Hello. What kind of reference do you mean? --Rave (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The user has added a source in the image description. It would be nice if you had the time to revisit it while it's up in the "Discuss" section of the QI candidates. --Iotatau (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi ianaré, I really mean what I said about your picture. I take a lot of pictures of trees and branches all the time, looking for interesting branch configurations, color trasnparencies, textures, etc. Last weekend I was photographig Jacarandas, a tree that blooms with lavender flowers, with crops very, very similar to yours. I am afraid, however, that some people just don´t understand this type of images... or could it be that I am the one that doesn´t get it??? Regards, ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying a different approach lately, and I have to thank you in part for that, as some of your pictures have been a source of inspiration. I think that it's very hard to combine a certain level of artistic expression while still being of encyclopedic value and faithfully documenting the world. Harder still is to find a formula that people actually enjoy ! But that challenge is worth taking. --ianaré (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
well, thanks for the acknowledgement... do you speak spanish? I so, I will send you a lesson I wrote for my students a long time ago that is still valid. email me your address and I will send it to you. It is a lesson on visualization. There is no for-sure-way of doing this, but where you want to get to is where you develop your own style and vision, and this may provide a starting point. After all, all things start there!!! my email: tomascastelazohotmail.com --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Téviec Crane Homme Profil Droit II.jpg
Bonsoir, The original drawing is on a very ugly fabric. Would you like me to send you on your email the original picture? Amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Oui, ça m'intéresse ... sinon il n'y a pas de mal en la mettant sur wikicommons. L'avantage de la mettre ici c'est que comme ça les utilisateurs peuvent voir la différence entre les deux images, et certains peuvent tenter de l'améliorer. Ce n'est pas pour dire que ton travail est de mauvaise qualité ;-). Amicalement --ianaré (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
C’est avec plaisir que je veux bien te faire parvenir l’original mais il est impossible de le verser dans Commons ni de le faire circuler. Le Projet Phoebus qui nous lie au Muséum de Toulouse a des contingences qui nous imposent de ne verser les images prisent au Muséum que terminées avec l’aval du muséum.
Mon travail est de présenter des objets, je l’ai quasiment toujours fait sur fond noir très rarement sur fond blanc, ce sont les premières réalisations sur fond dégradé. Je suis très attentif justement sur le point du fond que je n’ai pas tranché.
Ah d'accord, je ne savais pas que tu travaillais dans une capacité officielle avec le Muséum. Je ne diffuserais donc pas cette image. Mon adresse : ianareARROBASgmailPOINTcom --ianaré (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
better, but there are still some focus issues (not sure how to annoate) --ianaré (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe I know what you mean. I've done some more work on the image. So, if you would like to take one more look, it will be great. I personally like it so much that I am going to writ an article for it :). Maybe I like it because it was hard to get (slippery rocks and incoming tide). Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Much better ! There are still one or two minor focus issues, but in light of the difficulty in capturing such a scene, I would support for FP if you want to re-nominate =) --ianaré (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I fixed one more that i saw. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to this discussion. I've no time now to read all the debate, but I'm interested, and will participate, as a lover of the QIC spirit (very interesting for me, because it improves the quality of my own work.)... Well, it looks a bit copying the FPC debate initiated by Alvesgaspar, but no problem, I understand very well the purpose. (I like very much the pano above, and I don't see any stitching error or strange shadows on the naiades... Happy Florida...)--Jebulon (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
je préfère 'inspiré' plutot que 'copié', mais le résultat est le même dans ce cas ... je pense que cette discussion est importante pour le futur du QIC, d'une part pour encourager les photographes à produire et nominer des oeuvres de bonne qualité, et d'une autre pour faciliter le travail non moins important des réviseurs. J'espère que tu pourras contribuer à ce débat, en tant qu'utilisateur plus récent ton point de vue est important dans le cadre d'attirer de nouveaux contributeur à QIC. --ianaré (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Flooding in QI
Le débat que tu as lancé ne semble pas avoir beaucoup ému un des intéressés... 11 nominations hier samedi, sujets habituels !--Jebulon (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
QI, consensual review
Bonjour Ianaré. Puisque tu as lancé un débat sur le "flooding", je voudrais attirer ton attention sur une autre dérive que je constate de plus en plus souvent dans les QIC.
Je m'aperçois que, dès qu'un nominateur n'est pas content du sort fait à sa proposition, il transforme le "decline" en "discuss", pour provoquer une Consensual Review, un peu comme s'il s'agissait d'une "Cour d'Appel" (Court of appeal).
Ceci est un dévoiement du système, je crois. Je pense que les CR sont réservées aux débats lorsque deux (au moins) évaluateurs différents du nominateur ont émis un avis divergent, mais pas si le nominateur n'est pas d'accord avec le jugement négatif porté sur l'image qu'il propose.
Thoughts about this ?
Si tu es d'accord avec moi, quelle serait la solution ?
Merci de ton avis.
--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ianare, you wrote "aah, this brings me back to younger days ... did you take 'la route des crêtes' between La Ciotat & Cassis ? Great views from there."
No, there was no time for a tour along the ridge, as I was staying in Cassis for business, and had travelled by train, so no chance for a quick dash en bagnole. On top of it, the weather was bad most of the time (i.e. boat -1 harbour rocks +1) and the spell of good weather luckily coincided with my boat trips to the calanques. But yes, the ridge would have been very tempting in better weather.
"Anyway image is good, if a little noisy."
Where in the image do you find most of the noise? I did use hugin to correct roll and barrel, and while processing anyway I brightened the image as I usually underexpose slightly to avoid blown highlights. In case you find some time to spare - are other images on User:KlausFoehl noisy as well. And how in comparison does the out-of-camera File:Cap Canaille03 2010-05-06.jpg look noise-wise? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the noise is in the sky. This is something basically impossible to avoid with point and shoot cameras. Areas of similar color will often get noisier than on SLRs. Comparing before & after images, noise level is similar. --ianaré (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I hesitate to call Canon A 610 "point and shoot" but yes, the camera has a small sensor chip. On the plus side, it is small enough so I always have it at hand when a photo opportunity arises. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
licensing template clarified. --ianaré (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Ianare, I'm still concerned about the wording of this template - I believe it strongly implies that the work is released under a noncommercial license. Reading between the lines, I believe your intention is to multilicense the image under CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC; that is, noncommercial use is okay and does not need to follow the Share Alike requirement, but commercial use must do so. Is this accurate? If so, maybe saying this explicitly would help clarify your licensing template (and yes, such a license is permitted by Commons). Thanks. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, and I see your point. Text has been changed to explain better, I think it should be clear enough now. Thank you. --ianaré (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
you should include some requirement to have your reuse conditions included/retained with the photograph, the current situation leaves the door open for commercial use to source it from a NFP source were the sa condition wont be highlighted. I'd suggest that you just say some thing like; reuse is under SA license, if this is not suitable for your requirements please contact me for alternative license optionsGnangarra 11:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Please come back and have a look at the alternates I added, thank you! --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Curious as to how you've handled commercial requests for your work
I’m curious as to how you’ve dealt with commercial requests to use your work, as I am trying to get some ideas on how to handle these types of requests. I have received a few myself but have deferred to the licensing terms of the CC/GFDL and now realize that I have probably left some money on the table. For example, what has or hasn’t worked for you, what kind (s) of licensing do you use for, and what else you can think of that may be helpful. If you feel it’s more appropriate, we can continue this discussion via email. Thanks. BrokenSphere (Talk) 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)