User talk:Code/Archive 1
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140810 Berlin Kastanienallee.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Döbritz Dorfkirche Innenansicht.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141003 Schloss Bellevue.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kaufhaus Jonaß.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Factory Berlin Bernauer Straße.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Tiergarten Gedenkstein Baumspende SGV.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140626 Tierser Alpl Rosszähne.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Kolonnaden Kleistpark.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141019 Kammergericht Berlin.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141019 Sozialgericht Berlin.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wernburg St. Veit-Kapelle.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Kronprinzenbrücke bei Nacht.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Reinhardtstraße 56-58.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141101 Konrad-Adenauer-Haus (Berlin).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141101 Haus der Bundespressekonferenz.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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Konrad-Adenauer-Haus (Berlin).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Burg und Stadt Ranis.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140703 Berlin-Wedding Graunstraße.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140823 Märchendom Saalfelder Feengrotten.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140830 Rettungsring Berliner Feuerwehr 1.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140531 Forellen auf dem Grill.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.
|
Autopatrol given[edit]
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you.— Revi 11:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140703 Klettergerüst Spielplatz Mauerpark Berlin.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Märchendom, Saalfelder Feengrotten.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Haus der Bundespressekonferenz und Bürogebäude Reinhardtstraße 56-58.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141101 Berlin Konrad-Adenauer-Haus.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140625 Gartlhütte mit Vajolettürmen.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pößneck Glockenturm Westseite.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Veit-Kapelle Wernburg.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140713 Rauchen-Verboten-Schild.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140315 Polizeiboot Berlin Spree.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Kaufhaus Jonaß, Berlin. View vom South East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:140823 Märchendom Saalfelder Feengrotten.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:140823 Märchendom Saalfelder Feengrotten.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Haus der Bundespressekonferenz, Berlin, view from South West..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Konrad-Adenauer-Haus (Berlin), View from East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Kammergericht Berlin, View from East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Verwaltungsgebäude der Berlin-Hamburger Eisenbahngesellschaft, View from South.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141209 Schiffbauerdamm 12 Berlin-Mitte.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Antermoia refuge, View from West..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gartlhütte und Vajolettürme.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140627 Schlernhaus.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140626 Grasleitenhütte.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140625 Gartlhütte von oben.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140519 Sankt Michaelskirche Fulda.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Vajolet refuge, View from South West..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Rosszähne, View from South..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nordbahnhof Carré.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.
|
,_Fassade.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141209 Europahaus (Berlin), Fassade.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141214 Berlin Hauptbahnhof bei Nacht.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Grasleitenhütte, View from East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141019 Berlin Kammergericht.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2014 07 22 Schild Vorderkaserklamm.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Kronprinzenbrücke.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140625 Santnerpasshütte.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140625 Rifugio Vajolet.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Grasleitenhütte Rückseite.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Nordbahnhof Carré, View from East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141214 Berlin Stettiner Bahnhof.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.
|
Merry Xmas and happy new year[edit]
Merry Xmas and happy new year 
--LivioAndronico talk 11:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140818 Passagierschiff auf der Spree.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140819 Schwedter Steg.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2014 07 28 Mosburg Biebrich Südseite.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.
|
Ich wollte dir nicht zuviel reinpfuschen[edit]
mit der Wache, aber nachdem auch Havalars Lösung auf der linken Seite rausgedreht war, hab ichs nun fast pixelgenau gemacht. Dabei hab ich gleich noch die rechte untere Ecke repariert, denn ich bin der Meinung, dass du dieses Bild durchaus für FP nominieren könntest. Den Schatten rechts hätte man dir aber angelastet. Glaub ich zumindest. Falls es dir nicht gefällt, du kannst es immer noch auf die Version von Halavar oder überhaupt deine zurückstellen. Gruß aus Wien --Hubertl (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Ps: so ganz nebenbei: Ich hätte dir wegen der 5 Pixel, welche jeweils links und rechts schief waren, trotzdem ein OK gegeben. Nun ist aber eben mehr passiert. Why not. Meiner Meinung nach hätte man das in Lightroom so nicht machen können, ohne ordentlich Pixelverlust, man siehts bei der Lösung von Halavar, dem sind gleich ordentlich pixel verloren gegangen durch die Lightroomtypische Perspektivkorrektur. Das wäre schade, denn man braucht links und rechts was, damit die Komposition passt. --Hubertl (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Hubertl: Wow, vielen Dank! Das sieht wirklich besser aus. In Lightroom konnte ich es nicht weiter korrigieren, egal was ich gemacht habe, eine der Seiten war immer leicht schräg. Auch mit Deiner Korrektur des Schattens bin ich natürlich absolut einverstanden. So macht Commons Spaß! Die FP-Nominierung überlege ich mir, ich habe da bloß ziemlich gemischte Erfahrungen gemacht... --Code (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mit LR stößt man da an die Grenzen des Programm (so sehr ich es schätze), deshalb machte ich es über PS. Falls du es für FP nominieren möchtest und du es im Raw-Format hast, dann schick mir dieses. Denn es hat noch ein paar kleinere Probleme mit dem Rauschen im Himmelsbereich. das geht auch (zumindest, wenn es genau und kontrolliert sein soll) über PS. Ich denke, dass das Bild Chancen hat.
- Übrigens: Wenn man solche Reaktionen bekommt wie eben von Dir, dann kann ich dir nur zustimmen: So macht Commons Spaß! --Hubertl (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Hubertl: Klar, gerne, wohin kann ich Dir das RAW schicken? --Code (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Halavar: Thank you also very much for your help! That's the way Commons is fun! --Code (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141227 Berlin Hauptbahnhof Ostseite.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141227 Neue Wache.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.
|
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141227 Berliner Dom.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Pegel Biebrich, View from South East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Pegel Biebrich, View from North West..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pößneck Glockenturm.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Reichstagsgebäude Westfassade.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141101 Konrad-Adenauer-Haus Berlin.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141212 Aussichtsturm Dokumentationszentrum Berliner Mauer 1.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.
|
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141220 Pegel Biebrich.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141019 Haus der Bundespressekonferenz.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141116 U-Bahnhof Eberswalder Straße Nordeingang.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Reichstagsgebäude von Westen bei Nacht.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.
|
Möchtest du nicht dein Zurückziehen[edit]
von der Nominierung zurückziehen? Ich hab dir eine neue Fassung hochgestellt. Bis auf das, dass es nicht perfekt scharf ist, ist es tatsächlich ein gutes Bild! --Hubertl (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Done Danke! Da kam ich mit Lightroom wieder an die Grenzen. Wenn Adobe nicht dieses lästige Abo-Modell hätte, würde ich mir vielleicht mal wieder eine aktuelle Photoshop-Version zulegen. --Code (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stimmt, ich habe es mit PS gemacht. Einseitige Änderungen sind mit LR knifflig, man muss es zuvor drehen, dann ist auch die andere Seite schön schief, dann stellt man das gemeinsam gerade. Ist aber eine ziemlich verspielte Angelegenheit. Wobei ich dann aber die anderen Änderungen mit LR gemacht habe (Farbanpassungen, Luminanzverstärkung) --Hubertl (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ich kenn einige Leute, die wegen des Abo-Modells drauf pfeifen. Ging mir auch lange so. Aber zur Information: Adobe gibt seine Version CS2 kostenlos her. Ganz offiziell. Das, was ich da gemacht habe, geht mit CS2 genauso. Und LR arbeitet mit CS2 nahtlos zusammen. Ohne Probleme. Muss man suchen im Netz bis man den Link findet. --Hubertl (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, danke für den Tipp, das wusste ich nicht. Ich mach mich auf die Suche. Sowieso macht es die Software natürlich nicht und was den Umgang damit angeht, habe ich noch einiges aufzuholen. --Code (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ich kenn einige Leute, die wegen des Abo-Modells drauf pfeifen. Ging mir auch lange so. Aber zur Information: Adobe gibt seine Version CS2 kostenlos her. Ganz offiziell. Das, was ich da gemacht habe, geht mit CS2 genauso. Und LR arbeitet mit CS2 nahtlos zusammen. Ohne Probleme. Muss man suchen im Netz bis man den Link findet. --Hubertl (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stimmt, ich habe es mit PS gemacht. Einseitige Änderungen sind mit LR knifflig, man muss es zuvor drehen, dann ist auch die andere Seite schön schief, dann stellt man das gemeinsam gerade. Ist aber eine ziemlich verspielte Angelegenheit. Wobei ich dann aber die anderen Änderungen mit LR gemacht habe (Farbanpassungen, Luminanzverstärkung) --Hubertl (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140928 Berlin Nordbahnhof Eingang.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Kammergericht Eingang.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Döbritz Dorfkirche Innenraum.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Neue Wache bei Nacht.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141102 Platzhaus Teutoburger Platz.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Berlin), View from south..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141116 Berlin U-Bahnhof Eberswalder Straße Eingang Nord.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Feuerwache Oderberger Straße.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Inschrift Dilthey-Haus.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin St. Josefsheim Eingang.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Kammergericht Kleistpark.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150101 Haus der Bundespressekonferenz und Bürogebäude Reinhardtstraße 56-58.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kulturhaus Insel Berlin.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Abteibrücke Insel der Jugend Berlin.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Schweizerische Botschaft.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140608 Schloss Brandenstein.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140810 Berlin Mauerpark.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schornsteine Kraftwerk Klingenberg.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2015-01-01 Kronprinzenbrücke.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140301 Pfefferberg Eingang.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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 141209 Postbank-Hochhaus (Berlin).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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140216 Burg Ranis Fassade.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.
