Only today I saw your martial-arts type award. Thanks, Richard. Beware of me now! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry couldn't reply earlier, I had traveled to some internet free areas in Tanzania. Thanks for the award. Coming from a photographer as talented as you, it means a lot. I see you don't have it on your page, so here's one for you. :) --Muhammad (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S BLACKBELT
I hereby award Richard Bartz this Photographers Blackbelt for his outstanding nature pictures, the finest that commons has ever seen.
--Muhammad (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Good day Richard. I did some modifications to the water in my Quebec city FPC. Would you mind having a look at it before I nominate it again, and give me some feedback? Thank you --S23678 (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Richard, Great photo, but as you did not counter the suggestion that this image has stitching errors, can I suppose that it is made up of images of two separate flies? If so, it is normal to mention this on the description page :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Richard, wie ich hier geschrieben hab ist mein aktuelles Objektiv nicht gerade der Hammer. Deshalb bin ich auf der Suche nach einem neuen (vorrangig erstmal für Macros). Eigentlich würde ich ja gerne das 90mm macro von Tamron nehmen aber ich dachte mir vieleicht hast du als Macro Freak noch andere Alternativen zur Auswahl. Oder kannst mir sagen ob das eine gute oder nicht so gute Wahl ist?! Wie ich schon sagte sollte es auch nicht sooo schrecklich teuer sein... Danke schonmal und besten Gruß Leviathan (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahoi Leviathan, das 90er für einen Neupreis von etwa 300 Euro ist eine gute Wahl für Sony Kameras. Bestimmt gibt es das auch gebraucht, allerdings für Sony etwas seltener. Der Mindestabstand für 1:1 Shots ist bei dem 90er aber nicht gerade groß, das solltest du bedenken. Wenn du Sonytreu bist und bleibst könntest du auch noch etwas tiefer in die Tasche greifen und dir das Tamron 180er oder das Sigma 150er holen, da würden dann keine Wünsche mehr offen bleiben bezüglich Abstand. Fir, Luc Viatour und Muhammad haben das Sigma 150, Noodle Snacks und ich benutzen das Tamron 180. BG • Richard • [®] • 13:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Na das ist doch schon mal ne Aussage! Über das Sigma habe ich auch schon nachgedacht, is ja auch nicht so viel teurer... Das 180er Tamron werde ich mir auch mal angucken, obwohl ich glaube das das meine Preisgrenze doch erstmal sprengen wird. Nun denn, schonmal vielen Dank für die Tipps und dann werde ich sehen wofür ich mich entscheide... Heute und morgen wird es zwar nix aber allzu lange will ich nicht mehr warten. Bis dann, besten Gruß Leviathan (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Der Sommer ist gleich wieder um ! • Richard • [®] • 13:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Ja ich weiß! Kotzt mich auch ziemlich an! :-( Aber was soll ich machen? Ich kann ja mal die Foundation fragen oder einen Spendenaufruf starten...
Achso, ich hoffe es ist Ok wenn ich dashier wieder gerade gebogen habe. Oder war das Absicht und ich hab was nich mitbekommen? BG --Leviathan (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
the "My user statistics" box on your userpage isn't displaying correctly on my screen; & i've tested it using 2 different web browsers (OS = ubuntu, webbrowsers = epiphany & galoen; both older versions, both mozilla/gecko-derived); not sure if it's just my comp, or something in the page itself, & didn't want to try "fixing" it myself, but thought you should know.
the bars display correctly, but the section "Files... ?" is cut off; the numbers are only partly visible
you might want to consider testing by having different people, with differing web browsers & operating systems try to load the page & see if any of them experience the same problem?
