User talk:Alvesgaspar/archive5

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

Contents

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Bombus September 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bombus September 2007-2.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]

Eristalis September 2007-3a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalis September 2007-3a.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.

Bombus September 2007-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bombus September 2007-4.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]

PanoMontBlancHDR edit 1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

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

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:The Photographer.jpg[edit]

Hi,
There actually isn't any mystery about the direction this guy is walking - it would be impossible for the LHS leg to look like that if he was walking away. From that leg position is obvious that he is walking towards the camera. I would bet a large sum of money on this --124.180.216.8 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Fly September 2007-16.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly September 2007-16.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.

Spider September 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Spider September 2007-1.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]

Hoverfly October 2007-1a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly October 2007-1a.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.

Hoverfly October 2007-2a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly October 2007-2a.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.

enWP[edit]

Dear Alvesgaspar, i have a question about the voting rules on the enWP. How many support you need to become a FP on enWP? On this poll i counted just 4 support votes but the picture gone featured. What do you think ? Best regards --Richard Bartz 13:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I was reading that you need only 4 support votes on enWP so the nom is ok i think. --Richard Bartz 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal concerning User PH-n templates[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar, I've written a proposal concerning the {{User PH-0}},...,{{User PH-3}} templates, that you may be interested in. Best regards Slaunger 09:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Alvesgaspar,
You have previously shown interest in my proposal for redefined PH-n user templates. Quite some number of new points have been raised, and I feel the discussion is dying out without having reached a consensus. If you have further input to the discussion feel free to join. -- Slaunger 07:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Pigeon 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pigeon 2007-1.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.

Bouncing ball FP candidate[edit]

There is a new extremely professional re-edit from my original RAW file by Richard Bartz, and I'd urge you to vote for this instead of my own imperfect Photoshop efforts. Thanks very much to Richard for the work he's put in. Please consider voting or amending your vote at: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bouncing ball - strobe.jpg. --MichaelMaggs 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Fly October 2007-12.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly October 2007-12.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.

Sunset 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sunset 2007-1.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]

Pythagoras-2a.gif
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Pythagoras-2a.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pythagoras-2.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Pumpmeup 06:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just dropped by to say how much I enjoy watching this :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, especially impressed on how rapidly you took on suggestions and improved the animation :-) --Tony Wills 09:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I saw that, I think en:FP and commons:FP are both tending towards looking at beautiful and high technical quality images and are discounting value. Perhaps it is just a matter of having too much to choose from and that is the easiest way to narrow the field. After seeing how some of Mbz1's contributions were treated I was considering starting a 'valuable' images tagging scheme (along the lines of QI or FP), but selecting primarily on content 'value'. --Tony Wills 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fotografia HDR[edit]

Olá, AlvesGaspar
"Descobri" o HDR, isto é, a forma de trabalhar HDR. Queria perguntar-te se trabalhas com isso. Se sim, se conheces o software disponível. Parece que o mais comum é o Photomatix mas é caro (relativamente). E se usas bracketing (que a minha máquina não faz, faço à pata) ou se usas RAW. Com tantos nomes e siglas até parece que sei muito do assunto, mas estou só a estudar...
Outra coisas, não estarias interessado em colaborar com alguns artigos sobre fotografia na Wikipédia portuguesa? Está tão pobrezinha nesse campo...
AbraçoMarioM 10:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Só para concluir sobre HDR, que estou a achar muito interessante. Este método permite tratar imagens com uma gama dinâmica muito alta, por exemplo, fotos em contra luz, sombras muito acentuadas, objectos com zonas muito escuras e outras muito claras. Imagina uma contraluz em que queres que se veja os pormenores do objecto: normalmente o fundo fica sobrexposto, perdes cor, fica mal. Com esta técnica consegues equilibrar as diferenças. Lembras-te de ter perguntado como evitar/eliminar que o peito do marabu ficasse queimado? Esta seria a solução. Claro que se pode usar o processo para fazer outras coisas engraçadas mas que ficam com ar surreal.
Quanto a colaborar em COM:FPC ou COM:QIC, acho que sim, vou tentar. Mas nem sempre tenho tempo (bom eufemismo para preguiça, não?). Abraço MarioM 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Wasp October 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wasp October 2007-5.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]

Hoverfly October 2007-21.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly October 2007-21.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.

Fly September 2007-6.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly September 2007-6.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]

Hoverfly October 2007-3a.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly October 2007-3a.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]

Bumblebee 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bumblebee 2007-2.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]

Woodlouse 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Woodlouse 2007-1.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.

