User talk:S23678

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

S23678 is taking a short break and will be back at Commons in Febuary 2010 with some pictures from his honeymoon in Patagonia. I'll monitor this page from time to time.

Archives Distinctions Outside wikis Inside wikis

Contents 1 image 2 Re: Sorry? 3 Advise 3.1 Next step 3.2 Exercices 4 Advice 2 5 Re: Possible nominations 6 G'day 7 Your question 8 Please do not 9 :) 10 FP Promotion

[edit] image

Well, here it is, but I am not sure why you asked for it File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge original.jpg In my edit I ajusted contrasts and removed some noise. If you're to work with the original, there will be lots of extra work for you I believe. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sorry?

Hey, eventually every building will turn into a big pile of rubble ;) But about FPC - I think some people have a twisted idea about what FP is and what isn't. And sometimes I think self-nomination should be prohibited because of some attachment-related problems... But generally I'm happy that you have similar views to mine :) --Leafnode✉ 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a different view. I haven't ever considered FP as a motivation for making great pictures. I try to make good pictures because I then enjoy looking at them. Having a FP is nice of course, and it's a great honor, but as you can see, nowadays FP's quality is random. People vote basing on a random measures. Sometime they twist the measures to their liking. And most of all, I haven't ever considered self-nominations, because I think it's vain to call your own work "the very best" ;) Especially if a person is doing mass-self-nominations. About 'not liking' - I think you are a bit too harsh, and that's why people are responding badly. I try to avoid conflicts, because I think that as and administrator and OTRS volunteer I have to be conciliatory :) --Leafnode✉ 10:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advise

Follow your advise, what are you think about these two images, I can't understant Image guidelines: . Thasks you so much. My EN level is bad.--Lê (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• First, good job on asking for advices, this is the good move. Second, try using Google translate to help with understanding the VERY STRICT guidelines of FPC (Featured Picture Candidate). Third, you must understand that featured pictures are about finding and promoting the VERY BEST images of commons. Currently, there's less than 1 out of every 3000 images that are considered Featured Pictures. Personally, this is about the ratio of my nominations as well : I nominate about 1 out of every 3000 pictures I am taking. This should be considered by you when you are thinking about nominating an image : is this image really exceptional? Do I see any quality defaults? Is the composition optimal?

• As for advices on your image, the short answer is that you should not nominate these for FPC, because of a number of defects in quality and composition. But I prefer to learn you fishing than catching a fish for you. So, I would like you to assess your 2 images according to the guidelines, and to tell me why you think they are good for FP. From there, we can get you up to par with general FPC nominators. So, I'll be waiting for your comments --S23678 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

* Trước tiên, tốt công việc trên xin lời khuyên, đây là di chuyển tốt. Thứ hai, hãy thử sử dụng Google dịch để giúp đỡ với sự hiểu biết các nguyên tắc NGHIÊM NGẶT VERY của FPC (đặc Picture Ứng Viên). Thứ ba, bạn phải hiểu rằng hình ảnh đặc trưng là về việc tìm kiếm và quảng bá hình ảnh BEST VERY của commons. Hiện nay, có ít hơn 1 trên mỗi 3.000 hình ảnh đó được coi là đặc trưng Pictures. Cá nhân, đây là về tỷ lệ của đề cử của tôi cũng: Tôi đề cử khoảng 1 trên mỗi 3.000 hình ảnh tôi chụp. Điều này cần được coi là của bạn khi bạn đang suy nghĩ về đề cử một hình ảnh: là hình ảnh này thật sự đặc biệt? Tôi thấy bất cứ mặc định chất lượng? Là thành phần tối ưu? Đối với tư vấn về hình ảnh của bạn, câu trả lời ngắn là bạn không nên đề cử cho các FPC, bởi vì một số khiếm khuyết trong chất lượng và thành phần. Nhưng tôi thích để tìm hiểu bạn đánh cá hơn đánh bắt cá cho bạn. Vì vậy, tôi muốn bạn để đánh giá 2 hình ảnh của bạn theo các nguyên tắc, và cho tôi biết lý do tại sao bạn nghĩ rằng họ là tốt cho FP. Từ đó, chúng tôi có thể giúp bạn có được lên đến ngang hàng với tổng nominators FPC. Vì vậy, tôi sẽ chờ ý kiến của bạn - S23678 (thảo luận) 16:21, ngày 4 tháng 11 2009 (UTC)

OK, i read it, and I think think this Image to "satisfy" it , except The distortions. What you thinks?--Lê (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, we're not quite there yet. I'll send you to read about noise and Overexposure, and I want you to tell me about them for each of your images. Don't show me more images, I want you to analyze the ones already on this page. --S23678 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Không, chúng tôi không khá có được nêu ra. Tôi sẽ gửi cho bạn đọc về tiếng ồn và Overexposure, và tôi muốn các bạn cho tôi biết về họ cho mỗi hình ảnh của bạn. Không hiển thị hình ảnh tôi nhiều hơn, tôi muốn bạn để phân tích những cái đã có trên trang này. - S23678 (thảo luận) 13:35, ngày 5 tháng 11 2009 (UTC)

So sorry.--Lê (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please, read again / Xin vui lòng đọc lại --S23678 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't angry. I am exploring "how is the noise". Sorry so much because that. :{--Lê (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Next step

Ok Mr Lê, let's go to the next step. We will look at resolution, focus, and composition.

