User talk:Ram-Man/archive1

Haliaeetus albicilla

Hi Ram-Man; I'm glad you caught that one. I thought it was just a bad file name which is not uncommon. I should have checked. [1] Best wishes, Wsiegmund 05:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About your standard license

Hi, I've asked a question about it in the Village pump and thought it'd be polite to let you know. Cheers, NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Ram-Man, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
EugeneZelenko 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I'm too slow

Oi! You're too fast for me! I was just about to delete that flag, I told Orgullobot to replace it so I could get rid of it and take the section off Deletion requests/Superseded. Thanks for doing you job too well :-p -- Editor at Large • talk 13:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just been deleting the easy ones manually. There are still ones that are used in *many* articles that would take too long to do manually without the help of a bot, but for the rest it isn't too hard to edit an article or two. Ram-Man 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I do the same, but that flag was used on 30+ pages... there were only two left by the time you came around :-) 7 on en alone, I believe, plus more on de and fr, etc. I had a fun time with one image on over 125 pages on en wiki alone; yes switched by hand. Now I can delete there's no time to bother with that! -- Editor at Large • talk 13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Turkey coa.gif

Please use CheckUsage (or User:CommonsDelinker for image replacement) before deleting replaced images. This one was used at least on Belarusian Wikipedia. Please also add name of replacement in deletion comment. Thank you. --EugeneZelenko 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think in that case the page was protected, thus I had no way to replace it, so I just skipped it. Normally I would! I am also under the impression that replacing images with .svg will be ignored by CommonsDelinker, so that wouldn't work either. Also, for some reason after I replaced the images, they still showed up in the "CheckUsage", despite me verifying that they were replaced and the "CheckUsage" saying the database was updated. I don't know what else anyone would want me to do, but if you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it! Ram-Man 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

be:Турцыя is semiprotected due spam. I think you could drop a note on article talk page in such situations. Again new image name in deletion comment will be very helpful to find it instead of browsing categories. May be User:Orgullobot/commands could help to replace image too. --EugeneZelenko 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Already started adding the image name in the deletion comment. It's not hard to do at all. I'm not really sure how useful a talk page comment would be, considering that I don't know the language though. I didn't know it was semiprotected vs. protected, as there was no banner at the top listing it as semi-protected or protected. Once SUL is activated next month, these issues should disappear, since I will then be able to edit semi-protected pages on all the projects. Again, the note on User:Orgullobot/commands says that you can't replace a non-svg file with an svg file, so that won't help either. Ram-Man 15:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Unidentified Yellow Washington Wild Flower 1050px.jpg

The name is Lysimachia vulagaris Ulf Eliasson

Sweet Violet

For the sweet violet featured picture candidate, I uploaded a new 2 megapixel version. However, neither it nor my comments are visible on the candidates list page, and I am not quite sure what to do. Any suggestions? Thegreenj 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just a caching problem. I can see it just fine. -- Ram-Man 00:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. I still cannot see it. Is there a way to purge the cache? Thegreenj 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I have a cache problem, I always go to "Page History" and change "history" to "purge" in the URL. -- Ram-Man 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That worked. Thanks. Thegreenj 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• I think this edit of yours was for the wrong picture, unless you were making some sort of joke. -- Ram-Man 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for drawing my attention. Obviously it was for the other picture, eheheeh - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for your feedback on my colored pencils picture! I'll try to redo it in the next week or so, and then re-nominate. --bdesham 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I really like the composition, it just needs to be better quality. -- Ram-Man 00:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your License

