User:S23678/Old talk inside

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

POTY 2006[edit]

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Panorama Lac Titicaca - Décembre 2006.jpg[edit]

I see your QI candidate image wasn't reviewed by anyone, I thought I'd let you know I had a good look at it but didn't promote it because there are visible stitching errors. The most visible is where the right most photo joins - most noticeable in the water close to the shore, different coloured water. There is also some aberration at the rear of the person with the hat on in the foreground who is bending over - maybe they moved between shots. --Tony Wills 11:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Taille d'image featured picture[edit]

Bonjour,

je me permets de te tutoyer, et espère que tu feras de même :)

Laissons d'abords de côté le point "mauvaise utilisation de mes images" et parlons qualité.

Les guidelines ne sont bien que des recommandations, et ces recommandations disent qu'une image est souvent rejetée lorsqu'elle ne fait que 2 Mpix. La mienne fait 10... et tu peux regarder parmis les candidats (notamment les macro photograhes), ils ont tous des appareils à 10 méga pixels, mais fournissent souvent des images à 3/4 Mpix. Peu m'importe vraiment au fond, je trouve qu'on voit suffisamment de détails, et je trouve que la qualité apparente, celle qu'on a à 100%, compte beaucoup. En laissant mes images à 100%, je laisse un peu plus de bruit (malgré le fait que j'ai un 400D !!) ça diminue un petit peu la qualité. En plus, l'image est franchement déjà très grande, et elle ne perd pas tant de détails que ça par rapport à l'original. Sur mon panorama du Tarn, je ne vois vraiment pas ce que l'image originale apporte réellement en plus (mais elle est indéniablement bien plus détaillée). Et 10 Mpix, c'est largement suffisant pour tirer un poster de 80cm de long. ça ne sera pas du 300dpi, mais j'ai déjà fait le test, c'est très pro(pre) et il faut vraiment s'approcher pour voir des pixels. Quand je vois que l'image est de suffisamment bonne qualité à 10Mpix et que je n'ai pas mieux, je laisse souvent à pleine résolution aussi. Enfin, je terminerais sur un "seul le résultat compte", si je n'avais pas dit que j'avais la même image en 40mpix, comment aurais-tu réagis? Note aussi que parfois, je peux prendre une image en un coup, mais la prend délibérément en plusieurs juste pour améliorer la qualité par pixel (je la destiné a avoir une certaine résolution, mais de la "bonne" résolution).

Maintenant, l'utilisation. J'ai trouvé que mes images sont utilisées sur d'autres sites que Wikipédia. ça ne me gêne pas du tout au contraire. La plupart le font dans les règles. Mais j'ai déjà vu des sites de fortes audience qui mettent une de mes images bien en avant, sans rien dire de sa provenance ! rien sur wikipédia, rien sur le photographe... pas respectueux ! j'ai vu aussi un compte flicker avec une de mes photos, ni vu ni connu, c'est le propriétaire du compte flickr qui aurait pris la photo... Et ça n'arrive pas qu'à moi ! Je ne cherche pas trop mais il est possible qu'il y ait d'autres "mauvaises utilisations".

j'ai vu ton image sur FPC. la version taille max est de trop mauvaise qualité à 100%, et je trouve que la version réduite est bien meilleure. Elle n'a pas vraiment de détails en moins en plus. Personnellement, j'aurais nommé celle là. Benh 09:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Geolocate[edit]

Hi! How can I geolocate the photographs? with "coord"? Kadellar (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:ThaluraniaGlaucopis200805DarioSanches.jpg[edit]

Hi, I've nominated this picture and I didn't care that the picture was resized. I uploaded the original picture over the resized one. Please can you edit my nominated and get the picture as a candidate featured picture?