|
VI candidates[edit]
If you nominate your pictures to VI can you support pictures from other users, please? --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Hauptbahnhof Blick von Ludwig-Erhard-Ufer.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Mosburg (Biebrich), View from South.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Schwedter Steg, View from South.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
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:
Glockenturm Pößneck, view from west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 2014 07 26 Bahnhof Biebrich.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gedenktafel Hauptkirche.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140928 Moltkebrücke.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Staatsratsgebäude Karl-Liebknecht-Portal.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bodelwitz.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Dilthey-Haus (Biebrich), view from south west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Berlin Hauptbahnhof, view from east.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schlernhaus (Rifugio Bolzano).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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150118 Berlin Neue Wache.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Zeughaus bei Nacht.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Portal IV (Stadtschloss, Berlin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140519 Dom Fulda Frontansicht.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140626 Grasleitental.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140419 Gleise Wiesbaden-Biebrich.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140624 Rifugio Vajolet e rifugio Preuss.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pößneck Stadtmauer und Glockenturm.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Fulda Cathedral, view from east.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Blick zum Bahnhof Biebrich.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140823 Marktapotheke Saalfeld.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Baum mit Misteln im Schlosspark Biebrich.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.
|
File st. Lukas Kirche[edit]
Code Welchen Staubfleck meinst du denn? Ich bin hier neu und habe von dem hier ehrlich gesagt noch keine Ahnung wie hier alles so richtig funktioniert. auch das bearbeiten von irgendwas fällt mir hier schwer da ich das nicht regelmäßig mache. In Steuern bin ich da fitter :-) --AnjaSuess (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AnjaSuess: Ich habe die Stelle markiert, wahrscheinlich hast Du einen Fleck auf dem Objektiv gehabt. Du kannst das z.B. in Photoshop mit dem Bereichsreparatur-Werkzeug beheben. Wenn Du es nicht hinbekommst, kann ich es auch selbst erledigen, sag einfach Bescheid. Viele Grüße, --Code (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Code: ja jetzt habe ich es gesehen. Würdest du so nett sein und für mich das wegmachen? Habe kein Photoshop und in meinen Pentaxprogramm bin ich auch noch nicht so fit. Habe meine Kamera ja erst seit Juli 2014 und groß mich damit noch nicht beschäftigt da ich sehr wenig Zeit habe. Arbeit Schule... --AnjaSuess (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AnjaSuess: Klar, gerne. Hast Du eventuell die RAW-Datei? Falls ja, schick sie mir bitte an akoreng at googlemail punkt com. Ansonsten versuche ich mich zur Not auch am JPEG, aber das könnte die Qualität mindern. Grüße, --Code (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Code: nee habe keine RAW-Datei. sollte ich bei meiner Kamera am besten mal einstellen das ich nur RAW fotografiere. Man wird immer klüger... --AnjaSuess (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @AnjaSuess: Ok, ich habe den Fleck entfernt. Allerdings kann ich jetzt nicht mehr für das Bild abstimmen. Das RAW-Format empfiehlt sich auf jeden Fall, man kann einfach viel mehr aus den Fotos rausholen. Du solltest auch überlegen, Dir einen anständigen RAW-Converter (so etwas wie Lightroom) zuzulegen. Wenn Du sonst Fragen hast, kannst Du Dich gerne an mich wenden. Viele Grüße, --Code (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Code: nee habe keine RAW-Datei. sollte ich bei meiner Kamera am besten mal einstellen das ich nur RAW fotografiere. Man wird immer klüger...
- @AnjaSuess: Klar, gerne. Hast Du eventuell die RAW-Datei? Falls ja, schick sie mir bitte an akoreng at googlemail punkt com. Ansonsten versuche ich mich zur Not auch am JPEG, aber das könnte die Qualität mindern. Grüße, --Code (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Code: ja jetzt habe ich es gesehen. Würdest du so nett sein und für mich das wegmachen? Habe kein Photoshop und in meinen Pentaxprogramm bin ich auch noch nicht so fit. Habe meine Kamera ja erst seit Juli 2014 und groß mich damit noch nicht beschäftigt da ich sehr wenig Zeit habe. Arbeit Schule... --AnjaSuess (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Code: Ich danke dir vielmals. Ja ist nicht so schlimm wegen den abstimmen, war sowieso überrascht das es jemand nominiert hatte, ich hätte es nicht gedacht... --AnjaSuess (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pößnecker Straße Ranis.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140419 Gleise in Wiesbaden-Biebrich.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pößneck Breite Straße.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! S-Bahn zwischen Gesundbrunnen und Bornholmer Straße Berlin.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140819 Schwedter Steg Berlin.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hochwasser Rhein Wiesbaden-Biebrich.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.
|
QI File:Black-headed gull adult, Lachmöve(Chroicocephalus ridibundus).JPG[edit]
Hallo, danke Dir für den Kommentar zum oben genannten Foto.Leider habe ich keine Raw Datei mehr.VG --NoRud (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Borsig Nr. 12250 (2007-06-09).JPG[edit]
Hallo Code, schaust Du bitte noch mal nach der kleinen Borsig-Lokomotive? Inzwischen hat sie jemand in der Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt bearbeitet und das Rauschen reduziert. Vielen Dank für Deinen Hinweis und Dank im Voraus für die nochmalige Betrachtung. Herzliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- @Spurzem: Klar, schon erledigt. Danke für den Hinweis. Schönes Bild, schöne Lok, gefällt mir beides gut. Viele Grüße! --Code (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ich danke Dir. Es ist schön, dass es auch diese gegenseitige Hilfe in den Commons gibt und nicht nur das Bestreben, möglichst viel abzuqualifizieren, wie man es von einigen vermeintlichen Chefjuroren erlebt. Noch mal herzliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140607 Männlicher Plattbauch.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150214 Neue Wache Berlin.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Neue Wache, front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Königskolonnaden Kleistpark.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Anklamer Straße 38 Berlin.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Besucherzentrum Gedenkstätte Berliner Mauer.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150214 Denkmal für Rudolf Virchow Berlin.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 140626 Tierser Alpl.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150214 Berlin Neue Wache.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Amtsgericht Wedding.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Amtsgericht Wedding, view from south east.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Really Ugly[edit]
Hallo Code, Ken Rockwell behauptet, das Bokeh dieses Objektivs wäre perfekt und spektakulär [1], das Wetter war vermutlich nicht optimal um das zu zeigen, hätte ich etwas besser machen können? --Ailura (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo Ailura, danke für Deine Nachricht. Nun ja, Bokeh ist ja immer irgendwie Geschmackssache. Ich sehe, dass Pölkkyposkisolisti es toll findet, ich finde hingegen, dass die Rückseite der Kirche (?) hinter der Statue nicht lediglich unscharf (soweit, so normal), sondern irgendwie seltsam verzerrt aussieht. Aber wiegesagt, andere mögen das schön finden. Für mich wäre es im Übrigen auch kein Grund, ein Oppose zu geben, ich würde Dein Bild vom fotografischen Standpunkt aus sofort Promoten. Insofern: Nein, aus meiner Sicht hättest Du nichts besser machen können. Im Übrigen hoffe ich, dass Du mich nicht falsch verstehst. Ich habe anhand der QIC-Diskussionsseite und in der Diskussion zu Deinem Foto ein wenig den Eindruck, dass Du verärgert über mich sein könntest. Ich glaube, viele Misstöne kommen daher, dass wir dort alles nur sehr knapp auf Englisch diskutieren, da gehen die Zwischentöne oft sehr schnell unter. In der Sache mag man unterschiedlicher Auffassung sein, das sollte aber nicht den gegenseitigen Respekt beeinträchtigen. Also: Nichts für ungut. Viele Grüße, --Code (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Es ist wohl etwas unglücklich gelaufen, dass aktuell mehrere Renominierungen gemacht wurden, das habe ich nicht gewusst. Ich bin diese Woche nur durch Zufall wieder über das Bild gestolpert und da ist mir eingefallen, dass die Begründung damals nicht wirklich eine war, aber ich den CR aus zeitlichen Gründen nicht führen konnte, das wollte ich nachholen. Wirklich spektakulär ist das Bild insgesamt wohl wirklich nicht. --Ailura (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150403 Rotunde Schloss Biebrich Südseite.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150405 Garagen in Mainz-Amöneburg.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150405 Informationstafel Dyckerhoff Werk Amöneburg.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150418 Alexander von Humboldt Denkmal Berlin Unter den Linden.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150418 Konzerthaus Berlin.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150418 Konzerthaus Berlin Gendarmenmarkt.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150419 Neue Wache Berlin-Mitte HDR.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.
|
Schon erstaunlich[edit]
was man anhand eines einzelnen Bauwerks lernen kann. Was natürlich dann in Folge bedeutet, dass man in Zukunft dann jedes andere dieser Art mit diesem Blick betrachtet. Oder zumindest die Möglichkeit annimmt, dass es sowas gibt. Ich habe ähnliches in Wien entdeckt - erstmalig, wie mir das Bundesdenkmalamt versicherte - es ging um die Säulenstiege in der Hofburg. Hier ist die obere Aufsatzplatte der Kapitele gegenüber der gestützten Stiege nicht gerade, sondern schief aufgesetzt (ca 5°). Auf diese schiefe Platte gibt es noch einen Zwischenstein, welcher gegenüber der Stiege selbst wiederum schlüssig sitzt. Es wirkt jedoch (wahrscheinlich gerade deswegen) gerade, speziell beim Hinaufgehen, nicht jedoch von oben. Ich habe zwar Bilder der Säulenstiege, aber keine Detailaufnahmen, welche das genau beschreiben. Am Bild kann man das aber ganz gut erkennen. Wird eines der nächsten Projekte sein, die ich angehe, nämlich diese Säulenstiege (erbaut um 1770, man weiß es interessanterweise nicht genau) noch einmal genau zu erfassen. Und zwar mit meinem jetzigen Equipment, damals hatte ich nur eine 100-Euro-Kompaktknipse. Gruß auch an Berthold --Hubertl (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ich sehe eine Möglichkeit, hier die Sache richtig zu machen, mit einem Panorama, bei dem man aber selbst die Postition wechselt. Entweder zwei oder drei Postitionen. Ich wäre gerne jetzt in Berlin, um mir das selbst anzuschauen und diese Herausforderung anzunehmen. Da ich aber sportlich bin, überlasse ich Dir dieses Feld --Hubertl (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Interessantes Phänomen. Auf dem Foto ist die 5°-Abweichung tatsächlich nicht richtig erkennbar. Ich bin gespannt auf Deine neuen Bilder. Das Projekt "Panorama" der Wache ist in der Tat in Planung, aber dafür bräuchte ich dann schon mal einen Nodalpunktadapter, den ich mir bislang noch nicht geleistet habe. Abgesehen davon, dass ich einfach viel mehr Zeit für diese Dinge bräuchte. Momentan komme ich leider kaum zum Fotografieren, ich hoffe, das wird bald mal wieder besser. Wenn Du gelegentlich in Berlin bist, solltest Du Dir die neue Wache wirklich mal ansehen, es ist ein faszinierender Bau. Aber irgendwie bin ich mit der Perspektive auf meinen Bilder nie ganz zufrieden. Nach der elektronischen Wasserwaage der 6D sollte das hier jedenfalls horizontal absolut gerade sein, aber je länger ich das Bild anschaue, umso schiefer erscheint es mir. Seltsam. Berthold hat ja ein paar interessante Hinweise gegeben, ich sollte mir das nochmal in echt anschauen. Aber auch da kann der Eindruck ja täuschen. Ganz in der Nähe der Neuen Wache ist übrigens auch das Konzerthaus, ebenfalls ein Schinkel-Bau, der noch einige gute fotografische Portraits verdient. Mein nächstes Projekt sind ein paar Bilder des Konzerthauses zur blauen Stunde, leider ist das aber auch einer der belebtesten Plätze in Mitte. Nun ja, wir werden sehen. --Code (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your notes in File:National Center for Civil and Human Rights 01.jpg. I'm amateur in the edition of photographs, but I've tried to reduce the CA in the image. Could you tell me if I did well? Best, --Warko (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Warko: Looks good now. I just promoted it. --Code (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed CA in pic[edit]
Hi Code, I fixed the CA in FPC´s photo as per your observation. I appreciate the observation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Hauptbahnhof Ostseite HDR.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150501 Berlin Nordbahnhof Eingang.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.
