User talk:W.carter/Archive 8
 | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Old scratched glass inkwell.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) 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Common railroad crossing.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! Stone mouth.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) 05:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Willow catkins in Lysekil.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Willow catkins in Lysekil.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Don't you think that the category should be Commons:Featured pictures/Industry. On COM:FP, this is under architecture, bit it is really much larger than that. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Yann. You may be right about that, thanks for pointing it out. Since it didn't make FP, I think the discussion is academical, but I'll be sure to keep that in mind for my next nom. The page is closed now so I can't change it anyway. Cheers, --cart-Talk 19:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I changed it. Yann (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
so so sorry, yes i am not perfect on the code.
i have about 5,000 pictures from the historic center of quito. i am a gringo who teachers english at a university. and have a lot of free time. so i want to try and get nominated some of my pictures. and figure out and learn. much more on PHP
sorry for any mix up and thanks for your assistance.
best regards (and enclosed are a few of my examples
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Streets_in_the_Historic_Center_of_Quito
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Centro_Histórico,_Quito
i got to head out to work, if you can paste the code i need to paste, cleanly for high quality image, that would be great.
David Adam Kess 18th of April 2017 (UTC)}}
- @David Adam Kess: It looks like you managed to fix the code for your nominations at last and you moved most of them to the correct place. I moved the last one for you to where it belongs. But you need to put the proper signature on the photos you reviewed. You just added your name to them:
[[User:David Adam Kess|David Adam Kess]]. You need to use your signature--~~~~instead otherwise there will be no time stamp. Please do that in the future. I will have a look at your reviews and see if they are ok and if they are I will mark them for you. - While it is great that you want to "do the right thing" and review photos right from the beginning, I would suggest that you don't do this for at least a month until you are more familiar with the code and how to review photos according to the criteria we use here. You can see some of them at Commons:Photography terms. Newcommers at QIC are generally not expected to do reviews during their first time there.
- It would also be good if you read the Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images so that you understand the comments that you will get on the photos you nominated. --cart-Talk 14:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your tireless contributions in Wikimedia. David Adam Kess 18th of April 2017 (UTC) |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Les Parapluies de Viborg.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) 05:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Question
I see you are active at FP and have taken some very nice images yourself. I am very new to the Quality Image/Featured Picture process here, as many of my images were taken rather spur of the moment ("news reporter" style) and I've only been thinking recently about trying to bring them up to speed. I have two questions right off the bat: 1) Post-processing software: I really don't want to fork over the money for Photoshop, and am curious if the much more basic tools in software such as Photos (for Mac) or Preview can do an adequate job for minor cropping and touchups? 2) Equipment. I recently bought a decent DSLR, but haven't uploaded a lot of images with it yet and I'm still learning (per the FP nom) ... and I don't take it with me everywhere I go, so I am curious if an image taken with my older, simpler camera, like this one File:Elkhorns Spring 2017 06.jpg are even worth ever putting out there? Montanabw (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there Montana, nice to see you here too. Our paths have crossed on the ol' WP before. :) Just like you, I started out with reporter style photos to illustrate articles but as I became more involved here I upgraded my camera and have learned tones about how to take better pics. I'm with you on not carrying around a big camera all the time, so I have a rather good little pocket camera that I always have with me to "capture the moment" and in fact many of my FPs have been made with that one simply because I was at the right place at the right time. I have a better one for more "planned" photos and I sometimes go back to scenes I took with the small one for a better shot.
- To answer your question: 1) There are some good post-processing programs that are free to download. Look at Commons:Software for more info. There are also some more that can be used for developing raw images and doing other things. The user to ask about such things is our Grand Master of Photo equipment, Colin. I am not familiar with the programs you mention.
- 2) Looking at the pic taken with your old camera, I'd say no. That quality is simply too bad for QI or FP. It is possible to take some good photos with such a camera if you have really good conditions and know the limitations of your camera. I had a similar one before and I managed to get about two QIs and one FP with it out of about a thousand pics. The sensor is too small and lens are just not good enough. If you look at the page Commons:Photography terms that we are putting together, you will see the things we are looking at (at full size) in a photo, this could give you some pointers and possibly a headache.
