User talk:Christopher Crouzet
More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.
- 1 Bienvenue!
- 2 Hi
- 3 Valued Image Promotion
- 4 Contradicting licence on Flickr and Commons (some friendly warnings first) ;)
- 5 FP Promotion
- 6 Quality Image Promotion
- 7 Head office
- 8 Quality Image Promotion
- 9 FP Promotion
- 10 FP Promotion
- 11 Valued Image Promotion
- 12 Lifeguard
- 13 Your reviews
- 14 FP Promotion
- 15 Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge view at dawn.jpg
- 16 Valued Image Promotion
- 17 Quality Image Promotion
- 18 FP Promotion
- 19 FP Promotion
Bienvenue sur COMMONS et bienvenu sur VI le label le plus important. Nos « rites et coutumes » sont parfois déroutant, n’hésite pas à laisser un message sur ma page de discussion si tu as un problème. Bonne journée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I see the stitch errors in your panorama now. The parallax issues often show up if the camera is not rotated round the entrance pupil of the lens (which is usually somewhere in the middle of the lens). My own Sony camera has a "sweep panorama" mode too and it is fairly good but I've never found the results perfect enough for FP. It is prone to producing repeated stuttered fragments like I see on yours. But sometimes it is good enough for QI. Some examples are File:Colosseum interior 2012 sweep panorama.jpg, File:Colosseum exterior rear 2012 sweep panorama.jpg and File:Heron Tower - Bishopsgate - South 2011-05-04.jpg. In each of these, I had to touch up the image to hide some little errors. For high-quality panoramas, I take separate photos and stitch them in software on my PC -- that's what some of my own featured pictures used. That's a lot more work but the results can be worthwhile.
On Wikipedia see WP:BOLD. If you honestly think your picture is better then replace it. If the article doesn't have too many pictures, and yours shows something the others don't add it. If you stumble with the image syntax people will help. The only advice I have with one's own pictures is not to edit-war over them. Sometimes, when I'm really unsure my picture is better, I'll post a message to the talk page of the article with a link/thumbnail.
- Thanks again Colin!
- I definitely need to practice my panorama technique with digitals. I didn't have any successful attempt so far at getting a perfect result from the built-in panoramic function of my camera. It's very disappointing. Plus it forces me to use high ISO and large aperture if I want to have a high enough speed to not end up with motion blurred images when moving the camera around. From now on I'll do as you say and will go on experimenting the more traditional method of taking individual shots and stiching them later on. I'm missing my Hasselblad XPan though... panoramic shots are so much easier with it.
- Even after reading your WP:BOLD link, I'm still a bit shy at placing some of my images on Wikipedia. I might do the move if they are valued somehow by awards, which would give me the confidence that they're indeed worth it to the eyes of a jury.
Valued Image Promotion
Contradicting licence on Flickr and Commons (some friendly warnings first) ;)
Hi Christopher, congrats on the promotion of the Guatemala pools photo to FP. ;) This message is to continue the conversation from the nomination page. Please take note (quoted from CC BY-SA 3.0 legal code): "3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:" The CC licence is irrevocable. That means, it will stay in place all the way till the time your copyright expires and your work enters the public domain. So, do consider very seriously before you transition each image to CC BY-SA here (and on Flickr in future). You can always open a deletion request for your images, but the Commons community takes CC licences very seriously, and most of the time, they will vote to keep the images, with the reason "CC licences are irrevocable". Please note that this is only meant to be a friendly warning, not to scare you or anything like that. Cheers. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Artic Kangaroo, thanks for your message! I'm actually well aware of this and agree on releasing the copyrights on my photos when I upload them onto Wikimedia under the CC BY-SA license. That's why I'm doing the transition one photo at a time, to give me the chance to see how things goes, rather than converting my entire library in one batch. Cheers! --Christopher Crouzet (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The image File:Semuc Champey, Guatemala.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Semuc Champey, Guatemala.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
Quality Image Promotion
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.
