User talk:Poco a poco/2012-01

Archives 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Holy Sepulchre - Dome exterior, Jerusalem1.jpg

Hallo, du hattest vor allem Pech: schlechtes Wetter und eine Baustelle. Der Standort war auch nicht so günstig, da man relativ wenig von der Kirche sieht. Ich habe mein Foto vom Turm der Erlöserkirche aus gemacht, den kann man nämlich besteigen. Das kostet ungefäht 1 €. Reist du eigentlich beruflich so viel oder waren das alles private Reisen? --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Javascript

Ciao! Probabilmente hai i javascript disattivati, perché questo tuo commento appariva, per qualche motivo, come firmato da me... Buonwiki, --Marco 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Al-mawazin next to the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem4.jpg

Hello Poco,
I am sorry for corrections, but I always see a little red CA aside right and purple CA aside left borders. I do not know how to correct them but on the tutoriel of Gimp or the other tool that should be explained. Good luck for your changes --Moonik (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Hanging Church, Old Cairo, Egypt3.jpg

Hallo, ISO 400 hat hier nach meiner Meinung zu zuviel Bildrauschen geführt und dann ist da noch eine seltsame blaue Linie zwischen Himmel und Mauer. Die blaue Linie würde verschwinden wenn man das Stück Himmel oben abschneidet aber das Rauschen.... --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Candidates

Hola, "Poco a poco" (buen nombre). Durante años no me he atrevido a proponer imágenes a QI por no tener una cámara apropiada. Mi cámara era una Sony muy buena de 4 megapixels (f/2), posteriormente tuve una Nikon 8800 (8 megapixels). Con esas cámaras subí unas 2000-3000 fotos, pero no me atreví casi nunca a proponer imágenes a QI. Algunas imágenes -hasta sin yo proponerlas- fueron muy bien valoradas, pero pocas, por lo cual claudiqué y dejé de proponer imágenes. Mi consideración fue la siguiente: Puede ser que yo lo haga mal, pero sin una cámara excepcional no voy a poder aprender ni a colaborar en este espacio creándome un sitio.

Mi siguiente cámara fue una Canon G10 (aún la tengo y la uso). Mala cámara, pero válida para QI pues da cierta o suficiente calidad. Aún así, yo estaba descontento con todas las cámaras que había tenido. Fui consciente de que había gastado mucho dinero comprándolas, y decidí comprar una buena cámara.

La cámara que tengo actualmente es una buena cámara, pero no solamente con una buena cámara consigues que una imagen sea QI; necesitas saber revelar las imágenes, ssber presentarlas, y ni siquiera con eso lo consigues siempre pues dependes de los demás. Con Canon EOS 400D puedes hacer grandes cosas, pero tienes que tener ojo y cuidado; pero, sobre todo, tienes que tener tacto con el revelado.

Lo primero que es necesario conocer (aprender de extremo a extremo) lo dicho en Commons:Image guidelines.

Lo segundo es tener una cámara aceptable (la tuya es aceptable, aunque un poco justa -opinión personal-)

Lo tercero es tener un buen programa para trabajar las imágenes.

Yo uso Adobe lightroom 3.0. Te recomiendo que lo pruebes (puedes probarlo, pero hay que comprarlo). Por ejemplo, trabajando con imágenes RAW, las aberraciones cromáticas se eliminan en 10 segundos. El programa y el dominio del programa con el que tratas las imágenes puede ser más importante que la cámara.

Si no dominas ningún programa de tratamiento de imágenes, es muy difícil que obtengas buenos resultados. Hasta diría que, si no dominas ningún programa de ese tipo, no puedes entender facilmente las críticas que se te hacen en QIC.

Sobre las imágenes que sueles proponer, te puedo decir que son bonitas, preciosas; pero pocas de ellas tienen fácil ser imégenes de calidad. Una imagen de calidad debe seguir lo dicho en Commons:Image guidelines y no siempre o habitualmente las tuyas lo hacen. Ánimo--Miguel Bugallo 21:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Es tarde, acabo de abrir el portátil antes de acostarme y he visto tu mensaje. Mañana te comento más. Espero poder. Un abrazo--Miguel Bugallo 23:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Antes de acostarme he votado un par de imágenes en QIC, tenía ganas de hacerlo, ya las había visto y no me atrevía a votar a favor porque pueden las imágenes parecer pornográficas. Para mí no son pornográficas, pornográfica puede ser la mente de aquel que las ve, pero es solamente una opinión personal. Nos vemos mañana, poco a poco--Miguel Bugallo 23:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Glaciar Perito Moreno8 - Argentina.JPG

Thank you too, for uploading an image so beautiful! ;-) Angelus ^(talk) 21:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No he podido dejar de reparar antes de acostarme en esta imagen, dado el comentario de Angelus.