Hi Richard, could you please take a look File:Unidentified insect in kona.jpg and tell what do you think it is? It was about 2-4 cm long and it was for sure something alive (actually more alive than I am now ). The image was taken in Hawaii. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Puhh that's tough. I don't have literature about hawaiian flora and fauna. I've seen something similar here in Germany. It's perhaps a Scale insect (Coccoidea). You should start an identification thread at www.diptera.info. bg rick • Richard • [®] • 08:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. The most interesting part was that I saw quite of few of them, and I asked locals what they were. Nobody knew. They all told me they have never seen them before.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
My latest wild guess (see your talk page :-), is some sort of ladybird larva, introduced into hawaii as a mealybug killer. I'm not too sure of the scale though, what size are they? --Tony Wills (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Tony. I first said to Richard that they were 2-4 cm long, but I meant 2-4 millimeters long, maybe the bigger ones were 5-7 millimeters long.I observed them interact with each other File:Unidentified insects in kona.jpg. BTW may I please ask you to thank Lycaon for me for adding the date and correcting the category on my image? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Richard, why my first imression every time I go to your talk page, is to check for new messages on my own talk page? --Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it reminds you that you have a talk page ? • Richard • [®] • 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahoi Richard, ich bins nochmal. Und zwar habe ich beim Objektivangebot durchsuchen ein Tamron 70-300mm Macro gefunden. Vom Preis her ist es ganz angenehm (ca 150€) und die Rezessionen klingen auch ganz nett. Makroabbildung is zwar nur 1:2 aber besser als mein jetziges ist es wohl allemal. Mindestabstand beim Makromodus (180-300mm) is ca 92cm. Kannst du mir dazu vieleicht was sagen? Ist das akzeptabel oder eher Schrott?! Besten Dank schonmal !! Gruß Leviathan (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Bei Photozone.de gibts leider keine Testcharts. Ich würde dir abraten, Festbrennweite ist immer schärfer. Auch mit der Kohlekacke - halt durch und hol dir was, wo du wirklich zufrieden bist später. • Richard • [®] • 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, danke dafür! Da haste mich wohl vor einem "Fehlkauf" bewahrt. Dann pack ich ab jetzt monatlich noch ein bisschen mehr ins Sparschwein und dann warte ich lieber bevor ich auch bloß wieder unzufrieden bin...
Und außerdem hab ich letztens gehört das das gar nich der letzte Sommer war, nächsten Jahr soll es wohl noch einen geben, munkelt man... Danke und BG Leviathan (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Original w several dust spots, tilted, in need of some curves correction, could perhaps use a careful crop
Initial clumsy edit
Could you help me? I took this photo on a rare calm wind day with glossy sea in this strange summer haze with deep blue colors everywhere, no clear line between sea and horizon on a ship outside the Copenhagen harbour some weeks ago. I think it has FPC potential, but there are some technical problems with the original. I would like to apply some digital darkroom work on it to make it look a bit better, but I am awfully clumsy myself at doing it, and I was wondering if you would care taking a shot on it. Actually, Lycaon has already tried helping me by improving my clumsy edit, but he did not have the original available when he tried. i have uploaded that now as i think is better to work from that. You can just replace the clumsy edit I have made. If you do not feel for it and/or do not have the time it is perferctly OK, no offense will be taken.
Thanks . The colors in the original are pretty accurate, only had I set my exposure to -1 because I feared that the tips of the wings would give blown areas - as that would've been the case with my compact camera. Inspecting the histogram afterwards I doubt that is the case so the original is just simply too dark - still not used to having a better camera... Anyway concerning the first edit I am a little confused as to what you have done there? Anyway the colors in that edit does not seem right at all (too pale), but the spot removal is excellent. The following edits are closer to what I saw, I think the real world scenario is somewhere between Moody look and Moody look 2. Although Moody look 2 looks perhaps best in thumbnail, it appears overprocessed to me on closer inspection. Do you follow me on that? Did you apply noise reduction? (It appears not) The original is at ISO 100, but due to the low exposure quite some noise is present there (as expected) after the curves. I was wondering if a gentle combined noise reduction/sharpening could slightly improve it - I would not like to remove too much noise as it also brings some texture and structure into the background and the turbines (as we say in radar signal processing (my professional domain), "the signal is in the noise"). I could do that in a last step with Noiseware, which I have. In my clumsy edit, I have cropped the photo, eliminating some space at the top and to the right. Does that seem like an improvement to you? Again thanks for spending your time on me and my nitpicking. --Slaunger (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 (Moody look 1,5 with less saturation in the water)? • Richard • [®] • 20:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, very good. I've used your last edit as the basis for removing a few more spots, doing a noise reduction (atually a more agressive one than I had planned, but the noise reduction really imporved the image quality IMO), rotate slightly and crop, whereafter I have uploaded a new version as File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg. I have updated the image description such that I mention your work on the image. Feel free to correct my written perception of what you actually did... Once again thanks for helping me. --Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)