User talk:Benh/Archive/2015

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


request for permission to use Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons[edit]

HI, My name is Cash I'm working at LINE Thailand. We are going to launch a new service this year (2015). And now we are working on our new service website, we saw your Bangkok Night Wikimedia Commons photo, and is we very suitable to use in our landing page. So I'm sending this message show my appreciation and ask if we (LINE Thailand) could use this photo in our landing page.

I also attached the link to the reference website > http://at.line-beta.me/jp/

Thank you

Best regards,

Yes you can. It's licensed under CC-by-SA something, so you're only obliged to credit me if you use one of my photos. Thank you for letting me know. Regards. - Benh (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Bridge view at dawn[edit]

"One only goes after his/her siblings". I don't understand. -- Colin (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the roulette wheel is spinning. Fingers crossed. I invited Diliff to come with me that day (Open House Weekend) but he had a bad cold. The guy in the white t-shirt in the middle looks a bit like him. I was one of the first to get in that morning but this guy is leaving already. I speculate that he queued for an hour like everyone else and then when he got inside, he realised that he'd forgotten to take his camera battery out of the charger. Doh! -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Colin I personally gave up attending monuments during heritage days (guess it's the same thing) because of the crowd, which I tend to less and less support as I get older. And I won't laugh for the guy, this has happened to me dozens of time as well! - Benh (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The crowds are bad from a photographic point of view. But on the Saturday I chatted to another photographer in the queue and we ended up going round a couple of buildings together. And the second day I talked to nice family in another queue plus I saw a really interesting talk by the men who not only look after Big Ben, but the thousands of other clocks in the houses of parliament. Some of the buildings aren't open even if you pay (like this court which was nearly demolished in the 70s) and some of the views are special (like this one at the top of a very narrow spiral staircase. -- Colin (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colin, I can see your point, I mostly agree. But when I have a moment of my own and visit some place, I like to breathe and to take my time to look around. That didn't happen the last times I went to heritage days. There were a lot of people, to the point I couldn't stop a few seconds without seriously standing in the way. That said, I agree that some buildings can only be visited then. In such case I make the effort, but I tend to leave my camera aside and just enjoy with my eyes. Wonder if our local Wikimedia couldn't help to gain access to such areas/buildings, in much better shooting conditions. (Oh and Diliff showed me that court already, very nice shot too) - Benh (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge view at dawn.jpg[edit]

I have uploaded an alternative crop and would appreciate if you could indicate a preference, or that you have no strong preference. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Notre-Dame île de la Cité HDR BLS.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 Good quality --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Lloyd's Building - Escalators fisheye.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lloyd's Building - Escalators fisheye.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grands Moulins de Pantin.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. --Cccefalon 07:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Socgen Agence Centrale 01.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 Good enoufh for QI. --C messier 16:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raw[edit]

Hi Benh , Where can I send you the raw? Thanks --LivioAndronico talk 21:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit workflow[edit]

Hi Benh,

I saw you asked for specifics regarding a 32-bit workflow. Some time ago, there was an extended discussion over this at Diliffs talk page. You may want to have a look. I have only tried to use it a few times and I only have one such image on Commons using a 32-bit workflow. That image has very extreme differences in dynamic range and caused me a lot of problems until I tried the 32-bit workflow. I do like this

  1. Import all the raws in Lightroom
    1. Sync the whitebalance color setting,etc (if not already done)
    2. Apply lens corrections for CA, etc.
    3. Apply mild sharpening and NR
  2. Export as 16-bit tiff lossless compressed (I have tried exporting both in sRGB and AdobeRGB color spaces, but have not found any significant differences in the final oputput)
  3. Stitch in an HDR capable application such as PTGui. Maybe you can also use Hugin. I do not know...abandoned it quite some years ago.
  4. Save the stitched HDR output as a 32-bit TIFF (that is, you do not do any tone-mapping in PTGui). Choose optimal resolution for best results.
  5. Import the (rather large, GB-sized) 32-bit tiff file in Lightroom. This file has an extraordinary dynamic range and works like a super raw.
  6. Do your tone-mapping in Lightroom using basic sliders, curves, adjustment brushes, gradient filters, whatever you need. All of this is non-destructive editing and has nothing to do with HDR in Photoshop.
  7. Do final adjustment of sharpness and NR
  8. Export to jpg in sRGB color space, perhaps downsample a little if you have large geometrical distortions.