Yo casi nunca voto imágenes de glaciares o zonas heladas porque nunca he estado en lugares semejantes y no soy capaz de imaginarme la realidad (me parecen muy azules). Salvando que, posiblemente por desconocimiento, la imagen me parezca demasiado azul, me parece buena, aunque observo dos defectos: El recorte en la zona inferior (se hecha de menos que la imagen continuase un poquito, quizás no mucho), y los verdes. El verde de lo que se supone zonas arbóreas (problema de la imagen que solamente se suponga) es azul.

¿Por qué hago esta crítica? En realidad la hago para ver si me confundo. Las críticas se hacen con buena voluntad y desde una perspectiva fotográfica, pero pocos son especialistas en fotografía (yo no) y pocos conocen todos los ambientes.

Debemos tener presente (yo también) que todos los que nos critican pueden y tienen derecho a confundirse: Errare humanum est sed perseverare diabolicum (sed=pero). "Apertas" (abrazos)--Miguel Bugallo 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Passiflora caerulea, Valparaíso, Chile.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me.--Vassil 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Termas de Calatayud

Hola. Sólo quería indicarte que las termas de Calatyud y las de Bilbilis no son la misma cosa. Puedes investigar un poco en los periódicos aragoneses, que te explicarán el descubrimiento de las termas de Calatayud. --ecelan (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No te preocupes, no tienes porqué disculparte. Es un error lógico. --ecelan (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Poco a poco!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

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.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Image:Tomb 825, Street of the Facades, Petra, Jordan.jpg was uncategorized on 4 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Image:Ermita de San Roque, Calatayud, España13.JPG was uncategorized on 15 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Te he enviado un correo

Te he enviado un correo, puedes seguir la conversación aquí si lo deseas; yo he preferido que este mensaje fuese privado, pero no tienen que serlo los siguientes. Saludos--Miguel Bugallo 01:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Otro correo. Ha quedado esto pendiente: Propones muchas imágenes, pero... a mí no me molesta. No sé qué decirte. Yo no propongo todas mis imagenes, pero a veces me sorprende que propongo una imagen que no espero que sea QI y la que precisamente es QI es esa. No sé. Tú mismo. Sé feliz y no te comas el coco, ya me lo como yo bastante por los dos--Miguel Bugallo 19:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Por ejemplo, no esperaba que esta imagen fuese QI, la puse con temor, y fue la primera en ser aprobada de seis que propuse de golpe--Miguel Bugallo 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quizás le deberías preguntar a alguien que tuviese más experiencia en QI. Yo tengo bastantes imágenes promovidas, pero llevo en realidad menos de un año o un año. Yo no sé qué decirte--Miguel Bugallo 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sunset next to Waikiki Beach, Oahu, Hawai, USA1.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Raghith 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Catholicon, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem1.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. I like that light. --Berthold Werner 14:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Glaciar Perito Moreno8 - Argentina.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --ANGELUS 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

{{User talk}}

Hi! :-D Thank you very much for your spontaneous help!!! Best regards! ;-) --Angelus ^(talk) 13:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tuber melanosporum - trufa negra, Ágreda, España.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please check the white balance--Jebulon 20:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Is it better now? Poco a poco 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Better, but still a bit blue...--Jebulon 09:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I have uploaded a new version, please give me some feedback, Poco a poco 15:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Looks good now.--Jebulon 09:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mesoamerican ballcourts.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Page VI is blocked, and the SET must have multiple images ... As soon as the page works again propose these images in the right places. I advise you to put Withdrawn, instead of Opposed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note: Comment motivated due to the fact that I place the page under VIS instead of VI Poco a poco (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• It would be useful to attach the scope to the category --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, Poco a poco (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Good scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 film.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Page VI is blocked, and the SET must have multiple images ... As soon as the page works again propose these images in the right places. I advise you to put Withdrawn, instead of Opposed.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Note: Comment motivated due to the fact that I place the page under VIS instead of VI Poco a poco (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment"VI" walk again in part. The scope is too large it must be reduced on the photo.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I reduced the scope to the film the image belongs to, Poco a poco (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Good for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Glaubicz CoA in Skrzetuski's m.PNG

