User talk:Harke/Archiv/2009

Hi! Kannst du eventuell von der Skala dieses wunderhypschen Museumsstücks noch ein bzw. zwei Fotos für den Artikel de:Spiegelskala machen, mit denen man die Ablesestechnik bzw. Ablesefehler verdeutlichen könnte? Ich habe zwar selbst noch ein Instrument, aber das ist so alt und verkratzt, daß man davon kein vorzeigbares Foto machen kann. -- smial (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Werde ich gerne machen, aber es kann noch etwas dauern.--Harke (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Keine Hektik, lieber gut statt schnell :-) -- smial (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe endlich Zeit gefunden, mit der Spiegelskala etwas zu experimentieren. Gar nicht so einfach, paralaxfrei zu fotografieren! Ich denke, das Ergebnis ist brauchbar. File:Paralaxfrei Spiegelskala.jpg, File:Paralaxenfehler Spiegelskala.jpg, File:Paralaxenfehler Spiegelskala (2).jpg, File:Spiegelskala Multimeter.jpg. Weitere Ideen, was man noch anstellen könnte?--Harke (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermutlich wäre es sinnvoll, die beiden ersten Bilder zusammenzumontieren, dann könnte das gemeinsam beschrieben werden, wenn man die in einen Artikel setzt.-- smial (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hab jetzt einfach mal eins reingebaut. -- smial (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank für die Mühe auch :-) -- smial (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Man könnte doch die beiden Bilder als Galerie zusammentun. Ich habe das so versucht. Das sieht doch gut aus? Mit jpg zusammenmontieren kenne ich mich noch nicht so aus.----Harke (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Analogmultimeter Multavi.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 looks good --Mbdortmund 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Harke/Archiv!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Thermocouple Connector.jpg is uncategorized since 18 April 2009.
• Image:Themocouple J.jpg is uncategorized since 18 April 2009.
• Image:Thermocouple K (3).jpg is uncategorized since 18 April 2009.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! GB Network PCI Card.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 job --Mr.checker 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)  Support Well done. --Siipikarja 10:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glasrahmen offen.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 Looks ok. --Eusebius 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hygrometer probe rotronic DV-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. Comments  Neutral Good depth and layout, but possibly the hygrometer could have slightly better detail. -Karora 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)  Support I think it is detailed enough for QI. Maybe not the best background! --Eusebius 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)  InfoI chose the dark background for better contrast to the probe. --Harke 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC) I only wanted to point out that it is a bit grainy. But it doesn't affect my vote. --Eusebius 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thermocouple Multiplexer Agilent.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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thermocouple K (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. Comments high res, sharp. --Afrank99 08:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reflecta CS2 Diarahmen.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 --Ianare 15:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thermohygrometer rotronic A1.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 {{{3}}}

Rotkäppchen

Hallo Harke,

bei den beiden Bildern (File:Offterdinger Rotkappchen (2).jpg, File:Offterdinger Rotkappchen (1).jpg) ist mir aufgefallen, dass du bei "Author" bzw. "Urheber" Deinen Namen hineingeschrieben hast, was nicht korrekt ist. Offterdinger ist der Urheber. Die exakte Reproduktion eines zweidimensionalen Kunstwerks begründet keine eigene Urheberschaft.

Insofern kommt auch kein QI zustande (wobei ich die Regel nun auch nicht sonderlich gut finde).

Wäre einscannen hier eigentlich nicht einfacher gewesen als abfotografieren? --afrank99 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Afrank99,

Danke für dein Kommentar, ich bin in der Sache noch ein Neuling, deshalb freue ich mich über jede Korrektur. Noch zwei Fragen dazu:

1) Reicht beim Autor nicht aus, wie ich es geschrieben habe 'photo by Harke'. Name des Künstlers steht schon im Feld Description.

2) Nach dieser Interpretation können grundsätzlich Reproduktionen von zweidimensionalen Kunstwerken niemals QI sein, wenn sie nicht vom Künstler selbst eingestellt werden. Ist bei Offterdinger ja nicht möglich, er war im 19 Jh kein Wikipedianer! Ich sehe bei den QI viele Reproduktionen zweidimensionaler Kunstwerke. Was nun?