.jpg)
.jpg)
- OK, I'll ask Colin about the software challenge -- now, can you help me "see" what the problem is -- Looking at that Elkhorns shot, what are the obvious technical issues to look for if I blew up the image large enough? (It looked pretty good and clear to me -- but that's the problem -- obviously I'm missing stuff) And -- composition -- if it were "good enough" technically -- what's your take on its content-- critique it as a landscape shot? What I realize is another limitation for me besides no Photoshop is that my computer is a laptop and "flunks" the various "is your monitor good enough?" tests -- I fear I'm just not going to see certain things ... but help me know what to look for -- even a laptop can magnify 400% -- and maybe there is a calibration I can change or a screen resolution I can set that will help me. Montanabw (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to trade in your small camera for one of similar size but with good quality, I can recommend the one I use, Sony DSC-RX100. It costs a bit, but I find it worth it because of the photos I can take such as these: 1, 2, 3, 4 and many more, all FPs. Or you can "scout for location" with your pocket camera and go back later for the good shot with your better camera. You are always welcome here on my page for some feedback and newbie camera tips, I'm happy to share what little I know. --cart-Talk 10:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Heh, I "blew my wad" on the Canon DSLR this past summer -- and a telephoto lens-- a must for horse photos. I know don't need $10,000 worth of equipment to take a FP-quality image, so I want to figure out what I am doing wrong with what I have -- I seriously thought about a mirrorless camera like your Sony, but I needed speed and interchangeable lenses. (Maybe more camera toys in 4-5 years, right now we need to replace the roof on our house... little stuff..LOL.!) I traded in my old Olympus OM-1 film camera I once used a lot -- that had lots of lenses, filters, and other toys. My problem is that everything I learned, I learned in the age of film, I went digital slowly and mostly with point-and-shoots. So... electronic tech -- I can see composition errors but not the technical problems (or if I see the tech problems, not sure how to fix them)... so some stuff I'm just going to have to learn to get it right as it comes through the lens (sigh). Could you take a look at some of my horse DSLR shots (where my heart is) -- acknowledging that the backgrounds are very distracting -- give me your critique ? All shot in bright early morning light -- what did I do "wrong" -- composition, tech settings, and processing -- what could I do better to make similar shots FP quality? Montanabw (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Q & A - part 2
@Montanabw: Ah, the good old days with real film in cameras. :) I have my roots there too and the steps into the digital world have been steep indeed. I see why you chose a telephoto lens, even if horses are big critters, you can't always get close to them. I'll try to answer all your questions in this section.
- Yes, and horses are also long front to back... so distortion with a normal focal length lens is a problem in closeups. Montanabw (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Examples (not mine): rear view distortion, front view distortion. Montanabw (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: Horses are also dangerous at both end and uncomfortable in the middle.
--cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: Horses are also dangerous at both end and uncomfortable in the middle.
- Yes, and horses are also long front to back... so distortion with a normal focal length lens is a problem in closeups. Montanabw (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Examples (not mine): rear view distortion, front view distortion. Montanabw (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Composition-wise there is nothing wrong with the photo! Perhaps half of the grass in the foreground (between the bottom and the first tree) could be cropped away. When we look at photos, we do so at 100%, that is where you see things. The only thing "wrong" with the pic is that the small sensor in the camera can't handle all the information in the photo, at 100% it looks almost like an impressionist painting with blotches of colors instead of details. There is also not enough nuances in the different fields of color. Please compare it to this photo of another landscape. At 100% you can actually see the individual branches of the trees on the mountainside.