The image File:Reflection on the Salar de Uyuni, bolivia.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflection on the Salar de Uyuni, bolivia.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
The image File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taiwanese Monk at the Salar of Uyuni, Bolivia.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
Valued Image Promotion
I see you got a bit grumpy about the feedback to the Lifeguard image. What I find interesting is that you only explained why you nominated this image from your portfolio at the point you withdrew it: " a colorful, fresh and lively scene that portrays the exercise of a job in a specific country with an original point of view and that tells a story between a group of persons" Sometimes I think people need help to appreciate why an image might be special and many people on Commons (and elsewhere) only find it easy to criticise objective aspects (sharpness, camera settings) and feel out of their depth commenting on subjective aspects (composition, story, light). The former seem safer targets that are hard to argue against whereas the latter may be just personal taste but could well be good advice. And I also find that sometimes I take an image I really love but sadly nobody else loves. Language problems mean some people give very terse reviews and no advice on how to improve it. I think the composition in that image is pretty good, with the dominant lifeguard and the smaller swimmers. Perhaps a little more room on the right. But mainly I think it would be better if the lifeguard was angled so you could see her face and side rather than back. If you could see an eye line from her to the swimmers, it would be excellent. Wrt saturation, I agree this is hard to avoid. Flowers in the sun often oversaturate the red channel so I guess the lifeguard's shorts have done the same (either in film or in the scanner). It is a small part of the overall photo, though. I don't think the image is oversaturated overall. In terms of feedback, don't be afraid to approach photographer's directly rather than assume FP candidates is going to supply it -- it is sometimes a school of hard knocks. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Colin, thanks for your message and your review, I appreciate!
- I understand that writing a description can add a new dimension, a new meaning to a photo, but isn't the goal of a photo also to speak by itself? Do I really need to describe in details the scene between the lifeguard and the swimmers, isn't it obvious already? When I look at Steve McCurry's website, I don't see any title nor description anywhere other than the location. Also I believe that the description you've quoted from my comment is not fit for a file description since it sounds more like a promotion of the image amongst the featured voters rather than an information about the scene.
- I would rather say “bewildered” than “grumpy”. With all my respect, I've been wondering more than once where was the “wow” factor in many (many) featured photos. So if, as DXR said, the selection is being made depending on how well a photo could document a Wikipedia topic, then I understand that I do not fit the criterions. And if I interpret the “wow” factor as a “wow, this photo fits so well in the lemon category!”, then here again everything makes more sense. But for a novice to Wikimedia, it's hard to grasp what really is required here—I thought it was all about picking the finest photos out there? I understand that my photos don't get selected, I don't have the pretention to have some fine photos, but of course that some sort of ego and misunderstanding kick in when receiving such poor and unconstructive critics when other totally unappealing and lifeless photos are going through easily. I know it's all about subjectivity and at the end of the day I don't mind it but I just felt like expressing my thoughts because right now it just feels as if I was trying to sell ice skates in what I thought was Denmark but actually is the middle of the Sahara. I simply don't get it.
- As of today, and to be honest, the misunderstanding is so wide that I'm not sure what I'm doing here. Wikimedia didn't bring me anything so far and I can easily make my photos open source on any website.
- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about the file description on the image page, nor is always necessary to describe in detail what the subject is in the nomination (often, this is obvious from the name). I was more interested in the nomination and you stating there why you feel the image is good enough and wow enough to be featured. I think that's a useful excercise as a nominator and can be helpful to the reviewers. Clearly some pictures (and pro photographers) achieve wow without really trying and need no help from any text. [I contrast this with much modern art and contemporary art photography which says nothing by itself and relies on the curator adding some text in a card next to it to explain why you should gaze in wonder at this piece of s**t]. People see wow in many ways and for some subjects you are right the subject is mundane. I've achieved an FP for a clothes iron. Plenty bird photographs don't move me and have zero artistic merit. But, as photographers, we can go wow at the technical excellence on display. There is a difference between Commons FP and Wikipedia FP and the latter considers the usefulness in an article whereas the former is only a bit concerned about the educational value but more about visual qualities. Creating a great picture of a lemon is really hard -- try it.