Wegen dem Einscannen: Ich habe keinen hochauflösenden Scannener zur Verfügung. --Harke (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

zu 1) Nein, denn so wie du es schreibst, suggeriert es, dass Du der Autor wärst - was ja nicht stimmt. Du könntest Author: Offterdinger (photo/scanned by User:Harke) oder so ähnlich schreiben. Eben so, dass es dem ahnungslosen Leser sofort klar wird, wer was gemacht hat.

zu 2) Ist im Prinzip richtig, aber ehrlich gesagt, habe ich mich bei deinen Vorschlägen zum ersten Mal damit befasst - möglicherweise ist die Regel neu, oder wurde/wird bisher nicht beachtet. Oder ich lege sie zu genau aus. Kann auch sein. (die Qualität an sich würde schon für QI reichen) --afrank99 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

zu 1) Dieser Vorschlag ist gut, so wird die Sache wirklich deutlicher. Ich werde das auch bei den anderen Reproduktionen ändern.

zu 2) Diese Regel kenne ich nicht. Mal abwarten, was die Nominierung ergibt. --Harke (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hier steht's: Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder --afrank99 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Die deutsche Übersetzung sagt aber leider was anderes, Qualitätsbilder müssen unter verwendbarer Lizenz hochgeladen werden.[hier]--Harke (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Falls du es nicht mitbekommen hast: hier gibt's eine Diskussion zu dem Thema - wobei es eigentlich nur darum geht, die Richtlinien eindeutig zu formulieren. --ƛƭƦѦɳҞԳԳ (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Titles incorrect

Hi, Harke. The files File:Low efficiency fins.png e File:High efficiency fins.png have their titles inverted: in fact fins are more efficient when the temperature difference is higher (= more colors), while fins are less efficient when the temperature difference is smaller (= less colors). Similarly, File:Low efficiency fins (2).png could be called "File:High efficiency fins (2).png". If the images are present in some wikipedias, they eventually need to be corrected. Can you do it, please? --Aushulz (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Aushulz,

Sorry, you are wrong. The files have correct titles. See my detailed description in de:Kühlrippe. In short: The fins are more efficient, if the temperature difference fin-to-ambient is higher over the whole fin area (higer surface temperature=higher heat transfer rate). This is in File:High efficiency fins.png the case - see the temperature scale. --Harke (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Harke is right, the files are correctly named. -- smial (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right: if the fins are of a material more conductive, it means that the temperature on its surface is more uniform and higher. Sorry. :P --Aushulz (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Diabetrachter Hama.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 OK --Mbdortmund 16:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Offterdinger Rotkappchen (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. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sendemast Hirschlanden.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 Ok. -- Smial 01:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Universalmagazin.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 Looks OK. Lycaon 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Schulhaus.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 came here to nominate this picture... --Mbdortmund 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krieger von Hirschlanden.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 a little rigid/central composition but detail and lighting compensate Gnangarra 13:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwetzingen Moschee Wandelhof (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. Comments good --Mbdortmund 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wasserspeiende Voegel (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. Comments composition ist good/interesting --Mbdortmund 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Altes Rathaus.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 Fine. --Marcok 21:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Dreigiebelhaus.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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 08:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)~

Feuerwehrhaus

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ditzingen_Feuerwehrhaus-retouched.jpg

Vielleicht guckste Dir mal an, ob Dir einer der beiden Korrekturversuche gefällt. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Danke, sieht wirklich besser aus. Wenn du willst, kannst du mein Original mit deiner neuen Version überschreiben. Oder soll man beides stehen lassen? --Harke (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mir ist lieber, Du lädst sie drüber, es ist Dein Bild. Sach mir kurz Bescheid, dann lösch ich die Variante. Viele gute Bilder übrigens, Kompliment!

mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gemacht. Und danke für das Kompliment. --Harke (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Dekanatsamt.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 image. --High Contrast 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwetzingen Moschee Wandelhof (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. Comments Good composition with three dimensional feeling, shadows not too dark. --Ikiwaner 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Feuerwehrhaus.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  Comment Please add location. -- H005 18:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC). Done. --Harke 18:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC) OK, thx. -- H005 18:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Schloss.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. -- Smial 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)  Comment geocode is missing. -- H005 18:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC). Geocode added. --Harke 10:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Galerie Am Laien.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 shot with fine dof, and colors --Sfu 12:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwetzingen Orangerie.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 composition and light (the main subject - the bulding - is not very sharp in full scale, but it's very long). --Marcok 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwetzingen Schloss Eingang.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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Pfarrhaus.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 -- Smial 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Altes Rathaus (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. Comments OK --Mbdortmund 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Air velocity meter sensor.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 OK --Ianare 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Air velocity meter.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 schönes Bild, ich meine nur, dass der Hintergrund einen leichten Farbstich Richtung Violett hat!? --Mbdortmund 19:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC). Stimmt! Ich habe eine verbesserte Version hochgeladen. --Harke 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Wenn Du's perfekt machen willst, würd ich noch die beiden Schatten entfärben --Mbdortmund 09:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, aber damit bin ich, ehrlich gesagt, überfordert. --Harke 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Ich hab das dann mal für dich erledigt ... :-) -- H005 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Danke --Harke 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sendemast Hirschlanden Dachkapazität.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 informative --Ianare 19:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Mauritiuskirche (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. Comments details are fine, but perspektive should be corrected, perhaps have a look at the freeware Shift-N --Mbdortmund 21:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC). Perspective improved -better? Ich glaube, die Paneele an der Decke sind wirklich so uneben. Das geht nicht besser. --Harke 20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Ok. --Marcok 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Altes Rathaus (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. Comments  Comment Still something wrong with perspective. Old version is too narrow, this is tilted. We could probably do something in the Fotowerkstatt, if you upload the original. Good shot though, it's worth to be made as perfect as possible. -- Smial 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Hier ist es. --Harke 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I tried a better correction. OK now? --Harke 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Konstanzer Kirche Grabplatte (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. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 08:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Schlossmühle.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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 13:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Firstständerhaus.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. -- MJJR 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Schloßstraße.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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 13:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wohnhäuser Hirschlanden.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 one. --Lestath 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Konstanzer Kirche Grabplatte (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. Comments good --George Chernilevsky 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Konstanzer Kirche Grabplatte (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. Comments Hier müßte nach meiner Meinung die untere rechte Ecke etwas nach unten links gezogen werden. --Berthold Werner 08:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Ich dachte auch so. Jedoch ist es insgesamt ausgezeichnet.  Support QI --George Chernilevsky 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Ich habe es korrigiert. --Harke 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Es ist das sehr gute Ergebnis, Harke! --George Chernilevsky 06:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Speyrer Kirche Ditzingen (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. Comments Like as a postcard. --Marcok 23:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Speyrer Kirche Ditzingen (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. Comments QI --Mbdortmund 22:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Clampmeter Fluke 337.jpg touchup

Hello! I just wanted to let you know I created an edited version of one of your photos, File:Clampmeter Fluke 337.jpg, which is currently nominated at QIC. My version is here: File:Clampmeter Fluke 337 edit.jpg. I whitened and removed the background (but kept the shadow), rotated the image so the text is more readable, and fixed some perspective distortion; it was just a quick little touchup, but I think the clean background is a little easier on the eyes.

If you like my edit you can upload my version of the file over your original file and I'll delete the edited image's page; if not, it can just be added to your image's "other versions" section so people have both options. Cheers, and thanks for all your great contributions! -- Editor at Large • talk 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Editor at Large, thanks for your edit! The clean backgroud looks really good and it was also a good idea to rotate the picture. I appreciate all comments to my pictures and all suggestions for improvement. Only, I am not very happy with the sharp yellow color of the housing, the original color was warmer. But it is not an important issue, maybe it is only an impression of myself. I will upload your version above my version when the QI nomination closes (I think, it is not OK to change the images during the nomination). --Harke (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Check Clampmeter Fluke 337 edit.jpg now; is that colour better? You might have to clear your cache or purge the page before the new version shows up. I warmed the yellow up a bit and it seems to be closer to the colour of the original image now.

I'm glad you like the white background! I try to clean up backgrounds on object photos when I can; I find that a nice all-white background makes the subject pop a little more and is less distracting on Wikipedia article pages. The problem is that it can be difficult to get the background white when you're taking the photo; even against white paper the lighting can cause colour casts and shadows. I've done a lot of background cleanups in photoshop though, and I have a nice quick formula for getting clean white backdrops :D

