User talk:Colin

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
  1. 25 March 2007 – 31 July 2013
  2. 23 August 2013 – 30 December 2014

Happy New Year Colin![edit]

Thanks Wilfredo and Happy New Year to you too! -- Colin (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This year will be a year of new challenges, however, the problems are insignificant to brave people like you. Best wishes to you and your family, I hope you can achieve all your goals, good health from the hand of the Good Shepherd, our Lord. --The Photographer (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte Vittorio Emanuele II San Pietro, Rome, Italy.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

November Photo Challenges voting results[edit]

Hello, Colin! Need a helping hand with the November Photo Challenges voting results? I made a T-SQL script to count the votes and I created the result pages for Smoke and Leaves. Please check if they are OK and update the main page of the Photo Challenge, when you have the time. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Razvan Socol, I'm impressed. How does the T-SQL count the votes on a website? Do you extract it into a database? I think you got the counts right, but I have changed the vote pages this afternoon to remove some invalid votes. I've updated the results pages. Perhaps you want to run your script again to see if they match now. In addition to counting my program also:
  • Checks voters make a vote clearly that I can count and they have signed.
  • Checks voters do not make too many votes.
  • Checks voters do not vote the same number twice.
  • Checks voters have made 50 Commons contributions (though I then look at the user contribs to see if they have entered the challenge (which is allowed) or have been on Commons a while so don't look like a sock).
  • Checks voters do not vote on their own images.
Does you script spit out the wikitable or did you have to do that by hand?
Do you want to have a go at creating:
That would be a help as I'm about to busy with family tea. You can copy the example from previous winners. I take the "Title" of the winning images from the entry page (the text after the | in the gallery).
I copy a previous one like Commons:Photo challenge/2014 - September-October - Light on the move/Winners and then replace the fields. The "#expr: 240*2048/1366 round 0" sizing bit has to be done by hand, by getting the width and height from the image description page. I bit a of hassle and I keep meaning to write a program to do that. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I was also busy (including this morning), and I see that you already created the Winners pages. I'll try to do those for the next challenge, if I will remember in time. I should also try to do some of the checks you mentioned above (my script only verifies that each voter has only one 1/3 vote, one 2/3 vote and one 3/3 vote). I simply copy-paste the wikitext into a variable, then the script parses the lines of text into a table, and then I use some string manipulation functions and GROUP BY to do the counting, and then it outputs the body of the wikitable (without the header). I wrote this script because I was curious if my photo (File:Fallen leaves on green grass.JPG) will make it to the top 3 (and it almost did it, before you removed some incorrect votes!). Well, there is always the next challenge... Razvan Socol (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Rsocol, One thing I keep forgetting to do is to run the voting program earlier in the voting month to catch the incorrect votes earlier. That would help to remove/fix these before the end of month. And, of course, this month I forgot about it completely. It will be harder for you to check the 50-contributions rule, since that needs you to fetch the user's contributions. And sometimes a person's signature doesn't correctly and directly link to their Commons account (grr). For the "can't vote on own image" you should see that the "creator" is mentioned on the page, though this is hidden with an HTML comment until voting is over. My program is written in C# and I keep meaning to polish it a bit and find other people who can run it. But ideally, we'd get some developer time from WMF to help make the whole challenge submission/voting experience fully automated rather than the clumsy wikitext voting we do right now. If you are still interested in polishing your script, then you could create a result page during the next voting month, and publish it but with a bit HTML comment round the whole text too keep it hidden. Then Ping me and I'll compare (if you say which revision yours is based on).

And, sorry about your image just failing to get into the top three. Good luck next time. Btw, I don't see the diff you give changing the votes on your image. It only removes a vote for Meyer P's own image. Or did I screw something up? -- Colin (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

“Canvassing”? Really?[edit]

