User talk:Charles01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Fiat 600 at Schaffen-Diest.jpg
Jaguar Mark X arriving Schaffen-Diest.jpg

Big Hillman[edit]

Here is a rare photo of a re-labelled big 4-litre Hillman which the world saw labelled Sunbeam-Talbot and very pretty it is too in the movies (the prettiest view) on show Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

New one on me. Very stylish. I wonder how it survived the European war. Exported to "the Antipodes", maybe? Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. It is short of a record on DVLA. It goes to meetings wearing its real licence plate? or it travels by trailer or monster truck? Glad you like it, best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jowett Ten style says late 1930s.jpg[edit]

The moral is always check to see the name of the photographer. I can be persuaded if you tell me you remember a large 10 on its nose but on the appearance alone it would seem to be an Eight. On top of that all the Tens have ventilation thingummies along the vertical parts of their bonnet and this has none. Please may I leave my notes there as extra information? Best regards, glad to know you are alive and well and not lost to the world of cars. Eddaido (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about the moral, but if I ever see it again I'll try and photograph the number on the nose. At this remove, I fear I've absolutely no recollection of why I thought it was a Jowett Ten. Alas.... Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Plus if you have the skills and sophisticated equipment to clarify the badge...[1].... alas for me, I don't
Me too or do I mean me neither. The distinguishing mark, I have just discovered, is on the cover of the orifice for the crankhandle as may be seen here (8) and here (10) ERW255 wears none. And of course it is one of those nasty ghost cars without a record on DVLA. I just went to re-check and DVLA's site is down for maintenance but I will get round to it. Eddaido (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I shared your experience in respect of the DVLA at least twice, as in both yesterday and when I uploaded the image a few years back. Just occasionally there is an error on their database, so that if one spells the make "wrongly" you get a match. But it's hard to figure out any obvious ways to spell "Jowett" wrongly. Hmmm. Charles01 (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


Ghia L6.4 (Chrysler base) west of Bedford front three quarters.JPG
Jaguar XF aka X260 disguised prototype 3000cc sic DVLA first registered September 2014.JPG

Another generous collection of high quality images. Chrysler and Ghia made many cars together including short production runs all about the same period as Jensen in UK and that big luxurious French car. Anyway as Dino Martin might have said - keep those cards and letters and images coming in! Best, Eddaido (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. The Ghia was especially challenging because (1) it's black and (2) it was SURROUNDED by people (photographing it on their telephones and otherwise). In the end I just had to sit down under a tree and grab any opportunities when the sea of other folks' bottoms cleared momentarily. Sitting down is fine, of course, but I've reached the stage in life at which one is never quite sure whether all the bits will work as directed when one wants to stand up again.
You were probably not as obsessive as I in the '60s, so don't remember when that one came out as a Corgi model with opening everything - doors, boot/trunk AND bonnet/hood. And there was a plastic corgi dog curled up on the parcel shelf inside at the back which no doubt widened the potential customer base further. But with all those unusual gaps in the body shell, they made the windscreen and other pillars really thick. I've an uneasy feeling that one of the windscreen pillars on my model may nevertheless have snapped. The alloy they used for those castings was pretty soft. Anyway, I can confirm that it's much more stylish full scale and with thin pillars, though in our own age of computer aided design and subtle delicate curves, it's a bit more "in your face" than it would have been parked at a parking mall on the right side of Los Angeles back in the 1960s, surrounded by befinned and bejewelled Detroit behemoths.
I was also pleased to get a picture of one of the reworked Jaguar XFs. They were meant to be around from last September, but they've only recently started turning up on the roads here in Europe. I don't know if the first batches all got sent to China, or if they simply took longer sorting out the final glitches than scheduled. I'd managed (gloat gloat) to finding one to photograph year a ago, but that one appeared resolutely to be taking a leaf out of the book of that actress who wanted to be alone...
On with Thursday.
Happy days Charles01 (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Know what you mean. I'd have been aged 9 and here and convinced that the V12 Lagonda was the Most beautiful car in the world and the celluloid windscreen broke and then a bully broke off a headlight. No dog on the parcel shelf but fully detailed upholstery and instrument panel. Don't recall the precise date but pretty much everything else. The national distributor has its main showroom at the end of the street here and it looks to me as if XFs might have just landed here too. Keep up that seriously impressive edit count too. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Just another Godless killing machine[edit] Eddaido (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Makes ya think. Hmmmm Tks Charles01 (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Wcam (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Unimog 401 mit geschlossener Kabine bei Wischnewski.jpg

