User talk:Slaunger

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
I will reply to your comments here (unless you prefer otherwise).

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Zuzana Smatanova[edit]

Hi Slaunger... did you mean something like this one? :-) --Bojars (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes. That photo is much better when it comes to the expression of the artists! The composition is good too! Concerning the technical quality I cannot evaluate it because I am on travel and only has access to a tablet not suitable for a proper review. One thing I notice though is a distracting foreground element in the left hand side and in the right hand side some parts of the saxophone player is missing, maybe due to a partial obstruction very close to the photographer? Best wishes, --Slaunger (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Voting Eligibility[edit]

Hi Slaunger,

thanks for the hint regarding my voting rights - i was not aware that i'm not eligible yet. I'll submit some more images quite soon to Wiki Loves Monuments. Anyhow i think you deserver your image being presented in excellent images. Congrats! --Aswirthm (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Higher Res[edit]

Hi there, I do have higher res images for the polar bear as you suggest, but how can I replace it without losing all the support mentions so far? I am fairly new to this Commons featured image process and I don't want to do something wrong... Thanks in advance! --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)

Hi Arturo de Frias Marques. Pleased to meet you and your nice polar bearClin. I have lived in North West Greenland for some months some years ago, but I have never managed to see an icebear alive in its natural environment, although I have seen some 'hanging around'.
It is great that you have a larger resolution image. The policy for overwriting files is stated in Commons:Overwriting existing files. Here it is mentioned that it is OK to overwrite an existing file if it is a 'minor improvement', and in the section where this term is explained, it is explicitly mentioned that uploading a higher resolution image over an existing file is uncontroversial.
So, if the currently uploaded file is 'just' a downsampled version of a higher resolution file (and no other alterations have been made) it should be uncontroversial to update the file by using the link ('Upload new version') at the bottom of the file page. And then as a courtesy I would inform the reviewers, (and you may want to list them all with links to their user names, such that they will get notified explicitly), by adding an {{Info}} line on the nomination page, and the votes will stay. Now, in the unlikely event, that someone complains (there are a few reviewers who sometimes go nitpicking on the individual pixel quality, which will evidently fall with a higher resolution image, although the accumulated information in the entire image will rise), there is always the possibility to revert to your original version. Hope this helps and continued good luck with your nominatation. --Slaunger (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger, I read your comment, and found the Upload New Version link... sadly I am not at home now and cannot upload a bigger file for the moment. For when I can, what kind of res would you have in mind? If I remember correctly, it was 1920px and 300dpi... Tks!

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Monument of Our Lady of the Snows (Francisco López Burgos) at Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07 corrected.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument of Our Lady of the Snows (Francisco López Burgos) at Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07 corrected.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've already seen this somewhere...--Jebulon (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

...Jebulon You have seen it the same place as I have (I promise you, it has not moved). As a matter of fact you have seen it at least three times: in 2009, in 2010 and if I remember right I saw Mr Jebulon wandering about at lower altitudes on August 7, 2014, eventually catching up with me (Mr. Jebulon, I presume?!?). I have not seen any uploads yet though to prove that my remembrance is correct, but if you manage to provide exhibits, it will be apparent from the EXIF data (unless manipulated) that I was first (this year) Smile. --Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If I have taken pictures of this place in 2009, 2010, and 2014, then I may say it is a SET :))) !--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hahaha, yes you are finally understanding what a set is. Three different years constitute a perfect set! --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Higher resolution[edit]

Hi Slaunger.... very sorry for my delay in replying, been travelling... in fact, I arrived yesterday, and leave again today. I was photographing bears and wolves in the north of Spain, now off to Kenya. I have been thinking about the higher res, and I think I will not upload higher res. The reason is that I am a photographer, and try to make a living out of my images. Whilst I am very happy to share my images in wikimedia, and I am in fact very proud of participating in such a magnificent project of free universal knowledge (which I really admire, since may years ago), I am afraid that if I make my images available at maximum resolution this will sooner or later affect my profession. I don't like the idea of a newspaper or magazine or any other client coming to me one day and saying Hey Arturo I just saw all your images are in wikimedia at max res for free - why should I buy them from you?

I love the idea of other people enjoying/using my images absolutely for free, but for learning, or for personal joy, not for commercial purposes. And for personal purposes I think 1920px at 300dpi should be enough.