Image:Eristalinus October 2007-2.jpg[edit]

I nominated this image for FP, great shot! Calibas 16:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Eristalinus October 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalinus October 2007-1.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]

Fly October 2007-16.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly October 2007-16.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]

Eristalinus October 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalinus October 2007-2.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.

Eristalinus October 2007-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalinus October 2007-3.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]

Foz do Arelho MAR07-1.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Foz do Arelho MAR07-1.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.

Bee October 2007-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bee October 2007-4.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]

Hoverfly October 2007-21.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Hoverfly October 2007-21.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hoverfly October 2007-21.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Laitche 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Eristalinus October 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalinus October 2007-5.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.

Bombyliidae 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bombyliidae 2007-1.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.

Skip and Chip[edit]

Do you know of Skip and Chip? There are no images online that I can find, sorry about that. They are described as dung beetles so the rest of the description there about the fruit flies that are always there around their heads is probably not accurate and they are simply flies. Do you have a brother? -- carol 06:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to this here.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Volucella September 2007-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Volucella September 2007-4.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.

Involvement[edit]

All some combinations of people can do effectively together is inspire others to not become involved, I think.

Thank you for that final push towards that understanding. -- carol 22:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Anthidium September 2007-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Anthidium September 2007-3.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.

Eristalis October 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalis October 2007-1.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]

Bumblebee October 2007-3.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Bumblebee October 2007-3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bumblebee October 2007-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Laitche 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had a fly swatter.... All I have is a fly squatter though[edit]

I read the Quality Image guidelines carefully and thought, "Huh, I do have images to contribute." I cite for this the Purpose. "Additionally quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image."

That image is from a scan of a 1960 document. How old are you? If you are almost 50 and not looking like a hunky 19 year old, what do you think should happen? -- carol 13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Every time I receive a message from you I'm sent to the dictionary. Good, my English is improving fast... Of course, I'll not satisfy your curiosity... but give you a hint. As about the quality of old photos, please look at this one, made in my home lab, with technology of the sixties - Alvesgaspar 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize because there is some encyclopedic use for this image (I love the image and have since I saw it in the FP stream and other places) It has its enclopedic value for an article about how to take a great photograph and it shows images by a great photographer (or by some great photographers). I suggest that the contest be renamed "Quality Photographs" because it is only about great photographers and great photographs and rarely about great images. Also, wikipedia could be just about being a great photographer and taking great photographs. In all languages, all around the world. -- carol 17:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
But not in the sixties and probably it was made with paper from a few decades later. -- carol 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to read the encyclopedic article that this image illustrates. The list of urls seem to show it to be something about a photographer and not about the man in the photograph. If the man in the photograph is a ham radio operator (and he might be or might have been) he would like the image I nominated. The subject of my image is not me. -- carol 14:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question - What are you talking about? What article and what list of url's? The man in the photo is not me, unless I have the gift of ubiquity and don't know it. I also doubt he is (was) an amateur radio - Alvesgaspar 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am asking if the photograph has any informational value to it other than you are a great photographer who knows what a good photograph looks like. -- carol 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a good illustration of the old "contre-jour" technique. Please see the article in the English wikipedia - Alvesgaspar 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
My question was about the restoration effort. It looks to me like you scanned a good old photograph and everyone thought it was something great. Where is the original scan showing your restoration effort? -- carol 13:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Understood, but I don't think QIC is the right place to evaluate the quality of a restoration. Alvesgaspar 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
These are great words. Did you author them yourself? -- carol 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedic value. Not art, encyclopedic value. Restoring facts so they look better when presented in articles about things (satellites, fungi, building construction, people working). -- carol 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
@Alves, you may be right if you cross-read the guideline line by line, but I think it is in the spirit of the QI system to encourage users to do their best concerning photos, and in a broader sense this can also include the speciality of image restoration. Undoubtedly it has great value to the community to have users proficient in that skill - especially when it comes to photos of historical value, which cannot be retaken. However, I think this should be discussed in a broader audience among the QI reviewers, so I have sent the photo to CR to get that out in the open. -- Slaunger 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
@carol Value on Commons is not exclusively about encyclopedic value, but a wider term for media that can be of value in any current or future Wikimedia project - a little fuzzy I know, but quite important I think. -- Slaunger 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
"Additionally quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image." I did not explain how I did it, but it certainly presents a goal. I was sorry that my government put these images online in this condition. -- carol 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you know any Ham radio operators? -- carol 13:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a style. I will be assuming that if there are no positive votes then only photographers get acknowleged at the commons. I am going to put all of those photographs of hover flies on the wikipedia article while everyone considers what it is that they are doing. -- carol 15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional text can be found from this thread here. -- carol 21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

uncommented deletion of a nomination[edit]

What should that mean??? --LC-de 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, understood. Moved to discussion... --LC-de 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Preparation#Decisions_needed[edit]

Hi Alvesgaspar, you previously commented on this page. Input is especially needed on the items at the end of the page. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Images[edit]

Nas imagens em votação para destaque eu coloquei uma lá porque você sabe porque ficou link vermelho? se você por na busca pode ver que a imagem existe.