Zimbres (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see you already changed the picture yourself. However, you should not erase the previous picture, but add the new uploaded picture as "alternative 1", like this. --S23678 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

panorama tricks[edit]

Hello there,

thank you for your advice, it's greatly appreciated. Some of the things I have noticed as well as I work more and more with panorama, some things are new. I find it a real nuisance as well having to work with so much data at once sometimes and feel bad having to upload so much onto the Commons, unfortunately I am not an expert myself, but I try to give my best. I tried creating some panoramic images myself with Autostitch, however found the results myself not satisfying, having to revert to uploading each part and asking someone to do it instead. About the interior images such as here [1], it's totally fine to just use some of the images to get a proper stitching, not all of the parts have to be used in the end. sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kibaha pano[edit]

Hey,

Thanks for your comments about my image. I have nominated the image at QIC. Do you think it can be a QI? If yes, could you kindly vote for it there? I have a gallery of my images here. Would you please have a look? Regards Muhammad 08:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a more detailed view at you QIC image, and the histogram shows a clear overexposition, especially in the blue channel (because of the sky). When you are unsure that your exposition settings will create either over or underexposures, the best thing to do is to take the same panorama with multiple exposure settings (the first set being your best guess, and the others being more and less exposed).
As for your pictures, 2 caught my attention:
Image:Leotortoise2.jpg: I like the composition and details, but it would need a higher resolution.
Image:Onion whitebackground.jpg: Once again, good composition, good resolution, but looks slightly out of focus.
I think there is good potential in your pictures. Improve on the comments you recieve from other users and you should get FP's in no time. --S23678 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you taking time to review my pictures. Regards, Muhammad 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey again. Once again, I would like to thank you for taking time to review my images. Regarding your vote for my panorama of Bahati Camp waterfalls, I have replied to your concerns. Does that change your view? Is there any way I can convince you to do so, as your vote is currently the deciding factor? Regards Muhammad 12:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I will maintain my vote, and I will explain to you in details for sure as you request it (every of my votes are well thought, so I can explain the thinking process that led to every of my decisions), but only later... I can only access internet for a limited period of time until Tuesday. just wait a little for my answers. I would like to thank you for your politeness, it's very appreciated, since it's not embrassed by everyone voting and nominating on FP. --S23678 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture[edit]

Salut et encore merci pour ton message. En fait je fait plus ou moins mes débuts en tant que photographe pour Commons. J'ai présenté l'image comme featured picture parce que je pensais qu'elle était d'assez bonne résolution, mais j'avoue ne pas avoir pensé à la surexposition. J'aimerais pour comprendre un peu mieux te demander deux choses :

  • Concernant l'histogramme de l'image, je ne sais pas comment savoir quand il indique que l'image ou une partie de l'image est saturée. Comment on fait pour savoir ou pour lire cet histogramme?
  • Si tu as le temps, est-ce que tu peux jeter un coup d'oeil à quelques-unes de mes photos (User:Guérin Nicolas/gallery) et me dire quelles pourraient être candidates comme featured picture. Ou alors me dire comment tu fais tes choix rapidement quand tu dois voter pour une image candidate.

Merci et bonne continuation. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 12:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Encore merci pour les conseils! Je vais tâcher d'en tenir compte pour la prochaine fois. J'ai fais aussi pas mal de photos de fleurs, pour le cadre naturel c'est beaucoup plus facile. J'ai aussi de superbes photos d'abeilles, il faudrait que je les importe sur Commons. Bonne continuation et encore merci. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Désolé de te déranger encore, j'ai proposé certaines des photos à Commons:Quality images candidates. Il n'y a pas vraiment encore eu de vote, juste qu'en fouillant dans les archives, je me suis aperçu que beaucoup d'images candidates passaient à la trappe parce que simplement personne ne s'exprimait dessus (elles restaient à l'état de nomination), j'aimerais pas que cela m'arrive pour la première fois. Juste si tu peux donner ton vote (pour ou contre), ça me permettrait d'avancer pour la réalisation de mes prochaines photos ou mes futures propositions d'images candidates. Bonne continuation. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Merci pour ton vote, et tes explications. J'essaye de corriger mes erreurs (c'est comme cela qu'on apprend). Je suppose que DOF = Depth of focus = profondeur de champ, mais qu'est-ce cela implique pour les images Image:Parthenos sylvia (Wroclaw zoo)-1.JPG et Image:Morpho achilles (Wroclaw zoo).JPG? En gros, que faudrait-il que je fasse pour mieux réussir ces photos la prochaine fois? (modifier la distance focale? prendre un cadre plus large? faire la photo de plus loin ou de plus prêt? Faire la mise au point plus centrée/décentrée? autre?) Guérin Nicolas (messages) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Encore grand merci pour ton aide et ta patience avec moi. Je suis en train de relire le guideline des "Quality Images" et je le comprend mieux grâce à tes explications. Bonne continuation. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 08:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Pérou et touts autres pays[edit]