- I wonder, are you reviewing other people's FPs or just occasionally nominating? If you aren't reviewing and engaging with other reviewers, then you won't get as much out of FP. I've learned a lot from reviewing other people's pictures and about thinking myself if they have wow or are good enough. You could well be right that a lot of unexciting images get promoted. Well you could say so and see what reaction you get. Perhaps, if you are not brave enough to oppose, just leave a comment on a nomination. Explain that you don't see what is wow about this and ask the nominator to explain. You won't always get a great dialogue. What gets promoted and what fails is a bit random, a bit unfair and varies over time. The decision of what is considered good enough is a community one reflecting those participating right now, including you, and not decades of tradition. So if you think the bar should be higher (and I often agree) then vote! And view the result as a learning experience!
- Colin (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- When adding a new photo to the nominations, it asks to describe the photo in only a few words. Maybe that would need to be updated then?
- I dind't take part to nominations firstly because I felt like I don't understand what photos are fit for the featured category. I felt like there was some hidden rules following from decades of tradition as you say. But if you tell me it's not the case, then it's encouraging. And you're right that it would be a great exercise—I tried a couple of times to give a critique on 1x.com and it's incredibly hard to write something constructive. Often, due to my lack of experience and technical knowledge, I'm only able to put photos in boxes such as "like" and "dont like" without explaining why, which would make of me a terrible nominator. And even more terrible since I've got difficulties to understand the photos having a different "subject" as mines. I enjoy taking photographs of peoples and landscapes, I like life. Many here prefer the opposite—architecture, flowers, still life. If I stumble upon the photo of the first castle ever built on the planet, which most likely already carries a wow factor due to its history, I won't be moved. I'm sadly neither interested in history nor in architecture, and even though I understand the value behind such a photo, I wouldn't know how to be objective about it. I'm not going to support a photo because I guess somehow—or being explained—that it has some value for others even though I'm not personally convinced about it, right? So if I ended up freely voting for nominations, that would be a disaster. I would simply end up being a nazy rejecting all the photos not touching me, which would be most of them. And once again, without a good, constructive, reason. So that's not a good idea, but maybe I can try to comment on the photos that I feel like I can talk about, and, as you say, keep asking the same questions on others such as "What's the point of it?". But it could easily be seen as offensive, or even disrespectful.
- PS: I love your note on the comtemporary art! :)
- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, those few words are I think just for the alt-text / tooltip for the image itself. On WP FP the nominator is asked to give a reason for their nomination. I think it is a good idea for nominators to do that on Commons but I haven't gone as far as suggesting it be required. I think the language difficulties make it hard for many. Other perhaps don't know why the like their own picture and just want to fling images at FPC to see what sticks. The most basic requirements for FP are technically good image -- the sort of things you expect a modern camera to get right if you pay enough for it (but even those requirements can be waived if the image is strong enough). Secondly the picture has to work in terms of composition, lighting, subject, etc. And thirdly, for FP above QI, there needs to be some wow and some idea that this is far better than most (rather than merely competent). Have you installed the FastCCI gadget (see Perferences/Gadgets/Improved navidation). This gives you a button on categories that you can use to find other QI/FP. That's a good way of seeing what the current state of the art is for a given subject.
- I don't have much experience with other photo websites. My Flickr pages aren't heavily visited but others I look at are filled with gushing praise and not really much in the way of constructive criticism or dialogue -- perhaps the forums are more for that?
- Architecture is one of the biggest FP topics and popular this month because of WLM. Commons is weak in portraits and other people photographs, and our reviewing skills in this area are similarly weak. Do you like the File:India - Actors - 0258.jpg nomination? I agree that opposing a photo because the subject isn't one that interests you would not be helpful. It is probably best to try with topics that interest you or where you are familiar with the challenges of taking such an image. Have you read any of Michael Freeman's books (e.g. The Photographer's Eye) -- they are good at helping to consider what makes an image work. Also have you considered taking part in the Photo Challenge? I'm busy with WLM this month but hope to find time to try some light painting or other long exposure photo -- the idea is to try something new.