Hope this is useful... -- Slaunger (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I tried doing HDR work with Hugin it crashed / wrote corrupted TIFF files. I hunted down a bug report which still appeared to be unfixed, at least in the 64-bit version. It is possible this is fixed in the current stable or latest beta. But this is one reason I am tempted to buy PtGui Pro. The Tower Bridge View panorama was shot as a bracketed-exposure but (a) I found that the brightest exposure had too long a shutter speed [even on tripod, I got vibrations from the bridge] and (b) I had plenty dynamic range in the under-exposure shot (Sony sensor :-). The lens correction for distortion is very useful, as well as the CA removal. A benefit for removing CA at this stage is that it may just be ~1 pixel but after projection warping could be worse. It may be better to remove any dust-spots/birds-in-flight from the starting frames than from the GB-sized tiff. Of course, anything Lightroom can do, is also possible in a current Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop, but that dialog is quite clunky. -- Colin (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slaunger, Colin, Diliff, this is basically the workflow I use. Only that I skip the 32bit HDR step. My little computer cannot handle it right now (or I shall downsample before going through the HDR process?). Not sure the 32bit HDR is of that much interest when I shot only 3 exposures bracketed pictures. When I open the resulting 32bit in Lightroom, I can see that only a small chunk of the histogram shows there's actual data. But I probably miss something. Colin, I do use Hugin too, which perfectly fulfills my needs. I have to stuck to the 2010 version though, as the latest ones crash on my Mac. I only plug it to the newest enfuse available with a custom command line to avoid (another kind of) crash during the blending process. Last time I tried PTgui, I didn't get much better results. Only thing that would make me switch is a more reliable algorithm to find control points. CPfind's is OK, but has issues. - Benh (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, I guess you know about it, but I use mask feature of Hugin to remove birds and all (provided the area is overlapped). This is how I got my Regent Street empty, so I think it's a testimony of how useful this can be. Got same blurriness issue for the long exposure of a shot of "Tour Saint Jacques" which I hope to upload soon. I used to attach my backpack to my tripod, as in File:Méchante Chèvre Lac Aubert BLS.JPG, but found out I get less vibration without the backpack. - Benh (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 32bit workflow is equally useful even if you only shoot 3 bracketed images. I'm not sure what you mean by "only a small chunk of the histogram shows there's actual data.". Lightroom's histogram doesn't necessarily show the data of the RAW (or 32bit file), it shows the distribution of luminance of the image you see on your screen. Often when I import my 32bit file into Lightroom, it first appears very dark (with most of the data in the histogram on the left side). This is normal, because my bracketing tends to be biased towards the underexposed. If I use 5 bracketed images, at least 3 of them will be grossly underexposed and sometimes the two shortest shutter speeds will have virtually nothing visible in them, certainly in some parts of the scene. The 4th brightest exposure will probably be around 'normal exposure' and the 5th will be overexposed to get the deep shadow details. The reason I do it with that underexposure bias is because I want to ensure that I can recover any blown highlights anywhere, particularly in the stained glass windows which are usually considerably brighter than anywhere else. Often I can even reduce the brightness of the incandescent light bulbs so that the filament is visible. It's not usually very realistic to do that, but the capability is there. Anyway, because of this bias towards underexposure, the image imports into Lightroom looking very underexposed. My first workflow step is to increase the exposure slider until it looks 'about right', which can sometimes mean +2EV or so. Because it is a HDR image, the highlights and shadows will still be too extreme, so I slide the shadows up to about +80 and the highlights down to about -80 (the exact values don't matter, and will probably be adjusted further later on). This brings the image much closer to what the final result is going to look like (and you can see that the histogram has changed dramatically). These highlights and shadows sliders apply a form of tone mapping to the image, using some kind of unknowable black magic. ;-) After that, I introduce contrast, usually somewhere between +30 and +50 depending on how the image looks. Adding contrast in Lightroom seems to also add vibrancy/saturation so I also sometimes reduce the colour saturation too. Then, I make minor adjustments to all of the sliders mentioned above to see if little improvements can be made. Then, if there are still details that are a bit underexposed, overexposed, or coloured strangely, I apply gradient filters or adjustment brushes on individual details to bring them back to what I want them to appear like. For example, to get better tonality in stained glass often requires a bit of adjustment brushes (reduction of exposure, colour balance change, etc) on them. Each image will have its own quirks to iron out, but the 32 bit workflow is the same every time. Whether it's 5 bracketed images or only 3, it should be very similar. As for your computer being incapable of running Lightroom well, yes 32 bit files really slow down Lightroom and yes it might be worth downsampling the image. Interiors like mine are usually downsampled a bit anyway because the projection means that the edges are quite soft, and I use f/13 for maximum DoF so a small downsampling doesn't affect detail too much because they're already a bit soft from the diffraction. Alternatively, it might be worth upgrading your computer. ;-) Diliff (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered lowering global contrast rather than your -80/+80 extreme adjustment of highlight/shadow sliders. The Adobe team intend for the controls in the basic panel to be used, initially, from top to bottom. I'm not suggesting to use contrast as the only means to bring the overall DR into the 8-bit range, but I'm surprised that you need to increase the global contrast on an HDR image. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean really. Lowering global contrast? That isn't going to tone map the image. I don't think +-80 is actually that extreme for my images. In fact, I often have to push it to the maximum of 100 and still wish for more. The problem is that you need tone mapping to solve the 'HDR source image ==> LDR output' processing problem and lowering contrast, while it might bring the highlights and shadows down (a little bit), won't look good. Give it a go and tell me I'm wrong. ;-) If I were to use less reach on the shadows/highlights sliders, I'd need a lot more adjustment brushes to bring out the shadows and highlight details. This might be fine if the image is simplistic with just a few bright/dark areas, but if the image has a lot of detail with a variety of luminosities, it's not going to be possible to 'paint' the dynamic range into the image. Perhaps Adobe's suggested top-down workflow doesn't take into account HDR processing. Diliff (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't read it all, but just a thought... 32bit gives 4 billions values per channel, against 65536 per channel for 16bit. Just have the feeling it's a lot... But will think about that in my sleep. - Benh (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, it is 32-bit floating point, not integer. So you've got effectively infinite DR and precision appropriate to the magnitude. Some argue this is overkill for HDR and some other HDR formats take less room. It certainly takes a lot of disc space for a panorama. -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin whether it's floating or interger, it's still 2^32 "states", so same amount of possibilities :) Or i'd be very interested to know why if I'm wrong. Yes I think it may be "overkill" (love to learn new words). But I say so because I've just switched to full 16-bit workflow. Now have to read Diliff's novel and reply. - Benh (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same amount of possibilities but not values. If using Single-precision floating-point format then there are the possibilities of negative zero, negative infinity, positive infinity and 2 x (223 - 1) [= 16,777,214] possible NaN values. So fewer usable (non-duplicate, finite, numerical) values, but arguably more useful ones. A 16-bit TIFF, with a gamma applied, doesn't have great HDR possibilities (better than 8-bit JPG for sure). -- Colin (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I (think I) see your point. It took me a few minutes to understand why so many Nan values. I'm surprised to learn gamma affects the possibilities, but will try to read the appropriate ressources, so I'll have interesting things to say at my next family dinner. Thanks for your insights. - Benh (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forget where there was the discussion about the (relatively) limited ability to recover highlights in a 16-bit tiff. If I recall, it was because the gamma compresses the highlight values into a smaller range of bits than the original raw, which (per expose-to-the-right) contains far more information in the highlights than the shadows. If you need to recover highlights, this is bad news, since applying the gamma loses highlight information. The floating point 32-bit tiff isn't affected by this issue as there's always 6-9 significant digits of information regardless of the magnitude (and in fact, I think it doesn't have a gamma at all). Plus, if it is the result of 5 separate exposures, then it contains a huge amount of information -- probably more than you'd really want to recover while keeping the image realistic.
The UHD changes being planned for TV are exciting as it brings not only 4K resolution, but HDR display and Rec. 2020 wide colour gamut -- all of which is likely to require 10-12 bits rather than 8-bits. What would be great would be if someone is planning a JPG replacement as well as some affordable displays that support this too. Why should video get the best specs? -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of what necessary? I haven't really tried the HDR functionality in Lightroom yet because I use PTGui for stitching and it does the job of creating the HDR itself. As I understand it, Hugin can't do that, so I suppose (if you were working with a HDR panorama anyway) you would have to export the photos to Hugin, stitch them in Hugin, then import them back into Lightroom and combine them into a HDR file in Lightroom. I'm pretty certain that the panoramic stitching functionality is much too limited for our uses though. There's no manual control points, perspective, etc. It's fully automatic, the only choice you have is projection. So Lightroom is certainly not a replacement for stitching software. But yes, it's possible to use Lightroom to create the 32 bit DNG file instead of an intermediary 32 bit TIFF file. For my workflow, it doesn't save any time at all though. But PTGui cannot remove ghosts from an image, so when I need to do that, I might tell PTGui to export the panorama as stitched brackets (complete panoramas, with a separate file for each exposure) and then import them into Lightroom and get Lightroom to do ghost removal. I've used Photomatix to do that in the past, but it's pretty bad at ghost removal and messes with the tonality of the image at the same time, so I try to avoid it. I just try to avoid ghosts in the first place really! Diliff (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just tried experimenting with the three exposures which I originally generated this exposure fused photo of using the builtin Low dynamic range exposure fusion in PTGui. The photo has some severe ghosts, and I had hoped the de-ghosting feature would be a benefit. Well, the de-ghostong fails miserably for this example independent of the deghost setting (low, medium, high) and that gives some really odd local effects in the 32-bit HDR dng. The regions outside the ghosts work really well though and I am capable of getting a result there which looks significantly better than the PTGui exposure fusion. Especially the ability to use radial and linear gradient filters on the 32-bit dng is really powerful. So I would say, that this new feature is something I will probably use extensively for single-shot scenes of static objects (I do not have Photomatix) with a high dynamic range to easily boost the rather low dynamic range in my low dynamic range Canon EOS 600D sensor. For instance to get good details in the shadows on a sunny day, I will probably use bracketed exposures more with 2 EV apart from now on, as the exposures are very easy to fuse and align now in Lightroom. For panoramas, I will stick to 'Diliffs method' of first converting raws to 16-bit tiff in LR, import in PTGui, make a 32-bit HDR stitched tiff, import in LR and tonemap there. There are so many more options for controlling the stitch process accurately in PTGui, like masking out ghosts in overlaps, etc, control points, vertical and horizontal control points, etc. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