|
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof Ostseite HDR.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof Ostseite HDR.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150502 Schönhauser Allee 173 Berlin.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150502 Strelitzer Straße bei Nacht.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.
|
File:Semporna_Sabah_Malay-Boy-with-Songkok-01.jpg[edit]
Ich habe das entsprechende Template eingefügt. Allerdings wollte ich Dir noch folgende Zusatzinformation geben: Malaysia hat ein äusserst eingeschränktes Persönlichkeitsrecht. Sobald man sich ausserhalb der eigenen Wohnung bewegt ist man quasi vogelfrei. Das Gesetz setzt hier nur "Grenzen des Anstands und des Schamgefühls". Während z.B. oft bei einem Unfall die verletzten und blutüberströmten Opfer fotographiert und veröffentlich werden, gilt es als unschicklich, das Gesäß einer betenden Muslima zu veröffentlichen, obwohl bei dieser Aufnahme von hinten kein Gesicht zu sehen ist. In der Öffentlichkeit ist es nicht erforderlich, um Erlaubnis zu fragen, wenn eine Person fotographiert wird; dazu gibt es auch Grundsatzurteile des Obersten Gerichtshof wie z.B. Ultra Dimension Sdn. Bhd. v. Kook Wei Kuan (2004) 5 CLJ 285 und Lew Cher Phow @ Lew Cha Paw & 11 Ors v. Pua Yong Yong & Anor (2009) 1 LNS 1256 Johor Bahru High Court Civil Suit No. MT 4-22-510-2007. Beim vorliegenden Bild war die Situation sowieso entspannt; es handelte sich um einen offiziellen Staatsakt und die Mütter waren mehr als bemüht, ihre Kinder vor die Objektive der anwesenden Medien zu rücken. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Cccefalon: Danke für den Hinweis und die interessanten Hintergrundinformationen. Mir ist bewusst, dass das in der Praxis wahrscheinlich kein Problem darstellen wird, weil der Junge kaum auf die Idee kommen wird, in Deutschland zu klagen. Allerdings habe ich - als deutscher Jurist - wenig Zweifel, dass das Bild in Deutschland kaum rechtskonform wird eingesetzt werden können. Wegen § 32 ZPO und Art. 40 EGBGB kommt es bei einer Nutzung in Deutschland auch nicht auf die Rechtslage in Malaysia an, sondern ausschließlich auf die deutsche, nach der die Nutzung in den meisten Fällen (vorbehaltlich § 23 KunstUrhG) unzulässig sein dürfte. Das lässt sich nur durch eine Einwilligung reparieren, weshalb ich der Meinung bin, dass wir für Wiki-Zwecke immer eine solche verlangen sollten, wenn nicht aus dem Bild selbst heraus schon die Voraussetzungen von § 23 KunstUrhG als gegeben erkennbar sind. Übrigens verlangt das deutsche Recht bei Kindern ab einem bestimmten Alter (ca. 14 Jahre) die Einwilligung sowohl der Eltern (beider übrigens, siehe § 1629 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB!), als auch des Kindes selbst. Wie auch immer - fotografisch ist das Bild natürlich exzellent, keine Frage. Und sofern man sich auf den Standpunkt stellt, dass uns die Nachnutzung in Deutschland nicht interessiert, kann man es sicherlich auch auf Commons lassen und zum QI machen. --Code (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Für die Aufnahme des Photos gilt ausschliesslich das Recht des jeweiligen Landes; genauso handhaben wir das auch bei FoP: Wenn ein Photo in Deutschland unter Bezug auf FOP Deutschland gemacht wurde, darf es auch in anderen Ländern ohne FoP veröffentlicht werden. WikiCommons würde nicht existieren, wenn nur Bilder aus einer gesetzlichen Schnittmenge aller Länder weltweit veröffentlicht werden dürften. Ob ein Bild einer Person auf WikiMedia veröffentlicht werden darf, hängt vom Consent-Status des jeweiligen Landes ab; siehe hierzu hilfsweise auch Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Consent. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Mag sein. Entspricht aber nicht der Rechtslage. --Code (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Das beanstandete Bild entspricht der verbindlichen Commons Guideline Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Deine Rechtsauffassung wäre eine grundlegende Änderung dieser Praktiken und würde z.B. bedingen, dass die Category:Children by country mit 170 Unterkategorien komplett zu durchzuforsten und überwiegend zu löschen wäre. Bevor Du also ein Exempel an meinem Bild statuierst, diskutiere zuerst grundsätzlich mit dem Legal-Team von Commons. Für mein o.g. Bild erbitte ich lediglich in QIC eine photographische Review. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Mag sein. Entspricht aber nicht der Rechtslage. --Code (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Für die Aufnahme des Photos gilt ausschliesslich das Recht des jeweiligen Landes; genauso handhaben wir das auch bei FoP: Wenn ein Photo in Deutschland unter Bezug auf FOP Deutschland gemacht wurde, darf es auch in anderen Ländern ohne FoP veröffentlicht werden. WikiCommons würde nicht existieren, wenn nur Bilder aus einer gesetzlichen Schnittmenge aller Länder weltweit veröffentlicht werden dürften. Ob ein Bild einer Person auf WikiMedia veröffentlicht werden darf, hängt vom Consent-Status des jeweiligen Landes ab; siehe hierzu hilfsweise auch Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Consent. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150501 Nordbahnhof Eingang Gartenstraße.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.
|
Panorama kit[edit]
I have the Nodal Ninja Mkii, which was a kind gift from Diliff! He's moved onto their much bigger model, which suits his bigger camera and heavy Sigma Art lenses (though it is huge so not nearly as portable). The NN3ii is certainly a good head and popular and available for about £150. I recently noticed that Sunwayfoto do a CR-30 kit (Amazon and ebay, both sold by CGUK who I can strongly recommend). This looks very similar to the Nodal Ninja, although the click stops aren't adjustable on that model (on the NN, you can replace a little disk to get different degrees between horizontal clicks, and the vertical rotation has no clicks). However, the clicks are a guide and you could rotate the head at any angle before tightening up. Another similar head is Bushman GOBI. Both are available for £99. With the Bushman it looks like you specify how many clicks you want when you order, and they have a guide to help choose for your lens you plan to use. I have a Sunwayfoto ball head and clamp and am very impressed with its quality at good price. So I'm pretty sure their compact pano kit will be well made (they also sell much more expensive pano head kits). I don't know anything about Bushman Panoramic but their website looks very professional and they have a range of accessories and support. I reckon that would be a reasonable option too. It isn't really rocket science -- you need something made of strong aluminium that is adjustable for your camera and lens(es) and not to heavy to carry about. If you have a small DSLR then these should be fine. You will need to mount this on top of either a levelling base or (more generally useful) a ballhead. This is because you need to level the pano head and it would be extremely tedious to try to do that by adjusting tripod leg lengths.
