| This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.
This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poco_a_poco.
|
| This is the user talk page of Poco a poco, where you can send messages and comments to Poco a poco. |
|
|
- Be polite.
- Be friendly.
- Assume good faith.
- No personal attacks.
|
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Edificio Theresienhöhe 13, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-03-30, DD 04.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.
| Comments |
Good quality--null 08:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)  Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you.
Good quality --Lmbuga 20:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
QIC: Review placement [edit]
Hi Poco a poco, I would like to ask if you could place your first reviews of an image behind the first "|" following the nominator’s signature. The system expects reviews there, so it will say "Review needed" even if there are dozens of them (before the "|") :-)
It’s like this:
- New nomination:
File:xyz.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description --signature|}}
- Reviewed:
File:xyz.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description --signature|First review --signature<br />Second review --signature}}
Take care not to add further "|"s unless you want to see your review invisible :-)
Thanks for your work on QIC and your good pictures!
--Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Kreuzschnabel, mir ist dieses Problem bewußt und wenn ich einen zusätlichen "|" eingefügt habe, dann war es halt ein Fehler meinerseits. Der Grund warum ich -und viele andere- die Reviewkommentare vor dem "|" einfügen ist GERADE, um dieses Problem zu vermeiden, wenn man den QIVoter nutzt. Da ich auf der Seite sehr aktiv bin, mag ich soweit wie möglich die Vorteile vom QIVoter nutzen. Wenn ich ein erstes Kommentar auf der rechten Seite einfüge, dann wird der QICVoter einen zusätzlichen "|" einfügen und das Kommentar beim Review wird mehr sichtbar sein. Was sind die praktische Vorteile von deinem Ansatz? Poco a poco (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Hospital del Espíritu Santo, Núremberg, Alemania, 2013-03-16, DD 02.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.
| Comments |
Very nice but several dust spots (sky, facade at the very left) want to be removed --A.Savin 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed Poco a poco 19:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 Support --A.Savin 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Deutsches Theater, Fröttmaning-Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-11, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
 Comment Minor issues, notes added. Please geotag your QI candidates, thank you. --Iifar 06:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Done No general rules that request geodating so far, but added this one. Poco a poco 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Support Most of experienced Commons users are adding geotag voluntarily for long time. It's nice to see, where the QI is taken. --Iifar 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:BMW Welt, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-11, DD 07.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.
| Comments |
Nice, but overexposed areas. --Mattbuck 17:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Improved Poco a poco 18:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hm, new version is better as regards to overexposure, but makes the top bit much less dynamic. Maybe other people have suggestions. Mattbuck 02:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I tried to improve. If you don't like it, revert please.--Hic et nunc 14:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Nah, fine. Mattbuck 23:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
FP Promotion [edit]
|
|
The image has been promoted to Featured picture
The image File:Concesionario de Mercedes-Benz, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-03-30, DD 25.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Concesionario de Mercedes-Benz, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-03-30, DD 25.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
FP Promotion [edit]
|
|
The image has been promoted to Featured picture
The image File:Gobierno Estatal de Bavaria, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-03, DD 04.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gobierno Estatal de Bavaria, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-03, DD 04.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Glyptothek, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-02, DD 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.
| Comments |
| Comment a bit CA right side, but, Good Quality --Rjcastillo 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Glyptothek, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-02, DD 14.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.
| Comments |
Comment Some CAs to remove (see notes). --JLPC 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks, Poco a poco 17:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Minor now. --JLPC 12:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora, Núremberg, Alemania, 2013-03-16, DD 10.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.
| Comments |
The church seems a bit tilted to the left, good quality otherwise (a geocode would be welcome too). --Selbymay 17:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Comment plus one dust spot, nice light. --Iifar 17:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Poco a poco 18:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Support --Iifar 18:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Glyptothek, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-02, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
Good quality but I'd like to know who he is !. --JLPC 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem, it is a bust of Roman emperor Antoninus Pius (86-161 aC), sorry, I forgot to add this information Poco a poco 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Puerta al Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-03, DD 02.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.