Hi Ram-Man,
You should really consider revising your license, as it reads I don't think it's correct. "unless you release this image and any derivative works (e.g. your web site) by following the terms of one of the following licenses" I pretty sure that's incorrect. If a person used your image on their website they just couldn't copyright that image and it's derivative works - they are still free to copyright their website as a whole. Also "If you have not read the terms of these licenses or do not understand them, then do not use this image." is pretty antagonistic and frowned upon by what is meant to be a repository of free images. A good person to talk to about these issues is User:Gmaxwell --Fir0002 www 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider revising it. Thanks. I should let you know that this issue has come up twice now, once on the Village Pump, once on a talk page, although not quite in the manner that you stated it. I'm not sure about the first part, but the second part is clearly overly antagonistic and I will try to soften it a bit. -- Ram-Man 11:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty definite that "unless you release this image and any derivative works (e.g. your web site) by following the terms of one of the following licenses" is incorrect under he licenses you use. Would like to see the changes to the "do not use this image" bit too. On another point, I'm unsure that Image:Tulip Tulipa clusiana 'Lady Jane' Rock Ledge Flower Closeup 3008px.jpg can be licensed under the GFDL if usage of the image depends on giving location credit to the garden. AFAIK all the GFDL stipulates is credit to the photographer. You might need to consider relicensing under this kind of license this is under. But I'm not sure. Again I would recommend a chat with Gmaxwell --Fir0002 www 08:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that last one could be much more problematic if I had to change that. The other stuff is easier to reword. -- Ram-Man 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The attribution terms must either be considered parts of "Acknowledgments" or part of the copyright notice itself. The right to copy is dependent on those terms of attribution, for what its worth. Attribution requirements is generally considered acceptable. This is the same as "permission granted by xyz" without any other restrictions. If this is still not good enough, I'll explicitly add an acknowledgments section. Otherwise the images would have to be deleted or the publication contract renegotiated. Under contract, Chanticleer has a legal right to control the copying of this image, so as part of the copyright information, a "Permission to copy granted by Chanticleer" phrase is required. -- Ram-Man 04:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also updated the wording of my standard license to be less antagonistic. It was overdue. -- Ram-Man 05:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

FI

What do you think about this (Image:Prehnite Epidpte edit.jpg) picture? Is it good for Quality images or Featured or is it to bed? It is my first computer cropped and edited image here. Greetings, --Mihael Simonic 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say that the focus is not good enough. The main subject appears somewhat blurred. Maybe the depth of field is too shallow. As for the rest of it, it looks like an artificial white background that was chipped away. The "masking" job is not perfect so I know others would object to that. It seems dark to me, but that could just be the nature of the object. I don't know what it's supposed to look like! It's not bad in the sense of usefulness, but it isn't a FP or QI either. -- Ram-Man 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

• Hi Derek, I understand you dislike image manipulation in a lot of cases so thanks for withdrawing your opposition on my Apple image at FPC, I got the impression you almost supported on QIC : ) thanks --Benjamint444 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I Was wondering if there is any way that the minimum image resolution limit on QIC and FPC to be lowered, I don't mean lower the standard; the limit on en:wiki:fpc is only 1600px by 1200px and the standard there is far higher than that on com:fpc. I'm asking mainly because I have recently decided to only upload downsampled images due to the lack of a license which prohibits free commercial use of images on wiki. --Benjamint444 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

See also this correspondence my talk page. --MichaelMaggs 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dolphingirl

I am a new user. I just up loaded some images from http://en.wikipedia.org Cane some one check them all out, and place them in the proper category. Be sure to check the original image located at http://en.wikipedia.org --Dolphingirl 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)--Dolphingirl 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. -- Ram-Man 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged a few of them. Hopefully others will be able to do more. -- Ram-Man 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Camera thoughts

When I bought this camera, a couple of years ago, it was quite expensive and seemed to meet all my expectations. Digital photography was then quite new to me and I knew almost nothing about sensor size, chromatic noise or computer editing. My knowledge on photography was the classical one, and the attention was mainly centred on the theme, framing, composition, lighting, depth-of-field and aesthetics. The only type of manipulation I knew was the one I used to make a long time ago in the lab, with black and white photos. Being able of taking several photos with different settings, and look immediately at the results, opened a world of new possibilities and kept me busy exploring them. It took some time to realize, with the precious help of COM:FPC, that some of my pictures' flaws, which I attributed to lack of skill, were indeed caused by a less than optimal camera. And that some specialized themes, like close macro photography or very high resolution images, weren’t really for me. Of course I try to compensate for these drawbacks with careful composition and framing, nice colours, correct lighting, i.e., the classical components of good photography. I'm not really worried with the photos of flowers and insects because it is relatively easy to have some success in that field, with the help of better sensors and lenses. I’m more concerned about ocean pictures (and portraits), which is the kind of photography I prefer. But these fields seem much more difficult to treat and I realize that my personal preferences (like this one and this one) are seldom appreciated by others. So, it is not only a question of good equipment or technique, but also of aesthetics and personal preferences.

