User talk:Colin

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

FP Promotion[edit]

Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

News about the crowdfunding[edit]

Dear Colin, A few days ago, I got the camera at a "smuggling" price, so I decided to buy it. I can't underestand why this low price, maybe some ilegal?, I don't know. The camera is at present in my hands and its small plot contrasts enormously with its quality. I did some tests that I could not do if this was not done with a tripod with my D300. A big surprise was the really fast focus system, the noise practically does not exist, The shutter sound is hardly heard (very soft). The camera also has a huge number of functions. Previously I had read the manual, however, it was a little confusing to find some manual controls. I know that It was 10 years practically in nikon technology and maybe it is normal to feel that change. I'm sure without you I would never have gotten this camera. I have been thinking of many things to do with it impossible to do with the ancient camera. I am Latin and maybe this sounds like a Mexican novel, however, I feel a great love for this camera and an emotion that I can not explain in words. --The Photographer 17:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Your D300 was a pro camera, even though old, so perhaps you will miss some things? Moving from my A33, which is a beginner's DSLR, to my A77ii, which is a serious model, was also quite a leap. I found the same things as you with better noise and focus. You should also notice better dynamic range too. The A77ii was bigger than my A33, which was one of the smallest DSLRs ever made, but I am used to it now. Wrt to your earlier comment about FPC standards... well now you can wow me with your amazing photos. I am looking forward to what you can produce. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me think how wow you. --The Photographer 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
You will think that it is stupid, however, I miss the weight and size of the camera. The old camera felt heavier and with a more protected body even stronger than a D800 (I've tried this in some stores). The D7200 has a smaller body and a round control on the left side that looks like a toy, however, with the same functions. --The Photographer 18:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree the D7200 is not so strong or weather resistant but still should be well built - have you got a wrist or neck strap for it? You could always buy a cheap battery grip for it which will make it larger and heavier, as well as being much more comfortable for portrait shots. -- Colin (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that I don't need a battery grip because the weight habit is only a bad habit that which was initially a problem fir neck. In this moment, my main concern to clean the fungi in the sigma lens before use it in the camera. Yes, I discovered how to uncover the sigma lens, however, I have found with a screw type for which I do not have the proper screwdriver size and theses days I have been walking around of São Paulo downtown searching for it. Btw, I am so excited about this camera and for this raison maybe I haven't many ideas to make photographs and I can't explain you it because it's a bit strange feeling. I am open to hearing any ideas from you. Thanks --The Photographer 12:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
User:The Photographer, what equipment do you have that works well right now? A 35mm DX prime and the D7200? I assume you haven't yet bought the panoramic head or other lenses such as the 8mm fisheye? Are planning to get them from a visitor to Wikimania Canada? Or some other route?
You could look at this month's Commons:Photo challenge themes -- you like street photography. Or do you have a good location to take some light trails photographs? -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In this moment only 35mm DX is working fine, however, it has severals very small things (I don't know what is it in the lens), non visible in the photography I think so. Also, I was thinking get a scholarship to go to Canada, however, I sent the scholarship application very late and gave an error on the page, I actually need that fisheye and the nodal ninja, however, I don't know somebody going to Wikimania Canada here --The Photographer 13:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
User:The Photographer, Wrt small things in your lens, see Lens Rentals Blog and this one too. I think the only time such spots might show up is in bokeh circles, but not normal images. Have you asked anyone in WMF if your scholarship application got submitted successfully? It would be a shame to miss out due to a website issue. Are you still going to ask for a WMF grant for equipment? -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes I allredy asked to WMF, however lamentably, the e-mail not was received. It would be excellent to ask for a Grant, especially for some good quality lenses and appropriate equipment. I have been doing some drafts, however, I can not find a way to better explain the ideas and, in addition, there is another drawback, there is no local chapter. The dirty inside of the lens is like tiny beads of light (balls) with small branches. --The Photographer 14:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh I hope those "branches" aren't fungus filaments? Btw, I found this article. -- Colin (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The branches look very similar to fungus (baby stage) and I think do the same like the article, however, i need find the proper screwdriver size it's 0mm and I have it, however, I need it with a big handle because the inner screw in the sigma lens is very difficult to remove without a handle. Maybe it could work for the 35 mm. I'm looking for someone in free market too, however, it's difficult know exactly which one work without see it --The Photographer 16:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I got the Phillips 0mm screwdriver "PH000" (cheaper chinese version). Uncovering this lens needed an overwhelming force, however, today it is a clean lens
I have the same problem in others lens, however, in minor scale