There are lots of tripod+head options but advice for that depends very much on your budget. Also, how light and compact you need it to be. A carbon fibre tripod will be a little lighter (only a little, not half the weight!) and isn't cold to touch in winter but approx twice the price of aluminium. A tripod with more sections will be more compact but take a bit longer to extend and be a little less sturdy than one with less. The most compact travel tripods tend to have legs that flip 180-degrees to wrap round the head, making them quite short but adding yet another unfolding step. An example of these is the Benro Travel Angel. You also want to consider tripod height. If you are a tall person then you'll want a bigger tripod. When comparing tripod heights, just ignore the "extended height" that uses the centre column extended up, since that is a very unstable situation that you don't want to use often. Also consider if you want to take macro shots and thus would appreciate one of the 3D columns that can come out and rotate at an angle. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: Thank you very much for your very detailed explanations. I didn't want to spend more than € 300 for the tripod. After looking around for a while on Amazon I found the Manfrotto MK055XPRO3-3W 055 which seemed quite suitable for my needs since I am about 1,89m and therefore need a somewhat higher tripod. They sell it as a kit together with a 3 Way Head which seems to fit my needs as I am primarily doing architectural photography. Concerning the panorama head I feel that the Nodal Ninja 3 MK II kit could be good for me (the price seems very reasonable as well), but I'm not sure if suits my EOS 6D together with the 24-70mm F4L. According to what I read about this panorama head it seems to me that it's made for smaller cameras. Maybe I should look around and see if I can lend the head anywhere to give it a try. However, I'm still undecided. Thank you again for your hints! It is always good to have the opportunity to learn from experienced photographers. --Code (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- David managed to use the NN3ii with his full frame. And your 6D isn't much larger than my A77ii. I think the NN folk will be happy to advise you if you contact them. And I found that CGUK (who sell Sunwayfoto) were very helpful with their advice. The 3-way head is mostly aimed at video rather than still photography. It may be fine, but those levers stick out quite a lot making it hard to pack in a tripod case or travel with it, and it is slower to adjust each axis. Worth playing with some heads in a shop if you can. I recently bought a Benro Travel Angel with carbon fibre legs and their latest V head (the older heads don't seem to get good reviews). That's a bit more than you wanted to spend but they do aluminium models that are cheaper. I got it from France because that model wasn't widely available in the UK. It is very nice and the head is good. The Manfroto 55 tripod is well respected, but often people seem to choose heads from some other manufacturer than Manfroto. A head with an Arca Swiss quick release plate has some advantages in being a common "standard" that you can mount various accessories. A cheap ball head will droop as you tighten it, and may not even support your camera in vertical/portrait mode. I've also got a Giottos YTL 9383 tripod and Sunwayfoto DB-36 ball head. That's plenty tall enough and has a versatile 3D centre column, but isn't nearly so portable as it doesn't collapse down so small. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- I did use the NN3ii with my 5D Mkiii and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens (the combination would be about the same weight as a 6D and 24-70mm lens) and it was fine, although I found that I had to tighten the upper rotator arm quite a lot to stop it from slowly drooping down, and I found that the weight of it did make the rails bend a tiny bit. Not enough to be a major problem really, and not enough to make me worry about it breaking. Just enough that if I noticed that when the horizontal rail's bubble level was showing that the head was level, the camera would take photos with a very small inwards lean, which I assumed was because the vertical rail was bending inwards due to the weight of the camera and lens. Honestly, it isn't a really significant problem. It doesn't stop the head from working and you can still stitch the images together just fine. I even used the head with my 5D and a 70-200mm f/2.8L lens (which weighs 1.3kg) and it didn't feel in danger. So although it's not as solid as the head I have now (which as Colin points out, is very big and heavy), it is worth getting for your camera and lens combination, especially if you don't have the budget for anything more expensive. Also, I agree with Colin that it is worth getting a tripod with a good ball head. The tripods with the 3 way levers are not that good. They do the job but they are much more annoying to work with. I also found this tripod on Amazon.de which doesn't come with any kind of head, but further down there is a ball head that it matches with the tripod and the total is 329 euros, so slightly less than the one Colin mentions. I don't know the brand of tripod but I do know the ball head is good and solid. Also, the Manfrotto tripod you linked to is really heavy. 3.5kg is not very portable. The tripod and head combination that I linked to is 1.7kg and I believe Colin's tripod would be about the same weight. Also, I don't think you necessarily need a taller tripod just because you're tall. It's not a big problem to lean down to look through the viewfinder. In fact it's slightly more comfortable to lean inwards and down than to have the camera at eye level IMO. Also, I quite often use the live preview on the rear LCD screen to frame my shots unless the strong sunlight makes viewing difficult. Also, the panoramic head will add approximately 20cm of height to the base of the tripod so you need to factor that in. You don't want the camera to be above your eye level. It makes it difficult to use. :-) Diliff (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would be very wary of a no-name Chinese carbon fibre tripod. There are lots of these on ebay and Amazon, at low prices. They will be completely "made to cost" so that they tick the boxes on the specification sheet and look like a bargain, but no concern about robustness, warranty or replacement parts. It is hard to see how tall that tripod is without extended column. The cheapo carbon tripods seem to be as heavy as many brand-name aluminium tripods. Also, take the load limit of both tripod and heads with a pinch of salt, particularly from an unknown brand. I recognise the Sirui brand but the Benro V1 head is similar and well reviewed. The advantage of buying the travel tripod with head is that it is designed to fit in the gap between the legs when folded, and will come with a bag that fits the combined legs+head. The model I bought is 1.52kg in total. An alternative is the aluminium version "A1282TV1" which is 1.79kg and should be much cheaper. The latest Benro tripods with the V series heads (rather than B series) are worth getting but seem to be not widely available in Europe. Possibly the ebay shop I bought from would be able to advise if a model can be ordered, should you fancy the aluminium one for example. I agree you don't want want ridiculously tall, and the pano head adds height, but you can always shorten legs and some travel tripods are really quite ridiculously short and wobbly. You're putting a fullframe camera on this, unbalanced by the pano head, which puts quite a lot of strain on the head and leg combination. -- Colin (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- It says on the Amazon listing = maximum height 173cm. I can't comment on the robustness, but I can't imagine a nearly 200 euro tripod to be seriously weak. Most tripods are overengineered in terms of strength. My old tripod (admittedly a Gitzo so not a Chinese no-name brand) is rated to 10kg but it can support my bodyweight fairly easily. I can't imagine even a cheap mid-price tripod not being able to support a camera and lens. Yes, I suppose the mechanisms might not be well-built but I think the main benefit of a heavy, thick tripod is not the basic strength, but the vibration dampening that it provides. Also, the tripod on Amazon does get mostly very good reviews. It's obviously not the best that money can buy, but if price is a factor... Diliff (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- 173 will be with the centre column extended so we don't know the stable height. Nine amazon reviews, two of which are negative, is hardly glowing. Amazon reviews are easy to buy and fake and most reviews are written upon unboxing rather than six months later when the clips no longer hold the legs up. I'm not arguing for a heavy, thick tripod (the one I bought is lighter and the price essentially the same as your suggestion), but at this price there is no shortage of well known brands with dealer networks and five-year guarantees and websites in English. Search for "carbon fibre tripod" on Amazon UK and you'll get junk with 40..50 glowing reviews and the same model sold from £99 to £199. I don't think you can compare a Gitzo with an unknown (not mentioned -- therefore you'll get whatever the importer gets that month). I'm not against Chinese brands (both Sunwayfoto and Benro are Chinese, and most other brands get their stuff manufactured there) but when you are paying 300 euros then there's no reason to take a gamble with a make nobody has heard of, nobody has reviewed, and has no local dealer network (just bought in bulk from one of the big import websites). There are plenty good tripod brands and plenty decent online shops selling them at fair prices. Code, you need to decide if you need the small weight benefit and better winter feel that carbon fibre offers. If money is tight, aluminium isn't a whole lot different -- but take care to compare models well since some manufacturers produce heavy and some light models. I found plenty examples of one manufacturer's carbon tripod being heavier than another's aluminium tripod for otherwise similar spec. And both weight and height are sometimes given with the head or without the head. -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think I'm more with you, Colin. The reviews on the German Amazon site don't really convince me. Yesterday I was in a shop and had a look at the Manfrotto 55 and I think I liked it. Of course it's quite heavy but I've got another very light (but unfortunately not very stable) tripod so the heavy Manfrotto will be more for well-planned shots here in the city where we have short ways and I can go by bike or car. I think I will buy it on friday unless I find another much better one on the internet. Yet I'm still not sure about the head - I don't really care about the weight so this is nothing which would disqualify the 3-way head from the start. Stability and precision are much more important to me. Do you still think that a ball head would be better? Concerning the pano head I will have to wait some weeks either way - my wife would kill me if I bought both a tripod and a pano head at the same time just some weeks after having bought the 6D. But however the NN Mk 3 seems very good to me especially after Diliff said that it would safely carry my camera and lens. Thank you again for sharing your knowledge. --Code (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ball heads are quick to adjust -- just loosen one knob and nudge the camera till it is level (there's a round spirit level on the base of the pano head). The legs you found here are 2.5KG which is really heavy. My aluminium tripod is only 1.88KG and slightly longer legs and a 3D column. The Manfrotto has a column that can flip vertically and go horizontally, but isn't able to go at any angle like the Giottos one I linked -- which can be handy for macro (flowers) but irrelevant if you always shoot buildings. There are shorter Giottos YTL tripods in the range as mine is quite tall. The YTL range has a specially shaped inner column that makes it overall more compact when folded (though still longer than a travel tripod). The head you found is 1KG which is much heavier than a typical ball head at 400g. That's what makes your 3.5KG compared to 1.5KG on my Travel Angel. Add on your full-frame camera, full-frame lens, and you've got a serious amount of weight to carry around. That might be OK in the studio but personally think that's too heavy and unportable. I see that 3-way head has retractable handles, but that's one more thing to un-retract when setting up. I guess you should read reviews and try it in the shop. They sell versions with a ball head too. Personally, I prefer to go for a head with an Arca Swiss quick release clamp/plate because you can then choose a variety of heads and brackets and such and it is all compatible. I wish the NN3ii used an Arca clamp but I added one to mine so I didn't have to keep removing the plate from the camera when flipping between the ball-head alone and the pano head. -- Colin (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would definitely try to get the Manfrotto tripod with a ball head (and Arca Swiss clamp) rather than the lever head if you can, for the reasons Colin mentions. Colin has a good point about the weight too, it does add up, but I think he's just getting old. ;-) My camera bag full of kit (tripod, pano head, 6 lenses, 5D and miscellaneous gear) weighs well over 10kg and I frequently carry it around for hours without too much of a problem. A good comfortable bag obviously helps though. Diliff (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I found the Manfrotto 055XPro3 in a kit with the 498RC2 ball head here for less than € 300 which perfectly suits my budget. All in all it has 3.1 kg but as I said before the weight is not so important for me and the lighter Giottos are much more expensive and/or are smaller respectively have less features. I don't really know if I need something like the Manfrotto's flip column but maybe it's nice to have - so why not. I think I'll order the Manfrotto 055XPro3 + 498RC2 kit. The Arca clamp is certainly a good idea, too. --Code (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- The one thing I would say is that the 498RC2 ball head in the photo does look a bit small and weak and the load limit is quite small for a ball head (8kg). It seems slightly underpowered for a tripod of that size and weight. 