Bonjour, Merci pour votre opinion! Je ne suis pas de tout d'accord (évidemment). C'est vrai que le chinois peut être très difficile à comprendre pour les Occidentaux mais l'espagnol n'est pas le chinois (heureusement). Personnellement, je pense qu'on devrait toujours utiliser la langue locale avec transcription/explication pour les langues qui n'utilisent pas l'alphabet latin.

En plus, il ne faut pas oublier que le chinois et l'espagnol sont des langues qui sont plus parlés que l'anglais et cette utilisation exagérée de l'anglais ressemble donc à impérialisme linguistique. Aaker (talk) 17:29, 22 juillet 2008 (TUC)

Feature candidate - wishie[edit]

I used the next camera image, and I believe I have the size now. I won't crop it smaller till you tell me if I have it or not. Kind Regards....SriMesh | talk 04:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your words. I tried to compare to a few other pics. I will keep plodding along. Sometims tis good to do just to learn a thing or two. SriMesh | talk 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
RE-read your message, and peeked at your pics...Were you in All those Places? Your pics are so awesome! Your waterfalls mmmmmmm :-) SriMesh | talk 04:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re;Translation[edit]

"每日图片"(Picture of the day)is an important module of main page of Zh wiki, and the pictures are synchronized with Commons "Picture of the day". 1 is a brief description in commons, and 2 is a detailed description in zh wiki, mostly focus on the description of object in picture. For example, the main item of this picture is Sacsayhuamán, so I even create a new article 萨克塞华曼 in zh wiki for the picture and copy part of the article to 2 for module size limitation. I am admin of Zh wiki and responslble for module "每日图片"(Picture of the day). So both 1 and 2 is written by me. -) If you have any suggestion, please feel free let me know.--Mywood (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dendrocygna bicolor[edit]

Bonjour S23678,

Il y a quelques semaines, j'avais proposé une photographie comme image remarquable (ici). Malheureusement pour moi, elle n'a pas été promue. Suite aux critiques qui avait été faites, j'ai proposé une nouvelle version, recadrée.

Pourrais-tu donner ton avis, sur la page de vote, s'il-te-plaît ?

Merci d'avance. Peter17 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Iguazu falls[edit]

Magnificently beautiful picture of Iguazu falls! I've nominated it for featured picture status. See w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iguazu falls Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tortoise FPC[edit]

Hey Martin, some time ago, you reviewed my images from my gallery and commented that the tortoise one was a good candidate for FP. I have nominated the image for FPC. Would you kindly vote for it here? Muhammad 11:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pont de Brooklyn de nuit - Octobre 2008 edit.jpg[edit]

Salut Martin. J'ai essayé quelque chose. Lycaon (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Landing egret in GGP new.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Landing egret in GGP new.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal[edit]

I wrote a proposal for equalizing the different picture formats on FPC Please have a look. Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quebec[edit]

Yes, much better now.   • Richard[®] • 10:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quebec II[edit]