--The Photographer 00:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ooo. I want to go have a wash after looking at that. I'm not sure I want lens fungus on my talk page ;-) Is your Sigma fully back in business? Autofocus OK. Sharp? -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The main problem that i have now is stop the fungus that now are in all my lens. The focus problem is with the 70-300 sigma (not tested jet with the new camera), this one is the 18-55mm. I used a simple cloth with alcohol to clean the lens, however, without any special chemical fungus killer. You'd be surprised to look how wet is this city. The city name is "Terra da garoa" -->> something like "The city with constant microscopic rain" --The Photographer 14:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't have such humidity problems. All I can suggest is to Google for ideas. -- Colin (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You could check at some store that sells paint and stuff. We have fungus problems when we repair and paint our buildings here, so before we paint our houses again we wash the walls with fungus killing chemicals sold at the same place as the paint. Perhaps you have them where you live too and they might be useful to wash the lenses with as well. Just a thought and congratulations on your new camera. :) --cart-Talk 15:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
What I've read (such as this guide) is that alcohol might be fine to clean the lens, but won't kill all the fungus so it may grow back. They use a 50:50 mix of ammonia and hydrogen peroxide, which is fairly nasty stuff. Then cleaned in distilled water. All the lens surfaces are coated so you need to avoid chemicals that might destroy the coating. But I'm no chemist so couldn't advise which are safe, but would be worried that chemicals suitable for painting over might not be safe, or leave a residue. The author of that article seems fairly sure his technique is safe. A bad fungus infection can apparently remove coatings or even etch the glass, which sounds rather permanent.
This reminds me of a food scare we had in the UK many decades ago, that involved eggs contaminated with bacteria, making people concerned about eating eggs that weren't fully hard-boiled. One comedy TV show suggested viewers should boil them in Dettol just to be sure! -- Colin (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've used the painting chems many times and I'm still alive, but you should always be careful when using them. They might leave some small residue tough, true, but that might be prefered since such minute residue is there to keep future fungus away. Not sure how it would interact with the coating of the lens though, hmmmm... --cart-Talk 16:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If the lens is re-assembled then perhaps just see if the alcohol did the trick. And if it comes back then try something stronger. I don't think I'd have been brave enough to take a lens apart. -- Colin (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to wait for the fungus to grow again (I deeply hope that it does not happen again). This lens is perfectly clean, it is important to remember that I stole this lens from user Beria and it was originally from the user @Jastrow:, around of 50 Featured Pictures were thanks to this lens in addition to thousands of high-quality images. Thanks @Jastrow: --The Photographer 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer: When you are not using the camera then how about packing silica gel packets or small bags of dry rice next to it and put it all in a sealed plastic bag? In that way moisture cannot enter, and if you have a bit of moisture after use, the silica gel should help dry it out. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I read mixed opinions about the silica gel. One suggestion is that ventilation helps discourage mould so a sealed container would be bad. Others suggest the silica gel can only absorb so much then is useless. But it is commonly used when packing such equipment. Certainly if the gear gets wet then it is a good idea to dry thoroughly in a ventilated area. I wonder if taking it indoors after being outside can cause condensation much like one's glasses steam up, and it would be necessary to allow this condensation to disperse before packing anything away. I wish there was better advice I can find. Perhaps your local camera shop has advice? -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Ventilation could be a bad idea here a city with a weather 80-90% hummity almost always. I know about silica gel, however, it look like a placebo effect. I have been trying to creaty manually a vacuum technique. Thanks Slaunger, In this moment I am using this with a sealed plastic bag. Maybe the chemical @W.carter: Technique could work too. --The Photographer 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer: I also looked around on some Swedish camera sites, they are very prone to eco-friendly solutions and found some new tips after the usual/initial clean with ammonia and hydrogen peroxide. One way to keep the fungus from growing back is to exposed the lens to UV radiation/sunlight. It will not kill the fungus, but it makes it harder for it to grow back. Sunlight sounds like something a lens is built for dealing with. They also recommended that a previously infected lens should be kept separately from the rest of the equipment so the spores did not spread to other things. After using it on the camera they also recommended that the area that came in contact with the camera should be wiped off so the spores didn't spread to the camera house. --cart-Talk 13:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The pollution in this city are large that rarely gets to see the sun, however, I will try to take advantage of the few moments of light. How can sunlight enter if the outer lens blocks a large percentage of UV rays?. BTW, All zones and lenses of the new camera are compromised. I tried to clean the lenses as well as possible, however, I'm sure the fungus is there and alive. I have observed the birth of the fungus on all lenses in the form of white dwarfs. --The Photographer 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I've yet to read any high quality pages on the topic. There are a few documentations of what people have done to treat it, but most of the other stuff seems like speculation and old wives tales. Sure direct sunlight kills mould, but how do you regularly expose the whole lens to it for any length of time, would it reach the inside past the glass, and then there is the risk of pointing a lens at the sun and catching a fire, or of cooking the lens with heat and damaging it. That's also what seems to happen if you try to create too dry an environment. If the regular environment is that damp, then there will be mould spores in the air anyway. Honestly it seems the best thing you can do is stay in Canada when you visit for Wikimania. I hear they are quite friendly up there :-) -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I sent the wikimania form in the last day and it showed a error page. I wrote a letter to the Wikimania committee and they replied that they did not receive anything. BTW, Canada does not allow people to stay that way as it is illegal. --The Photographer 14:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a big country. You could get lost. Just a joke. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Despite this very bad joke indeed :). I promise to seriously study your advice of imigrate to Canada --The Photographer 14:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer: I was there for a few days two weeks ago. Nice country, I like the people there. Maybe, just maybe, you would feel a little cold there in the winter time :D. I was there for business and regrettably I was very busy doing that and only had like 30 mins on a sunny morning to take a few pics in Downtown Toronto. A thorough (but friendly) interview at immigration. Lots of papers needed to be in place to get in on a business visit for just a few days. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Slaunger Remember that I come from a Caribean Island called Margarita and of course I will feel cold, however, not something that a polartext can stop. You are not the first person telling me that the people there are very nice, however, because my language (I'm C1 on french) i could preffer Quebec (Btw, I'm reading that the inmigration procedure could be easier in comparison with Toronto). Let me know what you are doing there, maybe, just maybe, I could help you :D --The Photographer 16:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Photoelasticity - Clear CD case centre.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Photoelasticity - Clear CD case centre.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Photoelasticity - Clear CD case centre.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Photoelasticity - Gillette Fusion razor holder.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Photoelasticity - Gillette Fusion razor holder.jpg, which was produced 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.