8kg is still more weight than you would likely ever put on the head but that limit assumes the ball is vertical, it wouldn't handle the weight horizontally very well (such as if you tilted the column horizontally to photograph flowers). Anyway, it might be fine for your use, but you might find that you want a better ball head later on. A good ball head can cost more than the tripod itself though! :-) Diliff (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just ordered the kit. If the ball head doesn't fit I will send it back. I will give you a follow-up if you're interested. Maybe you'll see the difference in my uploads here on Commons ;-) --Code (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sure please do let us know what your thoughts are. But if you send the ball head back, you won't have any kind of head on the tripod at all so you would need to replace it with something. ;-) Diliff (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, of course I realized that ;-) --Code (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just meant that you would then have to buy a (presumably more expensive) head instead, which may suddenly be out of your budget. So that's why I mentioned it. ;-) I don't know Colin's Benro head but I've heard good things about it. Before I upgraded to an Arca Swiss Z1 head, I used a Markins Q3 which I was very happy with also. But the Markins Q3 is a 200 euro head... The Benro V1 is a bit cheaper at around 150 euros. Diliff (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Actually the 498RC2 seems well liked on Amazon and Got a good review here for heavy DSLR cameras. So my only issue is the Manfrotto proprietary QR clamp, and even then if you are going proprietary then Manfrotto isn't a bad choice as there are some accessories that suit their clamps too. I guess the 8KG rating is being conservative. But a hard test is whether it holds your camera in portrait mode without drooping. The pano head will put additional strain on the head due to the lever action of the horizontal+vertical rail being off-centre. And lever action is way more powerful torque than when the camera is sitting directly on the head. Well, if when you get the new tripod, you gasp at how heavy it all is, then you can consider a model half the weight and shorter folded length for 350 euro. But if you are happy with the weight/size then I'm sure this Manfrotto will give you many years service, since it is a well-regarded model and brand. -- Colin (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just meant that you would then have to buy a (presumably more expensive) head instead, which may suddenly be out of your budget. So that's why I mentioned it. ;-) I don't know Colin's Benro head but I've heard good things about it. Before I upgraded to an Arca Swiss Z1 head, I used a Markins Q3 which I was very happy with also. But the Markins Q3 is a 200 euro head... The Benro V1 is a bit cheaper at around 150 euros. Diliff (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, of course I realized that ;-) --Code (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sure please do let us know what your thoughts are. But if you send the ball head back, you won't have any kind of head on the tripod at all so you would need to replace it with something. ;-) Diliff (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just ordered the kit. If the ball head doesn't fit I will send it back. I will give you a follow-up if you're interested. Maybe you'll see the difference in my uploads here on Commons ;-) --Code (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- The one thing I would say is that the 498RC2 ball head in the photo does look a bit small and weak and the load limit is quite small for a ball head (8kg). It seems slightly underpowered for a tripod of that size and weight. 8kg is still more weight than you would likely ever put on the head but that limit assumes the ball is vertical, it wouldn't handle the weight horizontally very well (such as if you tilted the column horizontally to photograph flowers). Anyway, it might be fine for your use, but you might find that you want a better ball head later on. A good ball head can cost more than the tripod itself though! :-) Diliff (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I found the Manfrotto 055XPro3 in a kit with the 498RC2 ball head here for less than € 300 which perfectly suits my budget. All in all it has 3.1 kg but as I said before the weight is not so important for me and the lighter Giottos are much more expensive and/or are smaller respectively have less features. I don't really know if I need something like the Manfrotto's flip column but maybe it's nice to have - so why not. I think I'll order the Manfrotto 055XPro3 + 498RC2 kit. The Arca clamp is certainly a good idea, too. --Code (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would definitely try to get the Manfrotto tripod with a ball head (and Arca Swiss clamp) rather than the lever head if you can, for the reasons Colin mentions. Colin has a good point about the weight too, it does add up, but I think he's just getting old. ;-) My camera bag full of kit (tripod, pano head, 6 lenses, 5D and miscellaneous gear) weighs well over 10kg and I frequently carry it around for hours without too much of a problem. A good comfortable bag obviously helps though. Diliff (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ball heads are quick to adjust -- just loosen one knob and nudge the camera till it is level (there's a round spirit level on the base of the pano head). The legs you found here are 2.5KG which is really heavy. My aluminium tripod is only 1.88KG and slightly longer legs and a 3D column. The Manfrotto has a column that can flip vertically and go horizontally, but isn't able to go at any angle like the Giottos one I linked -- which can be handy for macro (flowers) but irrelevant if you always shoot buildings. There are shorter Giottos YTL tripods in the range as mine is quite tall. The YTL range has a specially shaped inner column that makes it overall more compact when folded (though still longer than a travel tripod). The head you found is 1KG which is much heavier than a typical ball head at 400g. That's what makes your 3.5KG compared to 1.5KG on my Travel Angel. Add on your full-frame camera, full-frame lens, and you've got a serious amount of weight to carry around. That might be OK in the studio but personally think that's too heavy and unportable. I see that 3-way head has retractable handles, but that's one more thing to un-retract when setting up. I guess you should read reviews and try it in the shop. They sell versions with a ball head too. Personally, I prefer to go for a head with an Arca Swiss quick release clamp/plate because you can then choose a variety of heads and brackets and such and it is all compatible. I wish the NN3ii used an Arca clamp but I added one to mine so I didn't have to keep removing the plate from the camera when flipping between the ball-head alone and the pano head. -- Colin (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think I'm more with you, Colin. The reviews on the German Amazon site don't really convince me. Yesterday I was in a shop and had a look at the Manfrotto 55 and I think I liked it. Of course it's quite heavy but I've got another very light (but unfortunately not very stable) tripod so the heavy Manfrotto will be more for well-planned shots here in the city where we have short ways and I can go by bike or car. I think I will buy it on friday unless I find another much better one on the internet. Yet I'm still not sure about the head - I don't really care about the weight so this is nothing which would disqualify the 3-way head from the start. Stability and precision are much more important to me. Do you still think that a ball head would be better? Concerning the pano head I will have to wait some weeks either way - my wife would kill me if I bought both a tripod and a pano head at the same time just some weeks after having bought the 6D. But however the NN Mk 3 seems very good to me especially after Diliff said that it would safely carry my camera and lens. Thank you again for sharing your knowledge. --Code (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- 173 will be with the centre column extended so we don't know the stable height. Nine amazon reviews, two of which are negative, is hardly glowing. Amazon reviews are easy to buy and fake and most reviews are written upon unboxing rather than six months later when the clips no longer hold the legs up. I'm not arguing for a heavy, thick tripod (the one I bought is lighter and the price essentially the same as your suggestion), but at this price there is no shortage of well known brands with dealer networks and five-year guarantees and websites in English. Search for "carbon fibre tripod" on Amazon UK and you'll get junk with 40..50 glowing reviews and the same model sold from £99 to £199. I don't think you can compare a Gitzo with an unknown (not mentioned -- therefore you'll get whatever the importer gets that month). I'm not against Chinese brands (both Sunwayfoto and Benro are Chinese, and most other brands get their stuff manufactured there) but when you are paying 300 euros then there's no reason to take a gamble with a make nobody has heard of, nobody has reviewed, and has no local dealer network (just bought in bulk from one of the big import websites). There are plenty good tripod brands and plenty decent online shops selling them at fair prices. Code, you need to decide if you need the small weight benefit and better winter feel that carbon fibre offers. If money is tight, aluminium isn't a whole lot different -- but take care to compare models well since some manufacturers produce heavy and some light models. I found plenty examples of one manufacturer's carbon tripod being heavier than another's aluminium tripod for otherwise similar spec. And both weight and height are sometimes given with the head or without the head. -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- It says on the Amazon listing = maximum height 173cm. I can't comment on the robustness, but I can't imagine a nearly 200 euro tripod to be seriously weak. Most tripods are overengineered in terms of strength. My old tripod (admittedly a Gitzo so not a Chinese no-name brand) is rated to 10kg but it can support my bodyweight fairly easily. I can't imagine even a cheap mid-price tripod not being able to support a camera and lens. Yes, I suppose the mechanisms might not be well-built but I think the main benefit of a heavy, thick tripod is not the basic strength, but the vibration dampening that it provides. Also, the tripod on Amazon does get mostly very good reviews. It's obviously not the best that money can buy, but if price is a factor... Diliff (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would be very wary of a no-name Chinese carbon fibre tripod. There are lots of these on ebay and Amazon, at low prices. They will be completely "made to cost" so that they tick the boxes on the specification sheet and look like a bargain, but no concern about robustness, warranty or replacement parts. It is hard to see how tall that tripod is without extended column. The cheapo carbon tripods seem to be as heavy as many brand-name aluminium tripods. Also, take the load limit of both tripod and heads with a pinch of salt, particularly from an unknown brand. I recognise the Sirui brand but the Benro V1 head is similar and well reviewed. The advantage of buying the travel tripod with head is that it is designed to fit in the gap between the legs when folded, and will come with a bag that fits the combined legs+head. The model I bought is 1.52kg in total. An alternative is the aluminium version "A1282TV1" which is 1.79kg and should be much cheaper. The latest Benro tripods with the V series heads (rather than B series) are worth getting but seem to be not widely available in Europe. Possibly the ebay shop I bought from would be able to advise if a model can be ordered, should you fancy the aluminium one for example. I agree you don't want want ridiculously tall, and the pano head adds height, but you can always shorten legs and some travel tripods are really quite ridiculously short and wobbly. You're putting a fullframe camera on this, unbalanced by the pano head, which puts quite a lot of strain on the head and leg combination. -- Colin (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I did use the NN3ii with my 5D Mkiii and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens (the combination would be about the same weight as a 6D and 24-70mm lens) and it was fine, although I found that I had to tighten the upper rotator arm quite a lot to stop it from slowly drooping down, and I found that the weight of it did make the rails bend a tiny bit. Not enough to be a major problem really, and not enough to make me worry about it breaking. Just enough that if I noticed that when the horizontal rail's bubble level was showing that the head was level, the camera would take photos with a very small inwards lean, which I assumed was because the vertical rail was bending inwards due to the weight of the camera and lens. Honestly, it isn't a really significant problem. It doesn't stop the head from working and you can still stitch the images together just fine. I even used the head with my 5D and a 70-200mm f/2.8L lens (which weighs 1.3kg) and it didn't feel in danger. So although it's not as solid as the head I have now (which as Colin points out, is very big and heavy), it is worth getting for your camera and lens combination, especially if you don't have the budget for anything more expensive. Also, I agree with Colin that it is worth getting a tripod with a good ball head. The tripods with the 3 way levers are not that good. They do the job but they are much more annoying to work with. I also found this tripod on Amazon.de which doesn't come with any kind of head, but further down there is a ball head that it matches with the tripod and the total is 329 euros, so slightly less than the one Colin mentions. I don't know the brand of tripod but I do know the ball head is good and solid. Also, the Manfrotto tripod you linked to is really heavy. 3.5kg is not very portable. The tripod and head combination that I linked to is 1.7kg and I believe Colin's tripod would be about the same weight. Also, I don't think you necessarily need a taller tripod just because you're tall. It's not a big problem to lean down to look through the viewfinder. In fact it's slightly more comfortable to lean inwards and down than to have the camera at eye level IMO. Also, I quite often use the live preview on the rear LCD screen to frame my shots unless the strong sunlight makes viewing difficult. Also, the panoramic head will add approximately 20cm of height to the base of the tripod so you need to factor that in. You don't want the camera to be above your eye level. It makes it difficult to use. :-) Diliff (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- David managed to use the NN3ii with his full frame. And your 6D isn't much larger than my A77ii. I think the NN folk will be happy to advise you if you contact them. And I found that CGUK (who sell Sunwayfoto) were very helpful with their advice. The 3-way head is mostly aimed at video rather than still photography. It may be fine, but those levers stick out quite a lot making it hard to pack in a tripod case or travel with it, and it is slower to adjust each axis. Worth playing with some heads in a shop if you can. I recently bought a Benro Travel Angel with carbon fibre legs and their latest V head (the older heads don't seem to get good reviews). That's a bit more than you wanted to spend but they do aluminium models that are cheaper. I got it from France because that model wasn't widely available in the UK. It is very nice and the head is good. The Manfroto 55 tripod is well respected, but often people seem to choose heads from some other manufacturer than Manfroto. A head with an Arca Swiss quick release plate has some advantages in being a common "standard" that you can mount various accessories. A cheap ball head will droop as you tighten it, and may not even support your camera in vertical/portrait mode. I've also got a Giottos YTL 9383 tripod and Sunwayfoto DB-36 ball head. That's plenty tall enough and has a versatile 3D centre column, but isn't nearly so portable as it doesn't collapse down so small. -- Colin (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150502 Fassadendetail Schönhauser Allee 173.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.
