This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi! Kannst du eventuell von der Skala dieses wunderhypschen Museumsstücks noch ein bzw. zwei Fotos für den Artikel de:Spiegelskala machen, mit denen man die Ablesestechnik bzw. Ablesefehler verdeutlichen könnte? Ich habe zwar selbst noch ein Instrument, aber das ist so alt und verkratzt, daß man davon kein vorzeigbares Foto machen kann. -- smial (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Werde ich gerne machen, aber es kann noch etwas dauern.--Harke (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Keine Hektik, lieber gut statt schnell :-) -- smial (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Herzlichen Dank für die Mühe auch :-) -- smial (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Man könnte doch die beiden Bilder als Galerie zusammentun. Ich habe das so versucht. Das sieht doch gut aus? Mit jpg zusammenmontieren kenne ich mich noch nicht so aus.----Harke (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.
Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.
Insofern kommt auch kein QI zustande (wobei ich die Regel nun auch nicht sonderlich gut finde).
Wäre einscannen hier eigentlich nicht einfacher gewesen als abfotografieren? --afrank99 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Danke für dein Kommentar, ich bin in der Sache noch ein Neuling, deshalb freue ich mich über jede Korrektur. Noch zwei Fragen dazu:
1) Reicht beim Autor nicht aus, wie ich es geschrieben habe 'photo by Harke'. Name des Künstlers steht schon im Feld Description.
2) Nach dieser Interpretation können grundsätzlich Reproduktionen von zweidimensionalen Kunstwerken niemals QI sein, wenn sie nicht vom Künstler selbst eingestellt werden. Ist bei Offterdinger ja nicht möglich, er war im 19 Jh kein Wikipedianer! Ich sehe bei den QI viele Reproduktionen zweidimensionaler Kunstwerke. Was nun?
Wegen dem Einscannen: Ich habe keinen hochauflösenden Scannener zur Verfügung. --Harke (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
zu 1) Nein, denn so wie du es schreibst, suggeriert es, dass Du der Autor wärst - was ja nicht stimmt. Du könntest Author: Offterdinger (photo/scanned by User:Harke) oder so ähnlich schreiben. Eben so, dass es dem ahnungslosen Leser sofort klar wird, wer was gemacht hat.
zu 2) Ist im Prinzip richtig, aber ehrlich gesagt, habe ich mich bei deinen Vorschlägen zum ersten Mal damit befasst - möglicherweise ist die Regel neu, oder wurde/wird bisher nicht beachtet. Oder ich lege sie zu genau aus. Kann auch sein. (die Qualität an sich würde schon für QI reichen) --afrank99 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
zu 1) Dieser Vorschlag ist gut, so wird die Sache wirklich deutlicher. Ich werde das auch bei den anderen Reproduktionen ändern.
zu 2) Diese Regel kenne ich nicht. Mal abwarten, was die Nominierung ergibt. --Harke (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hier steht's: Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder --afrank99 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Die deutsche Übersetzung sagt aber leider was anderes, Qualitätsbilder müssen unter verwendbarer Lizenz hochgeladen werden.[hier]--Harke (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Falls du es nicht mitbekommen hast: hier gibt's eine Diskussion zu dem Thema - wobei es eigentlich nur darum geht, die Richtlinien eindeutig zu formulieren. --ƛƭƦѦɳҞԳԳ (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you are wrong. The files have correct titles. See my detailed description in de:Kühlrippe. In short: The fins are more efficient, if the temperature difference fin-to-ambient is higher over the whole fin area (higer surface temperature=higher heat transfer rate). This is in File:High efficiency fins.png the case - see the temperature scale. --Harke (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Harke is right, the files are correctly named. -- smial (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You are right: if the fins are of a material more conductive, it means that the temperature on its surface is more uniform and higher. Sorry. :P --Aushulz (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
schönes Bild, ich meine nur, dass der Hintergrund einen leichten Farbstich Richtung Violett hat!? --Mbdortmund 19:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC). Stimmt! Ich habe eine verbesserte Version hochgeladen. --Harke 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Wenn Du's perfekt machen willst, würd ich noch die beiden Schatten entfärben --Mbdortmund 09:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, aber damit bin ich, ehrlich gesagt, überfordert. --Harke 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ich hab das dann mal für dich erledigt ... :-) -- H005 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Danke --Harke 18:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
details are fine, but perspektive should be corrected, perhaps have a look at the freeware Shift-N --Mbdortmund 21:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC). Perspective improved -better? Ich glaube, die Paneele an der Decke sind wirklich so uneben. Das geht nicht besser. --Harke 20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. --Marcok 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Still something wrong with perspective. Old version is too narrow, this is tilted. We could probably do something in the Fotowerkstatt, if you upload the original. Good shot though, it's worth to be made as perfect as possible. -- Smial 22:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Hier ist es. --Harke 20:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I tried a better correction. OK now? --Harke 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hier müßte nach meiner Meinung die untere rechte Ecke etwas nach unten links gezogen werden. --Berthold Werner 08:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Ich dachte auch so. Jedoch ist es insgesamt ausgezeichnet. Support QI --George Chernilevsky 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ich habe es korrigiert. --Harke 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Es ist das sehr gute Ergebnis, Harke! --George Chernilevsky 06:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to let you know I created an edited version of one of your photos, File:Clampmeter Fluke 337.jpg, which is currently nominated at QIC. My version is here: File:Clampmeter Fluke 337 edit.jpg. I whitened and removed the background (but kept the shadow), rotated the image so the text is more readable, and fixed some perspective distortion; it was just a quick little touchup, but I think the clean background is a little easier on the eyes.