Would you mind if I cleaned up a couple more of your object photos? I noticed you have a lot of great object photos on white backgrounds, like the one at the top of the page. All the backgrounds need is a little brightening and they'd be nice and crisp white. I've been cleaning up a few of my own object photos before uploading them, so I can do some of yours at the same time. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's really perfect now, thanks for your effort! I agree with you: most objects look better with a white background on the white Wiki pages (with exception of bright objects). I use white plotter paper as a background, manual white balance and daylight from the window. However there is always a non uniform illumination and shadows. I try some corrections with Nikon Capture NX2, but the possibilities are limited (and I'm not an expert in image editing). If you like, you can edit my images. I know, some of the backgrounds could certainly be improved. But please, let me know. ----Harke (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: the funny rotation effects? I'm not quite sure what the "upright" perameter is for - I've never seen it before! However, I tried putting in "upright=1", which for you made the picture rotate 90° inside the upright frame; it worked fine for me though, with no noticeable change whatsoever. I'm not sure why it would be acting funny for you. I tested the "upright" perameter on de.wp in preview, and then in my sandbox so I could save to see if that made a difference; both turned out fine. Maybe it's your cache? Other than that I'm really not sure what could be making it act funny. My edit shouldn't affect that perameter, as it's a jpeg and doesn't have any complicated stuff like an SVG would. I really can't say what could be going on, other than try clearing your cache and test it again? -- Editor at Large • talk 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If white balance function of the camera sometimes does not work as expected when using white paper as background, this can originate from optical brightener in the paper. This can cause a blueish tint, or, if the WB takes this into account, the background will be white, but everything else is warm coloured. For small objects I use ink jet photo paper (glossy or matt), which has no brightener. -- smial (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Today, all is OK with the rotation. It was probably the cache. Sorry. And thanks to Smial for the hint. I will try.--Harke (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wappentafel Schöckinger Schloß.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 --George Chernilevsky 14:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Schloßeinfahrt.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 work. -- MJJR 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Schloß.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 composition and light. -- MJJR 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Bahnhof.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 --George Chernilevsky 15:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Clampmeter Fluke 337.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. -- Smial 22:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hirschlanden Rathaus.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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 08:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schöckingen Neues Rathaus.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 --Cayambe 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kochenmuehle.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 --Cayambe 21:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Peter und Paul Heimerdingen (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. Comments Good in my opinion, although some might complain about noise in the sky and nearly invisible sharpening halos at some edges. This still OK for me here. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heimerdingen Bahnhof.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 Now ok for me. --Berthold Werner 20:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eltingen Dorfstrasse (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. Comments Good. --Johannes Robalotoff 11:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eltingen Dorfstrasse (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. Comments Hübsch. --Berthold Werner 11:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eltingen Dorfstrasse (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. Comments Good, although I would crop more of the blue sky above in order to center the house better within the image frame. The car in the right lower corner does not disturb me. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC). Done --Harke 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eltingen Dorfstrasse (4).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 Very good. --Johannes Robalotoff 15:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Tonmühle.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  Comment Vertical lines on the houses on the left are tilted clockwise. Whole scene looks cw tilted although vertical lines are nearly upgright on the right side. Can you try to correct perspective without these distortions? Otherwise good. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Better now? --Harke 10:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)  Comment It is better now. The vertical lines are now pretty upright all over the picture, if I measure them. But visually it looks a bit strange still, probably because of wrong angles between horizontal and vertical lines. Therefore I am neutral at the moment. Did you try a different projection? --Johannes Robalotoff 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your very detailed review. It´s one of my first panos, I hope the next ones will be better. --Harke 10:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)  Support good result, QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 06:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eltingen Dorfstrasse (5).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 --Mbdortmund 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eltingen Sonnenuhr.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. A slight perspective distortion is unavoidable here. --Cayambe 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mulfingen von Jagstberg.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 imo QI --Mbdortmund 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagstberg Fachwerkhaus.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. --Cayambe 07:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wappentafel Friedrich Albrecht von Gaisberg.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. --Cayambe 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eltingen Dorfstrasse (6).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. --Berthold Werner 13:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roudnice nad Labem -zámek.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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 19:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hrensko 2009, Hotel Praha.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 The bus is a bit disturbing but still ok. --Berthold Werner 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Anna-Kapelle Mulfingen (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. Comments  Comment Left side of the tower ist blown out. --Berthold Werner 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC). Excellent composition. The almost blown part of the tower is acceptable for me. --Cayambe 08:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Anna-Kapelle Mulfingen (4).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  CommentThe blue channel is clipped in the sky, try Hue Restorer --Berthold Werner 17:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Done. --Harke 19:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Better --Berthold Werner 11:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ditzingen Wochenmarkt Am Laien.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. --Cayambe 19:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ST. Anna-Kapelle Mulfingen (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. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hrensko 2009, Kamenice.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. --Cayambe 07:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Edmundsklamm Fischtreppe.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 and useful. --Cayambe 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Labe u Roudnice.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. Juliancolton 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glemstalviadukt B10 (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. Comments Best of the three --Schlurcher 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glemstalbrücke Markgröningen.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. --Cayambe 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glemstalviadukt B10 (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. Comments Also good. --Cayambe 20:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Scheffelmühle Höfingen.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 ok. --Berthold Werner 16:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwieberdingen Stumpenmühle (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. Comments Quality is good --Simonizer 14:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwieberdingen Stumpenmühle (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. Comments Quality is good --Simonizer 14:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)