| | ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Top of high voltage power line pole, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Top of high voltage power line pole has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Nice idea with this shot, but to get QI I would recommend combining several exposures, as there is a huge dynamic range difference between the point light sources and the balcony, which is in almost complete shadow. There are commercial tools, which can help you do that, such as Lightroom or PTGui Pro. There are also freeware options such as tufuse, hvis is a command line tool, which allows you to combine several exposures into an exposure fused photo. It works much like boosting the dynamic range of your camera sensor. It is a prerequisite for tufuse though, that the pictures are aligned, so tripod is needed. Se for instance this. Well, I used PTGui Pro for that one as it is easier to use than the tufuse cmd-line tool, but I might as well have used tufuse. Hugin might do the trick as well, I have not used it recently. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's ok. This photo actually is a combination of three exposures and made on a tripod (but even tripods can't stop the wind from stirring the twigs and make them blurry). :) It was one of the experiments I did with that technique. This was shot long before the sun went up so it is in effect shot in total darkness. Unfortunately that camera can't be set for longer exposures than 1 sek (very annoying!!!), I didn't know that when I bought it. The other camera seems to work better in the dark as it can be set for almost any time. In this HDR the first camera worked fine since there was already some light in the stairwell. So I'm quite familiar with the technique, but thanks for your kind note, it shows you care. :) --cart-Talk 21:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, it was not hinted at in the file metadata, that it was a multiexposure shot. But, yes, if the wind moves the objects you want to photographs in a multi-exposure shot, that is a problems, and 1 s is indeed a very short time for the longest exposure. The wind probably explains the blurred spruce.It was also a problem for me here and in many other photos. Yes, the LED polar bear and window photos are much better. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Slaunger My bad for not mentioning that in the description, I've seen so many HDR where this is not included so I didn't think it would be important, I'll add it from now on though. Nice pic, annoying wind (as sooooo many times). Cheers, cart-Talk 21:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Slaunger, So here is my latest creation in the HDR department, from 17 photos. If you are tired of all the church ceilings... :) --cart-Talk 22:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nice. DOF and lightning very good. The metal tube is very good. For some reason the texture of the ceiling plates looks a bit artificial and they are posterized. What kind of noise reduction technique did you apply? BTW it would be cool if you mentioned the tools used on the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Slaunger, to someone who hasn't seen the real ceiling it might look strange with unfamiliar coloration, but in fact it is exactly what it looks like IRL. This space used to be for cutting, welding and other kind of hazardous industry, so the plates are asbestos and they have been discolored by sparks, flames, soot and other not so nice things for decades and the splotches are from this activity. I can't imagine what parts you would call posterized since I'm not aware of any such area and I've studied this ceiling rather thoroughly. :) It is always a problem when you take a photo of something that other users have never seen, they immediately jump to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with the photo. (Same as when you get accused of not having proper perspective adjustment for a centuries old askew and wobbly building.) The only NR applied is the use of two-four layers using the same exposure as in this technique. Everything is done by layers, of varying transparency, in Photoshop. I'll try to explain how it's been done on the file, but it will be a rather lengthy explanation. --cart-Talk 22:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, it actually looks like that. Yes, you are right, hard to envision if you have not seen it before, but it makes sense with the history you explain. I do not think that you need to describe the entire process in the file page. I think "...by combining layers in Photoshop." or something like that would be just fine.
Done Better explanation is in place. :) Thanks for the tip. cart-Talk 23:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Plastic polar bear with LED lights.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plastic polar bear with LED lights.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! New moon setting 1.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! New moon setting 2.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Last apple hanging on the tree.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wavy fence on a wall.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Another question about QIC
Many thanks for your positive review of my picture of Lewes Castle, yesterday. Can I ask for a bit more advice? On Monday I nominated another picture (of the inside of Winchester Cathedral) for QI status. It hasn't been reviewed and I'm afraid it has got so far down the list it has sort of slipped through the net. Does that happen? Or am I being neurotic? And if it does happen, what is the procedure? I'm sorry to pester you with these questions, but as you know this is all new to me. Kind regards Michael Coppins (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Michael Coppins, if a picture remains unreviewed until it is removed by a BOT you can always renominate it until it gets either promoted or declined. The reviewing is done by others who nominate pics on a totally voluntary basis so this happens all the time. :) There are also all kinds of hiccups in the BOT system so you are right to keep an eye on your nominations. Don't worry about "pestering" me, you are always welcome here. We all had the same questions once so we understand. :) cart-Talk 09:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for this guidance.Michael Coppins (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of the picture of Winchester Cathedral. I tried to add a comment inside the blue box, but I wasn't sure what I was doing (on the preview my comment ended up outside the blue box) and I retreated before I broke something. I have produced a new version of the picture with a modest amount of noise reduction. Should I upload the new one as a new nomination for today? Because the original version won the prize I don't really want to change it. As always, your advice would be welcome. Kind regards Michael Coppins (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Michael Coppins, first: If you leave a comment, you should do so between the last character in the "box" and the two wavy brackets "}}" that way your comment stays in the box. The common practice, even with photos that have won something, is to upload the new version on top of the old. The previous versions are always preserved and not overwritten, so anyone can see the photos history. You can see this if you look at this file for example. It was altered between becomming QI and FP. BUT, if you really want to preserve your picture as it is, you should first withdraw your QI nomination by replacing the word "Nomination" in the "box" with "Withdrawn" and after that upload and nominate the new version for QI instead. You can also link the two versions with each other by adding them respectively in the "other versions=" parameter on the file's page. See this example (click on the "edit" at the top of the page and it will open and you can see the coding) . Just holler if something goes wrong. :) --cart-Talk 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for the advice. I'm on a bit of a steep learning curve here and I think I'll leave things as they are until I'm a bit more confident I know what I'm doing. I'll probably still try nominating some other pictures for QI. Kind regards Michael Coppins (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bare tree and cross at Prästtorp graveyard, Brastad.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Headstones at Prästtorp graveyard, Brastad.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Prästtorp graveyard in Brastad.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Weather vane at Prästtorp graveyard, Brastad.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.
|