If you like my edit you can upload my version of the file over your original file and I'll delete the edited image's page; if not, it can just be added to your image's "other versions" section so people have both options. Cheers, and thanks for all your great contributions! -- Editor at Large • talk 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Editor at Large, thanks for your edit! The clean backgroud looks really good and it was also a good idea to rotate the picture. I appreciate all comments to my pictures and all suggestions for improvement. Only, I am not very happy with the sharp yellow color of the housing, the original color was warmer. But it is not an important issue, maybe it is only an impression of myself. I will upload your version above my version when the QI nomination closes (I think, it is not OK to change the images during the nomination). --Harke (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Check Clampmeter Fluke 337 edit.jpg now; is that colour better? You might have to clear your cache or purge the page before the new version shows up. I warmed the yellow up a bit and it seems to be closer to the colour of the original image now.
I'm glad you like the white background! I try to clean up backgrounds on object photos when I can; I find that a nice all-white background makes the subject pop a little more and is less distracting on Wikipedia article pages. The problem is that it can be difficult to get the background white when you're taking the photo; even against white paper the lighting can cause colour casts and shadows. I've done a lot of background cleanups in photoshop though, and I have a nice quick formula for getting clean white backdrops :D
Would you mind if I cleaned up a couple more of your object photos? I noticed you have a lot of great object photos on white backgrounds, like the one at the top of the page. All the backgrounds need is a little brightening and they'd be nice and crisp white. I've been cleaning up a few of my own object photos before uploading them, so I can do some of yours at the same time. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's really perfect now, thanks for your effort! I agree with you: most objects look better with a white background on the white Wiki pages (with exception of bright objects). I use white plotter paper as a background, manual white balance and daylight from the window. However there is always a non uniform illumination and shadows. I try some corrections with Nikon Capture NX2, but the possibilities are limited (and I'm not an expert in image editing). If you like, you can edit my images. I know, some of the backgrounds could certainly be improved. But please, let me know. ----Harke (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: the funny rotation effects? I'm not quite sure what the "upright" perameter is for - I've never seen it before! However, I tried putting in "upright=1", which for you made the picture rotate 90° inside the upright frame; it worked fine for me though, with no noticeable change whatsoever. I'm not sure why it would be acting funny for you. I tested the "upright" perameter on de.wp in preview, and then in my sandbox so I could save to see if that made a difference; both turned out fine. Maybe it's your cache? Other than that I'm really not sure what could be making it act funny. My edit shouldn't affect that perameter, as it's a jpeg and doesn't have any complicated stuff like an SVG would. I really can't say what could be going on, other than try clearing your cache and test it again? -- Editor at Large • talk 22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
If white balance function of the camera sometimes does not work as expected when using white paper as background, this can originate from optical brightener in the paper. This can cause a blueish tint, or, if the WB takes this into account, the background will be white, but everything else is warm coloured. For small objects I use ink jet photo paper (glossy or matt), which has no brightener. -- smial (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Today, all is OK with the rotation. It was probably the cache. Sorry. And thanks to Smial for the hint. I will try.--Harke (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Good in my opinion, although some might complain about noise in the sky and nearly invisible sharpening halos at some edges. This still OK for me here. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Good, although I would crop more of the blue sky above in order to center the house better within the image frame. The car in the right lower corner does not disturb me. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC). Done --Harke 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Vertical lines on the houses on the left are tilted clockwise. Whole scene looks cw tilted although vertical lines are nearly upgright on the right side. Can you try to correct perspective without these distortions? Otherwise good. --Johannes Robalotoff 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Better now? --Harke 10:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Comment It is better now. The vertical lines are now pretty upright all over the picture, if I measure them. But visually it looks a bit strange still, probably because of wrong angles between horizontal and vertical lines. Therefore I am neutral at the moment. Did you try a different projection? --Johannes Robalotoff 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your very detailed review. It´s one of my first panos, I hope the next ones will be better. --Harke 10:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Support good result, QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 06:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Left side of the tower ist blown out. --Berthold Werner 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC).
Excellent composition. The almost blown part of the tower is acceptable for me. --Cayambe 08:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)