Obrigado Danilo P 23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, acho que foi o User:Cecil

:([edit]

É, Não tinha visto. Acho que eu vou ter pouca chance.

Danilo P 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Imagem[edit]

Olá Alvesgaspar, sei que minha imagem Azaleia II.jpg está com menos de 2 Mb mais se eu receber algum voto dentro de 48 h não será eliminada, portanto se acha que a foto merece ficar por favor vote. Mas se não quiser votar eu entenderei.

Obrigado Danilo P 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Macro DOF[edit]

Hi Joaquim, I was trying to review your Butterfly image on QIC but I'm not a macro expert and I'm confused by the little DOF obtained with f/18 aperture. Is it normal in macro photography? --LucaG 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Child proof fence.jpg[edit]

Thanks for the review, yes the child's hand movement spoilt the story a little, I had not noticed the colour fringing, but the noise level is rather standard with my camera under anything but bright sunlight conditions (I shoot everything at ISO 50, but all ISO 50s are not created equal ;-). It was a fun photo (the child was a little reluctant to give the birds the bread, and ate much of it himself :-), one of the few I have taken of people. --Tony Wills 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Fly October 2007-33.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly October 2007-33.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]

Eristalinus November 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalinus November 2007-1.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.

Fly October 2007-37.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly October 2007-37.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]

Butterfly November 2007-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Butterfly November 2007-3.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]

Butterfly October 2007-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Butterfly October 2007-3.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]

Duck 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Duck 2007-1.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]

Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eristalinus October 2007-6.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Butterfly November 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Butterfly November 2007-5.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]

Butterfly October 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Butterfly October 2007-1.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.

A thread you might find interesting[edit]

User talk:CarolSpears#Why? -- Slaunger 11:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse[edit]

Sorry, not to beat a dead horse, but I finally found what I referenced here at w:Angle of view#calculating a camera's angle of view. I know, it has been two months...

By the way, I really like your Chicago shots on your user page. The glass windows are very cool, pattern-like. Although, are you using much noise reduction? They seem somewhat soft. Thegreenj 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Lantana October 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lantana October 2007-1.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.

(I know you already know, but just for the record :-) --Tony Wills 20:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cat eyes 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cat eyes 2007-2.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.

Cat eyes 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cat eyes 2007-1.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.

Chicago 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chicago 2007-5.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]

Eristalis November 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eristalis November 2007-2.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.

Chicago 2007-8.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chicago 2007-8.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.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Butterfly November 2007-7.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Butterfly November 2007-7.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]

Chicago 2007-7.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chicago 2007-7.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]

Fly November 2007-12.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly November 2007-12.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]

Fly November 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly November 2007-5.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]

Hoverfly November 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly November 2007-5.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.

When you say there is noise, there is noise[edit]

Hey there fly guy -- I am trying to put together examples of noise and grain and soft focus and such in photographs. Here is the problem with me doing this, I don't know what OOF is. I do know what Depth Of Field is, however.

The reason that I am asking for your help with this is because you claimed that there was noise on this image and when I looked, there was. A lot of it. I do not think it is a good example, however, because it is also softly focused.

What would be really good for examples would be an image with sharp focus but with noise for noise. Well, I can list all of the combinations but what I think would be the best example are images which have only the problem they are showing.

Having the actual memories of somebody who has experience and an impartial voting record with the images that have been placed here as candidates would be nice, right now, you seem to have these qualities.

Simple summary[edit]

  1. I am not the expert that the information requires to be accurate
  2. reliable and concise examples of problems that occur in digital images wanted
  3. you probably know the difference between grain and noise
  4. you should have experience with the collection of images here

not in possession of a fly swatter--> carol 02:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hawkweed 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hawkweed 2007-5.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]

Fly December 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fly December 2007-1.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]

Fly November 2007-10.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Fly November 2007-10.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Fly November 2007-10.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

--Simonizer 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A few points of clarification :-)[edit]