I am stuck in this article because I have been unable to ascertain whether Chrysler used Talbot on any of its products or was Talbot only used once the same products were being built and sold by PSA. Do you know the answer? Hope its still summery and more than just warm where you are, Eddaido (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know (and at least as far as Europe is concerned I think I do) the "Talbot" name was resurfaced only AFTER Peugeot had acquired what as known in France as Simca and in England as Chrysler - ie the fixed and intangible assets (plant and brands) of what had been, back in the 1960s, the Simca company.
I think it stopped being summery here a few days back, though it's still quite dry. We were in north Germany at the weekend and the maize (corn) in the fields appeared to have dried before cropping, so the second half of summer (July, August in the northern hemisphere...) must have been exceptionally dry there. Got quite a good picture of a Unimog, though. Best Charles01 (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
What a superb Unimog. Did they make toy trucks to look like it or did the Army make that part of the spec :) Heavy short beast, must be able to carry something very heavy indeed while fording Siberian rivers in flood. Thank you for your comforting connoting is what spellcheck claims I meant advice re Talbot, much needed. Have a good Tuesday. Eddaido (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sunbeam Alpine[edit]

Sunbeam Supreme 1953 (9041757444) (cropped).jpg

Please would you help me. I like this photo very much because it is of a very rare car and in many ways (to my simple mind) a good photo. But it is of course ruined by the reflection from the front bumper. I have had a bit of a go at it with Photoshop but the result does not please me, at all. Is there any small chance I might persuade you to give it a go yourself? Very impressed by your many achievements in the field of biography, know you may find it difficult to take time to tackle something as fiddly as this. Best, Eddaido (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll have fun having "a bit of go at it". But I'm not at all sure that my Gimp expertise is up to producing a satisfactory outcome. And (as so often...) hmmmmm. Best Charles01 (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid it was beyond me. I guess I only really mastered maybe 5% of the tools on Gimp. The ones I need for changing license plates and grassing stuff over. But this would have needed input from several of the other 95%. Then there was my inability even to think what might be suitable for an acceptable reflection for the chrome in the bumper. Alas. But I thought I should let you know of it. Charles01 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Know the feeling. I can remove the reflection from the bumper but somehow its ghost stays and fuzzes up the area around it. I got a rough handle on photoshop elements then they changed all the menus . . . Now I have to hunt for something I understand and cannot find what once i most often used. Wasn't meant to be easy, was it. Happy weekend, Eddaido (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


When the French of the, say, 1930s referred to a Coach and to a Berline I gather they were both what the English then called saloons. Yet I wonder if that is sufficiently precise? I suspect a Coach might be in old-speak a fixed head coupé please would you explain the distinction(s).

Also I notice in the WP Tax horsepower item it says a CV differs from an RAC hp only because of the inexactness of conversion from inches to millimetres. I doubt this is correct because the difference is far too great. Do you know the difference in the formulas? In the 1930s, in the 2010s?

Your Talbot T4 Minor item implies it is a T4 and not a T13 because of uncomfortable associations. Did I comprehend right? What did the T4 stand for? 4 cylinders?