Photoelasticity - Spiked castor cup.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Photoelasticity - Spiked castor cup.jpg, which was produced 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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Potential discussion - reform of media grading process[edit]

We had a side discussion at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raven Rattle, late 19th Century Tlingit culture; Fort Wrangell, Alaska.jpg and I thought that I would continue it here. Eventually I would like to have a voice conversation with you about this or any number of other issues (model release, photo contests, institutional relationships) which we have discussed in the past.

Briefly -

Personally, I wish QI was merely a judge of a "professional quality; useful image" and didn't care about the image origins or some of the pixel-peeping that goes on. We lack that kind of grade and it seems to me the most useful one for our re-users because they could eliminate the poor quality images that one would need to be desperate to use. Btw, "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects" is unlikely to be a grading criteria.
I am not sure how to articulate the grading criteria but as you say, I notice that we lack a designation of "professional quality; useful image". We are coming to a point where more institutions want their content in circulation, and I hesitate to give them encouragement to upload an image and immediately post it to 2-3 articles in 30-40 languages. English Wikipedia has one kind of controversy about paid editing, and in Commons the controversy could be milder but still if institutions like a respectable museum share photos then I wish there could be some kind of soft check to make sure they are on track and not disrupting anything. Even with something like the "Raven Rattle" tribal artifact could go into d:Q536129 30 articles and potentially some Wikidata items as a suggested image. Having an image review process can be more about just a review, but also part of a broader on-boarding process to introduce institutions to community conversations on Wikimedia Commons and also establish regular communication.
Commons is about more than WMF projects or the concerns of a MediaWiki user interface. I see the Bowers museum has a mission to "enrich lives through the world's finest arts and cultures" and "celebrate world cultures through their arts". If they believe that extends beyond the visitors to their museum, then sharing their collection with the world using freely licensed photos is one way. While Commons doesn't provide a great UI for viewing a collection, it does make it easy to share those images and permit their reuse elsewhere.
I agree but at this point I do not think anyone should expect institutions to be thinking this way. This conversation is not very well developed on Commons. Right now institutions - due to a range of cultural pressures - are interested in collecting "media metrics" or "social media metrics". The relevant one for museums is probably BaGLAMa 2, but this cannot be used without personal attention from Magnus and also its use or any Wikimedia community documentation is not available to explain why it is relevant. Calculating metrics off-wiki is nearly impossible to explain for anyone except for the 1-2% of communication professionals in the subset of social media professionals who deal with this specific issue. I know that the issue is bigger than Commons but Commons is a really big deal in itself just because it generates measurable data and has a good brand name.
Surely they should be mainly concerned with taking and offering the best photos they can, rather than worry about the opinions of half a dozen amateurs or their use on Wikimedia projects? Any professional photorapher of artefacts will likely give better advice than anyone here can.
I disagree. The world is not as organized as you imagine and I would not take for granted that even the top level professionals in the field will be prepared to have such discussions. Certifications and incentives are useful even for institutions and getting feedback that their image donations are appreciated really helps the relationship. I know this as a mediator for institutions. Also, I think you are mistaken about the advice of professional photographers. Being employed in the field is not the same as being technically proficient, and I think that it can happen that prestigious institutions can hire the best photographers and still get a level of quality which Commons does not pass as FP. I could not have looked at the Raven Rattle photo as you did and come up with critiques like that and I honestly think that sending them back to the institution would be insightful. It would be more insightful if our own documentation included a casebook of dos and don'ts.