|
Valued Image Promotion[edit]
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:
Grasleitenpasshütte, View from East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:150502 Strelitzer Straße bei Nacht.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:150502 Strelitzer Straße bei Nacht.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150515 Moltkebrücke Berlin-Mitte.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Konzerthaus, Gendarmenmarkt, Berlin (Blaue Stunde).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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Französischer Dom, Gendarmenmarkt, Berlin (Blaue Stunde).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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150516 JCB 804 Minibagger.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150515 Berlin Hauptbahnhof Humboldthafen.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150515 Dokumentationszentrum Gedenkstätte Berliner Mauer.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.
|
Neue Wache[edit]
There is a net installed on that building, you should mention it, since it looks like "scanned". I put note, but i would inform others on site what are those squares above on building. --Mile (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mile. Anyways I deleted the note because it didn't match the net exactly and I think that the net is quite obvious as well. Again, I thank you for caring. --Code (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Featured[edit]
Volevo mettere questa
,ma poi ho pensato che avrebbe potuto fare concorrenza al tuo tempio --LivioAndronico talk 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Livioandronico2013: Grazie mille. Meno male che ce l'hai qualche altri candidati FP ;-) --Code (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Si tocca solo capire quale mi violentano --LivioAndronico talk 19:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150515 Carillon (Berlin-Tiergarten).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Neue Wache, Unter den Linden, Berlin-Mitte, Nacht (HDR).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.
|
.jpg){kind=link}
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Neue Wache, Unter den Linden, Berlin-Mitte, Nacht (HDR).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neue Wache, Unter den Linden, Berlin-Mitte, Nacht (HDR).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Mauergedenkstätte Kapelle der Versöhnung.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kapelle der Versöhnung.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.
|
Berlin Hauptbahnhof Bild[edit]
Sure; go ahead and do it again. It worked for me a few months ago. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Addendum: But you might want to do it as a "delist and replace". Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150524 Berlin Hauptbahnhof Ostseite (HDR).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin-Spandauer Schifffahrtskanal.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Strandkörbe in Juliusruh bei Sonnenaufgang.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seenotrettungsbot Hertha Jeep in Stralsund.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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Steinmännchen am Ufer von Lohme (Rügen).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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seenotrettungsboot Kurt Hoffmann in Glowe.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Seenotrettungsboot Kurt Hoffmann.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Strandkorb in der Morgensonne.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gerätehaus Freiwillige Feuerwehr Putgarten (Rügen).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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Freiwilige Feuerwehr Putgarten (Rügen).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.
|
_Kurplatz_bei_Nacht.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Juliusruh (Rügen) Kurplatz bei Nacht.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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Juliusruh Kurplatz (Blaue Stunde).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150607 Kanzleramtssteg.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150524 Berlin Hauptbahnhof Ostfassade Detailansicht.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.
|
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Strandkörbe in Juliusruh bei Sonnenaufgang.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strandkörbe in Juliusruh bei Sonnenaufgang.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Abfall im Berliner Mauerpark.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Berlin Prenzlauer Berg Kopenhagener Straße 36 B.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Strandkörbe in Sellin.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150531 Lycianthes rantonnetii (Enzianbäumchen).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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Gedenkstein Juliusruh.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! MS Cap Arkona.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Strandzugang Löberplatz in Juliusruh (Rügen).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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Strandhotel Dünenhaus in Juliusruh (Rügen).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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150609 Strandzugang in Juliusruh (Rügen).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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150615 Steinmännchen in Lohme (Rügen).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
_Innenansicht_Altar.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150617 St. Pauli (Bobbin) Innenansicht Altar.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.
|
_Innenansicht_Orgel.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150617 St. Pauli (Bobbin) Innenansicht Orgel.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.
|
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:141227 Berliner Dom.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:141227 Berliner Dom.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150405 Freileitungsmast in Wiesbaden-Biebrich.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.
|
Danke[edit]
Völlig überraschend bekam ich heute Nachricht vom QI-Bot, dass eins meiner Bilder QI-Status erreicht hätte. Ich hatte gar keins nominiert. Danke, dass du File:Basaltfelsen Pferdskopf.JPG nominiert hast. --Milseburg (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo Milseburg, gern geschehen. Dein Bild ist mir bei der Durchsicht der WLE-Teilnehmer positiv aufgefallen. Glückwunsch zu dem gelungenen Foto! --Code (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Strandkörbe in Sellin.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strandkörbe in Sellin.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
_-_clone.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150524 Konzerthaus Berlin (Nacht) - clone.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.
|
Konzerthaus[edit]
Hi Code, danke für deine ausführlichen Bemerkungen! Die Ränder sind in der Tat schwierig in der Nachbearbeitung zu vermeiden, zumindest bei meinen Bilder kommen sie meistens bei einer Kombination von sehr großem Helligkeitsunterschied, Nachbearbeitung (HDR, etc.) und Schärfung. Ich kann mir eigentlich kaum vorstellen, dass das am Objektiv liegt, vielleicht eher an der Interpolation der Sensoren, ein Experte bin ich hier aber auch nicht. Besonders störend ist es ja bei der normalen Ansicht sowieso nicht. Hast du mal ein anderes HDR-Programm wie z.B. Photomatix probiert? Ich hatte mit dem HDR von CS6 allerlei komische Ergebnisse. Dein Argument für den Crop kann ich auch nachvollziehen, auch wenn ich eigentlich kein großer Fan von 4:3 bin. Sowieso sind beide Punkte bei einem so guten Foto Kleinigkeiten... --DXR (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- @DXR: Danke für die Tipps, ich werde mich mal in den einschlägigen Foren umschauen, ob das Problem mit Kamera und/oder Objektiv bekannt ist. Seltsam ist es allemal. Nein, ich habe noch kein anderes HDR-Programm ausprobiert, Lightroom ist für einen Anfänger wie mich wohl erstmal das einfachste, aber es hat auch seine Schwächen. Geisterbilder vermeiden kann es z.B. praktisch gar nicht. Ich werde gelegentlich nochmal ein wenig rumprobieren. Danke nochmals für Dein "Pro" und für den freundlichen Kommentar. --Code (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150502 Kaufhaus Jonaß Fassade Detailansicht.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150502 Kaufhaus Jonaß Detailansicht Fassade.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150524 Berlin Hauptbahnhof Ostseite.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150502 Berlin Bernauer Straße 50.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.
|
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:150524 Konzerthaus Berlin (Nacht) - clone.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:150524 Konzerthaus Berlin (Nacht) - clone.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
_-_clone.jpg){kind=link}
/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
FP[edit]
Featured Picture Nomination[edit]
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image 140626 Tierser Alpl Rosszähne.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Christian Ferrer 05:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
_Ostseite.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150515 Bundeskanzleramt (Berlin) Ostseite.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.
|
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Französischer Dom, Gendarmenmarkt, Berlin (Blaue Stunde).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Französischer Dom, Gendarmenmarkt, Berlin (Blaue Stunde).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
.jpg){kind=link}
/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking for advice on improving the quality of my photographs[edit]
Code,
Thanks for voting in a recent Feature Picture nomination of one of my photographs. This was the first time one of my photos has ever been nominated for FP status, which is quite exciting for me, although I agree with your assessment that this image is not worthy of said status. However, now that I have been slowly improving as an amateur photographer over the past few years and I am the proud owner of a Sony ILCE-5100 mirrorless camera, I think I have a good opportunity to work toward FP-quality photographs in the future.