Looks like you have been on the European Mainland again last weekend looking at your latest upload. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I didn't source-note it (mea culpa), I'm pretty sure the suggestion about avoiding calling it T13 came from Rene Bellu, acknowledged as a source elsewhere further along in the entry. "Unlucky 13" and all that. Lots of automakers were pretty casual about using a slightly different tax horsepower from the mathematically correct as computed tax horsepower in the 1930s, just as these days there's no guarantee that a Mercedes Benz 220 has an engine of 2.2 litres - whereas back in the 60s you knew that was exactly what it meant (subject to roundings). So - Back to the Talbot - why T4? I've no idea, but it did have four cylinders.
Berline is indeed the French and German for what the Italians call Berlina and the anglophones call a saloon or a sedan. I don't really know what they meant by coach, but it seems to be some sort of saloon with bells and whistles - more style and/or space and/or comfort? I've never investigated it systematically. It's a phrase from the 30s and these days, alas, there aren't a lot of car nuts around who know in their bones what French car body terms from the 1930s mean. But I'll try and remember to keep an eye open in case a more authoritative explanation turns up. I couldn't find anything in French wikipedia. German wikipedia says:
Der Coach ist ein geschlossenes Auto mit einem festen Dach, zwei Türen und vier bis fünf vollwertigen Sitzen in zwei Reihen. In der Regel wird das Dach von drei Paar Fahrzeugsäulen (sogenannte A-, B- und C-Säule) getragen. .... a closed-top car with a fixed roof, two doors (... interesting) and four or five full sized seats. As a rule the roof is supported by three pairs of pillars (so-called A-pillar, B-pillar, C-pillar)
It's not impossible that that definition might work for French wiki too. But nor is it certain!
And yes, they still let us off this island, but for how much longer? The politicians seem determined to trash the currency, so that the scope for saving money by buying in Dutch supermarkets (yes, there are one or two slightly more destructive effects, I guess) is somewhat reduced, though for fresh fruit and veg and even halfway decent meat, the English shop prices still seem to be unbelievably higher, even with the debauched currency. Political direction of travel not good, though. At least in the 1920s/30s it was the Italians and then the Germans and Russians leading the charge to barbarity and war. Now it seems to be the English, who were always the good guys back when I was growing up... How times change.
Happy days Charles01 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You know, I think you'd do very well on one of those tv panels where they come up with instantaneous (correct) answers to arcane questions, maybe I mean questions about the arcane. Check out this Panhard which might confirm coupé but this one says coupé or coach 5 places. That seems to suggest coupé 2 (/3 bench) seats, coach if it has a back seat as well. I'm going to go with your German suggestion. Check postwar T26, T26, T23, T15, T120=12cv?. Got diverted there. Will need your help to untangle Talbot-Lago. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Licensing Enquiry[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to get in contact as we'd like to use your image on a new motoring show, however I need to get proper permission from you. My email is and I can tell you more about the show and the licensing involved.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChumpTV (talk • contribs) 13:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Adrian. I guess I can answer you in terms of legal stuff or in terms of courtesy. Maybe both:


Thank you for asking. And thank you for being sufficiently interested in an image I uploaded to wikipedia to want to use it some place else. I'm duly flattered. However, I seem to have uploaded quite a lot of pictures to wikipedia over the years. Out of interest, which is the one that interests you?
Again, purely out of interest, I would be interested if you were to tell me more about your motoring show.  ?. Have you found someone to transmit it? Where? Who?
As far as I am concerned, I used to upload pictures to wikipedia accompanied by a statement along the lines "This image is hereby released to the public domain to the full extent possible in relevant jurisdictions" which means everything and nothing, but is likely to sum up my reaction in respect of whichever picture it is that triggered your approach.

Legal stuff

In terms of copyright, use of any image I've uploaded to wikipedia is as governed by the "wiki-licence" attached to it. The more recent ones seem to have ended up under [this one]. The rubric is summarised as follows:
  • You are free:
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
  • Under the following conditions:
attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
You are likely, depending on your circumstances, to have access to better legal advice on this stuff than I have. While I'm happy (as here) to tell you what it says, you should obtain your own advice on what it means.
If you think you might risk attributing "my" picture inappropriately, feel free to let me know your proposed wording and I'll let you know what I think of it. "Picture taken on [date] uploaded to Wikipedia on [date] by Wikipedia contributor Charles01" should cover it for most purposes.


If your screen is configured similarly to mine, you have a column of clickable lines down the left side of this page. If you click on the one that says "Email this user" it seems to work. But I probably spend more time looking at wikipedia than looking at my emails - too long with the same address so too much spam - and you might therefore get a quicker and / or less incoherent response by simply continuing with this "string" (if people still use that term).
Success with your project Charles01 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy days[edit]

Charles01, my best wishes to you for the new year. Maybe Brexit will prove a phantom after all. Keep up the good work. Best wishes, Eddaido (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you much. Good things. Charles01 (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been a inspiration to me.[edit]

Just came to say, you are one of the car photographers users that inspired me to start car spotting and uploading quality contributions on the Common. I made a list of my favourite car photographers on my profile page and details why and maybe you could see my contribution and tell me if I could improve!