I’m not one to take crazy offense over any little thing but really? You’re going to accuse me of canvassing a nomination? I didn’t even say anything to a single person. And sorry but your comments are sounding really condescending (which is fine) but you’re sounding like I’m cheating for stars or something. The first nomination failed with unanimous support and I felt it did not recieve a thorough review. You have to wonder how many people are taking the time to download the SVG and flip through its layers when photo reviwers are scrutinizing pixels. I don’t renominate bad images over and over until something sticks. && please don’t go out of your way to say “meh.” about my image. That’s just rude and uncalled for. How would you feel if someone went out of their way to say that about your church pictures?—Kelvinsong talk 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kelvinsong, I think the first nom failed more due to holiday season. I'm aware that the talk page discussion was not created by you; but it affected your second nom in a bad way. The truth is that there is no fixed rule on re-nominations; only an understanding to avoid quick re noms as much as possible. We are occasionally ended up in heated arguments; but hope they all melt like ice. :) Jee 05:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Kelvinsong, I suggest that next time you nominate your diagrams you don't start with something like "Really getting tired of this fail-because-people-dont-bother-to-vote thing" which sounds like a 7-year-old being upset because he wasn't picked for Joseph at the nativity play. You might get more support in future if you explained why you think your diagram is among the finest. In what way have you drawn something original and how does it explain concepts better than most other diagrams? Simply nominating a diagram and expecting praise isn't working for you. And re-nominating with an hostile attitude sure isn't winning any friends. Just creating a technically proficient diagram is not sufficient for FP: we have thousands and thousands of technically proficient QI photographs. Have a serious think about what you believe should separate an FP diagram from a QI diagram. Perhaps if you can come up with examples and concepts that distinguish the two, we can codify it in the guidance and this will encourage people to be confident about voting. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don’t make fun of how I talk. The warm front image I think is original because there are very few illustrations of the cloud bank viewed from any angle other than a 2D side cut and it can be insightful to see the structure from an aerial view. It also makes clear the movement of the air on both sides of the front, and the pressure trough, which you could not do on most of the “better diagrams on google images” unless you know how to read station models. And artistically I was proud of the shadowing of the cloud bank, the rain effect underneath the cloud base, the cirrus clouds, and the mottled altostratus right ahead of the nimbostratus shelf. && I thought the screen filter made the red and blue annotations look better against the backdrop. I also put a great deal of effort in making sure the diagram was readable, aligning text to pixel sizes by using magic point-sizes, and sorted it neatly into twelve layers, three of which are invisible—two to preserve text data for translation or editing, and one to store assets like front symbols, clipping masks, and cloud patterns should any other editor want to make a derivative of the image, or perhaps remake the companion cold front image which I am really questioning whether I should upload after this.
BTW something like what you’re talking about has already been attempted; in fact I wrote most of the proposed guidelines. But naturally it went nowhere and simply gathered dust after a few weeks.—Kelvinsong talk 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-related—a long time ago on that SVG guidelines page King of Hearts said “"wow factor" is essentially "Is it publishable in a magazine/journal?" For photos, that would be "Is it National Geographic worthy?" For illustrations, "Could it have plausibly come from a copy of Science (or similar)?"” which I think is a very succint and handy rule of thumb we might want to use in the future—Kelvinsong talk 16:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry[edit]

It was not my intention to saturate the challenge. Sorry. The pictures were taken by my wife who doesn't speak English, and I put them all there to help her. My mistake. We will put just a few of them, as you suggest. Thanks for your kind remarks. B25es (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We have left just six pics, one for appliance. B25es (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Outliers theme[edit]

Hi Colin- Given that this is one of the examples for the January competition, can I enter a scan of several objects?--Godot13 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Godot13, I don't know how that example crept in. I've removed it. It is a "photo" challenge. The intention is really to motivate people to get their cameras out and take new pictures and be creative. I think scans of other artwork or diagrams would be just so different to the other members of the challenge that we wouldn't really know how to compare them. I'm not sure what "objects" you intend to scan. If natural things like leaves then I suppose a scan could be considered a form of photography, but if you are scanning someone else's work then I don't think that's really what the challenge is about. You are welcome to raise the point in the Photo Challenge talk page (I think it is mentioned in the archives, such as video too). Can you think of a challenge aimed at those who scan/restore images or those who create diagrams? Would there be enough participants to make a competition? -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I had prepared a scan of 5 banknotes at the Smithsonian meant to illustrate the theme this month. It is an "original" so to speak, but I really only did it because of the image that was part of the examples (and because I didn't have a camera with me...). I may load it to commons and ping you to have a look.--Godot13 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Godot13, probably best to copy/continue this over at the Photo Challenge talk page. It should be a community decision rather than mine. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Château d'eau du Peyrou, Montpellier 07.jpg[edit]