Hey Esstwothresixseveneight... I nominated your 78_Quebec picture (the uncropped version) on the german FPC a few days ago. There are still some technical glitches in there. I do not mind the missing blending in the water too much, but there is a perforation like series of black dots near the bottom edge of the frame. Do you still have a non-lossy compressed version to edit this out from (and some dust spots)? --Dschwen (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your nomination Daniel. I sadly discarded my TIFF version of the panorama. The dots were added by the Enfuse program for a reason I'm still trying to figure out (it's not the first time that it happens). I can't read german, but I guess people can be against modifying a JPEG since it's a lossy format. However, the image was saved at the highest JPEG quality possible, and compression artefacts will not be visible if modifications are done only once to the original JPEG image. If it's not possible, I can rebuild another panorama, but it will take some time since I'm busy as well on my Machu Picchu nomination (the un-cropped version of the panorama was never intended for FP status, a lot more work was put in the cropped version). Contact me if you think a new version of the file is needed. --S23678 (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That is interesting. Which enfuse version are you using? --Dschwen (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Version 3.2. I use EnfuseGUI 2.0 beta 2 as a graphic interface (link)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, S23678!

Tip: Add categories to your images

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:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

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"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

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 00:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

image[edit]

Well, here it is, but I am not sure why you asked for it File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge original.jpg In my edit I ajusted contrasts and removed some noise. If you're to work with the original, there will be lots of extra work for you I believe. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sorry?[edit]

Hey, eventually every building will turn into a big pile of rubble ;) But about FPC - I think some people have a twisted idea about what FP is and what isn't. And sometimes I think self-nomination should be prohibited because of some attachment-related problems... But generally I'm happy that you have similar views to mine :) --Leafnode 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a different view. I haven't ever considered FP as a motivation for making great pictures. I try to make good pictures because I then enjoy looking at them. Having a FP is nice of course, and it's a great honor, but as you can see, nowadays FP's quality is random. People vote basing on a random measures. Sometime they twist the measures to their liking. And most of all, I haven't ever considered self-nominations, because I think it's vain to call your own work "the very best" ;) Especially if a person is doing mass-self-nominations. About 'not liking' - I think you are a bit too harsh, and that's why people are responding badly. I try to avoid conflicts, because I think that as and administrator and OTRS volunteer I have to be conciliatory :) --Leafnode 10:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Advise[edit]

Follow your advise, what are you think about these two images, I can't understant Image guidelines: . Thasks you so much. My EN level is bad.-- (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • First, good job on asking for advices, this is the good move. Second, try using Google translate to help with understanding the VERY STRICT guidelines of FPC (Featured Picture Candidate). Third, you must understand that featured pictures are about finding and promoting the VERY BEST images of commons. Currently, there's less than 1 out of every 3000 images that are considered Featured Pictures. Personally, this is about the ratio of my nominations as well : I nominate about 1 out of every 3000 pictures I am taking. This should be considered by you when you are thinking about nominating an image : is this image really exceptional? Do I see any quality defaults? Is the composition optimal?
  • As for advices on your image, the short answer is that you should not nominate these for FPC, because of a number of defects in quality and composition. But I prefer to learn you fishing than catching a fish for you. So, I would like you to assess your 2 images according to the guidelines, and to tell me why you think they are good for FP. From there, we can get you up to par with general FPC nominators. So, I'll be waiting for your comments --S23678 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

* Trước tiên, tốt công việc trên xin lời khuyên, đây là di chuyển tốt. Thứ hai, hãy thử sử dụng Google dịch để giúp đỡ với sự hiểu biết các nguyên tắc NGHIÊM NGẶT VERY của FPC (đặc Picture Ứng Viên). Thứ ba, bạn phải hiểu rằng hình ảnh đặc trưng là về việc tìm kiếm và quảng bá hình ảnh BEST VERY của commons. Hiện nay, có ít hơn 1 trên mỗi 3.000 hình ảnh đó được coi là đặc trưng Pictures. Cá nhân, đây là về tỷ lệ của đề cử của tôi cũng: Tôi đề cử khoảng 1 trên mỗi 3.000 hình ảnh tôi chụp. Điều này cần được coi là của bạn khi bạn đang suy nghĩ về đề cử một hình ảnh: là hình ảnh này thật sự đặc biệt? Tôi thấy bất cứ mặc định chất lượng? Là thành phần tối ưu? Đối với tư vấn về hình ảnh của bạn, câu trả lời ngắn là bạn không nên đề cử cho các FPC, bởi vì một số khiếm khuyết trong chất lượng và thành phần. Nhưng tôi thích để tìm hiểu bạn đánh cá hơn đánh bắt cá cho bạn. Vì vậy, tôi muốn bạn để đánh giá 2 hình ảnh của bạn theo các nguyên tắc, và cho tôi biết lý do tại sao bạn nghĩ rằng họ là tốt cho FP. Từ đó, chúng tôi có thể giúp bạn có được lên đến ngang hàng với tổng nominators FPC. Vì vậy, tôi sẽ chờ ý kiến của bạn - S23678 (thảo luận) 16:21, ngày 4 tháng 11 2009 (UTC)