Thank you!

--Makizox (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yikes I mean wow I mean thanks for taking time out to share your thoughts. Given that they are positive.
It's reassuring that I don't need to explain to you why I like to photograph cars.
I'm not going to get started on whether I think you're right about my pictures (except I just changed my mind about that - see next para), but two people you didn't mention who I think take excellent pictures of cars are Alfvanbeem (though this month he seems to be more interested in buildings...) and Lothar Spurzem. I agree with you about Rudolf Stricker, though sometimes I think he must - like me - live in a place where it hardly ever stops raining.
2002 Renault Kangoo Authentique DCI.jpg
Fiat 2300 estate ca 1968.jpg
Austin Allegro Registration ca 1975.jpg
Standard Nine Castle Hedingham 1056cc reg 10 june 1938 06.JPG
Incidentally you are kind enough to write on your user page that I take good pictures of cars. Well I hope so. But I also take terrible ones. The clever bit is that I have been doing it for long enough and acquired (only with difficulty) sufficient self-discipline to be able to avoid uploading the terrible ones. That is ... most of the time...
As for my taking pictures in several different corners of Europe ... yes, for much of my working life I was employed in the travel trade, and even when I wasn't I quite often managed to get jobs that included going places.
Thanks again. Success Charles01 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Each of us will have different preferences when photographing cars. I never yet took the perfect picture and can cheerfully criticise every picture I every uploaded. Your pictures? I liked especially the one you did of a Renault Kangoo. Here's part of why:
* You held your camera at the level of your stomach (I speculate). If you photograph from the level of someone sitting in another car, I think the result is usually a less distorted image than if you look down on the car. Like all rules, I sometimes break this one and think I got away with it. That's what rules are for. But I hope not too much.
* You put the sun in the right place. So often I get home and find the front of the car looks too dark and the side not dark enough. Or vice versa. And often one doesn't get a vote about where the sun gets put. But ... given the choice ...
* You didn't max out your zoom. If you stand too close to a car or too far from it and compensate by twisting the zoom lens, you end up with a distorted image. Sometimes you need to do that because the alternative involves standing in the middle of the road and getting run over. But where you get a choice, I think - as here - you do well to avoid maxing out the zoom. Unless you're going for a consciously arty effect, of course. But - at least IMHO - that's not a desperately encyclopedic thing to want to to.
* Your Kangoo isn't black. With black cars you loose the panel gaps and a whole lot more detail. Instead - especially if someone went and polished the car to within an inch of its proverbial - you end up with lots of distracting reflections. There's a picture of a black Standard 9 that I uploaded a few years ago. When I got home I noticed it had been parked next to a very orange car. Aaaargh. A wonderful wiki-comrade with clever software and a serious talent for using it changed the reflection of an orange car into a reflection of a white car (though on the hub cap of the Standard you can still see a reflection of the orange version.) Anyhow, my point stands. Black cars are very very difficult to photograph well. (My son has pointed out to me that equivalent but different problems arise with black dogs.)
* Your Kangoo isn't very clean. Like I already said (ok ... wrote) one can always find something to criticise about ANY picture if you stare at it for long enough.
Please don't be annoyed that I took time out to critique one of your pix. I hadn't meant to, but sometimes the fingers take over. I am completely aware that cars hardly ever appear in the right place facing the right way in the right light etc etc etc. And please be assured, you are under absolutely no obligation to share my opinion on anything at all (except, possibly, on post-truth politics). And I reserve the right to be wrong about (almost) everything.
Success Charles01 (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
PS This - courtesy of the tax man - is a useful website if you photograph a car with a UK number plate and then want to know more about its engine (diesel:petrol), date of first registration in the UK or when it was reported to have been manufactured (eg if it was first registered in Aus and then imported to the UK 30 years later). But be aware that with older cars the tax man simply wrote down what the owner/importer told him.
License plates also generally stay with a car for life in the Netherlands, and there's also a Dutch site giving similar info, but you don;t appear to spend too much time in the Netherlands and I can't, off the top of my head, remember how to find then link

Thank you for the tip, and of course am not annoyed, I would be so interested to know more of how to take pictures of them while able to cover all the areas such as the front and rear quarter. I see people manage to do it on most of there photos where it perfectly focus on the areas and aren't too zoomed out.