Hi Colin, I found this vertical shot in my (too) many RAW files, do you think it deserve a delist anf replace from this one? -- ChristianFerrer 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The foreground under the water is a bit distracting, but it is useful to have plenty sky. I suggest you link them as you've done with the others. That way anyone who comes across your FP can choose the crop they think suits their needs best. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I asked your opinion then I'll listen, good evening ) -- ChristianFerrer 20:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Trolling comment[edit]

WTH is that?. Are you writen that? what happend? :( --The_Photographer (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What Alchemist did with the ownership/attribution was wrong, and I've explained that. What you/Béria did with the licence "change" was wrong, and I've explained that. The nasty comment you made to my friend Jee was very, very wrong. The bullying remark and edit-summary Béria made was also very wrong. You and I both struggle with conservative voting at FP (such as your cow environmental portrait and b&w) and I campaign with you against that. But I am very sad to say I can't say you are my friend after what you and Béria have said to Jee. I worry that both of you have got into a dark place with bad friends. I hope you can understand this hurts me. I will try to remain fair with you and continue to campaign as I have done. But please try to mend things with Jee. As for Esby, I don't know what his game is but I don't play games. -- Colin (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I have problems with my goberment in Venezuela and thats is the raison of my name changed and this, Jee insulted Beria by mail, he is a wolf dressed obelisk like others over there (I have no proof that my word to you) thats why nasty comment. There are people who pretend to be good friends, but they are not starting from WMF. I do not expect to be right or you believe in my words, though, so good friend who you have been, it was my responsibility to write this. You must be stronger and more emotionally intelligent, do not get carried away by the trolls, not blindly trust the people here. The trust will kill you or make you free. --The_Photographer (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
According to my mail log, I had sent only one personal mail to her which was on December 20, 2013 when she accused me on the controversial DR: ""And, for the record, since I was already cited here by Jkadavoor when he tried to dismmis my husband vote.." - Could you show me where I cited you other than a generic comment? I don't want to reply there; as I respect Wilfredor much. - Jee" Jee 03:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what grave offence Jee made that would possibly justify telling him to go f**k himself with a baseball bat. Or what exalted Admin cloud Béria inhabits that permits her to think "all the licenses will be changed or all the files deleted, whatever happens first" is in any way achievable. And if I were to call Jee "boy", as a patronising insult, I'd be blocked for using racist language. I can only go on what I see, not what is passed around in private by email, etc. And what I see you write is inexcusable if you wish to be regarded as a gentleman.
As for your name-change, that just appears rather naive since your old account it trivially linked to your new one, and you went and used your new account with your old name on one of the most trafficked pages on Wikipedia. It is most awkward having to refer to you as The Photographer -- you could have chosen a much better and less pretentious pseudonym! -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Paul's Cathedral - Lantern and Ball and Cross.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Paul's Cathedral - Lantern and Ball and Cross.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

St Paul's Cathedral - Ball and Cross.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Paul's Cathedral - Ball and Cross.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

FP Promotion[edit]

Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change - Square Crop.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change - Square Crop.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change - Square Crop.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens announced I remember we talked about this lens some time ago, perhaps still relevant for you. I still think that the 18-35 is probably more useful for APS-C sensors, though. --DXR (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DXR, thanks. No announcement of Sony A-mount, though. It takes Sigma a long time to release A-mount versions. I'm sure it is a great lens. The lenses I most use for landscape/stitching are my Sony 30mm f/2.8 macro, 50mm f/1.8 and the 16-50 f/2.8. The first two are excellent primes if rather cheaply made (I stick some Sellotape on the focus ring to stop it moving during stitches). The "kit" zoom is a high quality fast zoom that is also highly regarded. I haven't seen any official reviews comparing the Sigma 18-35 with these so don't really know if it would be better. Someone once said "The Sigma isn't as good as the Sony in the 36-50mm range" :-). I tend to find my sharpness issues are usually not lens-related but shutter speed / support / iso. And the limitations to my images are mostly due to the limitations of the spongy thing between my ears, rather than the expensive box in my hands! -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course you make really good points and that does indeed seem like a pretty useful lens lineup. I forgot that you have the 16-50 and I agree that its flexibility is much more useful for the kind of shooting we tend to do  ;-). --DXR (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

precision[edit]