- Wow, that photo IS amazing, but it's also 30 MB and a stitched panorama... I see what you are saying about resolution, though...I can see that mine pixellates when I blow it up. Looks like even a closer distance image like this one pixellates -- -- is the closer distance any help? I bought the DLSR figuring that anything from this point and shoot was hopeless -- but is it? What could the point and shoot theoretically handle in FP land? Anything if I had less "user error"? In theory, could a better-composed photo of something smaller like this work or is there still too much pixellation and assorted weird stuff happening there too? Everything pixellates eventually -- where is the minimum? Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- -- The stitching and panorama has nothing to do with the resolution in each individual photo, it just makes them bigger. Both those photos are just as bad, sorry. This is not pixelation but rather pixels bunching together. Such cameras can handle mid-sized objects in extremely good light, at 1-2 meters range and if the object itself is a bit "fuzzy". This my first FP was taken with a camera similar to yours. It is the only time I managed such a quality. The line for how much pixelation is tolerated is fluid, depending on the circumstances of the shot. Only we don't call it pixilation, because that is actually something else, we call it "noise". --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Is actually a very good action shot despite the busy background. :) You need to learn the basics of adjusting the photo though. Vertical lines must be absolutely vertical and horizontal lines dead on horizontal. In some cases this can be fixed by simply tilting/rotating the photo but in most cases it requires 'perspective correction'. Take a look at that article. In this photo all the lamps in the parking lot and the posts for the jumping obstacle should be vertical and they are all leaning in some direction. The photo is also a tad bright, this is something that is normally fixed in post-production to bring out a bit more details from surfaces that are in sharp light. I'm pleased to tell you that there are many "normal" faults that are missing in this photo. :)
- Yay, some stuff going right! But that is where my software is a problem, isn't it? I can't correct perspective, only tilt... perhaps I could just occasionally impose on others to help, or try This? (a Colin question, I suppose...) I'm going to fix some stuff with what I have and re-upload, tell me if it's better...I darkened exposure and assorted brightness a quite a bit, adjusted contrast and highlights some, saturated the color some more, raised the "black point" a bit, increased definition and fixed the tilt so the power poles are straight -- but the ground line is still uneven due to the angle of the shot -- I can't get both ... and to my screen, the image now seems a bit dark -- but take a look at the new version -- any better? Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- --You should get to know Gimp, you really need to be able to do perspective adjustment or you will not get anywhere. The new version of this photo is really very dark. You didn't just darken the highlights, you darkened everything. It takes some practice. ;) --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- If I uploaded the unaltered original, would you be willing to dink around with it like you did with the other? I realize I also have a vision issue (over-50 eyes, that's my excuse...) I'm not -- yet -- seeing the perspective problem... Montanabw (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- --You should get to know Gimp, you really need to be able to do perspective adjustment or you will not get anywhere. The new version of this photo is really very dark. You didn't just darken the highlights, you darkened everything. It takes some practice. ;) --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Not that bad either. ;) As with the first it needs a bit of perspective adjustment. It is an action shot and as such a very difficult shot. If you have a tripod and can use it while tracking the horse it could help you. A bit of motion blur on the horse+rider is understandable if the obstacle is unblurred, and if the horse is sharp the obstacle and background can be blurred. Here everything is slightly blurred. Focus is in the right place though. It could also use some post-production where the shadows are brightened a bit and the highlights are toned down some. There is also a slight hint of what is called 
chromatic aberration, the bane of any good photo... For QIs and FPs most of the work actually comes after the shot is taken. It is not unusual for me to spend about 2-6 hours working on a candidate for FP. That is something that most newbies there don't realize. With digital photography you spend an absurd amount of time at the computer. I'll see if I can fix up this photo for you and put it in my Dropbox for you to see and compare. I'll get back to you when it's done.
- I'll take a look and discuss separately -- at least I no longer feel silly that I take 30 minutes to fiddle with the software... so I'm on my way to normal, eh...? (LOL) Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- -- "What's the difference between a professional and an amateur photographer? - The pro has a larger trash bin and a larger coffee pot." --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- In horse land, we have a saying, "the amateur practices until he gets it right; the professional practices until he can't do it wrong." Montanabw (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- -- "What's the difference between a professional and an amateur photographer? - The pro has a larger trash bin and a larger coffee pot."
Because of all the white in this photo you can see the chromatic aberration I mentioned before. I don't think you need ISO 400 here to get a sharp photo. That gave you an exposure time of 1/1,600 sec while 1/500 would probably have been enough and you could have used ISO 200 or even 125 also you could have used a little smaller aperture to get the man sharp as well. Had you done so the overall quality of the photo would have been slightly better. There is something strange going on with the color on the back of the man's jacket that may be because of the higher ISO. A bit of post-processing here would have made the shadows less blue and given the photo a better white balance. It could also have given the sand a bit more texture.
