User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive10

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

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Tomar December 2008-11.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tomar December 2008-11.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.

Convento Cristo December 2008-6a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Convento Cristo December 2008-6a.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.

Convento Cristo December 2008-8.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Convento Cristo Decemebr 2008-8.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.

FP Promotion[edit]

Convento Cristo December 2008-2a.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Convento Cristo December 2008-2a.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Convento Cristo December 2008-2a.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FP question[edit]

Hi Joaquim,
Happy New Year!
I have an FP image File:Hot Springs of Pamukkale Turkey.jpg. It was nominated on English wikipedia and Diliff was kind enough to make much better version from my original. Here's the work by Diliff File:Hot springs of Pamukkale edit cropped.JPG. May I please ask you, If I am allowed to swap the current FP on commons with this new version? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • A wonderful New Year to you too, Mila! Because the new picture is not just a "cleaned" version of the original, my opinion is that you shouldn't just upload it on top of the featured one. What about running a "delist and replace" nomination at the end of the FPC page? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Joaquim. I guess I'll let it go at least until POTY is over. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Special prize of the Jury[edit]

I'm not opposed to this, but my one worry is that it's getting very late to be organising it - I mean, really, we want to do the first round next week, so that we don't go too far into the new year.

The only way I could see it working is if we took, say, the top ten people each from the finals of 2006 and 2007, and asked them to join the jury. That's theoretically about 15 people once you cut the non-Wikipedians; I doubt all of them will do it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think it would work as most of them are probably not active. The second possibility is to invite all members of the MOP gallery, but that won't work either because there aren't enough of them and some are also inactive. The third solution (the one I prefer) is to start now a poll and run it for, say, one week. It won't matter if POTY 2008 has already started because the juri will only be needed for the second phase. Anyone with n (n=2 or 3?) FP could be a candidate and the m (m=15, 20?) with more support votes would be elected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • What about an hybrid thing: invite all members of Commons:Meet our photographers and make a poll to complete the number? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Presuming that Wuzur gets back to me in good time, we just don't have time for a poll. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read[edit]

Joaquim, please read proposal for FPC gudelines in the discussion page #REDIRECT [[1]]. I believe that concensus could and should be built in order to improve quality of the page, project, etc. It is clear that there are disagreements on the personal level for some, but I believe that everybody agrees that there is definitely room for improvement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Flowers February 2009-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flowers February 2009-1.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Porto Covo February 2009-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porto Covo February 2009-1.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.

FP Promotion[edit]

Chicken February 2009-1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Chicken February 2009-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicken February 2009-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

Best regards, --Karel (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Porto Covo February 2009-2.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tidepool.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

The restorationists community[edit]

Hoi, for your information. Our community is using skype chat for our conversations. We have a growing group of people in there. We have technical requirements that Commons cannot meet. We have asked for our own wiki when it is not possible to get our technical requirements met. They are support for .tiff files and an upload size of up to 750 MB. We have been talking about this with Brion Vibber and Erik Moeller. Today I learned that I have to talk to Michael Dale about technical details. We are talking to several archives about making material available to us. We are coordinating these efforts with Mathias Schindler of the German Wikipedia Verein who has expertise on this.

NB Durova used to be American Navy.. :)

Thanks, GerardM (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Alves probably uses his real name. Gerard probably uses his(?) real name. I use my real name. Many of the "Meet the Photographers" use their real names and have images of themselves available here in case there is doubt. Durova uses the name of a Russian cross-dresser. What does the Navy think about that? Do they want to claim that girl who politiced her way around English wikipedia asking "Give a girl a break."? These are the questions and things that concern me here.
Also, by American Navy, do you mean the United States Military or the American based clothing company? -- carol (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations for the initiative! I wish you good luck and the continuation of the good work. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bellows[edit]

Hi Alves, I want to get a higher magnification and Richard mentioned that you had some experience using bellows, so I was hoping you could advise me in a few issues.

What is the max magnification possible?
How is it calculated?
Would a bellow work with my Sigma 150mm macro lens?
What is the wroking distance?
Is there any change in quality, DOF?
Any other info?