| Comments |
Comment Tilted and the tower on the left seem distorted. --Christian Ferrer 17:45, 04 May 2013 (UTC)
New version Poco a poco 19:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Good Quality. --Christian Ferrer 11:44, 05 May 2013 (UTC)
This is how I imagine a QI: crisp sharp and nice angel of view. --Manuela61 10:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
Hello Poco a poco,
I did suspect that your identification came from a sign from the botanical garden - and while I'm no expert, I can still say that it isn't correct. Those leaves are not Rosa leaves and the form of the flower itself would be untypical for a rose... The rose cultivar 'Lion's Rose' does exist (I checked), but if you compare pictures of that rose cultivar with pictures of Ranunculus cultivars it becomes quite obvious that something must be wrong with that identification... I still don't know what would be the best course of action when that is the case - try to write to the garden? --Anna reg (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Anna, ich muss dem Botanischen Garten keine Email oder Briefe schicken, da ich ab und zu da bin. Beim nächsten Mal werde ich das ansprechen. Ich bin aber wirklich nicht -im Gegensatz zu dir- überzeugt, dass es sich um keine Lions Rose handelt. Ich glaube dennoch, dass du Recht hast, und es sich um Ranunculus asiaticus handelt. Was ich im Internet gefunden habe ist ähnlich zu anderen Bildern von der Reihe, die ich neben dem einem Bild gemacht habe. Ich werde es umbenennen, wenn du einverstanden bist (bitte, sag mir kurz Bescheid), vielen Dank und schöne Grüsse, Poco a poco (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
-
- Nachdem ich selber nur durch das Bild drauf gekommen bin, hab ich noch Uleli gebeten, dein Bild zu bestimmen - und nachdem eine (wahrscheinlich unbenannte) Ranunculus asiaticus-Sorte hiermit bestätigt ist, ist umbenennen wohl sinnvoll (für mich wirkt's so, als ob da ein Schild am falschen Platz steht). Liebe Grüße, Anna reg (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Ayuntamiento de Oporto, Portugal [edit]
Hello Poco a poco,
I have edited one of your great images and I have published it on a new site: [1]
The picture is integrated several times, if you wish, you could upload my edit as a new version
Best regards, Libresavoir
- Hallo FreiesWissen für deine Arbeit, dein Bild war definitiv besser als das Original. Ich habe anhand deinem Bild ein paar Verbesserungen im RAW File umsetzen können und das Ergebnis ist in der Tat besser als vorher, evtl. in der Liga von deiner Version. Die Schärfe ist vor allem viel besser als vorher und auch der Ausschnit (beide mit Hilfe von der bei mir lokal gespeicherter Datei). Ich habe den Kollgen von der Deutschen Wikipedia auch Bescheid gesagt. Beste Grüsse, Poco a poco (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
re: File:Bosque del Recuerdo - 01.jpg [edit]
Hola, gracias por los comentarios aunque en este caso sean para rechazar la imagen. Se juntan unas pocas cosas y posiblemente tengas razón en lo que me comentas, era el primer día que cogía la cámara y el cielo y su luz no eran muy agradecidos, lo que sí conseguí, por los pelos, fue no quemar el cielo. Como es el Retiro algún día podré repetirla, digo yo. Por cierto, ha nominado Tomer T en FPC una foto tuya de un Kaktushaus, ¡un sitio curioso! No tiene nada que ver con mi foto, de verdad, pero si votara sería neutral. Me gustan los colores pero la sensación general no me atrae especialmente, aunque no es que esté mal. Y, aunque sea una cosa de gustos, yo soy muy de simetrías si puedo meterlas. En la foto estás relativamente cerca de la viga central del techo y me da la sensación de no-simetría-pero-casi, que es una cosa que no me gusta, porque es como haber "fastidiado" la simetría (repito, son gustos). Para evitarlo, en estos casos yo doy un par de pasos para un lado o para otro para que no parezca cuasisimetría. En el sitio a veces es difícil darse cuenta. ¡Son pequeñas manías que tiene uno! ¡Un saludo! --Kadellar (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hola Kadellar, parece que te lo tomas como el fin del mundo. A mí me ocurre a menudo, y para serte sincero, y ya acercándome a las 2500 QIs hay ocasiones en las que no tengo ni ganas de discutir y dejo pasar críticas que no comparto (último ejemplo es un generador eólico en Frottmaning que no está nítido...). Sobre la casa de cactus, sé a lo que te refieres y también yo busco esa simetría a menudo, pero no lo hice en esa escena porque los cactus no me inspiraron en este caso, más bien me pareció una imagen variopinta con un poco de todo. Saludos! Poco a poco (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Destacadas en Wikipedias [edit]
Otra cosa que me ha vuelto ahora a la cabeza. ¿Has visto las plantillas de imágenes destacadas en Wikipedias? La traducción en español es muy mejorable, dice: "Esta imagen, de la Wikipedia en idioma español/inglés/catalán/etc. (Recursos destacados) es considerada una de las mejores". Puedes verlo en esta imagen tuya, por ejemplo: File:Ayuntamiento de Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 03.JPG. ¿Dónde se puede cambiar eso? Un día lo intenté y no lo encontré. Se entiende mucho mejor: "Esta imagen es considerada una de las mejores de la Wikipedia en idioma español (Recursos destacados)", ¿no te parece? --Kadellar (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Bueno, y la de destacadas de Commons es todavía peor, esta sí que no se entiende: "Esta imagen, Wikimedia Commons (Imágenes destacadas) es considerada una de las mejores". --Kadellar (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- He introducido estos cambios, a ver si así la cosa mejora. Saludos! Poco a poco (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Gracias, ahora eso ya es otra cosa. --Kadellar (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Casino, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