Anyway, I’m really thinking of buying a new camera. From the little I know, I agree that the best solution (for someone who is not rich) is to chose a basic DSLR body (like Nikon D80, Canon 400D or Sony A100) and save some money for a good couple of lenses. The choice of the optics will be the hardest task.

Thank you for your kind words and concern. In some other message, I’ll try to comment on you work… Alvesgaspar 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tilting kookaburra

Do you think I should upload another version of the kookaburra, rotated by about 0.2 degrees? Ben Aveling 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point, if you put up a new version, it may end up not receiving enough votes. I say leave it as is unless more people oppose, but it's up to you. You could probably just change it and assume that everyone still supports. -- Ram-Man 04:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I confess, I'm not sure of the pluses and minuses. I think rotating is considered an acceptable modification, that doesn't reduce the integrity, or the real information content. Oddly, it does seem to increase the size of the file slightly. I'd also have to crop it, which is not a problem, but what other edits did you make to it? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rotating it will likely soften the features a little too requiring some sharpening to compensate. I also did a slight levels adjustment to bump up the contrast without losing image data. -- Ram-Man 13:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops...

... you forgot to sign here. Lycaon 09:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Superseeded

Hello, could you tell me which image superseeded this one? Thanks PatríciaR ^msg 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted to your user page. Let me know if you need anything else. Sorry for the inconvienance. -- Ram-Man 13:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt help. Hey, no harm done :). I was actually just curious because upon a general search for Cape Verde flags, I cam across the deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cape verde flag 300.png, that had concluded with the decision of maintaining per arguments given. I guess there was an almost duplicate deletion request for the same image. I think that the arguments are still valid, i.e., the flags are slightly different, so "superseeded" isn't applicable. Thanks for your help. PatríciaR ^msg 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture nominated

{{FPpromotion|Image:Erysimum cheiri gold garden flowers.jpg}} --D-Kuru 10:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not promoted, just nominated --Simonizer 11:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I figured that out anyway ;-) -- Ram-Man 11:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Horrible colours

Thanks for your support. Regarding my camera strange behaviour in reproducing certain colours, just look at this example (I was excited when I took the photo, becaused it seemed a nice subject...). - Alvesgaspar 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The ability render heavily saturated colors, especially reds, depends heavily on how good the camera is. I've seen a few non-SLRs that do a decent job , but most are pretty bad. I even took a nice macro shot of a saturated strawberry with my SLR and it came out terribly. Perhaps I should have adjusted the saturation.... -- Ram-Man 15:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Evangilising