- Colin (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I do have the FastCCI gadget enabled—it must have been enabled by default when I opened my account. Funnily there's no featured image in the lifeguards category to compare my photo to.
- Flickr is definitely a waste of time critique-wise. I didn't receive any interesting feedback since I joined 6 years ago. On the other side, 1x.com seems to promote constructive critiques. At least I've already received a couple that have been really helpful to me.
- As for the Indian actors photos, I usually have some difficulties with peoples posing for a photo (like during modelling shoots). Arguably they might not be posing here since they're apparently getting ready for a show but I can't help thinking they've been aligned and are acting for the purposes of the photo. I tend to prefer spontaneity, real moments, true emotions and I don't feel any of those in this photo.
- I haven't read any photography book and don't know any photographic rule (but the rule of thirds) to avoid being influenced in my approach to photography. In other words, I don't want to conform to the mould by producing the same photos as everyone else—for an analogy, I'm quite critical towards society conformism and can proudly say that I'm now living out of the box that was designed for me. But seeing the little recognition that I've gained so far in the domain of photography, I'm thinking of giving it a try even thought the possible outcome scares me a bit.
- To finish, I'm not a big fan of photo challenges. I believe the results are mainly driven by the exposure one manages to gain by spending his entire days to vote/comment on other photos for a reciprocity expectation, rather than by the actual quality of the photos.
- Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me, I really appreciate!
- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say, that in regard to learning by oneself, well even da Vinci was an apprentice once and all great people achieved greatness by "standing on the shoulders of giants". I read an interesting article in a magazine interviewing a photographer who was also a musician. He claimed that like new musicians often play other people's music before writing their own songs, we as photographers have to create "cover versions" by emulating styles and images we like before discovering our own path. And even without reading books, you are exposed to images in media which will influence your style. I personally like Michael Freeman's books because he's an intellectual who wants to understand why photos work rather than an emotional person who hasn't a clue and can only list their own successful pictures while giving "copy me" advice. Learning from wise and successful people isn't the same as conforming. If you read and look widely enough, you'll be inspired to try your own things. -- Colin (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just also entering this discussion, because I saw that you asked me to comment a bit. I faved some of your images on flickr (while the feedback there is indeed useless, at least it is convenient!) I think that many of your images are really nice and do tell a story. I especially like the new ones that are taken with the X100s and their quality is also very nice (not that it matters too much, but perhaps interesting for future noms here). To me, it is obvious that you seem to have a good feel for moods, both in your portraits and in the landscapes. I also love your images of New Zealand, though they are probably going to have a hard time here due to the "filter effects". Personally, I am happy to see more human images here and at FPC / QIC, even though I know that I am no good at taking them myself. Oftentimes, the harshness of some reviews can be hurting, especially when it is an image that you are proud of, but I wouldn't worry too much about that, after all we are only a group of 30 or so guys (and I think we really have no female regular at FPC, which is a bit telling in itself) and most people will never whether your image is a bit soft or overexposed as long as it tells a strong story. --DXR (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks DXR! I indeed saw the list of favorites you've made on my Flickr page—it's very interesting to see and funny at the same time because I didn't pay much importance to a couple of them.
- I'm not sure what you mean by “filter effects”? Are you referring to some sort of post-processing? If so, I assure you that I tend to keep the post-processing step as light as possible. I'm not a big fan of creative edits. I won't anyways be able to post any of those panoramic landscapes over here since they're all below the minimum of 2 millions of pixel (especially since some curators seem to expect more than this number—seriously, is everyone judging based on their own set of rules?), and I don't have access at the moment to the original high resolutions scans of any of my film photos.