Good quality. Please geotag --Moroder 18:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Done Poco a poco 19:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Ópera, Núremberg, Alemania, 2013-03-16, DD 02.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.
| Comments |
Perspective looks overcorrected to me, verticals diverging towards the top. --Kreuzschnabel 05:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
New version Poco a poco 20:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Not convinced yet. I think it’s got a slight CW tilt, too, and there’s a distractiong detail on the right edge. I generally think an „upwards“ image looks more natural if the verticals converge a little bit rather than dragging them perfectly parallel. --Kreuzschnabel 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Done I am not really convinced, but just uploaded a last version Poco a poco 18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Support QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 00:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Review quality pictures - request of RAW file [edit]
Hello Poco a poco! First thank you very much for having reviewed my photo with the nice comment. As you might have gathered I am not good with the syntax for writing in Wikimedia. It took me about 45 minutes to write the few words in response to your comment on the quality page and I have not been able to put it inside the green frame! I don't have the raw file of this photo unfortunately. I have the Silkypix software for post treatment but I don't understand everything. I don't know how to select a part of the photo to enhance contrast of this particular area and not all the photo for example... I looked in Wikimedia for a place to get help about technical questions on photography but did not find one until now. But I have been learning a lot by looking at what others do on Featured pictures and Quality pictures. Best regards. Dinkum (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are a lot of good sites online explaining how to rework the curves. I don't know that software but I'd recommend you Lightroom (commercial) or Rawtherapee (open source). I just uploaded a new version of your file, have a look and if you don't like it revert, no problem with that. Regards and don't be unpatient, step by step or Poco a poco (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Poco a poco! I just saw the new version and you did wonders. Of course I like it! Many thanks. I will check out Rawtherapee. AndI will keep in mind: step by step, peu à peu, pö a pö and so on. Best regards. Dinkum (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, you should nominate it to FP. The quality is not the best, the crop a bit tight, but still a very good capture Poco a poco (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Anemone blanda, Jardín Botánico de Múnich, Alemania, 2013-05-04, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
ID? --Iifar 09:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to transfer the ID from the title to the file description, Poco a poco 09:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Good quality IMO--Lmbuga 11:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Rosa 'Lions Rose', Jardín Botánico de Múnich, Alemania, 2013-05-04, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
Good quality. --Iifar 09:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC) CommentThis is misidentified - I suspect that it is a Ranunculus cultivar. Anna reg 11:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not an expert but hopefully the guys in the Munich Botanical Garden are. I have a picture where this rose stands alone with a label saying "Roese 'Lions Rose'" Poco a poco 12:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Hallo Poco, entschuldige bitte mein schlechtes Englisch. Deshalb schreibe ich Dir mal auf deutsch. Vielen Dank für Deine Kritik, aber wenn ich das Bild noch mehr drehe, wird es auf der anderen Seite schief. Ich weiß jetzt gar nicht, wie ich das Problem lösen soll. Oder siehst Du da eine andere Möglichkeit?--Viele Grüße S. F. B. Morse (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo SFB Morse, ja, klar gibt es eine andere Möglichkeit, das nennt man Korrektur der Perspektive und führt dazu, dass die Linien so werden, wie sie sind und nicht mehr durch das Objectiv verzerrt werden. Von diesen Korrekturen gibt es ein Mal gegen "Barrel" (Faß) Verzerrung, gegen horizontale und gegen vertikale Verzerrung. In diesem Fall braucht das Bild eine Korrektur der vertikalen Perspektive und dann gleich noch ein Drehung nach links, da durch die Korrektur beide Seiten gleichmässig korrigiert werden, aber der Bedarf rechts ist größer. Es gibt Objektive, die so was korrigieren können, aber in 99% de Fälle erhält man gute Ergebnisse mit Hilfe von Software. GIMP, RAWTherapee und natürlich Photoshop Lightroom oder CS können dieses Problem fixen. Viele Grüsse, Poco a poco (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC) PS: Deutsch ist kein Problem.