color space[edit]

Hi Benh,

I don't want to expand the FPC, therefore here my questions and notes.

As I already mentioned in this FPC my workflow is nearly the same to all my images. (1) RAW-conversation with Nikon Capture NX2, (2) for panoramas I use PTGui and (3) for final works I often use GIMP. In no step I cut out knowingly the color space out. I suspect that PTGui may cut this off because also the EXIF data look various to the EXIF of the single images after step (2). You may proof in my single pictures (e.g. File:Schloss Lenzburg - Ostbastion1.jpg) without stitching if there is also the color space missing.

In general: I already read the guidelines for color space but I don't understand exactly why this is so important, especially for non-print media. For print-media it's absolutely clear to me. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wladyslaw, Now busy, but I suspect it is GIMP which removes the color profile. R u working on Windows, mac or Linux (or something else ??). If Mac or Linux, it's easy to use tools like exiftool to check the color space (without opening a big app). Do that on the image before opening Gimp, and after, and we'll know if it's Gimp or not. Can you tell me what your color management settings are in Gimp ? I'll look at my own version of Gimp tonight. - Benh (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how do you upload files to Commons? Thanks. - Benh (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wladyslaw, I played with my own version of GIMP. Here's what I did :
  1. query my TIFF file (output from Hugin) with exiftool,
  2. import the TIFF file in Lightroom and export to jpeg
  3. query the resulting JPEG with exiftool,
  4. open the TIFF file in Gimp, and export to jpeg,
  5. query the resulting JPEG file with exiftool.

It all confirms that GIMP has an issue, and trim away the color space... Here's the output from my commands (UNIX terminal style) : 

Mac-mini-de-Benh:Desktop blieusong$ exiftool -G0 Fontaine\ Concorde/Fontaine_Concorde.tif | grep -i "profile description"
[ICC_Profile]   Profile Description             : Adobe RGB (1998)
Mac-mini-de-Benh:Desktop blieusong$ exiftool -G0 Fontaine_Concorde_01.jpg | grep -i "profile description"
[ICC_Profile]   Profile Description             : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Mac-mini-de-Benh:Desktop blieusong$ exiftool -G0 test_fontaine.jpg | grep -i "profile description"
Mac-mini-de-Benh:Desktop blieusong$

Leave aside the fact I used adobe RGB in the TIFF (oops, probably my camera was set to AdobeRGB). We see that LR converts the color profile to sRGB, but that GIMP discards it. Strangely, GIMP did ask me to convert or not to sRGB when I opened the TIFF. I didn't look my GIMP setting in details, but at least we pointed out the issue is potentially (and likely) from GIMP. Hope this helps. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh and about usefulness of that... I'm not expert, and I suggest you read the wiki article, or Google the term. But what I can say in short is that a screen is no that different than a printer : it's a medium to produce an image. And it's all about accurately producing the colours. Say red channel goes from 0 to 1000, and that your printer can output red from 0 to 500, but your screen only goes from 0 to 200 , when you read the read value of a pixel, say 50% (in %, it's not really like that but for simplication sake), it's 50% of what ? 1000 ? 500 ? 200 ? The color space only tells you that scale, so we can get the proper absolute value for red. Luckily, most soft do the job in sRGB by default, and it's very likely your pictures are in sRGB, and that they are seen as sRGB because software default to that. But I think FPC has to leave no doubt as for that issue. What would happen if a software reverts to AdobeRGB? The person using it would not see what you intended to show her/him. - Benh (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort, but this explanations I can't follow even rudimentary. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wladyslaw, I think I'm not very good at explaining (read what I wrote and, ouch...), and also, my english has proven not very reliable. But I can tell for sure, A color space should embedded in your picture. It should be sRGB to best accommodate most viewing situations (I could explain too, but ask you to believe me. Or ask Colin and his better english and understanding of the topic). And the point here is that you must look at your Gimp settings and play with them until you can spot a color profile in the jpg you save with it. I also thank you for trying to resolve the issue. It can only be better for everyone. I'm very busy now and will be away for some time, but if I get to find the setting, I will let you know. - Benh (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Elephant Amboseli[edit]