I really hope you understand my motivation, it is not a lack of trust in wikimedia, or you, or anything like that... I have to say, I honestly admire you for having started with the featured images project long ago. But intellectual property in the internet is really difficult to control. Happy to discuss further in any case. Best regards, Arturo

Hi Arturo de Frias Marques,
Welcome back from the realm of wolves and and bears, and good luck in Kenya!
Contributing to Commons is voluntary, and you are not forced in any way to upload in full resolution. I completely understand if you do not want to upload in full resolution for the reasons you specify. You can upload in whatever resolution you want. I also agree with you that 1920px gives good value for many purposes and is good enough most of the time for online use, which is the most frequent use of our images. When you participate in the featured pictures program, where we feature the very best one in a thousand image, resolution is an issue thugh, and you can generally expect that it is harder to get a picture promoted with marginal pixel resolution as compared to full resolution. It will often lead to me not supporting an image, albeit the content appears featurable. For many others, as you saw with nice icebear pic (and it really is a very nice pic), this does not have as much weight. I just personally think that if you want to have the honor and exposure by getting a picture of the day, you shall have gone all in. This is just a personal preference and not stated anywhere ion the guidelines.
And one thing which is generally frowned upon on Commons is also to use Commons as a marketing platform for the full resolution versions of the same images. Like using your user page to advertise prominently for your own commercial site (I think you could tone it down a bit), or prominantly use templates on the file pages for directing re-users to your own site for full resolution images. Nothing wrong in discretely on file pages to add some contact information and tell re-users that in case they would like to re-use the photo under other conditions than the stated license, i.e., without attribution, they can contact you to negotiate terms. See, for example File:Banaue Philippines Handmade-brooms-01.jpg by Cccefalon for an IMO balanced example. For another example, where I think the commercial angle has gotten a bit too dominant, see File:Wedge tail eagle flight Jan13.jpg.
Finally, a correction of a misunderstanding. I did not start the FP project!Smile When I first joined Commons in 2007, the FP project was very much alive. You may be mistaking the FP project from the less prominent valued image project, which I had active role in establishing. --Slaunger (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger, Good points, well made. I am glad you understand my motives. And I fully understand your personal preference for "all in" images. I looked at your examples and yes I agree in the eagle image the commercial angle is a bit over the top. I don't pretend to use Commons as a marketing platform... In reality, I upload my images as a kind of thank you, because I use Wikipedia an awful lot for species identification, latin names, etc. I will have a look at my user page, I was not aware of a strong commercial angle. By the way, your Alhambra pano is outstanding!! :-)

Hi again Arturo,
Thanks for dropping by. It appears that we understand each other, and each others objectives completely. Nice! Regarding your user page, and your commercial angle, it is just my personal view, that it should be toned down, especially the links in capital letters. People have different opinions on that, and just because I think so, you are in no way obliged to change anything due to that. Other users would find it is just fine.
I am very honored regarding the appraisal you have for my Alhambra pano, thanks! Smile
By the way, did you know that you can sign your posts on talk pages by adding -- ~~~~ at the end of your posts? It will automatically expand into a signature and datetime when saved. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger. Talking about "all in" images,... I just saw your vote in my cheetah... First and foremost, thank you for your comment, which from a technical point, is flawless. It is clear that you are an expert in photography technique. The settings are not the most adequate, as you correctly point out. However, I have to say, I am slightly surprised by it. By definition, a picture of a wild predator after sunset has important technical challenges, mainly the almost inexistent light, and the fact that a cheetah on the prowl will stay on top of the termite mound for a second, not even two. You are lucky if you see it, compose and fire. There is no time to change settings. Honestly, I think this image is unbelievably atmospheric, one of the most powerful in my portfolio - you can almost hear the crickets, smell the savannah, feel the determination of the hunter. And as such, I expected it to be evaluated on its artistic strength, the story it tells, the feelings it conveys, not by the sharpness you would expect in an arquitectural image. Please don't get me wrong, I fully respect your view, and accept the comment. I am fairly new to Commons as you know... but I just expected different types of images to be evaluated with different criteria. You sent me back to my drawing board, scratching my head....

(And I have tried to do the signature but I must be doing something wrong, as I only get some "special contributions" mention)