• I agree with the philosophy of Wikimedia, but the commons has not made it a requirement that one must agree with the whole commons philosophy before one can contribute, and FP guidelines don't require it either - so it seems unreasonable to judge images on criteria that aren't stated. On a more pragmatic level I don't think you're going to convert people to said philosophy by effectively banning their images from FP, the most likely result is that that'll be driven away with a bad taste in their mouth. And of course people who aren't honest about their level of commitment would still get their images promoted.
• I suppose at the back of my mind is the feeling it is unreasonable to demand that people who have put a lot of time and money into something should do something they believe will jeapodise their ability to make a return, and hopefully a living, off of their skills. I don't actually know enough about that industry to know whether their fears are real. But it seems to me that most commercial enterprises will prefer a normal contract with photographers rather than using GFDL or otherwise licensed photos (if for no other reason than they don't understand the full implications of these 'strange' licenses and will stick with what they know). Therefore the photographer will not lose that business by offering images freely in this form. Of course there will be people who misuse photos but they were probably never going to be paying customers. I don't know to what degree wikimedia chases up and prosecutes violations of its licenses but this will be an important point for this type of contributor - perhaps enforcement action needs to be given high publicity.
• Finally I don't see there should be a great fear that people will be making money off ones freely given images if they are following GFDL type licenses that require them to make their derivative works freely available under the same license. The one great benefit commercial photographers can gain (apart from feeling good about contributing to the community) is the publicity they gain, something far greater than they can afford to purchase or expect to achieve by running their own website.
• So in short, welcome all contributors with open arms and use their involvement as an opportunity to evangelise them to our philosophy. But accept that different people will have different levels of acceptance of that philosophy, but that they are much more likely to be drawn in further by grateful acceptance of whatever level of contribution they feel able to make at this time, rather than making them uncomfortable about their involvement. --Tony Wills 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well thought out. I'll consider these points. -- Ram-Man 11:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:NYC Public Library Research

I uploaded an edited version of Diliff's picture, trying to suppress the stitching errors.Would you please have a glance? Vassil 25 May 2007

It looks better to me, but what do I know. ;-) -- Ram-Man 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FPC - Pulteney Bridge

You've voted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pulteney Bridge, Bath.jpg. Could you take a look to see what you think of an edited version of the image? --MichaelMaggs 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stone Steps Wide Angle Perspective 1933px.jpg

That seems to be difficult to feature a picture which is not an insect or a bird. This picture was nice but probably more difficult compared to others. Romary 07:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FP Criteria

Using that logic, we should have different entrance criteria for featured pictures based on whether or not we already have that type of picture, but it is clear that it doesn't work that way. No, I think we should judge each image on its own merits, and the one that you suggest should be defeatured. Both it and this one would fail if they were attempted as new FP candidates, which is the whole point. -- Ram-Man 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we do have different criteria. A great photo of an easy subject isn't as valuable as a good photo of a difficult subject. We have 5 featured reptiles. We have 17 featured flowers. Maybe our 4th best reptile isn't as good as our 18th best flower but it's a lot easier to take a good photograph of a flower. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that anymore. I've had a number of flower pictures that have been very good technically but lacked a "wow factor", so it isn't as straightforward as you might say. -- Ram-Man 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's always a bit random, it depends who shows up on the day. There needs to be a balance between the quality of the individual images, and the fit with the collection as a whole. I have been thinking of suggesting that FP nominators be required to do a search of the existing featured pictures, and report on existing 'prior art', and why their picture is a useful addition/replacement. Maybe provide a small gallery of similar pictures. But I'd need to do a bit more homework first, to confirm for myself that the lack of balance that I suspect exists, isn't just my imagination and limited experience here. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Corncobs

Thanks for letting me know, but I prefer the parallel composition of the current one. The light also seems better, although maybe unnaturally so. Hm, it is a shame because yours is so higher-res... do you have more multi-coloured corn lying around? :)

BTW while I'm here, I may as well say how much I'm enjoying your photography and copious contributions to Commons as of late. Enthusiasm is always encouraging :) and I look forward to seeing you on COM:MOP soon enough. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Monarch butterfly pic

I find your Monarch butterfly picture a little washed out, specially the greens. I took the liberty of making this new version. Please do with it what you please.
PS - You are almost there, congratulations. Not bad, achieving this in a couple of weeks (I took a year). Alvesgaspar 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Euphorbia cyparissias quadrat.jpg

Thanks, for your attention! --Simonizer 06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lady's Mantle Alchemilla vulgaris 2816px.jpg

Hi Ram-Man, is it by mistake that despite of the image's name and its usage in gallery Alchemilla vulgaris your image is categorized as Unidentified plant? --Ies 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the incorrect category. I forgot to remove it when I renamed the file after it was identified. -- Ram-Man 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