Bonjour Benh,

J'ai utilisé une de vos photos du Kenya (https://www.flickr.com/photos/blieusong/7234313436/in/set-72157629813708210) dans le cadre d'une œuvre plastique, un portrait de l'écrivain Antoine Volodine composé d'une peinture acrylique sur toile et d'une impression numérique, avec un format final de 260x130cm. J'ai bien sûr crédité votre image sur toutes les pages qui présentent ce portrait (Facebook, Behance et mon site personnel : http://www.sholby.net/writers-3-antoine.html). J'espère que cela vous conviendra et vous félicite pour la grande qualité de vos photos.

Cordialement,

sholby

Colour space[edit]

Hi Benh,

to be honest. In this picture File:Ehrenstetten - Ölbergkapelle6.jpg I didn't do s.th. different to the sunset image of to any other stitching; the sunset of course is no stitching. I have asked many users and no one can give me really good answer how to handle this one. Some programs cut this information out, some do not. Basically all programs I use are calibrated to sRGB. I don't give a f*ck ;-)

If this should really be the only point I'll add the info "sRGB" in the image description or I'll rewrite the EXIF so that you'll find the color space there. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure your pipeline is all sRGB, this should be fine. Looked at the FPC talk page and think others had the same idea. A bit of digression... I am sure it's only a Gimp issue. As good as this program once was, I don't think it should be used for serious work anymore. There are only very few active maintainers and GEGL takes forever to get implemented. You should consider using something else. If you're like me and don't need PS like capabilities, you can find powerful free or cheap soft out there. I believe Rawtherapee has a good reputation. As for me, I went to LR and haven't looked back since, despite some drawbacks. - Benh (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if really Gimp is the issue, by the way I don't use Gimp for converting my images from RAW to JPG. For this work I use Nikon Capture. Only the "post production" (e.g. retouching if necessary) and some final works I do with Gimp. I know that PS is a standard tool and very well. But I invest my money rather in good cameras and lenses instead of expensive software licenses. It's a pity that the development of Gimp is fall asleep but it's still a very powerful tool in my eyes. But I know that I have to chance one time if there will not happen some modernization on this tool. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it is good that the image is correctly tagged as sRGB, it doesn't have a colour profile embedded, so all browsers will not actually colour manage the JPG at all [there's a way to get Firefox to properly colour manage such images, but it isn't a standard configuration]. Anyone using a wide-gamut monitor will see an oversaturated image. Have a look at my User:Colin/BrowserTest page with different browsers (and your mobile phone or tablet). Wladyslaw, do you run your monitor in sRGB mode? -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. I use the EV2736W-BK from Eizo. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lovely standard-gamut monitor. You can see from this review that it is capable of very slightly larger gamut than sRGB if you run in native mode + supplied profile rather than in sRGB mode, but I suspect the difference is not worth the effort and hassle of having a non-standard profile. I think the move to 4K TV, quantum dot technology, along with the Rec. 2020 specification and colour space will drive the display industry to produce very large gamut displays in the coming years. Then the issue of colour management will only become more pressing. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Galerie Vivienne, 12 March 2015.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. --Cccefalon 06:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tour Saint-Jacques BLS.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. --Cccefalon 05:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Cathédrale Condom Choeur BLS.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathédrale Condom Choeur BLS.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Krafla power plant - Kröflustöð - alternative.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krafla power plant - Kröflustöð - alternative.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quiraing[edit]

