User talk:Wolfgang K
Hi Wolfgang, yes I was being quite critical, that's the point of having someone review the submission :-). "BTW this was not a candidate for an excellent photo", well yes it was actually - Quality Images are meant to be technically excellent photos, if they also have some 'wow' factor that grabs peoples attention they may also become Featured Pictures. 'Pictures of the day' photos must already have either been promoted as Featured Pictures or Quality Images, the standards required are very similar. Maybe a lot of lower quality images are getting through and you thought the standard was lower.
- So getting back to the Weta picture, it's good in a number of respects: good lighting, reasonable framing, good resolution, good focus, reasonable depth of field, good background. But candidates are assessed at full resolution, so although the image looks good at an 800x600 level it is obviously very, very grainy when viewed at full resolution (2848 x 2136) - this is clearly caused by it being photographed with a very fast film speed of ISO800. Presumably the camera was set for rapidly moving objects, and the low light level caused it to ratchet up the film speed. Unfortunately high speed equals low definition. I typically try to film insects with a ISO setting of 50 (to give high definition) and an f-stop of f8 (to give good depth of field), of course this means longer exposure times, often 1/3rd or even 1 second. And yes I know Wetas can move rather fast, but they also tend to stop for a while in one place to work out their next move, tasting the air with their feelers. I saw the other Weta photos that you have uploaded, and it looks like it was still on one or two occasions :-). I assumed from the nice clean background that you'd managed to persuade it to stand on a sheet of paper for a while, but it sounds like it wasn't quite that co-operative :-).
- As you've got a high resolution image, you could try 'downsampling' it (ie scaling it down) to something like 1650x1250 and that might even out that grainyness. I'm not very good at that sort of processing though.
- I suppose I'm saying it's failing in one technical aspect, and often one fault is not enough to disqualify images from being rated as Quality Images, so I suggest you change the /Decline to a /Discuss and ask for further evaluation (see the consensual review section of QIC).
- Hope you submit further interesting photos in the future :-) --Tony Wills 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Was für eine Überraschung, dein schönes Wētābild hier zu finden. Ach, ich wünsche mir eine bessere Kamera, sie sind aber sehr teuer und auch sehr groß... Kahuroa 10:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
NZ location maps mass deletion2
Hi Wolfgang K, the New Zealand location map File:NZ-Te Kuiti.png that you uploaded has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests, the discussion is at Commons:Deletion requests/NZ location maps2. Benchill (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
|File:SFOakBrWestPartVEast.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
126.96.36.199 11:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)