I am not sure which processes should be developed. Like you, I care less about the origins of photos ("must come from a Commons photographer") and more about quality content. If content is quality, then I wish that grading could have multiple outcomes, perhaps "not striking but professional quality useful image", "featured picture quality", "faithful reproduction of a 2D work, not FP but approved by default for being competent reproduction". I am not sure what other needs might be met.

From an institution's perspective, having photos graded can be really useful for their future photography practices. The person who hires really might not know what to expect of their photos, and the concept of photo grading may not have occurred to them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If the photo is significant enough that it would illustrate a Wikipedia article and improve on what we already had (if anything) then surely that's your only requirement when judging whether you should add it to those articles. Even if they donate a tiny 300px image, it might still be better than nothing, yet fail to pass any of our grading nor be considered useful generally for printing, say. The issue of institutions adding images into Wikipedia articles is separate from them uploading content. Educational content is always welcome, and we have no limit, yet there can be only one lead image and generally only a handful of images in any given article. I've often felt that images are a huge weakness in Wikipedia, where the ratio of text to image is far higher than just about any other popular medium. It isn't always true that article editors are persuaded by an FP star when judging whether to include an image, and often one finds one's own FP-quality image has later been replaced by something crappy by a random editor because that's the image they took. So the battle for article content, and whether institutions should edit, is really one for Wikipedias to discuss.
I note that an image like the above may suit "VI" if it meets their criteria. But museums generally have much larger collections than they put on display, and likewise Commons has a much larger set of images than can be displayed on Wikipedia or meet Vi criteria. If one's only metric of success is Wikipedia page views, then that's only going to encourage the donation of relatively few select images. One would also favour popular articles, rather than articles that currently lack or need a better image.
As I said, I'm not sure what you were expecting from FP. Many people post in order to get their photographic ability judged and to improve. If that is a factor here, then I maintain I was correct that they will get better advice from a professional photographer (of objects, not of people). I'm not talking about "top level professionals" but about photographers who photograph catalogues or artworks for a living. We have relatively few photographers at FP who take such photos, and none I believe who do it with any serious setup -- for example, they take photos when visiting the museum on holiday. I'm sure the skill level of photography in museums varies widely. But if I were a curator who was responsible for digitizing my collection at a professional standard, I wouldn't be happy at all to receive critical feedback from some internet amateurs who have only taken snapshots on holiday. It's a serious business, with colour accuracy, scale, identification, documentation, etc. -- Colin (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Most of what you said has been correct for most of Commons' history.
"If one's only metric of success is Wikipedia page views, then that's only going to encourage the donation of relatively few select images." That is certainly where the discussion begins. Maybe you heard about the recent Metropolitan Museum donation. One trial outcome of this is en:Armor of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, a Wikipedia article made to showcase a Commons upload. I am not sure what capacity there is to make more, similar articles about individual artworks but I expect that at least 10s of thousands works in their collection readily meet English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, just because they keep records of published critiques and commentaries about so many of their individual holdings. This is one example of how an institution might partner with Wikimedia even to highlight less popular works in their collection. What do you think of the main armor photo? It is about 75% background also and if cropped, probably does not meet FP standards of quality, right? I think it is an industry standard photo.
"We have relatively few photographers at FP who take such photos, and none I believe who do it with any serious setup" - there is Evan Amos who has heavy investments in all sorts of photography equipment and light boxes, so I would call him as serious as can be expected. I work at a magazine publisher Consumer Reports and you critiqued the coffeemaker photo I submitted for FP, when I took for granted that it would pass. We have massive photo studios here and set the standard for product photography but I would say that much of what we collect still does not meet FP expectations. FP might not be the right process for some photos. I would not call Commons graders Internet amateurs - it seems to be to be a rigorous process with high standards which many professionals are not going to meet with their routine work. I would not suggest lowering the standard but at the same time I would like for some kind of quality recognition to be in place. It is hard for me to even articulate to others what they might expect. I do not know what precedents have been set, but my guess is that a typical curator at their best would not routinely commission the sorts of photos of their 3D works that would pass the FP process. I honestly think that if the Commons community published advice, the museum community would adopt it and circulate it. I am not sure what advice or standards are in circulation but I think it might be just informal culture with variation by region and individual. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Evan Amos is a very talented photographer who takes excellent photos for his museum of games. They all have a particular style -- on white or even transparent -- which isn't necessarily the best style for other museum works, but suits the high tech subject. He also ensures the subject is meticulously clean, which isn't always possible/desirable for ancient items. But most importantly, his interaction with the Commons community is essentially zero. So he's not "at FP", even if others nominate his photos from time to time. At FP, we most certainly are amateurs -- I am struggling to think of anyone who is a professional photographer other than Tomascastelazo -- and very few of us have ever had the chance to photograph museum exhibits (or coffee makers) in a studio environment. I don't think the FP processed is aligned with the sort of judgment you are looking for. The technical/professional judgement (as best we can do it) is appropriate, but the need to be wowed is not. QI would be more appropriate but is targeted at users own photos -- it might work if the museum photographer got an account -- and is imo quite random in its standards and too fixated on pixel peeping at times. The other problem with QI is that it is overloaded with nominations and has to throttle them to 5 per day. It needs contributors to be reviewers as well as photographers. And this is the thing -- is this museum or its photographer going to engage with the Commons community? This is a community project. It isn't nearly as collaborative as Wikipedia, but if all one does is upload files, then that's not really the full game, welcome though that may be. Wouldn't it be great if a museum photographer became a reviewer at FP, and helped us amateurs take better pictures, and then perhaps some of them could help photograph their local museum's works. -- Colin (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo contest Art and Feminism[edit]