• Resolution and sharpness : first read here. Then, the guidelines says that an image must have a minimum resolution of 2000000 pixels (2 millions pixels = 2 mpx). So, first thing is to calculate the image resolution : height X length = resolution. After, you must look of the amount of detail in the image is good. Today's cameras can easily have over 10 mpx, so if your image have only 2 mpx, every part of the image must be absolutely sharp. If the image is larger than 2 mpx (10 mpx for example), the image can be less sharp when viewed in full zoom, since it's bigger

• Focus : first read this. Focus must always be good on the main subject. For the parts outside the main subject, it's a personal choice :

• When only the main subject is in focus, the main subject is isolated from it's surroundings. It brings the attention on the main subject
• When everything is in focus, it may be because the subject is very flat, but it's generally because we want the main subject to be presented with his surroundings.

• Composition : this is very very personal point. You must look at the image and think : "is this the best possible image of that scene?". Are the colors good? Does all the parts of the image seems at the "good place?"

I will provide you with some examples :

[edit] Exercices

So let's do the same exercices with what I just showed you :

• Noise : present or not?

  No, it very clear.

  • Actually, a little bit of noise is present in the sky, but it can sometimes be forgiven in such night shots, so
• Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?

  Too shine?

  • Yes, a large part of the picture is overexposed, and the lights have too large large overexposed rays, so
• Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?

  2207914. Yes.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Details : Is there a large amount of details?

  No.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Focus : is the focus good?

  No.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Composition : is the composition good?

  Yes, I feel ligh rays is good with street lights.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Personally, I would call this a messy composition. The subject is not clear.

• Noise : present or not?

  No, I just see two black zone.--Lê (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  There is noise in dark areas. Since it's on the main subject, it's not good, so

• Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?

  Yes.--Lê (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  The exposure is incorrect because a large portion of the sky is white, so

• Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?

  Yes, 2509056.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Details : Is there a large amount of details?

  Yes, I can see every point of it.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Focus : is the focus good?

  No.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Composition : is the composition good?

  No.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Noise : present or not?

  I don't see.

  You are right, so

• Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?

  I feel it exposured after second angel.--Lê (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly, the wall is completly overexposed, so

• Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?

  Yes, 2392716.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Details : Is there a large amount of details?

  Yes.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Focus : is the focus good?

  Yes.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Composition : is the composition good?

  Yes.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Noise : present or not?

  Yes

  Yes, there is noise, in the out-of-focus area, so

• Exposure : correct or incorrect exposure?

  No

  The exposure looks ok to me as well, so

• Resolution : Is the image resolution over 2 mpx?

  Yes, 2130084.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Details : Is there a large amount of details?

  Yes, I can see manything in the water.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Focus : is the focus good?

  Yes, I think.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Composition : is the composition good?

  Yes, with pink and white.--Lê (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good job. So, we just went through the basics of FPC evaluation, and your judging capabilities went up quite a bit here. Normally, if you can answer "no" to one of these 5 major points, the picture will get rejected quickly. If you can answer "yes" to all of them, there's still a very large number of minor reasons why a picture can get rejected (just look at all the reasons given beside  Oppose signs in the nomination page for examples). Remember, you should only nominate the pictures that are the best of the best. Being just "good" is usually not good enough. So, you can go back to seek possible FPC, and I'll be glad to give you my advice before you nominate it. You can seek the advice of other regular contributors as well. --S23678 (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Thanks. :D--Lê (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Advice 2

It is a good idea,I mean asking for advise:) I like it. S23678, what do you think about that one File:Vineyard and winery in Napa Valley.jpg? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mila, first thing : my guess is that you seek advice for FPC, so I will tell you what I think based on the guidelines. Ok, my main concern here is light conditions. The contrasts are very (too) high between areas under direct sunshine and shade areas. This divides your picture in roughly 4 horizontal bands : sky (light), house (dark), top of the vines (light) and side of the vines (dark). As a personal opinion, this would cut me out from supporting your picture. After, there's some quality issues in the sky, already pointed-out by a tag. Finally, there's a CCW tilt that should be corrected. Apart from there points, the quality is generally good. The exposure is good (although the sky is near clipping in the blue channel), good focus. For composition, I would have liked that big dark tree on the right side not to be cut so close to the house, and I may have trimmed the foot of the vines, giving your picture a square look, but "je m'accroche dans les fleurs du tapis ici"
• I went in depth here, but my intention is not to destroy by words your work. As I said earlier to Mr Lê, I nominate one in about every 3000 pictures I am taking, so I can assure you that picture is far better than the majority of the pictures I am taking, and you must consider this one to be special since you are asking my advice. So, I can assure you your picture don't "suck", I just think it's a step short from FP. --S23678 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Possible nominations