Hi Colin, as my english is not the best can you precise to me if that is some irony please? don't worry if it is, I will stay calm, it's just curiosity. -- Christian Ferrer 21:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, I'm afraid I don't understand the comment either. -- Colin (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I will ask them so -- Christian Ferrer 21:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of precision, and at the risk of making too fine a distinction, on the Village Pump you wrote, "Of the 1000-odd photographs Jee has uploaded to Commons so far, more than half are illustrating Wikipedia articles, which is a strong measure of high quality educational photography." Without at all shorting Jkadavoor's excellent work here on Commons, it is an indicator of high-quality educational photography, but I would hope we would not use it as a measure. Here are several ways someone would increase such a measure, all of which would be counterproductive to Commons' goals:

  • Never upload more than one picture of a person, building, etc., since probably only one of them will be used as an illustration.
  • Always put your picture in an article, even if someone else's is berter. Contribute nothing to correctly categorizing any "competing" work, because then it would be more likely to be found and used rather than your own.
  • Add your pictures to articles to which they are only tangentially connected. Even if the article is already well-illustrated, and even if your new photo adds little, try to sneak it in there somewhere.
  • Avoid contributing photos in areas where articles do not yet exist. For example, if no one is actively writing Wikipedia articles about historic buildings in your home city, avoid uploading photos of those buildings.

Again, I am not suggesting for a moment that any of these apply to Jee, whose work here has indeed been excellent, but I certainly do not think my own work here would be improved by striving to meet this "measure." - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you've put a lot of work into how to game the system. I wasn't really proposing this as the standard way of measuring the quality of contributions. It is quite possible, and indeed likely, for someone to upload lots of educational content that stands little chance of illustrating WP. WP does have its own editors who can reject inferior images, though how efficiently this is done will vary. I'm well aware of the problem with educators thinking they can use WP to effectively mark their students work and use edit-retention as some measure of quality. So these sorts of statistics should be taken with some salt. Still, I think in Jee's case, his images probably are the best illustrations for any given article. And I hope this coming year he will replace some of them with better ones. -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I have a strictly "white hat" approach to the study of gaming the system. Part of my professional work over the years has been developing metrics, and one of the first things you have to look at is how someone would game them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Tower Bridge view at dawn crop.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Tower Bridge view at dawn crop.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge view at dawn.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Tower Bridge from Shad Thames.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Tower Bridge from Shad Thames.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge from Shad Thames.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Vatican[edit]

Hi Colin,

Does this remind you something ? ;) Was obviously inspired by your shot, and I just managed to find the trick to get rid of the tourists in post processing (sometimes the ideas just pop into your mind). But I think it may work better with a single tourist in. Btw, just came back from London. Spent three days there, but only had like half a day to actually take photos. Managed to spend a whole early morning by myself, so I may have some shots to share soon (or, very likely, later), even though you and Diliff only left a few "unvisited" spots to shot ;). A very beautiful and photogenic city for sure. - Benh (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Benh, I can hardly take credit for that, considering it is probably the most photographed spiral staircase in the world. Look forward to seeing your London photos, of which there is no shortage of opportunities. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
London does have its charms, but I can't say it's in the same league as Paris when it comes to being photogenic! The beauty of London is in the individual buildings and little quirks, but the architecture is so mixed that it's difficult to find sweeping views that are intrinsically pretty, unlike Paris. :-) I'll be back in France in a few weeks (in Oise mostly, but I will hopefully have some opportunities to visit Paris and the surrounding cathedrals). Diliff (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Size of panoramas in Photo challenge[edit]