- Awesome feedback, gives me just the things to look for -- the camera still thinks it's smarter (probably is) and is arguing with me, I did have this one on the auto sports setting, and on those presets I can't adjust ISO (as far as I can tell) -- I probably should have set shutter priority and then insisted that ISO could be up to but no more than 200? ... I would agree with what you are saying -- Question: I'm hearing some say we treat digital ISO the same as film (ISO 100 digital = ISO 100 film) but others suggest digital ISO can be higher for equivalent quality, i.e. digital ISO 200=film ISO 100 -- who is right? Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- --I think you need to get better acquainted with your new camera and how to set it. Controls on any digital camera are not self-evident, unfortunately. The ISO-question is really a Colin-question. ISO can also depend on what you are planning to do in post-processing. --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Overall I think you have a very good eye for your horses and know what situations to photograph them in. Had one of these photos been chosen as a FPC, I think the reception would not have been so cold. The problem is as you say, the background. Try to plan how to shoot an event by circling the arena and look in your camera for a good spot of at least one of the obstacles. One excellent shot is about as much as you can expect from a day's photography. For this FP it took about three hours and 800 shots.
- I believe it: I took well over 1000 photos at Scottsdale and uploaded maybe 70-- and most of those had lots of technical issues due to high ISO and other limitations of equipment and shooting conditions (see, e.g. Category:2017 Scottsdale Arabian Horse Show. Had fun, though. Sometimes you are stuck with what you get... light, bleachers, etc... make the best of sub-optimal conditions... Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- --Having fun is the most important thing of all! Without the fun none of your pics would be anything. --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Another thing I think you should try is to set the camera on multi-shots. Firing of say 7-10 shots during a jump will ensure you to get the perfect one. You shoot at such high speed that I think your camera can get off a lot of shots during a jump. It is not always the shot you may have planned for that turns out to be the best once you look at it on your computer. Oh, and about the computer: I think all of them now have built in programs for adjusting the screen. Try locating yours under "This computer - screen settings" or something like that. If you have a tech problem and don't know how to fix it there is always the trick of just searching for it on YouTube. There are thousands of short videos there on how to fix all kinds of small errors we get in photos, we all go there from time to time for tips and advice. Best way is if you can at least name/identify what the problem is called, that is why we are setting up that small dictionary. Hope this will help you a bit. --cart-Talk 17:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Will see what I can do on the screen. I do set multi-shots on the jumpers, that's good advice. The Rebel has its limits (5 fps), but it does well enough. I found out that I am going to have to get a faster memory card, though because if I shoot RAW and multi-shots, the camera takes 2-3 minutes to process everything -- I can only do multi-shots jpeg now, and even then it sometimes stops to think... one of the pros at the show said it was my memory card, not the camera... Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- --Loading time, camera vs card is also a Colin-question. --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: So here is your photo after a little TLC. Please download it and compare the versions. I have fixed the tilt, sharpened it a bit, got rid of the chromatic aberration, brightened the shadows and darkened some highlights a bit, cropped it a little, got rid of some color noise and made the colors shine just a little bit more. Had it not been for the ugly chain link fence behind the rider, this could very well be an FPC.