  • I have been waiting for a long time to use this quote from you [1]. The full context is in the CR discusiion for Image:Blue_fly.jpg on the May QI archive page. So a couple of things : Image:Konini_01.jpg is a macro shot (see EXIF data - 10.9mm focal length is the cameras macro mode), so I expect "I never claimed against the backgroud noise in macro shots because that is almost inevitable" will still apply :-). You might also look at the EXIF exposure time - 1/6th of a second - so no, the light wasn't very harsh either (of course that does not mean that it is not over exposed :-). Finally am I right in supposing that it is the cropping of the stem of the flower that you are objecting too? --Tony Wills 11:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Your remarks are fair and surely deserve a fair reply... Yes, at the time I wrote that sentence I was convinced that noise in the background was inevitable in macro shots. I was then using a bridge-type camera and knew nothing about the the de-noising techniques and applications like NeatImage. Now, knowing more about the business and taking into account the dramatic improveemnt in the quality of macro photographs during the last months, I think we should be more exigent on that matter. As for your flower, maybe "harsh" is not the right adjective to use. But there are extensive parts in the foregroung which are blown white or very nearly so (according to the histogram). Also, the petal in the first plan is not focused (something I did not mention in the review). Finally, and this is a kind of (subjective) trademark of mine, I don't like tight crops, specially in macro shots. In the present case, I would allow more space in the upper part of the picture so more of the stem is visible, as well as around the flower. You are welcome to contesting my reviews, that is a very good way for us to learn more. As you know, I'm quite new to digital photography. As for your photos, maybe it is time to get yourself a better camera!- Alvesgaspar 12:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok I will not hold you to your earlier declaration :-). I am afraid that noise is fairly inherent in my camera, I take everything at ISO 50 when I can, and still have to blur the noisy background to satisfy QI noise demands. My intent is to show as much detail as possible, so with a 4Mpix camera that means getting as close as possible, admittedly in this case the image is cropped even closer to cut out distracting surrounding leaves. I am disappointed that the only plant images I can get promoted as QI are introduced commercial species or weeds! I find getting decent detailed images of plants quite a challenge, separating them from the background is difficult, but I don't want to chop bits off to take to a studio, nor do I want to insert fake backgrounds (and Wellington is seldom without some wind, so on these long exposure close-ups, movement is always a problem too!). As for a better camera, yes that would help, but I want to take everything from macro shots, to pictures of birds in flight and I fear I will have to spend $3-$4000 to satisfy my ambitions. But then I know I have still a lot to learn, and things like composition and cropping do not need a better camera, just more awareness of the field of view and a bit of planning :-) --Tony Wills 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Mosquito 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mosquito 2007-2.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]

Aphid 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Aphid 2007-1.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]

Flower 2007-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flower 2007-3.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.

Hoverfly November 2007-7.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly November 2007-7.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]

Bee 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bee 2007-2.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.

Taxo question[edit]

I find it very strange that you do not answer questions to you but do answer questions to others on their talk pages. It is not the only thing that is weird about the operations here, but it is on the list.

I just got finished reading (more like scanning the wikipedia text) about Carl Linnaeus -- it was like reading about the Dewey Decimal system in which 90% of the section on religion is designated for Christianity. To me, there is such a fine line between clever and lazy that often, it cannot be seen.

Anyways, when I take a break from what I am doing, I might count the mass of gray hairs I have been gaining to see how many more there is now after reading that....