Hi Colin, The French speaking group fr:Projet:Les sans pagEs (equivalent of en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red) who has created an association in Geneva, and plan to organise a photo exhibition next year on Art and Feminism. If we could have a small contest on Commons about this theme, we could select the best 10 pictures for this exhibition. We are already making a budget, so we will have the possibility to print and display these pictures. What do you think about this? Would you help organising such a contest? Thanks in advance, Yann (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, A bit more background: this is part of en:Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yann, possibly, though I'm not sure for what. I don't speak French (my school French doesn't cover much more than "Where is the railway station?"). I am cautious about using Commons for promoting an agenda. I'm also cautious about introducing money prizes to our existing forums (e.g., Photo Challenge or FP). Are these photos of works of art? If so, wouldn't most such works of art still be copyright? What kind of contest were you thinking about? -- Colin (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am thinking something like Photo Challenge you started. That's why I am asking you, and also because of your photographic skills (we'll need a jury, unless we do a popular contest). I don't think any knowledge of French is needed. In many places, FoP applies, so it is possible to publish art displayed in public places. And I expect people to find original ways to express the idea. See what we have been able to do this year, which include works published with an OTRS permission: Category:Art+Feminism Geneva 2017. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yann, Photo Challenge submission page isn't really much more than a gallery with some instructions in various languages. We still have problems with people not understanding how to enter because they are newbies. Is this event aimed at newbies or established Commons/Wikipedians? Most of the work is involved in arranging the voting and counting them afterwards, which wouldn't be necessary if you had a jury. The image-entry mechanism for WLM is better in my experience, as there is a dedicated upload wizard that automatically categorises the image as it is entered. I think it is possible to create new customised upload wizards, though I don't know who to ask about that. In terms of my reviewing skills, you may have noticed I don't review as much of the artwork images at FP vs the original photographs. I do find it hard to separate the qualities of the artwork from the qualities of the photography, and don't feel FP has really got great criteria for that. I think I might struggle to judge a mix of images containing artworks and new photography. It would certainly be outside my comfort zone. You will know there are other people on FP much more interested in photographing works of art, and perhaps some who are talented artists themselves. Btw, I thought France didn't have FoP and in the UK it only covers 3D art permanently on display to the public. -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, France has no FoP, we are in Switzerland. Nothing is really fixed at this stage. I am a bit fishing for ideas. ;oP I think I would open the submitting period (say images uploaded in 2017), but require that images pass QI, so we don't have to check quality (although QI standards are a bit too strict IMO). Another possibility might be to suggest this theme for Photo Challenge. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
So would it be restricted to just people in Switzerland? That might not be so attractive to the existing Photo Challenge forum, which is global, though there is nothing stopping you creating any page on Commons. You may see on talk photo challenge (archives) there were repeated requests to run "Wiki Loves Pride" photo challenges. We did one the first year and it wasn't really a success -- with few entrants and few good images compared to most other challenges. So I resisted running it again, particularly as there are 10001 people-related themes one could choose for a challenge. I think the challenges work best when it inspires a wide range of people to have a go, rather than being aimed at people who already have a particular interest they want to promote. I agree QI is often too strict for its own good. You are welcome to suggest it as a theme for Photo Challenge -- I'm not very active there at the moment. Alternatively, if you are fishing for ideas, then a post at talk FP and talk QI might bring some. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course not restricted to people in Switzerland. I will follow your suggestion, and post on FP and QI talk pages. The idea is to 1. get 10 first class images on "Art & Feminism", 2. promote Wikimedia Commons and free content. We will certainly get some media coverage, and some people might appreciate to have their work displayed publicly (at least I do). Regards, Yann (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner - Black background.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner - Black background.jpg, which was produced 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.

Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner - White background.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Photoelasticity - TDK Head Cleaner - White background.jpg, which was produced 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.

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Referential language[edit]

Hi Colin, with referential language I mean a language that lacks at all of rhetorics, figurative speech, methaphors and so on, thus a language used only to describe a fact, even though at the borders of boredom (A square is a geometric figure shaped as regular quadrilateral with four equal sides and corners...). The equivalent in Italian is "Linguaggio referenziale". I suggested it because people of different cultures might not be able to recognise one another's figurative speech and problems might arise. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
PS As for the public lecture, I was also talking to my fellow countryman (even, cityman as we both are from Rome) telling him not to respond to anything he might find offensive or demeaning (though it is not meant to be so, of course). I know that in a multilingual project is often easy to be misunderstood even beyond one's intention, hence my request to avoid potentially "warmongering" speech.

Blackcat I don't think that term directly translates how you think it means. Nor is the problem here is what you are suggesting. While language features like metaphors can fail to translate, deliberately using over-simple language when talking to one's colleagues can also cause great offence (i.e. "do you think I'm stupid?"). I have seen too much of Livio to know that even the most careful and plain language causes him to "take offence" -- he is simply trolling the dicussion and being difficult with anyone who criticises him. I don't think your lecture is polite, particularly from someone who is not a regular at FPC, and who has been invited there by a troublemaker. Nor is it fair, when someone trashes another person's nomination with uploading rubbish-quality images they know do not meet our criteria, or when one of our best photographers (Code) advises Livio about the processing, and gets insulted for doing so. So, in summary, I don't think lanugage problems are the issue here, it is the attitude of your fellow Roman. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
But are you always crying? What code is one of the best photographers here you say so, I do not think, respect the opinion of others you'll make it? The nomination was not yours but moheen and did not complain,do you want talk (insulting) for others? The others who have put me negative votes did not bother those who make it in a rude I reply. Then I think it is a problem of education if one is rude may not know what is education! Because they are educated I leave you to cry and write rivers of unnecessary words. Good Sunday (I go to take pictures)--LivioAndronico (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It does not matter what Moheen did or did not do or say. It is not their photo, nor had they edited the file page, so they probably did not have it watchlisted to notice that you'd trashed it. I'm sure if someone trashed one of your nominations with an incompetent edit/replacement you'd be very upset. As for your behaviour on the dome nomination, I am surprised you are not blocked again. You will be, I have no doubt. -- Colin (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Because your hight technical comments and recomendations on FPC section. Thanks for supporting us guys on Wikimedia Photographer group in the trenches with that incredible mind. Thanks also for keeping the your technical skills development going as well and for your valuable feedback and comments on the technical image recomendation on my talk page, talk pages of others and your talk. Also, Thanks for show me that you don't need expensive and high tech equipments to create high quality images. Your photographs put me in a particular moment in time, they tell a story, or they speak to my emotions. Thanks for show me how find my way The Photographer 19:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)