Also I found out about the Fiat 600 (Seicento) by using this website: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makizox (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

--Makizox (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Me too[edit]

075 DS Jubile 2005 2005-10-07 14-17-39 (cropped).jpg
075 DS Jubile 2005 2005-10-07 14-17-39 (cropped & lightened).jpg
Citroen ID19 or DS 19 mfd 1962.jpg

This picture is just ideal for my purposes but it is very gloomy. Do you have a magic implement within Wikimedia that will improve it?

I keep practising on all sorts of things but sometimes the auto anti-jiggle machinery works and sometimes it doesn't and I can only keep at it. Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You didn't write either why you like it, but I presumed to draw my own conclusions. One of which is that with so many pictures of such a beautiful photogenic car uploaded already, it's depressing how overwhelmingly mediocre they mostly are. But if course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and ... mustn't grump. To my eye there were three obvious issues, mostly based on the challenges of photographing cars in doors on a dull day.
  • 1. It looked dark so I lightened it a bit. I don't like to lighten it too much because in the old days when I used to try lightening car colours a lot to compensate for rainy days it just ended up looking bordering on silly.
  • 2. I took the liberty of rotating it a bit. To my eye it looks better like this. Feel free to disagree ...
  • 3. To my eye the reflections of the quasi-fence on the side panels are distracting bordering on weird. I suppose one could solemnly try copyhing and pasting patches for other bits of panel, but it would be very time consuming, more difficult than you'd think and ... not really worth it.

Dear Eddaido, I do not know what you are planning to illustrate with this so I hesitate to broach the question ... but are you SURE this is the best on wiki-commons for your purposes?

Enjoy, regardless. Best Charles01 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You've done everything right. That is so much better. I didn't notice the fence reflections and that's a big nuisance. If I took it home and fixed the side panels with photoshop - not, I think, difficult, would you regard it as OK? I want it for where its currently displayed on this page. I just want a good photo of the first DS. If you know of better please let me know. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmph. My photoshopping's result does not please me and I am sure it would attract some of your most withering scorn (should your mask slip for a moment). I have left your picture there in the meantime because aside from its umm photographic qualities it suits the purpose really well. What should I do, I really have had a hunt for another contender. Yr advice, please. Eddaido (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I sort of agree. As in I was unable to find an alternative without problems of its own. My own least bad uploaded goddess picture suffers because (1) I'm not sure if it's a goddess or an idea and (2) the roof merges disappointingly into the sky and (3) I have to be in a certain mood to see the point of the angle. So ... no, I don't really have a better idea for now. But maybe someone will take the perfect DS picture later this year.  ?. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
When you edited the Goddess picture did you use software available in Commons? Went to a special event to take photos of old cars on Sunday but the marshals (not unreasonably) would not let me park where I could get useful shots and I can't get out into the field the way I'd like to so it was an early return home without pics. Curses, foiled etc. Best, Eddaido (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
You have my sympathy over not being able to get to the right place to photograph a car. The perfect angle is a rare thing indeed, even for the young and fit which I'm not. Nor, it appears, you. I did get myself a shooting stick last year so that instead of standing for hours by the entrance to the old timer fest I could perch on my stick and photograph passing subjects of interest. Alas ... after several episodes which you might term "undignified collapse of stout party" I worked out that a shooting stick was not the answer. And these days it takes a certain amount of careful planning to stand up again afterwards.
To edit pix I simply download them and then upload the new version.
  • For rotating and / or changing the lighting balance where it's obviously too dark I use Microsoft Office Picture Manager. Over the years they've improved it, so that the "autocorrect" often does the business more convincingly than ten minutes of careful non-auto twiddling. Autocorrect was not always so smart. However, Bill Gates seems to have lost his enthusiasm for Microsoft Office Picture Manager. There's a replacement programme that works with Windows 10, but having needed ten years to understand the language of the old programme I think it will be many years before the new programme works half as well ... at least for me. Another good reason to try and avoid Windows 10 as far as possible.
  • For clever clever stuff I use GIMP which you simply find using a search engine and then download. It's like Firefox in that you don't have to pay for it, though no doubt it makes them happy if you send money. It's like Russian in that I only understand about 1% of the language in which the software purports to interface with the user. However, that 1% is enough for grassing over distracting shadows and changing license plates which is my principal use of the thing. Playing around with colour and other artistic stuff is far above my paygrade, and though I've been known to try some more the the clever stuff, it almost invariably ends up looking both less realistic and in other ways worse than the way it first emerged from the camera, so those ones I don't upload to commons.
No further thoughts. Good things Charles01 (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, specially the advice on the shooting stick. Why in the age of smartphones (and those strange scooters) can they not devise some sort of built-in gyroscope. A long time ago not far from you an old friend came to stay for Christmas and I had no gift. Someone rustled up an alloy and striped canvas arrangement, still shiny after some time in a cupboard, and Ian accepted it in the intended spirit and clearly looked after it well. More than ten years later he proudly told me it had just been his personal gift at Sam Neill's (first) wedding. You see while folded it was a shooting stick, when deployed it seems a luxurious and generous chair. I think Ian wanted to provide a comfortable seat between takes for either spouse or indeed for both. To tell you the truth I have been thinking of buying a conventional version for several years now for use instead of squatting on neighbour's letter boxes. Thank you for all your knowledge and advice. You regarded it as a failure but you did make a remarkable improvement to that photo of the DS. I really want a personal tutorial session but we'll have to skip that. Best wishes to you and yrs. Eddaido (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Jaguar Mark VII[edit]

