★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: Suvanto village, Pelkosenniemi, Finland.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment Could you categorize the picture down to the scope? --Eusebius (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Info Done. -- MattiPaavola (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Apparently the only picture we have for this scope. Provided this is exact, I support. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Info FYI, I just uploaded another image (File:Suvanto_2009-10-02_02.JPG) to the same category. However, I personally think that the new image doesn't represent the whole village in its present state as nicely as this nominated one. -- MattiPaavola (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've tried to adjust the lighting and colours a little bit. Here's the result (you might need to purge the cache of your browser and/or refresh a few times). Would you please tell me if you think it's OK now? 22.214.171.124 13:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I got logged out. That was me speaking. Wolf (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, the issue isn't about post-processing, but instead about the direction of the sun. I think it is a really nice picture, but unfortunately doesn't meet the high criteria of QI. I'm sorry. If you would like to make it a QI, I think you would need to go there at a different time of the day. This is just one person's opinion. Therefore, please feel free to open it for discussion. Cheers, --MattiPaavola (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, how did you like Poland? Wolf (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice beaches in Hel, huge castle in Malbork where I got lost multiple times :-), excellent food in Warsow, beautiful historical Krakow and very friendly people. A nice country indeed! BR, MattiPaavola (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And perhaps you'd lie to return here for Wikimania 2010? :) Wolf (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
About Vercingétorix in quality image 4 december
(sorry for my bad english) - I read your comment for this pictue and I don't ealy understand. Before, two peaople was shown in the picture, i effectively conserve the right one for give a scale of the dimention of the monument and I erase the left one. I think that if I have'not said that, it would be very difficult to see ? There is two solutions, kéép the original picture with 2 people or erase it in better way ? What is your advice ? - Siren-Com (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the problem that I see wasn't related in erasing the person. The erasing has been done really carefully. The problem I see is below where the person used to be and seems to exist also in the first version you have uploaded (which still has that second person visible). These strange "boxes" I see are at the very bottom and reach from the left corner until maybe one third of the width of the image. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah ! I see, I have forgotten this first modification I have done before : for have the picture verticaly, i was obliged to fill some white witch appears in the left corner because there was not enought place in front of the picture. I will corrige this thing and load a new version. Great thank's - Siren-Com (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - Done it is now modified.
Hi Matti, I just wanted to encourage you for your perceptive reviews on QI and FP. You often seem to catch on to things that I don't immediately see, but that when you note them, strike a chord. Not just for my images of course. Keep up the good work. --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. It's never nice to give negative feedback because of just one pitfall in an otherwise great image, but I feel that the already nominated great FPs deserve the bar to be high also for the newcomers. And, the majority of the authors here seem to take the feedback positively. BTW, you are also doing a great job here, thanks! --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the promotion (you might see more of that one :)) - I think there may have been an "ec" as my next two got "lost" at the time. Regards --Herbytalk thyme 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I checked the diff and you are right: two of your nominations disappeared during my edit. Usually the system warns regarding an edit conflict, but this time I didn't see anything. Strange. Anyway, good that you noticed. I can only try to convince you that it wasn't intentional: the exchange rate of your QI nominations is much higher than 3 nominations equals 1 promotion. :-) --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Certainly did not think it intentional just odd. As you say we should have had something about it. Thanks anyway - I rather like the light/space in that image. I must admit these days I try to only keep/upload ones that I feel are close to qi at least - it helps keep my hard disc slightly less full! Regards --Herbytalk thyme 17:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support for my Old Rauma shot. I like the light in the VanhaRauma image much more than in mine (too bad the sky was cloudy during the few hours I have been there) but IMO the girl with the ugly plastic bag on her bike spoils it. See you on one of the other Commons pages soon! --Pjt56 (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I actually also consulted a friend who spent his childhood in Rauma and he also agreed that your image was good. Especially he mentioned that it is important that the stones of the stony street are shown. So, I guess you can be happy if also a local guy likes your pic! :-) --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
What are your views on the "correct" use of the "retouched" template? I realise there may be other places this discussion should go to but your opinion would be appreciated :). To me almost any image will have been "retouched" to some degree. Specifically, working from raw, there will be post processing which could be called retouching? If you know of any conversations about this elsewhere a pointer would be good. Thanks & regards --Herbytalk thyme 09:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what is the official policy, but my personal policy is that I don't use it for my own shots if I have just adjusted white balance, tweaked colour curves etc. things that affect the whole image globally. But, if I do local changes, e.g. remove or add objects or copy/clone areas (which is really seldom if ever), then I'll use Retouched template. I think an image without Retouched template should be one that the viewer can trust being exactly like the scene was in nature.
Then, regarding edits to images that are shot by someone else and the original version remains in Commons, then I always use Retouched template.
If you come across the official policy one day, please let me know as well. Thanks, --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - looks like we agree at least :). I'll let you know if I see anything else - regards --Herbytalk thyme 10:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Matti, Concerning File:Colima volcano aero.jpg, I have found this clue but it's very strange : . One can read in the historic log: "Image:100_4106.JPG. On Saturday, February 9th 2008, this image was taken of the Colima volcano at approx. 33,000 feet. This picture was taken by Lee Lewis and has been released to the general public for reproduction." So the author seems to be someone called Lee Lewis and the date of the picture February 9th 2008. But this doesn't match with the EXIF data. Puzzling, isn't it? Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps could you ask the en admin who deleted this file? Here is the delation log: . Alas, he hasn't been very active since August. --Myrabella (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Matti, I'm going to close the present nomination, but feel free to nominate the image you've created if the mystery can be cleared up. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I still haven't got a reply from anyone involved. Yes, I agree that "undecided" seems to be the most appropriate thing to do in this situation. Thanks, --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely something odd in that shadow but I cannot make out what it is. Given how long ago I took it it isn't worth worrying about but I appreciate your time and comments - thanks --Herbytalk thyme 16:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Question Nice hoarfrost. Could this be geolocated? Jonathunder 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Done --MattiPaavola 21:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Good quality and very nice --George Chernilevsky 08:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Matti, I corrected tilt in bullfigher picture as per your sugestion. Tellme what you think. It is hadto gaugehow uch dueto the fact that the fence is roud and shot atan gle, so there s no real visual referene. And thanks for your observation. Added date also. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the corrected version. I have now supported it. BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)