From photos you've chosen, I'd discard photos 102, 103, 124 and 93. They are nice, but not very impressive - and for some that is the key feature they look for in FP. Image 99 is great - although it is taken in front of the sun, thus contains flare, but I'd vote for it. From your other pictures, number 100 is very interesting, but colors are a bit washed off. I understand that here lighting conditions were to be accounted for, but maybe come playing with color curves could help. File:9 - Itahuania - Août 2008.JPG is also nice - beak is overblown, but it's easy to correct. --Leafnode✉ 08:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making derivative and tampered a bit with your photo, and here's the result: File:9 - Itahuania - Août 2008 retouched.jpg. Maybe you'll like it :) --Leafnode✉ 10:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] G'day

Hey, thanks for the tip regarding the UTC clock, it's quite useful. And yes, the word is 'preferences', quite a lot of English words are derived from or copy their French equivalents. Also, I think the word you were looking for is 'correct' ('correct english word'). With regard to your question about shock trials; I've never heard of there being any catastrophic failures (some things may shake loose, but there's generally no major damage), and the tests have been going on for quite a while. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

Hi, I'd like to let you know that I do not consider your question about downsampling to be fair, not as long as you do not ask the same question others, who downsample images much, much more than I do, but, yes, the image was downsampled. I cannot carry a good tripod. It is way too heavy for me. Tripod that I use is not good, and even a slight wind makes a big difference. Does it mean that I should stop taking long shots exposure, or take them, but do not nominate? I do not know, but I do not think so. Please feel free to oppose the image. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Following the discussion in the talk page about downsampling, I realize that as much as I dislike downsampling, I was to blame since I did not expressed my thoughts and encouraged users to bring full resolution versions enough. Still, you'll realize that downsampling isn't the first thing I brought on the table when we discussed about your nomination, and I never stated it as a possible reason to oppose. I was about to write a word encouraging you to bring the full resolution up, but I couldn't determine for sure that it was a downsampled version (I got caught here). As for the quality problems causing you to downsample, I personally downsample full resolution images by software when I fell they would not be fairly treated only because they are at full resolution, and I vote for them based on the downsampled version. I personally hold in high esteem authors who do so, since IMHO, they are thinking not just at getting that FP star on their image, but at all the subsequent applications as well. --S23678 (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you last statement, excpt IMO, if a full resolution image has some quality problems, not only FP project, but other Commons projects as well will not benefit from the full resolution image. Besides as I mentioned at FPC talk page I do believe that many images do not have to be a high resolution at all to introduce the subject well and to be valuabale like, for example, my fogbow image.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I very sure we won't be able to agree on the downsampling issue, but I have to point out that I really, really don't believe any image can benefit in quality with downsampling. Apparent quality yes, real quality, no. This has been demonstrated here. Have a special look at image number 3. For your fogbow image example, if a person was to use this image for future large-scale applications (for example, use a crop of the upper part of the bow), he would have better quality options from the full resolution version than the downsampled one. --S23678 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not

Hi, I linked your edit versus displaying a huge, bad image in the nomination. It was confusing, unwanted and unneeded.You want to oppose the image, please do (I will not be surprised), but please do not put your edit back. I do not think you would have liked, if somebody did something like that with your nomination, and BTW forget about the posterization I like the colors of my original better. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• On numerous occasions, I've provided assistance to nominations where I saw an improvement could be done to make it better (recent example). I never (to the best I can remember) got blamed for proposing an edited alternative until now... I've even helped you to correct some tilt in previous nomination, and some of my images have been corrected by others as well (most recently this very good edit by Leafnode). I see FPC as a collaborative community, but you seem to have a very unilateral approach to it on some occasions : "if you don't like my work, I hate you". I invite you to review your opinion of my edit from an aggressive one to a good faith one, because that's what it was, a good faith edit. --S23678 (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your edit was not an alternative. I did not ask you not to edit my images. I only asked you not to add your edit to the nomination the way you did, as it is alternative, when it is not. Nobody ever done it before, and it was a bad tone as much as I am concerned. Besides it was very confusing. Some users do not know English good enough to understand the image was not for voting, the bot would have also treated it as alternative, which would have created an extra work for the closer of the nomination. Of course you do not know that because I do not recall you ever clossed the nominations in our "collaborative community". I took the image off, but I linked to it, which is good enough IMO. At least two users, but me commented on your "alternative", so your work was not lost. Of course I do not hate you, and I still believe you should give it another thought before doing something like that. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit]  :)

Well, when I said I retiered, I meant I retiered from uploading new images at least for the foreseeable feature. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. So no new images means no new FP nominations from me, but if you still would like to continue the discussion we could do it. Of course I could get blocked once again and then I will be able to edit only my own talk page. If it is the case, we could do it on my talk page versus the place you suggested. It will be even interesting, and something to think about during the block :) Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I did as you asked. With all my heart I wish you all the best and of course new great images!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FP Promotion

The image has been promoted to Featured picture The image File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)