Hi Colin,

May I suggest altering the default size of panoramas in Photo Challenge voting gallery? Please look at this one: Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - March - Black and White/Voting#Cardona March 2015-5bw. Although it is the largest image in contest, it has the smallest thumb! Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, you are right, that one ended up way too small. You can be bold and change too, as long as it looks fair! I've fixed it by hand -- hope the new size is ok. I'll see if I can change the program that generates the images so that it tries to give each image the same area rather than just use 400x400 which favours square images. -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Colin! I would have been bold if it weren't my own image... Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Top of Monument to the Great Fire of London.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Top of Monument to the Great Fire of London.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Northern and Shell Building - Detail May 2014.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Northern and Shell Building - Detail May 2014.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Base of Monument to the Great Fire of London.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Base of Monument to the Great Fire of London.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Top of the Shard.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Top of the Shard.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Cheetah at Sunset.jpg[edit]

Have a look at the new upload over it (by somebody else). I doubt whether it is an improvement. Jee 05:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Sky Garden - Workmen.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sky Garden - Workmen.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Gherkin from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Gherkin from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

RE:Photo Challenge[edit]

I already changed my votes, thanks for warning! --Gilc (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg and Photo challenge...[edit]

Hi Colin.

I'm not really sure your picture matches with the definition of a panoramic photo with a ratio of 1:2 (as this one doesn't match too)... Other pics have less or more 1:10 ratio and that's what I call a panoramic.

--Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that other picture. A panorama is 2:1 or narrower. That's the definition, for example, that Epson International Pano awards use. Mine is a vertical panorama. 1:10 is pretty extreme. -- Colin (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
1:2 ratio is too close to a "classic" view and I do really think this criterion is out of scope. What do you think about some restrictions as 1:5 minumum ? --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
And we don't have a bigger page in French as in English for fr:Photographie panoramique... --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There's no absolute agreed definition of 'panoramic'. 2:1 is perhaps approaching a 'classic' view, I would have probably selected 3:1 but it's just a matter of taste. I agree with Colin, 1:10 is very extreme. Even most 360 degree panoramas don't approach 1:10, unless they have a very narrow vertical angle of view. Diliff (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I went with 2:1 because that's what Wikipedia said and what the Epson International Pano Awards use. this source also confirms 2:1 and 3:1, as does this. So when I researched a ratio, 2:1 was the most likely option. Tastes will differ, but we've got to set a ratio somewhere and the challenge currently says 2:1. Certainly, plenty people, including the makers of panoramic medium format cameras, think 2:1 is fine, whereas nobody thinks 6:4 is panoramic, say. There is such a thing as a vertical panorama, and for that, going much more than 2:1 is unlikely. Even 16:9 only really is common for landscape format rather than portrait. So I'd expect landscape panoramas to be more extreme than vertical ones. I'd find it hard to change the ratio to 3:1, say, given that the worlds biggest panorama photo award contest thinks 2:1 meets the definition. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Shard from the Sky Garden 2015.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

winner notifications[edit]

Hello Colin,
I just wanted to ask this months winners if they'd like to help with the selection of our June themes, but realised that there wasn't any winner notification for TheJerboa (see talk). Did you just miss one or is there a reason?
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Anna reg, I've added it now. I can only think that since his user page is a red-link that I somehow failed to navigate to his talk page, and missed him off. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I just asked them to participate in the theme decision for June. --Anna reg (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

ICM[edit]

Hey Colin, I'm glad somebody finally brought up this luckily also rather lively discussion on abstract photography and obvious artistic limitations on commons - though I don't really expect it to show serious results at least in the short run... Anyway, I also noticed you created a new category for ICM photography. I suddenly remembered that I took a similar picture a couple of years ago. It's definitely not as good as yours, and I won't even nominate it at QIC. But maybe it's a start and helps fill the cat with life. Cheers, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Martin, and I like your photo. I laughed when I discovered that Category:ICM was for trains! That tells you all you need to know about Commons. There's a very conservative bunch of amateur photographers on Commons, with all the failings that most AP have such as obsession with gear, techniques, pixel-peeping and limited creativity. Unless that gets challenged, we will fail to attract and retain people who have a spark of artistic creativity, who can create images that elicit any emotions. I do wonder sometimes, if some people here haven't seen any "educational media" since they left school and think Wikipedia is what an "educational" is -- Wikipedia is very poorly illustrated. Well, the nomination is on a knife-edge at the moment and many more days to go (crossing fingers).... -- Colin (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"s" or not[edit]

