This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jkadavoor.
This is the user talk page of Jkadavoor, where you can send messages and comments to Jkadavoor.
Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
Put new text under old text.
New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
You may refer our policies and guidelines for common doubts. But please don't hesitate to ask for clarifications if further doubts or complaints as our principles include "Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity". I will reply to messages left here on this page. If I have posted on your talk page, I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.
Not very far from your version, just sharpened more, maybe it is too much, is it? You're right for the eyes it's not some kind of moire as Diliff said but the natural appearance of the eyes and a guarantee of good quality image details although there was some chromatic aberrations on the edge of the facets, but only visible at 200%!! I forgot to edit the right part of branch, you can see the difference before/after, I will upload a complete version if you're happy with this edition. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Sharpness is excellent. But in my monitor, the 6+3+1 marks (hope you get what I'm talking about) look overexposed. It may be a problem of my monitor as many people are complaining about the brightness of my works. There is a reflecting duct particle on the fur on the pro-thorax (neck) which can be removed. There are many other dust particles collected on his body including one on the eye. It is quite normal and no need to touch them. (Diliff and Colin, could you please check the brightness level?) Thanks. Jee 11:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I finished the branch and cloned out the reflection. I don't know what you're talking about ("6+3+1 marks"), but if there is something overexposed it might be the colored reflexions on the wing but we should not touch as there are a feature of the insect and of the image IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Christian. Yes; it is difficult to explain; so I made a note. If that parts are OK in brightness level, the edit is perfectly fine for me. As Fraser noted, they are very reflective anyway. Thanks again. Jee 12:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Christian jee is referring to the reflective parts of which there are a group of 6 bands, then 3 bands then 1 band. Compared to Jee's version, yours do seem clipped and there's a hard boundary to them rather than the softness in Jee's. I think we want a compromise where the reflection is brighter than Jee's but not clipped. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; an intermediate version may perfect. Jee 13:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, Christian. So many supports! :) Jee 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, we are a good team! :) you should nominate this one too, perhaps with the cropped one as an alternative or vice versa depending on your preference. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes; I'm researching on it. It is a typical behavior of this male to guard the ovipositing territory. I'll nominate it as soon as improving the description. Jee 06:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Jee, if Ivar is agree, can we send him the RAW file for he take a look at the eye of the insect? I'm sincerely curious if it's really a fixable defect or not as he is the second person after Dilif to talk about that. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes; you can send the raw file to him. BTW, I didn't fully understand whether he is talking about the colors or patters. The female eye looks like this. Male has more colors, up to 30, different visual opsins. Jee 14:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the bright pixels of colour in the eye are moire from the Bayer sensor and fixable with the brush in Lightroom. I don't think those are the iridescent colours of the eye. -- Colin (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Colin I did what you say with lightroom, sadly, the big part of my edition is done in two phases, first in lightroom (creation of a xmp file) second, much longer, in photoshop (psd file), when I create the psd file, the edition made in lightroom was reflected in photoshop. The new change made in lightroom after the creation of the psd file are not reflected in photoshop. I do not know how to do for these new changes take effect (without redone entirely the long edition in photoshop). Any chance to correct the issue directly in photoshop, or an idea for that new changes take effect in my psd file? I read somewhere to use blur filter, I already tried but this also affects the appearance of the area. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I can repeat what I did in photoshop but it will take me some time because I select small areas in a 200% view to sharpen small details as hair, in the purpose to avoid adding noise and sharpening artefacts in the background. If necessary I can, but Jee must withdraw and let me time. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer there is no need to panic and withdraw over minor issue of moire in small area. This is like a dust spot or small CA -- something nobody should oppose over and would trust if you say you plan to fix. There are no opposes. Ok, if you have a PSD, the "demoire" tool is in both Lightroom and ACR. Christian, do you save the PSD to JPG using Photoshop? If instead you save to TIFF then you can get ACR to open it (I think you have to save an ACR preference for opening TIFF files) and then ACR can fix the moire and then you can finally save the TIFF to JPG. If you can't figure it out, put the PSD on dropbox and I'll have a look later. We should be able to do this without any change to the rest of the image. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's Done now. I received unexpected help from someone who wants to remain anonymous, thank you to him. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The colors (red, blue, etc.) are gone now. Hope this is what Ivar meant. Thanks for that anonymous from my side too! Jee 05:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Good quality. Difficult to get. But thank you, this is the first time I have seen, how a cocoon is fixed on a leaf. --Hubertl 08:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried hard to get the ID of the spider weaved it; but it is difficult even for the experts! Jkadavoor 08:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Machali is featured in today's DYK page. Due to copyright issue, her picture is missed on the front page. :( Anyway, happy to seen in the article. Thanks again for uploading the image. --AntanO 04:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no copyright issue as the work has still CC BY-2.0 license in Flickr. Wikipedia policy may discourage use of watermarked image and can be replaced if they get any non-watermarked image in future. Jee 05:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
User:AntanO: I have stepped in and produced a version without the watermark (see File:Machli (tigress)2.jpg). The image's original license permits others to modify the work as they see fit, and I saw fit. The author already has credit on the file description page, so there was no need for this watermark, and it significantly detracted from the overall image. KDS4444 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment Can you center the insect better? --C messier 15:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It is close to the ground (a grass dart/darlet); so the bottom part I cropped is very crowded. And the bottom left cross section of "rule of third" is perfectly cross sectioning through his eye here. (I've a better closup; so no problem if this is not making the QI mark. Thanks for the suggestion; it is always appreciated. Jkadavoor 02:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, the problem is that the top 2/3 of the image are empty. Maybe you should try the golden ratio with the body. --C messier 17:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Composition changed. Jkadavoor 02:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Support in my opinion good quality, meets all QI criteria, so I support it. --J. Lunau 13:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Support Much better now. --C messier 18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! It was nice meeting you in the plane from Oviedo. Here you are my user name. Best wishes --Hispalois (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hispalois, it was a wonderful conversation with you while we're returning from Oviedo to Madrid. I just returned to Kasaragod after one day rest. Will check your and User:Ruben Ortega's pages soon. :) Thanks! Jee 04:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi!, I also was in Oviedo, in the Reconquista Hotel after the awards. Although we didn't speak, it was great that you were there. Cheers, --PePeEfe (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks PePeEfe. It was my pleasure too to meet the Spanish community there! Jee 08:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The Commons email template: feedback request
Hey, Jkadavoor! I noticed the changes you made to the Commons email template (version here) in which you added the terms "the media work", "the media depicted in the work", and "both the work depicted and the media". I think this was a great improvement, but I found it dazzlingly confusing the first several times I read it (not your fault!). I have now gone over the template and added "notes" that I believe explain what these terms mean and provide concrete examples of each, but as I did not insert the terms, I wanted to get your thoughts on what I wrote (because as much as I think I understand copyright law...). Would you be willing to check out the template and let me know if I understood you correctly? These concepts seem to be highly relevant and should be clearly explained for the general public! THANK YOU! KDS4444 (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks KDS4444; I'll check and get back to you soon. BTW, I'm not in OTRS now. Jee 14:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks KDS4444. Yes; your explanation makes sense. It is exactly I meant. During my OTRS time, I've to ask again and again to clarify this as it is very vague in earlier template. For photograph of a sculpture, we need permission form the sculpturer, and photographer as photograph is a derivative work. Sometimes uploader is the photographer himself and his permission is already in the file page. In such cases, we need permission only for the sculpture. Sometimes, when some Wikipedian ask the artist for a photo of his work and they deliver a photo of the artwork taken by themselves. In such cases, they need to mention both the artwork and photograph are created by them. Jee 16:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Another thing, can you friend, John Flannery, confirm if the image were taken in Richmond County, North Carolina, USA? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Christian. Sorry; I can't identify European odonata. I'll ask John Flannery about the locations. Virus fever; so please forgive for my delayed responses for a few days. Jee 14:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)