OK, i read it, and I think think this Image to "satisfy" it , except The distortions. What you thinks?-- (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • No, we're not quite there yet. I'll send you to read about noise and Overexposure, and I want you to tell me about them for each of your images. Don't show me more images, I want you to analyze the ones already on this page. --S23678 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Không, chúng tôi không khá có được nêu ra. Tôi sẽ gửi cho bạn đọc về tiếng ồn và Overexposure, và tôi muốn các bạn cho tôi biết về họ cho mỗi hình ảnh của bạn. Không hiển thị hình ảnh tôi nhiều hơn, tôi muốn bạn để phân tích những cái đã có trên trang này. - S23678 (thảo luận) 13:35, ngày 5 tháng 11 2009 (UTC)

So sorry.-- (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Please, read again / Xin vui lòng đọc lại --S23678 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Please, don't angry. I am exploring "how is the noise". Sorry so much because that. :{-- (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Next step[edit]

Ok Mr Lê, let's go to the next step. We will look at resolution, focus, and composition.

  • Resolution and sharpness : first read here. Then, the guidelines says that an image must have a minimum resolution of 2000000 pixels (2 millions pixels = 2 mpx). So, first thing is to calculate the image resolution : height X length = resolution. After, you must look of the amount of detail in the image is good. Today's cameras can easily have over 10 mpx, so if your image have only 2 mpx, every part of the image must be absolutely sharp. If the image is larger than 2 mpx (10 mpx for example), the image can be less sharp when viewed in full zoom, since it's bigger
  • Focus : first read this. Focus must always be good on the main subject. For the parts outside the main subject, it's a personal choice :
  • When only the main subject is in focus, the main subject is isolated from it's surroundings. It brings the attention on the main subject
  • When everything is in focus, it may be because the subject is very flat, but it's generally because we want the main subject to be presented with his surroundings.
  • Composition : this is very very personal point. You must look at the image and think : "is this the best possible image of that scene?". Are the colors good? Does all the parts of the image seems at the "good place?"
I will provide you with some examples :
colors good
colors not good
Composition good
Composition not good

Exercices[edit]

So let's do the same exercices with what I just showed you :

trái

  • Noise : present or not?
    No, it very clear.
    • Actually, a little bit of noise is present in the sky, but it can sometimes be forgiven in such night shots, so float
  • Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?
    Too shine?
    • Yes, a large part of the picture is overexposed, and the lights have too large large overexposed rays, so float
  • Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?
    2207914. Yes.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Details : Is there a large amount of details?
    No.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Focus : is the focus good?
    No.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Composition : is the composition good?
    Yes, I feel ligh rays is good with street lights.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    Personally, I would call this a messy composition. The subject is not clear.

phải

  • Noise : present or not?
    No, I just see two black zone.-- (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    There is noise in dark areas. Since it's on the main subject, it's not good, so float
  • Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?
    Yes.-- (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    The exposure is incorrect because a large portion of the sky is white, so float
  • Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?
    Yes, 2509056.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Details : Is there a large amount of details?
    Yes, I can see every point of it.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Focus : is the focus good?
    No.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Composition : is the composition good?
    No.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Church shrine-other.jpg