QI CR of Image:Red_billed_gull-02.jpg

I'd prefer not to be promoting my own QI images :-). If you are satisfied the votes are authentic etc, just change Running total to Result and /Discuss to /Promotion. I'll then do the mechanics of tagging the image and archiving etc :-) --Tony Wills 12:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, will do, if not already done. -- Ram-Man 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

With regards to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Green carabidae-1.jpg, the rules clearly state that "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with the higher score of votes.". Both images in this nom are not different versions of the same picture, but different pictures entirely. Thus they should both be featured. The rules do not state that each image being nominated must be on a separate subpage. Please consider this image promoted. -- Ram-Man 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But it was only ONE nomination with two versions. I think it was Alvesgaspar intention to let the people decide wich one the better one is. Otherwise he would have made two separate nominations. Greetings from Germany --Simonizer 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

QI review of Lothianbridge viaduct photo

Hi Ram-Man,

I notice that you reviewed my Image:Lothianbridge viaduct01 2000-05-28.jpg photo and declined it QI status. I am a little bit surprised, I thought age might be some migitating reason, but then well aware of the technical shortcomings of my second digital camera (the first one being an Apple Quicktake 100). Inferring that most of my FUJI MX-2700 photos won't reach QI level for camera reasons, I nevertheless wonder about the image quality apart from the camera issue.--Klaus with K 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed your answer on my Talk Page, thank you. I have asked for second opinions, mostly because I have quite a few photos taken with this FUJI camera. If general opinion confirms that the camera output is hopeless for QI, that's at least a guideline. --Klaus with K 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to know the outcome myself. I guess we'll see. -- Ram-Man 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

QI Image:Pink twinged daisy on table.jpg

I thought that Image:Pink twinged daisy on table.jpg, which you nominated for QI, was a lovely picture, aside from the purple fringing and chromatic abberation, so I uploaded an edit here with colour balance slightly adjusted and CA/PF reduced. I also have a version without level adjustment if you wish. Thegreenj 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my picture, but it was uploaded by the copyright holder. I just nominated it. But I'll take a look at your edit. -- Ram-Man 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, try the link again. No colour adjustments, and some clumsy editing removed. Thegreenj 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ram-Man

Scroll down your Userpage and see what i left there... --Makro Freak 12:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, thank you. :) I reformatted the page so it would display better. -- Ram-Man 12:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Two Hens and Chicks 3264px.jpg

I think this is not the image you intended it to be? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

See the Hen and chicks article for more information. -- Ram-Man 13:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony F717

Do you think you might reconsider with the new version? Thegreenj 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

QI

Two problems: I see that info about QI is sent often not to authors but to users who nominate it. Next - I work on QI test on pl wiki. I nominated 2 images to Featured Images and 2 images wait in "workshop", 2 are QI, 2 not. Users on pl wiki said, that better are photos whithout QI - it is strange to me, but maybe it is general problem with featured pictures and vote system or with QI. Look here pl:Wikipedia:Warsztat graficzny - Cane Corso (with QI) and Sokół (without QI). The same problem here: pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje - dog (with QI) and falco (QI is problematic). Przykuta 13:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your picture Image:Two Hens and Chicks 3264px.jpg

I've just nominated for FP this picture of yours. Once again, it's a shame that the framing is so tight... - Alvesgaspar 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this sound totally mad?

Hi Derek. You know I've been planning the move to DSLR. Gorgeous as the D200 is, the body alone ($2200 AUD) would cost about 80% of what I originally thought I might spend ($2-3K AUD). Would I be totally mad if I went for a D40X ($1100 AUD) and then added a Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm ($1150 AUD)? I figure a lens will hold its value better than a body. Heck, maybe even the D40? Not because it's $200 cheaper, but because it has a faster shutter sync (1/500 vs 1/200) and I gather it has a higher-speed sensor than the D40X[2]. Extra pixels are nice, not least because they allow more margin for rotating and cropping. But are they worth the slower shutter-sync and sensor? How important would you rate them as being? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That means you can't really use almost all of the third party lenses (Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina) and you can't use a handful of Nikons.