I've just uploaded this and I've done it wrong. You suggested I upload it over the original and I have never worked out how to do that. Or, I think I did on one occasion but I couldn't work out how it happened. Anyway I tried but somehow I stuck in the well worn rut and we have both versions. Please would you adjust it to suit. Best, Eddaido (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PS No personal damage, lots of trees bowled over including (a very large) one on a poor woman (70s) sitting in her car. She refused to panic and eventually exited by a back door. TV camera couldn't find much car under the tree. Telling her tale she seemed more angry than anything and kept fervently thanking God. Sensible woman. Eddaido (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Most impressive how you got rid of that Ford Prefect (I think it was).
I've overwritten someone else's image by mistake but it was a mistake and it was a long long time ago. I now occasionally overwrite "my own" images if improvements are minor, but I certainly don't regard it as an indispensable skill. In no hurry to adjust anything in this case, but maybe if I get very bored one day I'll give it thought!
Sorry about the lady under the tree. Anger does indeed seem the logical response. Happy to leave the God bit to the theologically more committed. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Whats your earliest and latest photo you taken of a car from your scanned collection?[edit]


I seen some you taken as early as 1971 and as late as 1991 but I was wondering what your earliest and latest picture you took of your scanned collection.

P.S: You should sort those images by year you taken them and manufacture, possibly model. Unless you already done that and I haven't found it yet. I always discover these fascinating images taken by you every time I look around the Commons.

--Makizox (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think 1971 sounds about right for he first usable ones. That was when my father gave me a 35mm camera. It had a fixed lens, but it still taught me about focusing and light meters and adjusting F stops. Before that I had an Ilford instamatic and then an Agfa Rapid which I loved, but looking back I don't think any of the results were worth uploading to wikipedia nor even, in most cases, keeping.
  • You'll understand, already, I think, that most pictures of cars I took weren't worth uploading anywhere. Still aren't. Some of the better ones during the early 1970s were taken on my father's Asahi Pentax, also a 35 mm camera, but one with a detachable and therefore changeable lens. It produced much sharper images. And in about 1982 I got my own SLR 35 mm camera, an Olympus OM2, which ... made a difference in a good way. 1985 I got what I thought of as a grown up job and after that there was less time for photographing cars or anything else. In retrospect that's in one sense a pity, but of course one's priorities change through life. The 1991 picture of a Vauxhall Cavalier cabriolet that you found may well have been one of the last of my "scanned collection" that got uploaded. Though looking back on where I was when, it might well have been taken in 1990 and not 1991 as indicated. (I lived in Cambridge in England, where I took that picture, till 1990. I don't think I spent so much time in England in 1991.)
  • On your "PS" suggestion, I don't, in most cases, have any way to be sure precisely when a picture was taken. I used colour slides ("Dias") which were cheaper and more compact to store than prints (and you had to make people sit down and turn out all the lights in order to project the images onto a wall: once you got to that point people had little choice but to look at them!) Where I know when I took a picture it's generally because I remember or can find out easily when I was in the relevant "where". I know I was in Vienna in 1974. I know I was in South Australia in 1990. I know I was in Tenerife several times in the early 1980s when I worked in the travel trade, though I don't always know which year was which picture. Sometimes kind people point out that I must have got a year wrong because the car in question didn't exist in the year in which I claim to have photographed it. But generally when I think I know when a car was photographed I do include the year in the image description, and sometimes people do indeed create categories by year and put "my" car pictures into them.
  • Thanks for inducing a little digression down memory lane. I enjoyed it in a guilty self-indulgent sort of way and you ... well, you didn't have to read it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No no, its fine I find all of it fascinating looking back in the past, could be a sound project I could do by gathering all of the scanned photos you taken and sort them into years and make if thats fine with you. Note: I just found ones that are later and earlier then the one I showed you