Regards, --Muhammad 06:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Let me try to answer to your questions. But first, you should remember that the use of extension tubes (or a bellows) is one of the two cheap alternative to a better macro lens (the other is the close-up lens). Using and extension tube does not alter the optical properties of your lens, it just permits to focus closer to the subject. But it has a price in terms of quality (softness, CA, distortion) and loss of light, because the optical system was not designed with that purpose. When I replaced my old 1:2 Tokina 100mm by the newer 1:1 model I stoped using extension tubes. Now the answers:
    1. The only limit is physical. We'll get to a point when it is no longer possible to focus, because the focusing position of the subject will be ... inside the lens. The limit depends on the focal distance.
    2. There is a simple formula: D = G x F, where D is the extension, F is the focal distance and G is the magnification. For example, with a 50mm lens focused to infinity and a 50mm extension tube we get a 1:1 magnification.
    3. I can't see why not, only I don't see the need. Bellows are usually used with non-macro lenses.
    4. The working distance depends on the terms of the formula above.
    5. Yes, definitely. DOF becomes very shallow when we approach the subject (a couple of milimeters with my Tokina 100mm 1:1 at its shortest range). There are DOF calculators available in the web.
    6. Use a tripode, or a sac of beans, whenever possible.
    7. The automatic exposure of your camera does not work well in such conditions, use manual and experiment first.
    8. Good work -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all the information. I am getting bored with the 1:1 magnification and can't afford the MPE-65mm lens so will have to do with these for now. --Muhammad 07:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • How can you be bored with such a good lens as the Sigma 150mm? I'm planning to buy one too when I grow up. The MPE-65 is only for rich fellows like Richard ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I am bored with the magnification. I always imagined being able to see the individual lenses in the compund eyes but the lens can not provide that. One day hopefully, I will but the MPE and maybe someday an electron microscope ;-) --Muhammad 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sextant[edit]

Hello Alves,

I really like your animation File:Using sextant swing.gif. For educational purposes, this way of showing may be good. Normal practice however, is to point at the object and then bring the sun to the horizon, the reason being that the horizon is easier to find then a star. Another option used, is to calculate what the altitude should be, or look it up in the Sight Reduction Tables, set the sextant at that angle, and fine-tune it by bringing the small difference to the horizon. What is your opinion on this? Regards, BoH (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I used both ways, the first for the sun and the second for the stars. Very seldom I used the quick method of the "Sight Reduction Tables for Air Navigation" (HO 249). Identifying the stars was a challenge and a pleasure! But astro navigation is dying, the only way to make it relevant again is to start an international crysis and make the Americans switch the GPS off... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I must admit that for the sun the displayed method is not too difficult. And if you do it for pleasure, identifying the stars is indeed an added bonus. If used for navigation however, HO 249 is invaluable to get a quick fix. But that is besides the point. After your reply, I think I will only add a note that for stars the prefered method (see Bowditch) is different. By the way, in the Netherlands aprentices of nautical colleges still have to take some star fixes. Which is, I have to admit, is the only time I still take these fixes with them, to sometimes find out to my embarresment that I have become a bit rusty. :) Hopefully my writing an article about it on :nl helps. Having said all that; it truly is a marvelous animation you have made! Regards, BoH (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Convento Cristo December 2008-6a.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Refectory.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Any better?[edit]

Hi Joaquim, Thank you for your comment on my image. I did the changes as you suggestedFile:Lake Tenaya in Yosemite NP edit 1.jpg. May I please ask you, if you like it better? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, Mila, much better now! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

FP Protests[edit]

Hi. Could you please stop disrupting the FP process in order to make a point. If you have a problem with the page, bring it up on the talk page, on its creators talk pages, or on village pump. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe you will understand better what's going on if you read carefully the discussiom in FPC talk page. It is not my intention to disrupt the FP process (to which I have contributed much over the last years) but to save it from the present abuses and call the attention of the casual voters to what they are really voting for. if you like, take the protest as a justification to my oppose vote. Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    No, it's still being disruptive. Take your fight to a talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe so, although this is not Wikipedia. Sometimes it is necessary to provoke a little disruption in order to prevent or stop a larger one. If my protest will make the abusive edits to be reverted (here and here and the discussion to be resumed at its proper place, than my action will be justified. Why is that only these little sins are immediately spotted by admins, and gross violations like the one under discussion are not? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not necessary and you know it. I'm involved because someone told me, and I wanted to talk to you about it. If you have a problem with a system, you take it to the talk page or village pump. You do not disrupt commons just to be an ass. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, now that you know exactly what's going on (because I told you), maybe you also want to express your opinion, and inforce Wikimedia policy, on the matter under discussion. Unless you consider those actions as a minor issue when compared with my disruption. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Lizard March 2009-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lizard March 2009-1.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.

Insect 'opposes'[edit]

Check out the great number of No WOW, opposes some of our insect pictures are receiving at FPC by a user. --Muhammad (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't like it either but there is nothing we can do. He had a bad day, perhaps? Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Or maybe he's simply difficult to impress and insect pictures have no wow for him... Part of the game, no? --Eusebius (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
      • No, I don;t think its a bad day thing. The user has been opposing many insect pictures and an overview of those comments will illustrate my frustration. Ah, nothing we can do, one reason why I prefer en FPC :) --Muhammad (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)