I've uploaded seven photos taken in the Quiraing on the Isle of Skye. No golden light raking over the hills at dawn, however. There is an existing FP. Does anything catch your eye? -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Colin, my own favorite is the toward south take 2. The silhouette adds a lot to it. I would even try other framings to check how it renders, but that's already quite good. FPCwise, I wouldn't vote for the others because of lighting and composition. Out of curiosity, are you Scottish? And do you carry all ur gear when going on what seems to be a long hike? - Benh (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Scottish, though I live near London, where I work. So I like to go back "home", even if it means a wet holiday and being eaten by midges. I have a Lowepro Slingshot 202AW camera bag which I can confirm, with the weatherproof cover, is really weatherproof. I can fit the my A77ii + 16-50 f/2.8 lens along with my 55-300 lens, 8mm fisheye, 30mm macro and 50mm standard prime. Though I wouldn't often carry all of those and I'm glad the 55-300 is relatively light weight. In the small pockets I can fit a polariser filter (which I always forget to use), spare battery, remote control, etc. The top compartment can fit a jumper or cagool, wallet, guidebook, phone. I'm pretty happy with it, but would go for the size up if I had a full-frame camera. I can strap my Benro Travel Angel carbon-fibre tripod to the side, but that's more if I'm walking round town and/or not with family -- they don't really have the patience for me to set up a tripod. I can also just fit the nodal ninja pano head, at the expense of something else. But this bag isn't really able to take much for a long hike. Fortunately I have a wife, who carries the backpack with cagools, jumpers, lunch, water, etc, etc! On a recent hike up Ben Lomond, with my daughter and no wife, I had to carry everything so just used the backpack and took the camera and standard zoom inside that. I've tried to find a bag that would have enough room for both purposes, but haven't found something I like at a reasonable price.
For the Quiraing, there is some terrible parking off the road, and then the walk is fairly level. It isn't particularly hard or long and in fact most photos you see online of this area are taken about 1 minutes walk from the road. We had very mixed weather that day. At one point we were sat in all our waterproofs eating our sandwiches with rain blown in our faces. Then half an hour later we had stripped off to t-shirts and were enjoying a very sunny and sheltered rest. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, didn't expect you'd share that much :) I own a similar slingshot bag if not the same. But because all the weight rests only on one shoulder, I've grown sick of it. I personally went "typical" hiking backpacks like "deuter act lite 40+10". It ressembles this. I can fit most of my necessary equipment in lower compartment (one body and two lenses + filters + air blower + memory cards), and the main one is for usual hiking stuffs + pano head. I recycle "separations" from another Lowepro backpack for proper organization. See here. My tripod is attached on one side, as you may have noticed on my gmail profil pic. My typical SLR gear has become too heavy and I'm getting old, so I've tried to gradually move to a Fuji system, except somehow I couldn't really get rid of my Canon. it's incredible you can carry all these lenses! I usually choose 1 or 2 at most, depending on what I plan to shoot. You're lucky that your homeland is so beautiful. Have you ever considered this as a shooting theme? Think this could get you (and us) some pretty great shots. - Benh (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite unusual for me to carry all those lenses, other than for somewhere to put them when going on holiday. But outdoors then probably my standard zoom, my telephoto zoom and my fisheye if I think it might be useful. I take my primes instead if I'm doing tripod-panorama stuff, where the convenience of zoom isn't relevant, and the sharpness of the primes helps. I wish my primes were a little better built, however, as the manual focus is very short turn and for panoramas I need to use sellotape to ensure it doesn't shift between shots. The standard zoom is probably the heaviest, so the weight isn't a big issue. I wouldn't want to carry the huge Sigma Arts around, though. Those new Tamron primes that have been announced might be a more reasonable size/budget. I haven't seen the Northern Lights but haven't gone looking either -- I think I'd need to go to the north of Scotland and away from city lights. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for butting in... Thought I'd drop in as I took some photos last year in the Quiraing too. I never uploaded them though - that's the problem I often have. Unless I'm satisfied with the images and can see a clear use for the photos on Commons/Wikipedia articles, I tend to sit on them and forget to upload them. I'm not on my desktop computer so I can't compare your images to the ones I took last year, but I walked the Quiraing at sunset so my lighting was quite different to yours. I don't think I really nailed the shots from memory though, as it wasn't ideal weather. As for the northern lights, the problem with Scotland is getting a nice clear night! I never had much luck with night photography up there, although to be fair I was there in June and it didn't get dark until after midnight, so I didn't try very often either. ;-) Benh, have you looked at F-Stop bags? They're expensive but excellent. You think Colin carries a lot of gear... I usually carry 5-6 lenses, tripod, (heavy) pano head, camera and misc gear weighing well over 10kg when I'm out and about. ;-) But the F-Stop bag I use is great, it has an expedition quality waist strap and really carries the weight well. I have the F-Stop Tolopa BC, but the other models are worth looking at if you don't need a bag that big (it's 50 litres, but it has different sized photography compartments and I use a medium sized one so I usually have about 1/3 of the bag free for day-to-day things at the top). There are a lot of reviews online (youtube, web etc). Diliff (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to join, Diliff. Btw Benh, I haven't seen your GMail photo, perhaps because I use a Yahoo account for Commons. I can confirm David's bag is huge and heavy and his pano head is made from girders. IIRC, though, David's bag is simply full of lenses and stuff, rather than having one part for hiking gear and another for camera. Dividers aren't really the whole answer as you really want your lunch completely separate from your lenses. I don't need such a bag often enough to justify spending hundreds of pounds on it, though, and quality gear is rather expensive. I do like being able to swing the bag round to get stuff in and out, and perhaps my kit is lighter than Benh's Canon gear -- the two primes are so light you don't really notice if you are carrying them. I would like to see David's Quiraing images if you can find them. If we'd had better weather, and glorious evenings, then I'd have tried going out for sunset or stars, but it wasn't and the midges ... -- Colin (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you remember incorrectly Colin. The bag is definitely separated into camera and non-camera sections in a roughly 2/3 and 1/3 split, and that gives you 15 litres of capacity for clothes and lunch, which should be more than enough. You can also get different sized camera compartments so that you can create more or less space for lunch/clothes etc based on your needs. As I mentioned, my bag has a 'medium' sized camera compartment (F-stop calls them ICUs - internal camera units). It's not hermetically sealed from the non-camera section but unless you're expecting your lunch to spill everywhere and ruin your camera gear, it's not an issue in practice for them to occupy the same cavity in the bag as the ICU is fairly rigid foam and the top of it acts as a floor for other gear to sit on top of. You access the camera gear from the zip-opening where the bag rests against your back, and you access the non-camera gear from the top opening, so you can treat the two sections fairly independently. As for the Quiraing and the midges, we must have gotten lucky in June because there were hardly any midges to be found. I'll get back to you later today once I've had a look for my photos. Diliff (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha. Interesting talk. When I went shooting Milky Way, I had to carry enough water, enough food, a thick jacket, a sleeping bag plus other accesories, so I'm thinking that for that matter, my settings looks good. I feel 10L for camera gear is enough if you focus on one thing. If I shoot landscape, I only bring a mid range zoom or prime + wide angle. If wildlife, I guess I'd take a tele + mid range zoom and so on. Curious to hear from your own experience when you go out for several days. Regarding Diliff's suggestion I've the feeling that brands dedicated to photography usually charges more for pretty much equivalent articles, so I take precautions when I browse them. But I'll definitely check. Colin, I agree with Diliff that there's no need to be too paranoiac about damaging gear with liquids or others. I've walked a lot with my backpack and yes stuffs have leaked. But despite the thin layers which separate blocs, I never damaged anything. Wind is more dangerous in this respect :) how many times have I had my gear hitting the ground because one leg on my tripod was a bit shorter or it lied on unstable support? ;) - Benh (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes I too am very curious to see Diliff's take at the Quiraing! - Benh (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually didn't have any amazing photos from the Quiraing unfortunately. I was trying to get into the 'body' of the Quiraing range for a nice sunset but didn't quite time it right and when sunset fell, I wasn't in the right place to get the photos I was hoping for. Also, the sunset wasn't that spectacular in the end anyway - sometimes you luck out, sometimes you don't! So this is probably the best of the photos I took, and the lighting isn't ideal.