Unless I'm prepared to always focus manually, yes. That rules out a lot of old lenses, which isn't an issue for me. That also seems to eliminate a lot of the current crop of primes, which is a pity, I had thought I might get a 50mm prime, just to play with. I didn't realise it cut into the 3rd party lenses so much. (My inner cynic suspects that was a major reason behind the decision to go that road.) But at the moment it seems that any digital camera will be obsoleted within months of being released. (There's a rumor on flickr that the D3 (or something) will be released within the fortnight[3].) So I think it makes sense to worry more about making sure that the lens I buy now works with the camera I buy next rather than the other way around.

If you are interested in a macro lens

At this stage, I haven't caught that bug yet. If I do, I'll find a lens to suit, or get another body.

If you use a fill flash frequently...

So much to learn. I don't think I've used a fill flash in my life. I'll have to try it out. I only heard the term for the first time yesterday, when reading up on the D40 and D40X and the SB400. I find it odd that I can't recall seeing other photographers doing flash fills, excluding the model style shoots. Maybe I just haven't noticed.

Thanks, Ben Aveling 00:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

fill flash [is] critical for certain types of photography, such as indoors where you get a lot of outside light flooding in. I don't usually shoot in those environments, but it's nice to know that I can, when I get around to learning that part of photography. It may not be a big deal for you.

It hasn't been to date, the flash on the Powershot is so harsh that I basically never use it. That's been one of the hard things about deciding what to buy. People ask me 'what sort of photos do you take?' which is a valid question, but the photos I take have been limited by the camera.  :-) I'd like to be able to take better family snaps. I'm not planning on taking up a career shooting indoor sports.

Another issue is that if the new D3x that comes out is a full frame camera (or even a 1.1x camera), then the "digital only" lenses (such as the 18-200) won't work on that anyway.

Ah, I didn't think of that. Well, I'm not about to get a D3x. I can imagine myself getting a D200, maybe, someday. If I can ever get a full frame for that sort of price, I guess I'll cope with getting new lenses for it.

I'm not sure I agree about being obsolete though.

Yes, obsolete isn't really the right word. Just as with an obsolete computer, everything still works, and nicely. Surpassed, maybe, I should have said.

In some ways rapid technological advance is nice, it brings us more stuff! But it means that anything we buy now will rapidly lose value. I used to work for Fujitsu, and they treated their hard drives as perishable goods because they lose value so fast. But there's no point in not buying something, because if you wait, you'll wait forever. So I try to buy what I need now, and assume that when I need more, I'll get another one, and the total cost will be less than the cost of buying something higher end now.

Tomorrow's the big day. Thanks again, Ben Aveling 02:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still dithering between the D40 and D40x.

"The sensor in the D40 is the same 6mp CCD made by Sony that was used in the D50 (and D70s). ... The sensor in the D40x is the same 10mp CCD made by Sony that was used in the D80." [4]

The general reviews seem to be, not worth the extra money for the extra pixels. But, the prices seem to have converged a little since. Instead of 200USD it's more like 200AUD. Maybe I'll walk into the shop and toss a coin.  :-) On the one hand, I don't _need_ the extra pixels. On the other hand, I know some people here would _like_ them, and I guess I would too - if only for the extra ability to crop. On the other hand, higher flash speed would be nice to have too. I've found mixed things said about the ISO. One review says that the D40x performance is just a wider range (the D40 doesn't do ISO100). The other says that that the D40x isn't as good (needs ISO100 to produce what the D40 does at ISO200, if that makes sense, and I'm not sure it does.) I guess I can ask the guys in the camera shop. Not that it matters much, I'm sure I'll be made happy whichever I choose.  :-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

QI guidelines

As a regular contributor to QI and FP discussions you might be interested in the merging of the FP/QI guidelines being discussed at Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates --Tony Wills 12:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Ping --Fir0002 www 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)