Hi again Arturo,
First of all thanks for not attacking me for the oppose vote, but for calmly approaching me on my talk page and raise you relevant questions and comments. You are overestimating my proficiency level in the technical aspects of photography by the way. I dare to say what I think and vote accordingly, but I also know, that I may be wrong, and I am most often susceptible for reasonable arguments. I do see your point regarding the exceptional character of the shot and the timing and atmosphere, and you are correct that in reviewing FPCs we should consider the the difficulty of the shot. I do acknowledge that for this type of shot you really do not have the time to carefully consider the camera settings. I have thus changed my vote to neutral. Sorry, but I cannot really support due to quality issues and low resolution. As I have told previously I completely understand your objectives for not uploading in full resolution. It just does not give points at FPC. If you promise not to tell anyone, (shhhh), I can also reveal that in fact I have an FP from the same year (2009) of a photographically much, much simpler static object, with a hopeless f/20 aperture giving an overall soft and washed out appearance in the final image.Smile At that time it was simply because I had no idea of what "diffraction limited" meant, and I had very little feeling for how small the aperture should be to get good DOF for such a subject, so I just chose a very small one to be sure DOF would not be an issue.
Concerning your problems with signing your previous post, it is most likely because you had forgotten to log in:)-- Slaunger (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Arturo, I note that you are releasing a low resolution image under CC licence while retaining a higher resolution image for paid clients. This is not unusual among professional photographers. However, I should warn you that Creative Commons regard their licence as applying to the "work of copyright" and not the particular file you upload to Commons or Flickr. Therefore, if the high resolution image were to appear online (for example, on your own website), someone might consider this fair to use under the CC licence you have indicated here. While we would strongly discourage anyone uploading this high resolution image to Commons, you should be aware that using a CC licence for these images potentially weakens your ability to restrict use of the high resolution images if they become publicly available. I suggest you keep your high resolution images offline and only supply them to trusted clients with a carefully worded contract. Of course, I would love it if you offered higher resolution images here but understand your need to earn money from your work. Perhaps there are images in your portfolio that are second-best or no longer making money for you. In addition to the Featured Picture forum on Commons, there are similar forums on Wikipedia (which consider also the value of the image to the article) and also the Quality Images forum on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Morning Slaunger, thanks a lot for changing your mind! I do appreciate your flexibility. I thought it would be better to discuss in your talk page rather than on the vote page - I hate it when somebody becomes confrontational so for me rule number one is never be confrontational! Life is too short to go around creating bad vibes, much less about a FPC. I have uploaded a full res image, at 4000px. I think it improves the overall resolution somewhat, although there remind some softness. Best, --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)

Arturo, no problem. Smile You are right that the full resolution has so much softness that the overall gain in information as compared to the original "thumbnail" is rather small. I still appreciate you upload it though. Now, that you have 'opened the gates' with the number of pixels, bait is also laid out for the pixel peepers to start complaining that it is 'not sharp at 100%'. That is the downside of it. Reviewers not seeing the image in its entirety and balancing resolution with pixel fidelity. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Colin, thanks a lot for your comments, very pertinent, and very useful. I will take them into account. I have uploaded a higher res cheetah though. Best, --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)

Photo challenge[edit]

Hi Slaunger. I am really sorry but I have had to remove this entry of yours as it was first uploaded in July, not newly uploaded in the challenge period of August. HelenOnline 14:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear HelenOnline: Facepalm (yellow).svg, you are right! I went through my upload stream for August and found this picture from August 14. Thought: Hey, that fits pretty good with the "Hair" competition, and nominated it. I was actually surprised to find it in the August stream, as I seemed to recall that it was uploaded a longer time ago. NOW, I realize (stupid me), that it was an improved version I uploaded in response to some review comments at COM:QIC on August 14. But the upload of the original version was July 30 (it was close though), so it is clearly not eligable for the competition. Thanks for noticing it, and for bringing it to my attention! And thanks for taking your time to do these chores, for which there is seldom the appreciation it deserves. --Slaunger (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being so gracious about it. It is a pity as I wanted to vote for it. Face-smile.svg HelenOnline 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
HelenOnline, I am glad you like my photo, and would have voted on it, if it was eligable for the competition. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightroom quality[edit]

I noticed you'd saved a recent photo at 98% quality. Lightroom has a misleading range of quality options (0-100) when in fact there are only 13 levels (which are similar to Photoshop's 0-12. See the chart on this page and have a play with Jeffrey Friedl's interactive web page. I did some experiments a while back and settled on using 90 (i.e. 1 step less than max) because I couldn't really see the difference gained from 100, even when blown up. I may have another experiment, but there is no actual difference in the file generated between 98 and 100. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Colin, thanks for the heads up on the jpeg quality setting. I had not studied in detail how it impacted the quality and file size, and sort of assumed it used the same scale as in GIMP, where the resolution is on a 1% scale, and there I had found that I could see no difference between 98% and 100%, but with a noticeable decrease in file size. But I checked your references, and the interactive web page was particularly instructive. Without having done more testing myself, I agree that setting it to 90% would appear to be a sweet spot, not really compromising quality in any noticeable way. --Slaunger (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
But of course, anything less that 100% loses information! IIRC when I last experimented, I saw a difference in noisy pictures where (when magnified 200 or 300%) the noise "grains" moved around. I guess noise is impossible to compress with fidelity. But if it merely substitutes one random arrangement of pixels with another, the overall effect isn't really importantly different. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alhambra evening panorama Mirador San Nicolas sRGB-1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ooooh! What a nice pano ! For sure you used a very good and strong tripod for such a extraordinary result !:)))--Jebulon (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Thanks again for lending it to me! :))) -- Slaunger (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
And the point to learn: Never ever rent your tripod to any! :) Jee 02:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)