  • As for the hiking, yes when I've been out on multi-day walks, I haven't usually taken as much camera gear - just the same as you, one or two lenses and maybe a tripod, with the rest of a 70+ litre backpack filled with camping equipment and food and 5-10 litres of water! (whenever I go hiking with my wife, I end up carrying about 3/4 of the weight!) But usually the photography suffers a lot because you don't have as much time to focus on it, and you can't always be at the best location at the right time of day if you have a route to follow. A nice campsite isn't likely to be the same location as a great shot at sunset/blue hour, for example! I guess if I was a professional landscape photographer, I'd base my hiking around the photography but that's never been the priority for me when I've done any serious hiking. Which isn't actually that often anyway, although I'd like to do it more. The problem is that all the best mountain terrain is many hours from London. I guess it's similar for Paris although most of France is hilly, much more than England. Diliff (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shame about the lighting. I wonder if sunrise is better for that spot. I think, strictly speaking, the Quiraing is this area and many people take a photo while situated in or near it but looking south at another part of the long Trotternish ridge of which the Quiraing is one part. Diliff's photo is correctly described. I could be wrong, and it is a bigger area, but the OS map only indicates the part containing the Needle/Table/Prison features. It's a weird landscape, caused by a huge landslip of the volcanic rock on top of sedimentary after the ice age -- and these two layers make up the Kilt Rock in my other photos.
Yes, London is a long way from mountains. The Peak District is nearest perhaps, and a few hours away by car. And those hills and valleys are nice but compare poorly to Scotland. Central Scotland has good road access to get to the hills and lochs fairly quickly, but further up in the highlands and islands, the roads aren't as good and winding and it can take a while to get anywhere. I was particularly disappointed in Mull the other year, because it seemed to take ages to drive anywhere and the roads had virtually no parking spots where one could stop and admire the view. I am homesick for the mountains but while I live/work down here I should take more advantage of living next to a great city. -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diliff, It looks to have been a tad too late. But I think it would have made quite a nice picture otherwise, with that beautiful sky. Hmm guys, we cannot not have an FP picture of the Quiraing with you around! If Colin doesn't, I'll nominate this picture which is quite good in my opinion (I've one nom left in stock). I pretty much agree with your comments regarding conciliating photography and hiking. When I can, I try to arrange everything so that I get to see interesting points at proper time. Usually people accompanying are also rewarded by the beautiful sight, that's how I try to sell it :). By the way, is bivouac allowed in the UK? You could just set the tent on the good spot :D Also as I mentioned to Colin, I found I could visit Venice by myself at very early morning while the rest of my family is sleeping for instance. Not really hiking but same problem. This got me a few shots on empty Saint Mark square (it's very amazing to see it like that)! As for hilly spot nearby Paris... the Seine valley, to the west is very beautiful. But I never got nice shots out of it. It looks like this. Otherwise I'd try Champagne which is an hour away from my home. It has hilly wine yards. There's also "Morvan National Park" 3h aways from here which offers landscapes like this. IMO these hills show at their best with a sunset light, which I unfortunately missed a bit on that last picture. Colin's description of highlands sounds interesting to me. Guess it's not very busy and I could just stop the car on the side of the road without annoying people too much anyways. - Benh (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be honoured if you nominate it; I like it too. I've processed some more pics I took that day at Rubha nam Brathairean (Brothers Point). What do you think of this one? I like the Pannecière Dam photo. I can see why you'd like more light but it is still quite special.
Unfortunately, the roads on Mull were often single-track with passing places, and no place to get off road without being a hazard or a fall. On Skye, the road at the Quiraing has a few parking areas but they are quickly filled so people try to park anywhere. We saw one car had gone off the side of the road and both left wheels sunk into mud and the body of the car then resting on tarmac. Somebody tried to pull it out with a rope, but it was stuck fast. Scotland is fairly busy in July/August when the schools are on holiday. Unfortunately that's when we have to go and when the midges are bad. Other times of year may be more photogenic and much quieter, if you get the weather. In Scotland there is much freedom to walk and camp most places, unlike in England, with only a few restricted areas. As a boy, my dad often had us camping rough because he was too mean to pay for a campsite. Needless to say, those were camping trips where my mum didn't come along. -- Colin (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that pic :) Yes it's eye catchy. I'm skeptical with the horizon which looks higher on the left than on the right. Haven't measured though (and now I need to leave for work ;) ). I've never imagined roads would be in that kind of conditions in Scotland so your "comments" (suddenly missing the word) is very valuable. I've a colleague who goes to Scotland every year (whisky fan, another shooting theme btw), and will ask him what he thinks of that as well. I'm laughing at your story: camping sites are already quite cheap to start with :D I'll nominate when I have a break today then! And thanks for your comments on my pic. I'll upload it to Commons. Maybe not an FP, but it will illustrate some articles well. - Benh (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the roads in Scotland are often very narrow and difficult. The same in many mountainous areas of Britain. The Lake District (my other favourite area of the UK) is full of single track roads too, many of them extremely hilly. I've driven that road in the video a number of times and the video doesn't really do it justice due to the GoPro's wide angle of view. It is seriously steep, up to 33% at times and there's not a lot of traffic in the video so it's an easy drive, but in the summer it gets very busy. Lots of pulling over to the side and trying to figure out how to pass each other without damaging the car in the process or rolling off the side of the mountain. :-) It's an old Roman road and it basically drives straight up the side of the mountain rather than taking the most efficient gradual ascent with large switchbacks like the alpine roads that you guys have. As for the camping, it's so much more fun to 'wild camp' (camping sauvage) than to stay at a camp site. You get to choose your own private spot, you're more in touch with nature and you don't have to worry about noisy neighbours (except the sheep maybe). The only thing that I miss are real showers and toilets, but it's not so bad to be without them for a couple of days (after that, it's a different story!) Also, camp sites aren't actually that cheap in the UK, for what you actuallly get! Even just to set up a small 2 person tent (not a caravan), it's often about £20/€27 per night from my experience. I've stayed in many municipal camp sites in France and they are usually around €5-6 per night. As Colin says, you can wild camp legally almost anywhere in Scotland (outside of the cities and farming areas). In England, it's not a legal right but still very easy to do. I cycled the length of the UK a few years ago and wild camped almost every day along the way. As long as you are discrete, get up and leave early and clean up any mess you make, the land owners generally aren't going to care. Diliff (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff That wasn't nice of you not to put the NSFD (Not safe for dinner) label next to the link. It seriously made me seasick ;) That was interesting (even though I didn't run the whole video) and we can clearly hear the motor when the car starts on a steep section. When you miss a shower, you might want to use this :D it really smells like a baby, but better than to stink, and guess you'd rather please your wife than the flies. - Benh (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to judge tilt without an actual horizon (unless you know a way). There's a digital level on my camera, which I use, but it isn't precise to pixel level and any hand-held shot is going to have some variation. If you follow the map link on the image, you'll see that on the left you are looking roughly south, and there's a whole mix of Raasay and Skye all at different distances and angles. On the right there is only the relatively near shore and nothing distant. With my fisheye I have to keep the horizon in the centre of the frame to avoid curvature -- this is a 16:9 crop of the lower portion. I'll check again later whether the horizon was centred - if it wasn't then I may have compensated for the curve by rotating very very slightly, but I can't remember which way now. -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and the line on the left-hand-side between the sea and the distant land is absolutely centre of the image taken with the fisheye. I appeared to slope down to the left, so I applied a 0.6 rotation (clockwise) to "level" it. I've uploaded a version without that rotation. It is quite possible the curve on the left is simply due to the shape of the coast of Raasay and Skye. Is this better? -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS[edit]