.jpg){kind=link}
If you don't mind me asking, what simple (or not so simple) tips might you have for a photographer like myself? What improvements can I make when I'm actually capturing photos? Or maybe is there a default setting with my camera that I should change? (I haven't changed any of the defaults, at least not intentionally.)
Any and all guidance you can provide would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Michael Barera (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Michael, of course I'm happy to help you as much as I can. Please excuse my English, I am not a native speaker. However.
It's not easy to tell you generally what you can do to improve your pictures. It depends a lot on what kind of pictures you want to make. Generally you should shoot in RAW file format if your camera supports this option. RAW gives you a maximum of lossless postprocessing possibilities. Concerning this picture the settings look very good, the problem was the composition: you didn't leave enough free space at the top but too much at the bottom. That's why the picture looked a little bit unbalanced. I also think that you should have taken the picture at a different time of day. It's a little unfortunate that most of the building lies in shadows. The picture would be much better if the facade of the building would have been illuminated by the sun.
The other thing is the postprocessing: I don't know which software you are using but I strongly recommend you to get yourself an Adobe Lightroom license. With Lightroom you can easily correct the perspective (see en:Perspective_control for more information). Then you should reduce the lights and brighten the dark parts a little bit because the shadow parts look a little bit too dark and the sky part is a little bit too bright. Finally you should add a little bit of sharpness and voilà - the picture will look much better. If you already have a RAW version of this shot you can send it to me if you want to so I can give it a try (still, the compositional issue will not be fixable without taking the photo again).
If you have other questions I'll be happy to help you.
--Code (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Thanks, Code! I really do appreciate your advice. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Dietrich Bonhoeffer Gedenktafel Zionskirche Berlin.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Zionskirche, Berlin-Mitte, Kirchturm.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Versunkene Mauer, Berlin Invalidenpark.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Elisabeth, Ranis.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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St. Elisabeth (Ranis).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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Löberplatz Juliusruh (Rügen).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.
|
FP Promotion[edit]
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:140626 Tierser Alpl Rosszähne.jpg, which was nominated by Christian Ferrer at Commons:Featured picture candidates/ has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
-- Christian Ferrer 17:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150726 Schiersteiner Brücke.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.
|
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Katholische Kirche St. Elisabeth (Ranis).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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Invalidenbrunnen Berlin Invalidenpark.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 150530 St. Margarethen (Ranis).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.
|
HDR-Panoramas[edit]
Hi Code, ich habe auf Diliffs Talkpage gesehen, dass du mit Kirchenpanoramas anfangen möchtest. Vor dem Hintergrund, dass ich das ziemlich lange mit den von dir beschriebenen Hilfsmitteln gemacht habe, anbei mein Workflow, vielleicht hilfreich für den Anfang und auf Deutsch etwas einfacher zu beschreiben:
- Fürs Fotografieren: 3 Zeilen x 5 Spalten x 5 Brackets à 2EV. Bei 50mm sind 15-20°-Schritte seitlich und 30°-Schritte vertikal ideal, bei 35mm 25° und 30°.
- Alle 75 Bilder in LR laden und nach Helligkeit farbsortieren (also Tasten 6-9 für rot, grün, etc.) damit sind also alle 0EV-Bilder rot, alle +2EV-Bilder grün usw.
- Fünf LR-Exportpresets entwickeln, mit denen du die Bilder nach Helligkeit sortiert in fünf Ordner exportieren kannst, mit jeweils identischen Dateinamen für das gleiche Segment. Also hast du dann z.B. Datei XXX_1.jpg (wobei XXX der Lightroomtitel der Bilder ist, der für alle Bilder der Serie identisch sein sollte, während die Zahl die im Exportpreset vordefinierte Seriennummer ist) in den verschiedenen Helligkeiten im Ordner "Superhell", "Hell", "Normal", "Dunkel", "Superdunkel", das Gleiche für die 14 anderen Bilder (also XXX_2.jpg, XXX_3.jpg usw.) Siehe hier und hier für die Namengebung der Dateien.
- Dann wählst die Dateien im Ordner der mittleren Helligkeitsstufe und richtest diese in Hugin so aus, dass sie deinem Geschmack nach passen. Die Quellbilder, die Hugin-Projektdatei (XXX.pto) und das Ergebnis sollten dabei alle im gleichen Ordner (also z.B. "Normal") sein.
- Weil Hugin in diesem Fall mit relativen Bezügen arbeitet, kannst du die beim Stichen entstandene .pto-Datei dann manuell in die anderen Ordner kopieren und nacheinander einfach öffnen und direkt auf Panorama erstellen gehen. Damit hast du in jedem der Ordner ein von der Helligkeit abgesehen identisches Panorama.
- Die fünf Dateien kannst du dann im HDR-Programm deiner Wahl nach deinem Geschmack bearbeiten.
Ich hoffe, dass das halbwegs verständlich ist. Wenn nicht, beantworte ich gerne Fragen ;-) Dieser Ansatz zieht sich insgesamt zwar ein bisschen, ist aber mit etwas Erfahrung recht idiotensicher und verursacht quasi keine Fehler (vorausgesetzt dein Panokopf ist stabil usw.). --DXR (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo, DXR! Vielen Dank für Deine wunderbare und verständliche Anleitung, das hilft mir weiter. Ich hatte zunächst darüber nachgedacht, die einzelnen Segmente des Panoramas zuerst jeweils als HDR zusammenzufügen und erst hinterher zu stitchen. Wenn man bei HDR und Tonemapping immer die gleichen Einstellungen nimmt, sollte das eigentlich kein Problem sein, oder? Dann nimmt man einfach die fertigen Lightroom-DNGs und fügt die zum Panorama zusammen. Müsste doch auch gehen, oder?
Noch eine andere Frage, die vielleicht etwas blöd wirken mag, aber wie macht man das eigentlich mit der Perspektivkorrektur? Ich stelle mir vor, dass das Ergebnis nach dem stitchen ja erstmal genauso stürzende Linien haben dürfte, wie eine weitwinkelige Einzelaufnahme, oder? Ich nehme an, das korrigiert man dann erst am Schluss anhand des fertigen Bildes?
Am meisten Sorgen mache ich mir ansonsten eigentlich über den Fokus, ich glaube, mit meinem 50mm 1.8-Objektiv könnte das zum Problem werden, manuell so zu fokussieren, dass wirklich alles ausreichend scharf ist. Und ansonsten mache ich mir natürlich Sorgen darüber, ob das Fotografieren in Kircheninnenräumen immer so opportun ist und man die Kirche lange genug leer für sich hat. Wie sind da Deine Erfahrungen? Besten Dank und viele Grüße! --Code (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)- Sorry for butting in (and in English!), I thought I could answer some of your questions... Firstly, as I said in the discussion on my talk page, if you first process the bracketed images each section into a HDR DNG file, you will have the problem of different tone mapping settings being applied for each section, because the tone mapping result depends a lot on what is in the scene. A dark area will not be processed in the same way as a bright area, so you could have issues with the stitching. It's better to do what DXR has suggested, which is to create 'blend planes' (that's what they're called in PTGui which can do it automatically, but Hugin needs more manual steps which DXR described) which are complete panoramas stitched with each exposure level. Then the entire panorama can be processed together and you won't have blending problems. For the perspective correction, that is 100% done during the stitching phase in Hugin (or maybe some minor adjustments in Photoshop afterwards). For the focusing with the 50mm f/1.8 lens, it may be a good idea to get Magic Lantern for your 6D. It has some really useful Live View features like telling you the DoF range based on your current aperture. Modern lenses have focus distance information in them (I'm sure your 50mm does too) and Magic Lantern uses the focal length, aperture and focus distance to tell you what distance range is in focus. For example, if you are using a 50mm lens at f/13 and focused on a point 8 metres away, you will have DoF from 3.5 metres to infinity. The lens focus distance isn't perfectly accurate but it is good enough to give you a good idea. Finally, to answer your question about churches being empty long enough, it really depends a lot on which church, but from my experience, it is usually possible to capture the church without anyone in it if you are patient, because most people don't stay in one place for long and you can capture different sections of the church so when one part is empty, you shoot it. Sometimes people sit down on the left side. So you shoot everything else except the left side and then you wait for them to move. ;-) And when they finally move, you complete the panorama by shooting that part. From my experience, it works at least 90% of the time. Sometimes people really just won't move even after half an hour. That's when I give up and accept that they must be in the scene. ;-) But usually these people are very still so they don't cause too much blurring from the long exposures and bracketing. The bigger problem is when people are walking around and cause ghosting. Anyway, hope this information helps. DXR's advice is also excellent and probably easier to understand because you both speak the same native language. Diliff (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice, Diliff. I think I understand and I will follow DXR's instructions. The focus technique is clear to me in theory, but I'm very nervous whether I will get this managed practically. It's not that easy to focus on 8 meters if you don't carry a measuring tape or something similar with you ;-) However, I think I will just have to give it a try and learn it step by step. Probably I'll bother both of you with lots of questions in the next weeks ;-) --Code (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Haha this is turning into quite some billingual mess, but of course I am mainly repeating what I have read on Diliff's talk page with some personal Hugin adaption (fun fact, I got PTGui today after having had it with Photomatix messing up highlights in several perfectly fine panoramas). Regarding the focus point, you can try to estimate the optimal distance by picking a bench or column that is approximately 6-8m away (measured by good old steps :D). --DXR (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for confusing things. :-) I had the same bad experience with Photomatix and Lightroom's HDR merge. They are both terrible in my opinion. PTGui does a better job at preserving tonality and colour when it creates the 32 bit HDR file. A while ago on FPC, I provided some screenshots of a panorama that I had created but I can't remember which nomination it was now (It was in a discussion with Benh). In one version of the image, I used PTGui to create the 32 bit TIFF file. In the other version, I created blend planes in PTGui and then used Lightroom HDR merge to create the 32 bit DNG file. I then processed both of them in Lightroom normally. The 32 bit DNG file looked awful compared to the 32 bit TIFF from PTGui, with very flat contrast and bad tonality. I don't know exactly why it was so bad, but it was. And the ghost removal in Lightroom HDR merge is also completely useless IMO. I thought Photomatix's ghost removal was quite bad before, but Lightroom is even worse. I was very disappointed with it honestly, because I didn't think that Adobe would release such a bad tool. Anyway, after testing many different workflows, I still think that the best workflow is this:
- Import RAW files to Lightroom -> Set the same white balance to all images and export to 16 bit TIFF files -> PTGui -> Stitch panorama and merge to 32 bit TIFF file -> Lightroom -> Tone map using shadow and highlight sliders (and exposure, contrast, etc etc).