Hi Colin, I need just a little help for English, in this sentence "Exemples of others galleries where you may find other featured pictures of people", is "other" take a s or not? -- Christian Ferrer 08:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Christian, no "s" required. However, the "other" is unnecessary as there is one later on in the sentence -- you only need one "other". Also, I'd say "examples of" was not quite right since you aren't really giving "examples", but listing actual galleries. On the principle that the best writing requires the fewest words, how about "Other galleries containing featured pictures of people:". -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, my cousin show me this site, as soon I have the time, I will go there to improve my English. -- Christian Ferrer 15:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I can't speak any foreign languages. I did French at school, but can't remember much more than "where is the railway station?". -- Colin (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question, the railway station is in the midlle of the image at the 1/3 left level. I have two question, 1 : is the latest version an improvment? 2 : is it an issue to have upgraded the first version by an image taken exactly only 22s later? -- Christian Ferrer 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 :-). The second image certainly appears clearer with more contrast/saturation which is an improvement. And I prefer the crop. I'm not on my good PC just now, so can't judge it that well on this little laptop's screen. Commons:Overwriting existing files is the guideline and I don't have any problems with your edit/switch. I guess the test is whether you think anyone would have any reason to want to use/link-to the first version rather than the second. Otherwise, it just clutters the category and search results with an inferior image. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Monitor calibration[edit]

Do you think the factory-color calibration is not enough? I need X-Rite i1 Display Pro for via the Dell UltraSharp Color Calibration Solution software, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the calibration tool I have. It is something to consider, though they are expensive. Are you using Windows? What "profile" have you got each monitor set to? The simplest might be to set both monitors to their sRGB profile and tell Windows to use sRGB for both. That would give reasonably accurate colours for that colour space.
If you really do want to gain the extra wide gamut that one of your monitors has then you will pay for that with complexity. Each monitor should have come with a CDROM with its profile file. This is a *.icm or *.icc file I think. Alternatively, you may be able to download it. I think you use these files with the monitor's native/standard profile rather than with a named one like sRGB or AdobeRGB. You need to install these and tell Windows which one to use for which monitor. However, only Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom (and perhaps some other professional photo tools) will respect both profiles. No web browser currently copes with two different monitor profiles -- they just use the profile of the primary monitor. And even then, most browsers don't handle monitor profiles at all well. The best solution I have found is Firefox, but even then you need to tweak some settings. I will try to write some more about this on a page so everyone can read it.

My best recommendation for you really is probably to set both monitors to sRGB profile on their on-screen-menu and then tell Windows to us sRGB. But if you want to buy a calibrator then be prepared to put in some work to configure things, and accept that probably only one of your monitors will show the correct colours when browsing the web. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Colin
Thanks for the information. Today and tomorrow I might be busy so It's difficult to find the icc CD or download from the wab. A few days later I will try it. Thank you. If you have some advice, feel free to write my talk page, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am mainly using DELL U2413 and setting sRGB with Dell Display Manager and I guess display prifile is correct. Should I do some more with this CD or download some files from website? --Laitche (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
That should be fine, if you are happy to work in sRGB. It certainly keeps life simple. -- Colin (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For now sRGB is enough for me, even only sRGB I am occasionally confusing with differences of each browser, if I have to handle AdobeRGB, that would make me exhausted... --Laitche (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Cinematic[edit]

FYI --The Photographer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Photographer, thanks. I like it. Very moody. It has a combination of some streaky blurred parts and some still sharp parts. I read today that we only see sharp and with good colour accuracy in the centre 2-degrees of our vision. The rest is blurred. So, perhaps my bluebells photo is closer to reality that we want to admit :-). Shame it failed. I was hoping to win the award for the FP with the most oppose votes! -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a strange effect on your picture, I tried for five minutes to move my head up and down in a straight line, I got to see more details in the picture as a normal view. --The Photographer (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that is similar to how you can make a pixellated picture look clearer by squinting your eyes. Perhaps Adobe have a "camera shake removal" tool that can restore my original? -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure Adobe is remarking your works! --Laitche (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - May - Panoramas[edit]

I'm afraid I shall have to remove File:Ambérieu 5000.JPG as it was uploaded before the challenge began, which is against the rules. I hope you can take more images for future challenges. -- Colin (d) 20:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

y'a pas de soucis, mais c'est dommage.--Classiccardinal (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)