Just experimenting with the crop template:

Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS.jpg
:-) -- Colin (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I'm sorry but it confirms my skepticism about the crop. :) The cut looks weird and it's like the chapel is leaning on the left. I see you tried to framed it around the milky way. If I were an acquaintance of god, I'd have asked him to lay the milky way on a diagonal from upper left to bottom right, just above the spire. That setting actually happened, but the moon hadn't set by then and the stars were just too faint. Anyways, guess I'll just need to improve my milky ways shooting skills :D (that would go through getting a new body...) - Benh (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, I think you're a bit unfair on Jebulon in the review. You are using a APS-C camera albeit one with a good reputation for noise handling. You just need to get yourself a Sony A7S or A7RII :-). The EXIF history suggests you've put this through ACR, Photoshop and then Lightroom. In the first stage, did you try applying a strong sharpening mask? I know that when doing that on Lightroom, I hold down Alt (and view at 100%) and watch till the "smooth" sky is completely blank (or close, perhaps) leaving only the edges to sharpen. I don't know if ACR has the same keyboard feature. I find a mask can avoid adding noise through sharpening in the first place, and reduces the need to apply NR later. This is true even if you don't touch the default 25 sharpening amount. Did you use the camera's "long exposure noise reduction" (I assume it has this setting, despite the long delay it causes after your shot). If not, that's another opportunity missed to remove noise without smudging the stars. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin and ping @Jebulon: , it was a quite short review which felt like Jebulon was expecting clean picture, so yes I thought it is quite an unfair and non constructive review which triggered this reply of mine. The EXIF are a bit misleading. I put it in LR, then at some point I duplicated it and pushed NR further on one of the pic and then mixed the two together in PS with a proper masking. NR was done as you described (you already taught me that trick before) and I'd rather have a bit more noise and more stars than having it a bit too clean and smear away some stars. But yes, some more skilled guy might do it better than I did (I can share my RAW if you want to give it a try). And you're right, I think I didn't turn on long exposure NR. But I'd have to check how this affects noise level. I remember it didn't help me much on my Canon. The level of noise seems on par with a short exposure ISO 3200 shot though. Remember I mentioned I had to add EV, so it's closer to a ISO 6000 shot. And noise is much more visible on dark areas, this is quite a demanding situation. I agree with you also that there are much better bodies out there. But is the improvement that dramatic? I can't afford any of those as of today. - Benh (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I got the "Astronomy Photographer fo the year 2013" for a Christmas present. It isn't a subject I'm particularly enthusiastic to shoot for myself, but I did enjoy reading the book. It includes details on the camera/lens/settings/processing for each image. I think the images in the book are typically a bit cleaner than this, but it is hard to compare a glossy print with a screen. I lack experience with this shot so I don't suggest I'd do a better job. But if you find other photographers who take similar pictures (on Flickr, etc) they may be willing to share their processing secrets if asked nicely. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin I'll look at my picture again. Thanks again for your valuable advices. - Benh (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think the really best astro photographers use f/1.4 and a full frame sensor to get the most light. And of course they find even clearer skies. Also, perhaps not for a photography competition but many astro photos are composites. One sky shot with a tracking mount, and another for the foreground. Diliff (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that does look quite good - the finer details look better due to the downsampling. Did you have to set control points manually? I'd imagine that pano software would get quite confused. How many frames? I used to do a few astro photography experiments when I lived in Australia, but that a long time ago - Canon 10D (6 megapixels!) and I didn't have a fast prime except for the 50mm f/1.8 and it has pretty bad optical quality at f/1.8. I'd like to give it a go again with my 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1. 4 lenses but finding a nice clear sky is a bit challenge in London, but even elsewhere in the UK. Next time I'm back in Aus. :-) Diliff (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 pics. I let Hugin set the control points automatically and manually fixe only the ones which are too distant afterwards. It's a bit troublesome but easier than expected honestly. I'm not going to teach you a lot, but quality lens is even more critical to achieve stitching. If you don't leave enough overlapping areas, the blending has less opportunity to choose a center part of a frame over a corner one. My Fuji 35mm f/1.4 exhibits lots of "I don't know how to name them" issues in the corners. Stars don't look like dots but are stretched (Coma ?). I'll probably get myself a Samyang if I'm serious about astrophotography. Australia should be great. It's also on my "destinations to visit" list. I read somewhere that the milky way is brighter in southern hemisphere, but I don't know why and it's not something which is going to be so obvious for most. When I visited Morvan, people there told me that the sky is clearer when it's cold. Maybe you can use it to your advantage. I'm very curious to see how high you'll set the astrophotography bar :) - Benh (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must have been hard to frame 22 images in a panorama when you can't see anything through the viewfinder. :-) I guess one advantage of my Sigma primes is that they're almost as sharp at the edges as the centre. I don't usually need to leave much overlap in my images at all. As for why the milky way is brighter in the southern hemisphere, it's because the southern hemisphere actually faces more towards the centre of the Milky Way so you see it overhead where the air is clearer, and the northern hemisphere faces away from it so you usually only see the 'tail' of the galaxy high in the sky, not the core. Also the brightest part of the Milky Way is most visible to the northern hemisphere in the summer when air tends to be warmer and hazier (and the camera sensor has more noise), whereas it's best viewed in winter in the southern hemisphere. The other benefit of the southern hemisphere is that two galaxies are actually completely visible to the naked eye - the Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud. As for how high I can set the bar, we'll have to see. :-) I took this] a few years ago when camping in Australia (the banks of the river were lit by the camp fire but it was very patchy and not very nice light). It was with the Samyang 14mm @ f/2.8 and ISO 6400 for 30 seconds. I wasn't really trying to win any landscape photography awards either, it was just a test shot to see how well the Magellanic Clouds would show up (they're the 'clouds' on the right side of the photo). There was a bit of a haze in the air and it was a bit too close to sunset, so the photo really wasn't as good as it could be. Challenge accepted though. It may take some time to get access to nice clear skies, but I'll get back to you. :-) Diliff (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was "annoying" and all luck. I did take some margin. As for overlapping, I just rotated the same angle everytime, but I guess it's nothing new to you. My first frame was also on the lower left, which was a mistake because the sky rotated CW on that picture. I should have started on the lower right. That way, I just set control points for the first row using the ground, and only the sky all together but apart, and then I link the sky and the ground on that lower right area only. Don't know if my explanations are clear enough... Also, to help that, my lower right anchor shall have contained more sky, and it wasn't the case. So it's not very sure the milky way lies where it should. These are the results of my experiments so far. Maybe you'll find it can be done better. And yes on the other nom of the milky way from Brasil, the galactic center can be seen very clearly and adds pop to the image. Didn't know about the Magellanic clouds. It's very interesting, and they render nicely on your picture. Looking forward to your next astrophoto input then! - Benh (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Long Room Interior, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Long Room Interior, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backpacks[edit]