  • Noise : present or not?
    I don't see.
    You are right, so float
  • Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?
    I feel it exposured after second angel.-- (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    Exactly, the wall is completly overexposed, so float
  • Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?
    Yes, 2392716.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Details : Is there a large amount of details?
    Yes.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Focus : is the focus good?
    Yes.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Composition : is the composition good?
    Yes.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sparkle water drop-other.jpg

  • Noise : present or not?
    Yes
    Yes, there is noise, in the out-of-focus area, so float
  • Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?
    No
    The exposure looks ok to me as well, so float
  • Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?
    Yes, 2130084.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Details : Is there a large amount of details?
    Yes, I can see manything in the water.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Focus : is the focus good?
    Yes, I think.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Composition : is the composition good?
    Yes, with pink and white.-- (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good job. So, we just went through the basics of FPC evaluation, and your judging capabilities went up quite a bit here. Normally, if you can answer "no" to one of these 5 major points, the picture will get rejected quickly. If you can answer "yes" to all of them, there's still a very large number of minor reasons why a picture can get rejected (just look at all the reasons given beside Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose signs in the nomination page for examples). Remember, you should only nominate the pictures that are the best of the best. Being just "good" is usually not good enough. So, you can go back to seek possible FPC, and I'll be glad to give you my advice before you nominate it. You can seek the advice of other regular contributors as well. --S23678 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Thanks. :D-- (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice 2[edit]

It is a good idea,I mean asking for advise:) I like it. S23678, what do you think about that one File:Vineyard and winery in Napa Valley.jpg? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Mila, first thing : my guess is that you seek advice for FPC, so I will tell you what I think based on the guidelines. Ok, my main concern here is light conditions. The contrasts are very (too) high between areas under direct sunshine and shade areas. This divides your picture in roughly 4 horizontal bands : sky (light), house (dark), top of the vines (light) and side of the vines (dark). As a personal opinion, this would cut me out from supporting your picture. After, there's some quality issues in the sky, already pointed-out by a tag. Finally, there's a CCW tilt that should be corrected. Apart from there points, the quality is generally good. The exposure is good (although the sky is near clipping in the blue channel), good focus. For composition, I would have liked that big dark tree on the right side not to be cut so close to the house, and I may have trimmed the foot of the vines, giving your picture a square look, but "je m'accroche dans les fleurs du tapis ici"
  • I went in depth here, but my intention is not to destroy by words your work. As I said earlier to Mr Lê, I nominate one in about every 3000 pictures I am taking, so I can assure you that picture is far better than the majority of the pictures I am taking, and you must consider this one to be special since you are asking my advice. So, I can assure you your picture don't "suck", I just think it's a step short from FP. --S23678 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Possible nominations[edit]

From photos you've chosen, I'd discard photos 102, 103, 124 and 93. They are nice, but not very impressive - and for some that is the key feature they look for in FP. Image 99 is great - although it is taken in front of the sun, thus contains flare, but I'd vote for it. From your other pictures, number 100 is very interesting, but colors are a bit washed off. I understand that here lighting conditions were to be accounted for, but maybe come playing with color curves could help. File:Ara macao in Itahuania2.jpg is also nice - beak is overblown, but it's easy to correct. --Leafnode 08:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making derivative and tampered a bit with your photo, and here's the result: File:9 - Itahuania - Août 2008 retouched.jpg. Maybe you'll like it :) --Leafnode 10:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day[edit]

Hey, thanks for the tip regarding the UTC clock, it's quite useful. And yes, the word is 'preferences', quite a lot of English words are derived from or copy their French equivalents. Also, I think the word you were looking for is 'correct' ('correct english word'). With regard to your question about shock trials; I've never heard of there being any catastrophic failures (some things may shake loose, but there's generally no major damage), and the tests have been going on for quite a while. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question[edit]