What I was looking for was not there, however -- at least not in the way a quick and painful scan like the one I gave it would show. I was looking for the meaning of K.C. Gmel notation in this system. Thanks, whoever answers. -- carol 09:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Found that en:Johann Friedrich Gmelin the C.C. or the K.C. is impressively confusing. New question now: do you (or anyone answering questions like this here) know what the 'Jordan' on this page is talking about? -- carol 10:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC) (who obviously did not have high school biology)
  • Sorry, but I'm not a taxonomist and have no idea what "K.C. Gmel" means. A name and a year after a scientific name of a species refers to the person who first reported that species. As for my silence, it is, in general, directly proportional to my ignorance - Alvesgaspar 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
heh, you don't talk enough, maybe -- except that I did find Gmelin and now I am looking for Jordan. I have now found two synonyms for your Common Hawkweed and some inconsistancy with the naming of the pages at english wikipedia and the day is still quite young here. Heh, and your stereoscope image was much nicer than anything they had there.
Oh, hmm, did you know that you made a punny? Puns are not the funniest thing there is but sometimes they are cute. Ignorance -- Ignore which is like to pretend someone or something doesn't exist. Ignore and silence being proportional is somewhat like red is red, self defining. Puns are typically not considered to be that funny.
Has your ignorance been a blissful one as the centuries old adage promised? -- carol 12:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ignorance is very seldom blissful specially when we have conscience of its immensity. No, I did not use the word with the meaning you imply. Alvesgaspar 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for not purposely ignoring me and for reading the slight accusation and being nice about that. It has been my experience that the more knowledge you acquire, the more you can understand how little that you know. I was trying to think of a picture or a shape that would be something like this and I couldn't. Maybe in a few days tho' -- and it is nice to have a new problem like this.
I am curious about the history of the area where you took the photograph of the blue mosquito. You took that photograph where you live?
Then that whole taxonomy stuff -- part of my brain is actually free to think about that as I am doing the equivalent of writing papers for a high school class that I was negligent in taking -- and this is not the first time, but the first time in a very long while that I wished that animals could speak. I don't think that human beings are capable of classifying themselves or each other -- it is too personal. However, I think that an animal who is familiar with the beast human could probably offer a lot of insight as to the different classes of the species.
One of the things I have thought a lot about lately is how much human beings have interrupted natural selection. (let me practice here for something for my web site) When I was a single woman working with other women who had children -- jobs in our part of the country were scarce (the implication here is that more people is not what the area needed). Two women who had husbands and children by them; the younger one had accidentally become pregnant while at work (a different job), married the father and seemed to have a good enough marriage. She would not come to work on days that her child was sick because she did not trust the dad with even the mildly sick child. The woman who would excuse her from work also would not excuse me when my body was strong but my brain was emotionally drained -- this was after several several months of never having an unscheduled day off and working extra days. My little essay is supposed to be about how women turn themselves into breeders and not into equal beings but it is also about how there are little systems in place that seem to be geared toward making darwins theory only work for 'lesser beings'. In natural selection, if the dad cannot be trusted with the sick child, then the child dies on his watch and he has not put his genes into the pool. He either learns and doesn't kill the next child or he doesn't and his gentic print of not dependable 'manliness' ends there, where it should. What is terrible about my tale is that it is a 21st century tale. Both women use technology -- electricity, indoor plumbing, combustion engines for travel, computers and calculating machines; but the stupidity of the womb gets its directions, inspiration and behavior from before the 13th century and that is what is encouraged.
Needs some work, doesn't it? Also, I wrote this as if you are a native speaker. Please ask questions (of me) if it doesn't make sense.-- carol 16:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Check this out...[edit]

Tataa!

I finally got around to assemble a 43 image pano from the Hancock Center Observation deck. This is heavily downsized due to some of the frames being blurred. But it still has 18MP :-). Now if only the light/weather had been better... --Dschwen 20:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaf id?[edit]

Does the leaf in Image:Hoverfly August 2007-5.jpg and the thumbnailed images there belong to the flower in Image:Hoverfly November 2007-5.jpg and are they all the same flower? You have identified the flower in some and given it a different name in others. Before I start using them (and the leaf edge is interesting on the species page) I would really like to know that they are all the same flower and species or that they are not. Quality is as quality does? I should maybe look at the definition of that word again.... -- carol 09:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No, they are from different plants. The first is from a Hydrangea macrophilla and the second from a Hieracium sp. - Alvesgaspar 09:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Are there more than the "two" species of Hieracium than were mentioned in that series of photographs?
Also, have you ever played 10 questions before? You seem like an old pro at this childs game. -- carol 13:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hawkweed 2007-3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hawkweed 2007-3.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.

Please check a picture[edit]

Hi, Alvesgaspar

I derived a close-up with legend from your photo (Image:Acrididae grasshopper-1.jpg). It's very fine to describe the morphology of Insects head. The modified media is Image:Grasshopper-head.jpg. Can you check if the credits are correct? Thanks --gian_d 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Credit Report Fly[edit]

It is about the Yahoo! credit report fly isn't it? It needs to cease. Ben Aveling is Alves + ING?

It needs to stop.

  • I feel lost. "Purdy" is the Hindi word for "male" isn't it? And since I was not sure of the sex of the critter... As for the Yahoo! credit report, I can't understand what you mean. Too many flies, is it the issue? - Alvesgaspar 11:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Too many contradictions surrounding them.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Hoverfly December 2007-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hoverfly December 2007-5.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.

Big Ben 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Big Ben 2007-1.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.

Big Ben 2007-2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Big Ben 2007-2.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.

London Parliament 2007-1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! London Parliament 2007-1.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.

Your tiles[edit]

Hi Joaquim. I saw your tiles in QIC. Very nice. Only, I did a slight straightening and a slight chroma noise reduction. What do you think of the outcome? Lycaon 20:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Lycaon, I agree it is better now. I'll replace the picture in QIC (and substitute one for the other, later). But I must confess I first had some trouble in seeing the differences... -- Alvesgaspar 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's why I said slight twice ;-). Lycaon 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)