1968 or 1969
1993 (Doesn't look like it from how the picture turned out)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Makizox (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

--Makizox (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • As far as the Seat 850 picture and Renault Clio picture you found are concerned, I've a bad feeling that I got the date wrong. The Seat 850 has a Seville/Sevilla license plate and the last time I was near Sevilla was 1985. I was in Spain around 1993, but far to the north. So I think I may simply have got that one wrong. But I want to think about it more before changing it in case I'm still/again wrong. The Clio picture ... not so easy to pin down where and when. It might have been 1993. Again, more thought needed. The two Volkswagens you uploaded were both my father's cars. For the VW 411 I might have borrowed his camera - or even, he might have taken the picture. I think I remember taking the VW 1600 Variant picture with my "Agfa Rapid" camera, in which case it would originally have been square, and I simply cropped the top and bottom before uploading. Whether by chance or by design, it's at quite a good angle. Kestrel might originally have been a square format Agfa Rapid picture too. Someone seems to have forgotten to switch on the sunshine in the right place. But I remember the car, and the lady who owned it, very well.
  • As far as your gathering exercise is concerned, I have no reason to mind. Though you might find more where I got the date wrong when I uploaded them. And of course, everything you do on wikipedia risks being corrected, reversed or improved on by someone else. That's the joy - and just occasionally the frustration - of this project. So ... it sounds quite a time consuming exercise that you have in mind. But no, of course I don't mind. I'm flattered by your interest. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! I will probably ask more question in the distant future, hopefully you like the improvements I made with my recent photo contribution since our last Talk back in January. --Makizox (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your pix[edit]

1990 Porsche 911 Carrera 2 Targa.png
Porsche 911 Targa Koeln 1974.jpg

I've been excessively dependent on my laptop lately thanks to ... well, that probably counts as too much information. But a laptop screen isn't really a good place to look at pictures. But I enjoyed comparing these two. I know Porsche insist that everything has been redesigned sooo many times over the years, but there's still a bit of a sense of "why change a winning shape?"

And I'm impressed that you still found a Metrocab ... in Solihull. Looks good. Though actually they did go on making them till about ten years ago (it says in Wikipedia), and I think they were made in Tamworth which is not so far from Solihull. I guess it's just that since the basic look of the thing barely changed after 1970 (when Autocar published a picture of a "prototype" versions scooting round London) I think if it as a vehicle from my childhood rather than from yours. Ach well, hats off to longevity. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I heard of the prototype going around London but yeah I just saw parked in College. The Porsche picture I'm sorta proud of but it was one of my early pictures back in 2015 (which doesn't sound too long) but it before I focus on it as a documenting purpose. I kinda based the composition from photos by another Wikimedia user Rudolf Stricker and the way he took them both front and rear. I could do a rear picture of the Porsche Targa as it was parked next behind a wall.

Ford Galaxy front 20071109.jpg
Ford Galaxy rear 20071109.jpg
Fiat Punto front 20071204.jpg
Fiat Punto rear 20071204.jpg
it a bit zoomed out but the rear is a good shot
1990 Volkswagen Golf MkII 1.6 Driver Rear.jpg
2002 Honda Insight 1.0 Front.jpg
2002 Honda Insight 1.0 Rear.jpg

--Makizox (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)