- Hallo Poco, vielen Dank für die Erklärung. Ich habe mal wieder etwas dazu gelernt. Mal sehen, ob ich das am kommenden Wochenende noch programmtechnisch gebacken kriege. Wenn nicht, werde ich den QI-Vorschlag erstmal zurück ziehen und versuche es später noch mal. Ich wünsche Dir ein schönes Pfingstwochenende.--Viele Grüße S. F. B. Morse (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, ich denke, dass ich es nun dank GIMP entzerrt habe :-) Zumindest fällt mir nichts Negatives mehr auf. Es gibt nun eine neue Version.--Viele Grüße S. F. B. Morse (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Gut gemacht, ich habe es promoviert! Poco a poco (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Embedded colour profile [edit]
Hi Poco a poco,
I see that the images you are uploading have "AdobeRGB" as the embedded colour profile. This is not a good idea. Most people will see the wrong colours in their web browser. Sometimes quite significantly wrong. See this for one of many articles on why not to use AdobeRGB except for very limited reasons. Even if someone is fortunate enough to use a colour-profile-aware browser on a calibrated O/S & display, the result will be posterisation in fine graduations like sky due to the naive way they convert the colour pixels. One really needs clever image display software like Photoshop and Lightroom to do a half-decent job of displaying 8-bit images across colourspaces.
Converting an sRGB image to AdobeRGB is pointless because there is no gain in range of colours, and is positively harmful with an 8-bit JPG because AdobeRGB has to squeeze the sRGB range into fewer bits in order to fit the extra range of colours it supports. Doing this, like your edit to File:Grue en vol.jpg will actually lose colour detail and can cause posterisation.
It is best to leave non-sRGB colour space to 16-bit tiffs you plan to print and stick to plain old sRGB for JPG on the Internet.
Regards,
Colin (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Colin, thanks for your detailed feedback. The funny thing is that some time ago I was told the opposite. The link you included above is very informative, but please, let me gather some more information about this topic before I change my standard workflow again.
- Where you are definitely right is with the fact that converting from sRGB to AdobeRGB is pointless. This occured because I didn't pay attention and developed that sRGB JPEG the way I develop my RAWs (which I take in AdobeRGB). I will fix that soon, right know I have very limited Internet access (smartphone). Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you google for advice about AdobeRGB you'll find plenty reputable blogs/sites that give the same advice: the only time AdobeRGB should be used is for sending a JPG or TIFF to a printer (your own or a lab). Converting a 16-bit AdobeRGB file to sRGB should be fine as there are plenty bits to ensure no compressing of the tones, but in 8-bit land we should stick with sRGB because that's what nearly everybody sees on their monitor. FYI, your RAW files have no colourspace at all. The sRGB/AdobeRGB setting on your camera is for the JPGs it produces. So you can create sRGB files from Lightroom without re-taking your photos - it is an export-time decision!