Hi, I'd like to let you know that I do not consider your question about downsampling to be fair, not as long as you do not ask the same question others, who downsample images much, much more than I do, but, yes, the image was downsampled. I cannot carry a good tripod. It is way too heavy for me. Tripod that I use is not good, and even a slight wind makes a big difference. Does it mean that I should stop taking long shots exposure, or take them, but do not nominate? I do not know, but I do not think so. Please feel free to oppose the image. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Following the discussion in the talk page about downsampling, I realize that as much as I dislike downsampling, I was to blame since I did not expressed my thoughts and encouraged users to bring full resolution versions enough. Still, you'll realize that downsampling isn't the first thing I brought on the table when we discussed about your nomination, and I never stated it as a possible reason to oppose. I was about to write a word encouraging you to bring the full resolution up, but I couldn't determine for sure that it was a downsampled version (I got caught here). As for the quality problems causing you to downsample, I personally downsample full resolution images by software when I fell they would not be fairly treated only because they are at full resolution, and I vote for them based on the downsampled version. I personally hold in high esteem authors who do so, since IMHO, they are thinking not just at getting that FP star on their image, but at all the subsequent applications as well. --S23678 (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you last statement, excpt IMO, if a full resolution image has some quality problems, not only FP project, but other Commons projects as well will not benefit from the full resolution image. Besides as I mentioned at FPC talk page I do believe that many images do not have to be a high resolution at all to introduce the subject well and to be valuabale like, for example, my fogbow image.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I very sure we won't be able to agree on the downsampling issue, but I have to point out that I really, really don't believe any image can benefit in quality with downsampling. Apparent quality yes, real quality, no. This has been demonstrated here. Have a special look at image number 3. For your fogbow image example, if a person was to use this image for future large-scale applications (for example, use a crop of the upper part of the bow), he would have better quality options from the full resolution version than the downsampled one. --S23678 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not[edit]

Hi, I linked your edit versus displaying a huge, bad image in the nomination. It was confusing, unwanted and unneeded.You want to oppose the image, please do (I will not be surprised), but please do not put your edit back. I do not think you would have liked, if somebody did something like that with your nomination, and BTW forget about the posterization I like the colors of my original better. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • On numerous occasions, I've provided assistance to nominations where I saw an improvement could be done to make it better (recent example). I never (to the best I can remember) got blamed for proposing an edited alternative until now... I've even helped you to correct some tilt in previous nomination, and some of my images have been corrected by others as well (most recently this very good edit by Leafnode). I see FPC as a collaborative community, but you seem to have a very unilateral approach to it on some occasions : "if you don't like my work, I hate you". I invite you to review your opinion of my edit from an aggressive one to a good faith one, because that's what it was, a good faith edit. --S23678 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Your edit was not an alternative. I did not ask you not to edit my images. I only asked you not to add your edit to the nomination the way you did, as it is alternative, when it is not. Nobody ever done it before, and it was a bad tone as much as I am concerned. Besides it was very confusing. Some users do not know English good enough to understand the image was not for voting, the bot would have also treated it as alternative, which would have created an extra work for the closer of the nomination. Of course you do not know that because I do not recall you ever clossed the nominations in our "collaborative community". I took the image off, but I linked to it, which is good enough IMO. At least two users, but me commented on your "alternative", so your work was not lost. Of course I do not hate you, and I still believe you should give it another thought before doing something like that. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

:)[edit]

Well, when I said I retiered, I meant I retiered from uploading new images at least for the foreseeable feature. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. So no new images means no new FP nominations from me, but if you still would like to continue the discussion we could do it. Of course I could get blocked once again and then I will be able to edit only my own talk page. If it is the case, we could do it on my talk page versus the place you suggested. It will be even interesting, and something to think about during the block :) Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I did as you asked. With all my heart I wish you all the best and of course new great images!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

When you are back...[edit]

check out this new large-image viewer for commons: http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/iip/wip.php?f=122_-_Toronto_-_Septembre_2009.jpg --Dschwen (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great tool! I'm actually working on the pictures from my last trip to South America (this is why I still have my "short break" status on), especially on a 2.2 gigapixel image of the city of Cusco. This tool should be of great use for that image. Thanks! --S23678 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I'm. File:122 - Toronto - Septembre 2009.jpg What time did you take this photograph ? Twilight ? Dawn? --Captain Bradley (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