- I see most of your changes on the dropbox photo... except for the CA and color noise -- which may be a monitor limitation for me and I'll keep trying to "see" it between the two images (your version seems softened and the stitching on the horse's browband (the strap across his forehead) is not as sharp as my image... was that what you did to fix it?) --Maybe I will take a shot at making the same changes and when they look the same to me, I'll ping you? Montanabw (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- To add to my first reply, you could also experiment with some very low angle (if that is possible) so that you get mostly sky behind the jumper. At FPC people like to be able to look up on animals, or at least have them at eye level. Top down photos of animals are usually frowned upon. --cart-Talk 17:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- The first jumping photo, I was sitting on the ground outside the ring and zoomed in with the telephoto... it's a more "classic" type of shot than the cute pony one. When I've been allowed in the ring back in the days of film (when I used to do a little bit of horse show photography and some ranch photos), you can do that ...though they frown on things if you are too close to the ground, look like a crouching predator and spook the horses... (this famous wreck was caused by a photographer laying on the ground at the finish line who spooked the horse... (nowdays, they make the track photographers set their cameras up on silent mode, lock the mirrors, prefocus and trigger them remotely -- many set up multiple cameras). Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- --Ouch!!! So this would be the new gear for any horse show photographer. --cart-Talk 21:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ironically, that would be even worse, the horse is CONVINCED that you are a mountain lion lying in wait to eat them! LOL! Notice all the cameras preset in this image. THIS is a great article on what horse racing photographers do at a professional level. (But there's horrid distortion that horsemen hate in some of these fisheye images....) Horse people who are also photographers have fantasies of owning equipment like this. Here are examples of the kinds of professional photos horse people like -- no serious distortion to make the horses look ugly... Montanabw (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- --Ouch!!! So this would be the new gear for any horse show photographer. --cart-Talk 21:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, seems all my images go into Photos and want to export at 72dpi, even the 30MB RAW files -- I really would prefer they default at 300dpi -- I can manually change it in Preview, but one image at a time... is there a camera setting or a software pref to change that download default? I can't seem to find it...do folks just resize the image in the software only? Montanabw (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- --That is another Colin-question. I seem to be saying that a lot, but I'm no expert, just trying to get newbies over the first hurdles in a friendly way. Some folks here probably resize their photos in some way, and that's ok just as long as you don't "downsize" it i.e. make the pic smaller so that it will look sharper. That will only bring about other troubles. The next bunch of question will have to wait a while. It's getting late here in Sweden and I will be away to do other things tomorrow. See ya later! :) --cart-Talk 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Get some sleep -- I have a watchlist backlog on WP that I'm slogging through... You've been of great help, sometimes it's just knowing WHAT to look for... some of this stuff has to be fixed before it goes into the computer... user error... Montanabw (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Q & A - part 3
Hi Montana, I'm on a break now so I'll take some time to get back to you. I’m starting this subsection since the discussion above was becoming a bit too fragmented. Let's try to keep this in a time-line-fashion since most users here are not as wiki-code-savvy as on WP. It seems horse photos present a photographer with a unique set of problems. I heard about some of horses' habits when I lived on Gotland. I had friends who rode in the local jousting team and while their horses had no problem charging each other in the list or getting buzzed by fighter jets from nearby military training grounds, they had tall tales about what horses perceived as "murderous mail boxes" and "hostile candy wrappers".
The "Dropbox" photo looks a bit soft because I first sharpened it and after that applied some noise reduction, that is mostly good for the whole photo, but it will also remove some small details. Deciding how you want it is a judgement call. The CA and color noise takes some time to learn to detect but once you see it you can't unsee it. I don’t know if you pick mushrooms and berries up in the forests of Montana, it's the same with that, the first ones are hard to find but after that you know where to look and how they look and you find more.
I read Colin's answer on his talk page. He is quite right in that when you decide to get a more professional software, Lightroom will be enough for you. BUT, to be able to use such a program you need to know more about what the different camera settings do to a photo and you need to know the basic things about post-production. My advice would be that you take lots of photos of the same subject but at different settings to see what's going on, you start with jpeg versions and edit them in Gimp, just to learn how it's done. Your idea about having other users helping you out with your photos works in theory but not in practice. Commons and its community is a bit different from WP that way. There is very seldom any cooperation on photos (I'm a bit of an exception here, the odd one). Most of all since post takes such a long time and helping other users, you will not have time to process your own photos, but also because people are a bit artistic here and prefer to really create their own images. Some of the FPC people are in fact professional photographers and they have a strong sense of copyright (even on this free site). Colin is also right in that it may take a while until your photos get to FP level, or you could get a very lucky shot that requires little post and is a slam-dunk anyway. That happens.
If you want feedback on your photos, no one will read the talk page of a photo. The best place to go to is Commons:Photography critiques. I also see that you will need to get in touch with a photographer who is using Mac for their processing. Perhaps you can ask about that at the FPC or QIC talk page.
The Questions: I've also bunched together the tech questions I was unable to answer (see below), those that I thought/hoped Colin could help us with (apologies for dragging you here). But some of them may also be specific to certain brands and even if he is the best camera guru we have here, there are some things that other users may know better if they use that camera brand. Montana asked:
- "Question: I'm hearing some say we treat digital ISO the same as film (ISO 100 digital = ISO 100 film) but others suggest digital ISO can be higher for equivalent quality, i.e. digital ISO 200=film ISO 100 -- who is right?"