- BTW, if are using a wide-gamut monitor, perhaps set to AdobeRGB, there are additional problems with browsers and viewing images. I'll expand on this if you want. Colin (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok Colin, convinced will stick to sRGB! :) and thanks for the note about the RAWs, didn't think about that. Poco a poco (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Poco a poco, I would like to rename a file you uploaded. It seems that a mistake was made when naming File:Heliconia episcopalis, Jardín Botánico de Múnich, Alemania, 2013-01-27, DD 01.JPG — this is not a picture of a Heliconia episcopalis flower (which actually looks like an Episcopal bishop's hat, another). The file in question might be a picture of a juvenile (immature) Calathea cylindrica flower, which looks like this when mature, but I can't be 100% certain. I know it is not an H. episcopalis, which looks like this (more examples: 1, 2, 3). I'm not sure if I have the user right to change the name but it should not be called Heliconia episcopalis. Please let me know if you agree. Thanks! Tucoxn (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Tucoxn, thanks for your detaile explanation, which is convicing. I renamed it (both the file name and the description) by myself. All the best, Poco a poco (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I'm in the midst of some research on tropical flowers. It looks like there's no freely available photo of Heliconia episcopalis so I'll try to take one soon. I'll let you know when I post it. Also, I'll keep an eye out to see if I find any juvenile Calathea cylindrica and let you know if it matches that file. I think that variety is available here but I don't see it often. Thanks again for your help! Tucoxn (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Edificio en calle Colegio, 2, La Orotava, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-13, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
| Good quality. --NorbertNagel 17:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Cymbidium 'Pink Ice', Jardín Botánico de Múnich, Alemania, 2013-05-04, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
Nice, but two little dust spots--Lmbuga 17:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
FixedPoco a poco 18:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Good quality--Lmbuga 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Fuchsia exoniensis, Jardín Botánico de Múnich, Alemania, 2013-05-04, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
Comment : some dust (?) spots. See notes please. --JLPC 17:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, a lot of them, I cleaned up. Thanks and sorry, Poco a poco 17:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Red channel blown, see annotation – still got the raw file for another try? --Kreuzschnabel 18:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I reduced the saturation Poco a poco 19:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Support Much better now, well done! --Kreuzschnabel 19:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Capilla de la Orden Tercera [edit]
¡Hola Diego!
Bist Du sicher, dass es sich bei dem abgebildeten Gebäude File:Capilla de la Orden Tercera y Convento Franciscano, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 01.jpg um die Capilla de la Orden Tercera y Convento Franciscano in Santa Cruz de Tenerife handelt? Die Kirche im Artikel der WPES Capilla de la Venerable Orden Tercera (Santa Cruz de Tenerife) sieht doch ganz anders aus. Ich habe allerdings auch keine Ahnung welches Gebäude auf dem Foto dargestellt wird.--Koppchen (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Koppchen, doch, diesmal wird es stimmen. In der gleichen Serie, wie das Bild, das du mir gezeigt hast, findet man dieses andere Bild (gleiches Gebäude von der Seite fotografiert), das auch ich fotografiert hatte. Stimmt schon, dass es nicht das representativste Bild vom Gebäude wäre, aber es handelt sich immerhin ums selbe Gebäude. Viele Grüsse nach den Trauminseln! Poco a poco (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Entschuldige bitte! Du hast recht! Dabei ist das von Dir zitierte Bild sogar von mir aufgenommen. Ich hab bei Capilla de la Orden Tercera immer die Ecke im Kopf. --Koppchen (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Patio de las Joyas, Jardín Botánico de Múnich, Alemania, 2013-05-04, DD 01.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.
| Comments |
| Hard contrast, maybe weather light problems, but ok --Wilfredor 12:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Edificio en la calle Obispo Rey Redondo 51, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 03.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.
| Comments |
| The wire is disturbing, despite that QI IMO--Lmbuga 09:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Hallo Poco! Könntest du noch mal einen Blick auf File:Warburg-Blick-auf-Rathaus-Neustadtkirche.jpg werfen. Ich habe den von dir angemahnten Tilt auf QIC korrigiert. Danke, --Tuxyso (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Tuxyso, ich hab's promoviert. Diese Erinnerungen brauche ich dennoch nicht. Ich scanne die ganze QIC Seite regelmässig durch (normalerweise täglich), und wenn es doch 2 Tage dauert (war nicht der Fall), dann deswegen, weil ich keine Zeit gefunden habe. Grüsse, Poco a poco (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
FP Promotion [edit]
/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hongkong [edit]
Yeah! Un fotografo en Hongkong :-) Klasse, daß du kommst! --Ralf Roleček 20:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Uno o dos (o tres contando a Dschwen)? :) Freue mich auch! Poco a poco (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yo no preguntar Dschwen pero creo, nos podemos hablar junto o cameras barato? Ich weiß, mein castellano ist schrecklich... es schläft seit 20 jahren... --Ralf Roleček 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tatsache, mir kam es Spanisch vor!! :) Ich dachte, du willst in Wikimania eine Rede gemeinsam mit Dschwen halten, deswegen bin ich dann davon ausgegangen, dass er auch dabei ist. Wir können uns bzgl. HK gerne abstimmen, aber bgzl. Kameras habe ich nicht so richtig verstanden, worum es dir geht. Mein Deutsch ist nicht verrostet! :) Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Der Workshop ist von uns beiden eingereicht, das stimmt. Bisher ist das noch nicht viel mehr als eine Idee. Ich habe im Pro-Markt die billigste Kamera gekauft, die zu haben war und damit mache ich jetzt gelegentlich Beispilebilder, es sind aber noch keine online. Ich möchte damit auch am ersten tag durch Hongkong ziehen. Wir wollen den Leuten die Angst nehmen, daß man nur mit sehr teurer Technik anständig knipsen kann.