Diliff, the ICU is a great idea... And it's very clever to make them in several sizes. I think it's fine to buy them separately and fit them in any bag. The issues I see are that I wouldn't be able to attach one properly because my backpack wouldn't have the appropriate velcros and all, and it would take quite some time to take the gear out (because I would have to pull the entire unit out of the bag which doesn't have proper openings). So in the end I'm stuck with being caught into their ecosystem. It's very enticing... Ah I knew I shouldn't have looked. - Benh (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha... sorry, you're hooked now! Yeah, the thing I love most about the bag is the easy entry to the camera gear from the back-facing side. The lack of a velcro system in a different bag isn't the problem because I used my bag for many years without attaching it and it never fell out or slipped. It has a metal frame around the main back opening which is just a tiny bit less wide than the ICU, so it holds the ICU in place - but the ICU is useless without the correct opening. :-) I used to have a large Lowepro camera backpack but it wasn't nearly as easy to access the camera and lenses, and it didn't have separate compartments for non-camera gear either, which was pretty annoying. I don't usually worry about security of my gear, but it's also more secure because the camera equipment simply cannot be accessed while the bag is on your back. The zips are easy to pull too - not sticky and catchy like some zips can be - so you can go from having the bag on your back to swinging it around and laying it on the ground with the interior side facing up, then unzipping and taking your camera out - all in the space of 5 seconds or so. I tried many backpacks over the years and this is the one I'm most happy with by far. My guess is that if you just want a comfortable day pack, the F-stop Loka will probably be enough. It's only 37 litres, but if you get a small ICU, you could fit a DSLR and 3-4 lenses in it, and still have about half the bag left for other gear. Alternatively if you wanted a bigger backpack to carry more gear (I get the impression you don't though, but a bigger bag works for me as I can be confident that it will store the camera and all the lenses I will need and still have enough space left over for food, clothes, the pano head, etc. A smaller day pack would probably involve more compromises), there is the Tilopa BC or Satori EXP which are 48 and 62 litres. If you were going to get a bigger bag, you would then have two choices - a medium ICU and about half to one third left over for gear, or a small ICU and 2/3 of the bag free for everything else. It's a very comfortable bag (equal to most technical day packs I've tried) but has a lot of good pockets and straps for photography. Here's a few pics of my bag (Satori EXP). Diliff (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Very interesting. You don't work for them, do you? ;) Christmas is getting close. I think I know what kind of internet page should be inadvertently left displayed on family iPads or computers ;) - Benh (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, just a fan of the bag design. :-) It's not perfect, but if you want a technical pack that is also very photography friendly, I don't think there are any other good options. Diliff (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:South over the Quiraing, Isle of Skye - 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:South over the Quiraing, Isle of Skye - 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi Behn. Please, could you add more sharpness and brightness here? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arion It's very hard to start from a "non optimal" JPEG. This one is a bit soft, but also noisy, making it tricky to sharpen it without introducing artefacts. I could make it looks nicer but at the cost of some fine details, which would be cheap work. So I only did a bit of brightening, a bit of chroma noise reduction (to remove the color noise) and a slight amount of sharpening. Here it is. I'm frankly not sure it's worth overwriting the old version. It's better if you can get the RAW (or get someone with better skills than me ;) ). - Benh (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Pictorial Representation of the Illustrious City of Venice Dedicated to the Reign of the Most Serene Dominion of Venice.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pictorial Representation of the Illustrious City of Venice Dedicated to the Reign of the Most Serene Dominion of Venice.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

 ★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Summer evening at Lovatnet, Stryn, Norway, 2013 June - 3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Summer evening at Lovatnet, Stryn, Norway, 2013 June - 3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Piazzetta San Marco Venice BLS.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 Good quality. --XRay 05:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anjos no céu.jpg and File:Lençóis de Areia.JPG[edit]

Hi Benh. Two questions: Can you find some hope for this image becomes FP? Could you remove the yellow and purple CAs here? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arion, to me it's "just another ceiling" and I'd have prefered a wider framing. But I'm sure it has its charms for some (my opinion is biased because I see too many ceilings...). I probably can do something, although lately I don't spend that much time on wikipedia related stuffs. I suggest you try to seek help from people who are currently more active than I am, but of course I'll look tonight if no one else has done something by then. Hope I don't dissapoint you too much :) - Benh (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arion, I like the second picture a lot ! Here is a version without CA. Not that it was annoying at all to start with... By the way, if you have PS or LR it's very easy to do it yourself (I just checked a checkbox). I'll also let you take care of the upload and everything else if you don't mind. Good night. - Benh (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benh/Archive/2015&oldid=202066663"