From 20:10 to 20:15 local time. --S23678 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I promoted that pic on spanish Wikipedia and... see the result :) Felicidades! --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo retouching[edit]

Hi S23678, File:79 - Québec - Juin 2009.jpg We choose the best? Photo retouching check using "invert". User:Alians PL

Photo retouching check using "invert"
Dust map on my sensor before cleaning
  • The point you are highlighting is a dust that was on my sensor, which is more visible on this picture on the right (the big spot on top left). I obviously failed to remove this one when I did my post-processing. Still, on a 55 mpx picture, I feel it's not too much of a visible flaw. If you wish to correct it, please do so, and upload the result as a new image. --S23678 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh man, good that I still have your talk page on my watchlist. That's another one for my scrapbook. Btw. that sensor looks filthy!  ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Was filthy... But, as far I looked, only the monster spot on top left ever left it's mark in my pictures. Still, I had quite a surprise (bad one) when I took that picture...! --S23678 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Without emotion. The information contained in the EXIF know that photography is set to a large panoramic print - 90 to 20 cm. Because there are still problems with the calibration of monitors and printers, so printed image can vary, for example, may receive such a blur. Therefore, in the context of this project I made a note. User:Alians PL

Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Option_3_.281_active_nomination.29[edit]

You voted to support this. I can only presume you haven't thouight this through:

Consider:

  • Those that nominate good FPs must wait 10 days to nominate again.
  • Those that noiminate bad FPCs need only wait 5 days (Rule of fifth day closure) or even just 1-2 days (FPX).

This means that the spammers will be able to put out more than the good contributors at a rate of as much as 10 to 1 in the worst cases.

Further, it's not unusual for potential FPCs to get finished in batches. A photographer comes back from vacation, or a restorationist finishes several projects in a burst of enthusiasm.

This proposal would force people to work on a timescale lengthy enough to kill all enthusiasm.

It gets worse:

This gives a strong disincentive against nominating work by anyone but yourself. People who go through and select high-quality works by others are usually to be praised, however, this proposal causes them to be punished.

I would ask that you reconsider your vote, and consider options 2 or 5, which are more restrictions than are currently in place, and which may always be built upon or increased later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The 5 day rule goes both ways, so excellent pictures should only be there for 5 days.
  • Someone nominating multiple FPX or terrible pictures has no chances, IMO, to "lower the bar", since a FPX or a "no support" nomination has no chances to get promoted. What's dangerous is what I explained on the talk page, where one nominates 10 not-that-good-not-that-bad FPCs, and the best of the bunch (still sub-standard) gets promoted, mostly by pity from the evaluators.
  • A very prolific contributor can ask others to nominate their work, giving that extra peer review that can filter the not-so-good work.
  • Finally, I see you're very prolific into non-photographic work. My personal opinion is that non-photographic media should be evaluated in a completely different forum than pictures, since they are so different. But since most of the nominations are pictures, the votes currently underway tend to mostly address the problems we have with pictures nominations.
  • What's the problem with waiting 10 days between nominations? I doubt anyone can maintain 36 FPCs a year (more, with the 5 day rule, or peer nomination). What is it to wait 1-2-3 weeks when you have a bunch of new possible FPCs? Where's the rush into having all of them as FPCs right away? Although I don't have that much of FP's myself, every of my nomination is a long though process, which I think give me a high success rate. What is it to sacrifice a bit of the rapidity at which we nominate images, if it's for the greater good?
  • In the end, there's no perfect solution, we must go with the lesser evil. And I think that a lower amount of FPs with better general quality is better than high amount of FP with lower quality.
  • Note: from tomorrow, I'll be in the impossibility to connect for at least 2 weeks. I will not be able to answer during that time. --S23678 (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

173 - Torres del Paines - Janvier 2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 173 - Torres del Paines - Janvier 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

175 - Torres del Paines - Janvier 2010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 175 - Torres del Paines - Janvier 2010.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely Lophotrochozoa (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)