- Unabhängig davon wäre es schön, wenn wir Fotografen mal gemeinsam losziehen könnten. --Ralf Roleček 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ich finde die Idee wirklich gut und gleichzeitig eine Art Herausforderung! Sag mal Bescheid, wenn ich eure Idee irgendwie unterstützen kann.
- Bezüglich gemeinsam losziehen, bin ich gerne dabei und für alles zu haben :) Ich wollte auch mal mit Wilfredor mindestens eine Nacht Hong Kong fotografieren gehen, vielleicht können wir daraus ein Commonstreffen machen. Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Gute Idee! Wer von uns schleppt sein Stativ mit? Ich bin auch scharf auf die unendlich vorhandenen Nachtaufnahmen vom Peak. Haben zwar "alle" schon fotografiert, ich will aber auch ;) Ich möchte auch in den Norden, in die Natur. Commonstreffen klingt gut. Wo spricht man das an? Ich habe seit Jahren den Eindruck, daß Commonsianer ziemlich träge sind, was Community angeht. Zu meinem Photoshop-Wochenende hat sich niemand von Commons gemeldet...--Ralf Roleček 21:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stativ werde ich dabei haben, der ist brauchbar. Bezüglich Ankündigung in Commons, keine Ahnung, normalerweise sollte man eine Seite darüber anlegen und das Thema in den Foren ankündigen. Ich kann mich darum kümmern, die Seite zu erstellen und im Spanischen und Englischen Forum das Thema zu werben, vielleicht kannst du es auch im Deutschen Forum machen? Bisher habe ich nicht viel mit anderen Commonsianer unternommen, von daher kann es wohl stimmen, was du sagst.
- Wo finde ich denn die Seite zu deinem Photoshop-WE? Auf Wikiversity habe ich nicht viele Infos gefunden. Poco a poco (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Photoshop gibts hier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fotoworkshop/Photoshop_intensiv --Ralf Roleček 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion [edit]
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:BMW Welt, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-24, DD 25.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.
| Comments |
Dust spot. Mattbuck 19:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Poco a poco 21:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Better. Mattbuck 21:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! File:Templo de Diana, Jardín del Patio, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-02-02, DD 02.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.
| Comments |
Please correct perspective. Mattbuck 11:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
New version uploaded Better? Poco a poco 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently unable to review images due to a very slow connection. Broadband is coming next week, I promise to review then. Sorry for the delay. Mattbuck 16:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Mattbuck 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Support --
,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico_de_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-01-27,_DD_02.JPG)
Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you.
Fixed 
Comment Minor issues, notes added. Please geotag your QI candidates, thank you. --
,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico_de_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-05-04,_DD_01.jpg){kind=small}
,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico_de_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-05-04,_DD_01.jpg)
_rodeado_de_Nymphaea_odorata,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico_de_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-05-04,_DD_03.jpg){kind=small}
Overexposed --
,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico_de_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-05-04,_DD_02.jpg)
,_Hartelholz,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-04-15,_DD_01.jpg)
,_Hartelholz,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-04-15,_DD_01.jpg)
,_Hartelholz,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-04-15,_DD_14.jpg)
,_Hartelholz,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-04-15,_DD_11.jpg)
,_Hartelholz,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-04-15,_DD_12.jpg)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ayuntamiento_de_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_03-edited.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