Estimado "Poco a poco", perdóname si no te he respondido hasta hoy. Mi esposa está internada para ser operada de un tumor cerebral. Entiendo que comprenderás perfectamente la razón de mi demora. Respecto a la foto en cuestión, no hay la menor duda que es de pésima calidad. Hoy traté de conseguir una versión mejor pero sin éxito. Si quieres simplemente proponerla para "speedy deletion" o algo por el estilo, hazlo sin más. No tengo nada que objetar. Lamento no poder conseguir una versión mejorada. Saludos, tu amigo, --Gustaw Korwin-Szwedowski (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Vivo y he nacido en Montevideo, Uruguay, Sudamérica!!! Soy nieto de Polacos por parte paterna y de Vascos Franceses por parte materna.

Mi nombre según mi documento de identidad es Gustavo Szwedowski Laxague.  :) --Gustaw Korwin-Szwedowski (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Estimado “poco a poco”, en efecto, tus fotos pueden remplazar (y con gran calidad, por cierto) al desaparecido File:Glaubicz CoA in Skrzetuski's m.PNG y al File:Nowina CoA in Skrzetuski's m.PNG (de pésima calidad, por cierto). Tomaste fotos para remplazar al pésimo File:Jastrzebiec CoA Skrzetuski.PNG ? Por cierto, el restante (a cuadros negros y blancos) sería el blasón Wczele (variante Pretwicz). VerFile:Gniezno Cathedral - inside 40.JPG Excelente trabajo fotográfico. Saludos, Gustavo--Gustaw Korwin-Szwedowski (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ja! Ja! No es mérito mío. Existe un excelente programa hecho por Lech Milewski basado en los estudios heráldicos de Tadeusz Gajl (quien es considerado el mejor genealogista y heraldista de Polonia). |Herbarz Polski. En cuanto a las fotos File:Nowina CoA in Skrzetuski's m.PNG y File:Jastrzebiec CoA Skrzetuski.PNG deberían ser eliminadas y/o reemplazadas (según te parezca). Saludos, --Gustaw Korwin-Szwedowski (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! El Taj Mahal-Agra India0028.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment white balance a bit off, image needs contrast --Carschten 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Agree, I uploaded a new version and it looks better now, Poco a poco 19:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC) One more improved version (noise and white balance), Poco a poco 17:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Poco a poco, it is better and better ;). It lacks maybe a bit of contrast, and beware of the vignetting, but it can be QI IMO.--Jebulon 17:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Exterior of the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem3.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Great Sphinx of Giza, Giza, Egypt4.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There are about 130 photos in this category, but this clearly belongs to the better ones. --NorbertNagel 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cuernos del Paine, Parque Nacional Torres del Paine, Chile6.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment I think, it's too much contrast (too light and too dark details) --Haeferl 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I am not sure about your comment, do you expect me to improve it or is the problem intrinsic to the picture? Poco a poco 16:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)  Comment It agree with Haeferl and I want to recommend still to remove a branch in the bottom left corner, and in the right bottom corner to remove a coast strip. --Aleks G 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I updated a new version with the hope to address those issues, Poco a poco 18:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) It looks good and I like the picture, but now the cloud is a little bit overexposed. ;-) --Haeferl 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Cloud a cloud, but the photo should be complete. Hardly someone will like a cloud if an average part of a photo the dark stain, practically without color signs is simple. After correction the sky has changed (even too, there are completely white sites), and here the middle and a photo bottom practically aren't mentioned. It would be desirable green woods on slopes. ;) --Aleks G 21:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Guys, I uploaded the last try, promised! :) Poco a poco 19:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC) And now ? Thoughts ? (Never give up !;)--Jebulon 16:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)  Comment If in a quickly way it seems to me somewhere so... What offers will be? (the file is updated). --Aleks G 00:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Guys, I am lost :), where are we? what must be improved? Poco a poco 21:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I think it is good now. --Haeferl 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Yyyyuuupppii ;) Thank you all Poco a poco 21:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

En hora buena

File:Madinat Jumeirah-Dubai3303.JPG Espero que sea FP

Que muchas más la acompañen. No es fácil, hay que esforzarse bastante, bastante y bastante. --Miguel Bugallo 21:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Madinat Jumeirah-Dubai3303.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madinat Jumeirah-Dubai3303.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG

I uploaded a new version of File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cuernos del Paine, Parque Nacional Torres del Paine, Chile1.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. I don't suppose you did a version with the flowers in focus but the mountains not? --Mattbuck 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bay of Fires-Tasmania04.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like it, but it's rather grainy. I'm leaning towards promotion, but I'd like other opinions. Mattbuck 14:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG

Always please, good luck.  ;-) --Aleks G (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

re: Petra

¡Hola! La última versión creo que tiene poco contraste, no me convence mucho. Creo que podrías mejorarla si a la versión "del medio" le bajas un poco la saturación de los colores, el color de la roca y el azul del cielo son bastante intensos, pero manteniendo las sombras oscuras, para que se aprecie mejor el relieve. La otra foto la enderezaría un poco, la encuentro "a bit tilted" jejeje. Algo más de contraste puede venirle bien, prueba a oscurecer ligeramente las sombras o los negros. Creo que también puede ser QI. ¡Un abrazo! Kadellar (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

La del obelisco déjala así ya, yo creo que está bien. La del monasterio es la que me da sensación de estar torcida, muy poco, pero a mí me da esa sensación, ¿a ti no? Creo que habría que girarla mínimamente, en sentido antihorario. Prueba a ver si te parece que queda mejor. Kadellar (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yo creo que vale. Hay veces que creo que ya está y otras que me da la sensación de que todavía no, como por distintas zonas del monasterio, mach dir keine Sorgen que con algunas fotos mías me pasa lo mismo xD. ¡Hasta luego! Kadellar (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments This is a great improvement. IMO the underexposed black areas are not so critical but the Taj Mahal, especially the roof appears overexposed. A HDRI from an exposue series would have been a better choice. --NorbertNagel 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)  Comment With a dome of problems I do not see (on brightness there is a sufficient stock). It is necessary to raise brightness and contrast (at least to move the right marker prior to the beginning of the histogram in curves) - the photo will look better, and the dark area will be tightened, well and sharpness it is possible to add. ;) --Aleks G 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC) It seems to me somewhere so (the file is updated) ;). --Aleks G 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) I have uploaded a new version, with more contrast, brightness and sharpness, but I am not quite sure if it is better than Norbert's version. What do you think? Poco a poco 15:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Choose, versions now enough ;). --Aleks G 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)  Support  :) --Aleks G 21:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG

Greetings Diego! It is possible to Try, it is not necessary to be afraid, but, I think, in a nomination on FP will judge strictly, to search for effect "WOW", plus to all most likely won't be pleasant to much a dark and asymmetrical arch, partial figures of people at the very bottom of a photo. It is possible to correct something (that you consider it necessary also possible) and to try nominating, and under statements voting to understand that doesn't suit them, to correct and be nominated next time or to reconcile to failure. I wish good luck ;-). --Aleks G (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chalet de los Sánchez, Calatayud, España1.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI and interesting topic --Archaeodontosaurus 18:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Obelisk Tomb, Petra, Jordan3.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. La de al lado creo que está un pelín torcida, mira las columnas. --Kadellar 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The Monastery, Petra, Jordan7.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perhaps a little bit too contrasted, but QI for me though. -- MJJR 22:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paseo de las Cortes de Aragón, Calatayud, España2.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice place, good quality but tilted to left. --Sfu 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comment, tilt corrected, --Poco a poco 20:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Ok. --Sfu 13:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Clock_Tower-Dubai3882.JPG

File:Clock_Tower-Dubai3882.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

84.61.139.62 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Clock_Tower-Dubai3887.JPG

File:Clock_Tower-Dubai3887.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

84.61.139.62 19:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Size

Hi, You are absolutely right, I have missed the downloaded size, once more...--Ivanhoe (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have uploaded a new, bigger version. I have done nothing special. I straightened it (recut), lightened the shadows, "cooled" the warm colours (this way the blue sky comes back) and gave some sharpness. I hope you are satisfied with the result, as well. I am working on the Taj Mahal in huwiki[1] and would like to use up your shot in a Gallery. Regards,--Ivanhoe (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is an option in Photoshop (or as I know in other softwares too, this is the Temperature. You can warm or cool the colors with this. If you do not have this function, look for the color balance or curve. You have to reduce red and add blue to the balance. But take care, you have to modify the balance only a little bit. I hope I could help you.--Ivanhoe (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You were welcome!--Ivanhoe (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Casa Grande, Villarroya de la Sierra, España1.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --NorbertNagel 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colegiata de Santa María, Calatayud, España25.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. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Tilted clockwise. Pitke 17:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Tilt corrected, Poco a poco 20:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)  Support good now. Pitke 18:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)