- "I do set multi-shots on the jumpers, that's good advice. The Rebel has its limits (5 fps), but it does well enough. I found out that I am going to have to get a faster memory card, though because if I shoot RAW and multi-shots, the camera takes 2-3 minutes to process everything -- I can only do multi-shots jpeg now, and even then it sometimes stops to think... one of the pros at the show said it was my memory card, not the camera..."
- "By the way, seems all my images go into Photos and want to export at 72dpi, even the 30MB RAW files -- I really would prefer they default at 300dpi -- I can manually change it in Preview, but one image at a time... is there a camera setting or a software pref to change that download default? I can't seem to find it...do folks just resize the image in the software only?"
Bye for now, --cart-Talk 10:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for everything; you have gone above and beyond, actually. I may think through the FP criteria over on WP too -- seems that they are looking for very different things in each place. This has all been very, very helpful and I very much appreciate the time you have taken here! Montanabw (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- No problem Montanabw, my pleasure. :) Yep, the WPs and Commons are very different. The WPs want the best photo to illustrate an article, here the artistic wow-factor is everything. If the two can be combined in an FP here, it's just a bonus. You are always welcome to drop by, --cart-Talk 20:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lift at Viborg Station.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! Sundhedscenter Viborg at Toldbogade.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! Sign boards at Viborg Rutebilstation.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) 05:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Narrow window Viborg Private Realskole.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! Five-leaved ivy on the wall of Viborg Katedralskole.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! Trash bin at Viborg Katedralskole.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! Manhole cover at Viborg Katedralskole.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! Viborg Private Realskole Sankt Mathias gade 3.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! Roof over entrance to Viborg Rutebilstation.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! Bike shed at Viborg Rutebilstation.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) 05:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Shiny needles of a silver fir in Gullmarsskogen Nature Reserve.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! Ventilation cap on roof.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) 05:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chevrolet Master Special Eagle 1933 - Z16725 - front.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! Gullmarn fjord seen from Gullmarsskogen.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! Newly fallen snow on a roof.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, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chevrolet Master Special Eagle 1933 - Z16725.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) 05:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Air duct pipes at Viborg Katedralskole.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! Fountain at Viborg Katedralskole.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! Base of two pillars at Viborg Katedralskole.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! Door and ivy at Viborg Katedralskole.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! Sticky snow 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gullmarn fjord seen from Gullmarsskogen 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) 05:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ventilation cap at Viborg Katedralskole.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! Ventilation cap on roof in 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
FP Promotion
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Les Parapluies de Viborg.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Parapluies de Viborg.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Snow sticking on corrugated 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chevrolet Master Special Eagle 1933 - Z16725 - spare.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) 05:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Part of a heat exchanger in a cracking tower.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! Cherry blossom buds 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The light blue fishing hut.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! Cherry blossom buds 4 - cropped.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! Forsythia and lawn.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! Cherry blossom buds 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) 05:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Old wall in Gullmarsskogen 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! Old wall in Gullmarsskogen 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! Chevrolet Master Special Eagle 1933 - Z16725 - ornament.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! Windblown snow 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Brances of a silver fir in Gullmarsskogen Nature Reserve.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, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Image modifications
Thanks for your modifications at File:Birch forest Gullmarsskogen 1.jpg. You're wondered about my way of nominations and reviews. My nominations within the week were often done early in the morning by a mobile phone. This isn't an easy way for reviews. In the evening I'm using my computer, but not every day. So reviews are possible. And all missing reviews are done at the weekend or if I did not nominate images. It is not an easy task to find enough time. If I'm sure someone is reliable and a dedicated photographer I'll promote the image with the issue to do something. I have not been disappointed so far. :-) --XRay talk 04:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi XRay, I thought there was a logical explanation to it. It is great that people actually do behave in a good way and I'm very honored that you consider me a trustworthy user. Well, for the moment at least. ;-) With so many new users at QIC right now, it is difficult to find the time to review everything and your extra effort is much appreciated. Most days I work at a computer so I can sneak in on Commons during a break or so, just to relax a bit and I try to do some extra reviews then. --cart-Talk 08:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)