- Both photos that you've favorited from the Pacaya volcano won't be a good fit here neither because of the halo effect, and same for the frontal sunrise in San Pedro I believe? That leaves me with the one photo from the street... which I'd be curious to see what others think about since it's one of my least favourite! I'll submit it to the FP candidates to check this out.
- Note that I'm not against the harshness of the comments. I'm actually looking forward to it in order to improve but I want it to be fair. When I see someone opposing a photo because “it's not wow” but that same person wows on a totally meaningless photos not telling any story, it's irritating. Of course, it's easy to take cover behind the subjectivity shield, but sometimes it's harder to believe than others. At least I'd hope for a proper feedback otherwise it's not helpful.
- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can understand why one might not like the image too much, and to be honest, I don't think that most of the reviewers will support it either, but I think that it succeeds in showing the place as it is, being authentic, yet interesting and I like the details and the mountains in the background. Actually, I would give one of the volcano images a shot. I think that the lens flare is not bad from an artistic point of view here and the mood is certainly amazing! It would be great if you could get high-res versions of your NZ images at some stage, because they would have great chances, imo. The 2 MP rule has been discussed a lot before since many believe that 2 is actually too low (me included). Your images coming from film are certainly an exception, but normally any camera that produces good images can give much more, and often such small images do not even fill the entire screen. It is also good to see that you have started to review. Another opinion never hurts, especially when it is coming from a slightly different background! --DXR (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I was about to write that I gave up the idea of posting this photo. I started to re-process it to get a better result but I came to the same conclusion as you—it's a good photo for documenting that place and the setting with the volcano in the background is pretty cool. But that's not a photo that I could backup myself for the featured gallery, it doesn't wow me. The scene happening in the street doesn't contribute to bring anything—they're just a tuk-tuk, a few cars, and some persons crossing the street. Nothing interesting to see here, especially for someone having lived there. For the fun of it, I'll try a church instead since everyone seems to enjoy that. Of course it's not going to be the typical architecture shot. I like this one because it's colorful, and it's a more daring/dynamic angle of view even though I have the feeling that it brings a composition that doesn't work well. I'm just curious to see the reactions. I'll post the photo of a volcano too then, but I can already predict those reactions :) Cheers! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have read your talk page discussion with Colin and DXR. It was very interesting. Although my words have been plenty already and I hope not overly tedious to read, I would just like to add one comment: I really appreciate reading your reviews! I think they are very refreshing and helps "shake the pot" (a Danish saying, I hope you understand). I think you have many good points and new ways to see things, and they are sort of a wake-up call for me often. If the community appears rigid, it is, but there is also some plasticity. With good arguments, users can be influenced and see things a little different. In some ways your reviews (and photography) reminds me of User:Tomascastelazo, who is regrettably not active here for the time being.
Have a look at his photos, I think you will appreciate them.
He is also good at "shaking the pot" in FPC reviews and challenge predefined views. So, many thanks for that! If you manage to stay around a bit longer, I hope you will also begin to feel that sometimes you can get a little in return if you use the feedback constructively.
- Hi Slaunger!
- I've been happy about your input so far which has always been very fair and objective. It's good to be reminded about community behavior and I'm glad you're doing it for me when you feel like it because I know I've always been very direct and it fairly enough not always pleases everyone. Now I'm unfortunately bad at doing half measures, so it's either I'm expressing myself in my way or I don't say anything.
- Also many thanks for your kind words, I'm glad I'm bringing a little something at least. Unfortunately, and in my experience with another discipline, having a different way of seeing things often ended up being problematic and brought many clashes, and I'm not sure to want to go through this again.
- I can't check the photos of Tomascastelazo now as the internet connection in the backpack where I'm staying at is currently failing me but I'll surely check them out later on, thanks!
- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The image File:View from Volcano Pacaya, Guatemala.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Volcano Pacaya, Guatemala.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
Valued Image Promotion
Quality Image Promotion
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.
The image File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
The image File:Sunset over Hanoi After the Rain.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunser over Hanoi After the Rain.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.