- That's the workflow I use and I think it's the best method currently available. If you don't have PTGui, then Hugin can (with some work) create the blend planes but then you are forced to use Lightroom or Photomatix to merge them into an HDR file, and I think both Lightroom and Photomatix are inferior for this. Maybe you wouldn't notice any problems if you didn't compare them directly, but as I said, I've compared them and I was not very impressed with Lightroom or Photomatix's ability to preserve the tonality of the image. Anyway, about the focus... Yes, as you say, it is easy to just guess 8 metres by taking 8 one metre sized steps. Or if you aren't confident in being able to guess 8 metres, then guess 10-15 metres instead and if you are wrong, you probably won't guess less than 8 metres so it won't be a major problem. It is better to have a slightly blurred foreground than a blurred background. I once misfocussed a panorama and the background was just a little bit out of focus but it really ruined the image completely. Blurry chairs isn't as important. Using the hyperfocal distance isn't the absolute most important thing for the panorama. It just helps to maximise how much of the foreground can be in focus. Diliff (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- A small point about the workflow (which perhaps doesn't matter with Diliff's excellent Sigma Art lens) but you should also apply the lens profile on import and tick the "remove CA" box all prior to export. Removing distortion at this stage will help Hugin/PtGui and best to get rid of any purple fringing before you stretch the image with perspective corrections. I find that on Hugin, it is useful if your first frame is taken looking straight ahead with the camera level and you then set this as your "anchor point for position" (right-click on the file list in Hugin). You can also set vertical control points within a frame, which can help give Hugin a clue about how to orient the panorama, but avoid using horizontal control points. This may not be necessary. If you do add vertical points, try to find a fairly long stretch of vertical and be absolutely sure that the line really is vertical (many things are in fact tapered or bulging in reality). -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes good point, I don't need to apply the lens profile on my Sigma Art lenses but I'd definitely recommend applying them to all images. I've actually created a preset for lens profile and chromatic aberration correction and set up Lightroom's default import settings to use that preset, so all images I import are automatically given lens corrections. Definitely worth doing for all imports to Lightroom regardless of whether they will be used for panoramas or not. Diliff (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- A small point about the workflow (which perhaps doesn't matter with Diliff's excellent Sigma Art lens) but you should also apply the lens profile on import and tick the "remove CA" box all prior to export. Removing distortion at this stage will help Hugin/PtGui and best to get rid of any purple fringing before you stretch the image with perspective corrections. I find that on Hugin, it is useful if your first frame is taken looking straight ahead with the camera level and you then set this as your "anchor point for position" (right-click on the file list in Hugin). You can also set vertical control points within a frame, which can help give Hugin a clue about how to orient the panorama, but avoid using horizontal control points. This may not be necessary. If you do add vertical points, try to find a fairly long stretch of vertical and be absolutely sure that the line really is vertical (many things are in fact tapered or bulging in reality). -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I completely agree, even though I think that PS HDR << Photomatix < PTGui. With some experience, most (perhaps 80%) Photomatix images can be adjusted to look reasonable (lots of yellow + orange removal, less vibrance), while PS HDR often just looks absurdly strange, especially in reddish tones. PTGui is just very expensive (for people who are not power users like you), especially compared to Hugin + a student license of Photomatix, so few people will be willing to jump there before having decent experience shooting such panoramas (a bit paradoxical, because at this stage, you will probably be able to cope with Hugin's oddities fairly well and the relative gain by switching mainly lies in aforementioned HDR tones). --DXR (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's true, the main problem with Photomatix is the way it oversaturates the yellows and orange. It seems to do this both during the HDR merge and during the tone mapping. It's strange that there are so many different results from HDR merging. I would have thought all the different programs would result in the same HDR file, but I guess not. Anyway, you make a good point. PTGui Pro is not cheap, and the free alternative (Hugin) is not much worse. I wouldn't recommend buying PTGui unless you are really serious about stitching. It is definitely better though. Much faster and easier to use. Diliff (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for confusing things. :-) I had the same bad experience with Photomatix and Lightroom's HDR merge. They are both terrible in my opinion. PTGui does a better job at preserving tonality and colour when it creates the 32 bit HDR file. A while ago on FPC, I provided some screenshots of a panorama that I had created but I can't remember which nomination it was now (It was in a discussion with Benh). In one version of the image, I used PTGui to create the 32 bit TIFF file. In the other version, I created blend planes in PTGui and then used Lightroom HDR merge to create the 32 bit DNG file. I then processed both of them in Lightroom normally. The 32 bit DNG file looked awful compared to the 32 bit TIFF from PTGui, with very flat contrast and bad tonality. I don't know exactly why it was so bad, but it was. And the ghost removal in Lightroom HDR merge is also completely useless IMO. I thought Photomatix's ghost removal was quite bad before, but Lightroom is even worse. I was very disappointed with it honestly, because I didn't think that Adobe would release such a bad tool. Anyway, after testing many different workflows, I still think that the best workflow is this:
- Haha this is turning into quite some billingual mess, but of course I am mainly repeating what I have read on Diliff's talk page with some personal Hugin adaption (fun fact, I got PTGui today after having had it with Photomatix messing up highlights in several perfectly fine panoramas). Regarding the focus point, you can try to estimate the optimal distance by picking a bench or column that is approximately 6-8m away (measured by good old steps :D). --DXR (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice, Diliff. I think I understand and I will follow DXR's instructions. The focus technique is clear to me in theory, but I'm very nervous whether I will get this managed practically. It's not that easy to focus on 8 meters if you don't carry a measuring tape or something similar with you ;-) However, I think I will just have to give it a try and learn it step by step. Probably I'll bother both of you with lots of questions in the next weeks ;-) --Code (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- (EC, nach Diliffs Antwort geschrieben, daher mit etwas inhaltlicher Überlappung ;-) ) Freut mich, dass es dir weiterhilft!
- Ich glaube, dass erst HDR, dann stichen keine besonders gute Idee ist, da zumindest in meiner Erfahrung HDR-Programme nicht wirklich nach einer klaren Logik arbeiten, sodass z.B. ein Bild mit viel hellem Glas anders bearbeitet wird, als eines einer finsteren Kirchenbank. Das gilt besonders für Photomatix, aber zumindest das HDR von PS CS6 ist eher schlechter als besser als Photomatix. Ich habe keine Erfahrung mit dem HDR von LR6, wäre aber überrascht, wenn das plötzlich viel besser wäre. Ich würde generell nicht die Photoshop-Panoramafunktionen empfehlen, hier ist Hugin zwar anfänglich komplizierter, aber viel präziser. Ich weiß nicht, wie viel Erfahrung du mit Hugin hast, aber dort kannst du recht einfach vertikale Linien definieren, sodass zumindest der größte Teil der Perspektivkorrektur automatisch erledigt werden kann. Das ist z.B. hier beschrieben.
- Die Frage der Tiefenschärfe ist in der Tat eine nicht so einfache. Ich habe bislang fast immer ein 35mm verwendet. Damit ist es recht einfach, bei f/11 alles Relevante im Fokus zu haben (z.B hier), gleichzeitig erreicht man so aber nicht die extremen Details, die Diliff mit seinem 50mm schafft. Ich habe am Wochenende mal einen Versuch mit meinem 50mm 1.8 gemacht und glaube, dass das Resultat technisch recht gut gelungen ist. Generell gilt: Mehr Brennweite, desto mehr Detail, aber auch weniger Tiefenschärfe (was man bis zu einem gewissen Maße mit f/13+ ausgleichen kann) und weniger Toleranz für einen schlechten Fokuspunkt. In großen Kathedralen gehen lange Brennweiten eher als in engen Kapellen.
- Bezüglich der "weichen" Faktoren: Ich muss zugeben, dass das eine etwas schwierige Sache ist. Die Tatsache, dass Kirchen sowohl Archtekturdenkmäler und Glaubensorte sind, bedeutet natürlich, dass man sich etwas an den Ort anpassen muss und sich bedeckt verhalten sollte (nicht immer so einfach bei der Lautstärke des D800-Auslösers...). Ich versuche generell zu eher untypischen Zeiten in Kirchen zu gehen. Ich würde in Stadtteilkirchen u.Ä. eigentlich eher wenig Probleme erwarten, da diese meist ziemlich leer sind. Kathedralen und andere touristisch relevantere Kirchen sind schwieriger. Manche dauerhaft mit Personal besetzte Kirchen erwarten für das Fotografieren einen gewissen Betrag (ist aber eher selten). Mittlergroße Menschenmengen sind eigentlich kein Problem, da ja jeweils nur dein Teilbild leer sein muss. Hier ist etwas Geduld gefragt, aber meistens lässt es sich einrichten, dass man am Ende ein gutes Ergebnis bekommt. --DXR (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- @DXR: Eine Frage noch: Du sagtest 3 Zeilen, 30° vertikal versetzt. Bedeutet das eine Zeile genau horizontal und dann zwei Reihen darüber (30° und 60°), oder soll die horizontal ausgerichtete Reihe in der Mitte sein und dann jeweils einmal 30° drüber und drunter? Ansonsten bin ich jetzt theoretisch vorbereitet, denke ich. Jetzt brauche ich nur noch die Gelegenheit... --Code (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in (and in English!), I thought I could answer some of your questions... Firstly, as I said in the discussion on my talk page, if you first process the bracketed images each section into a HDR DNG file, you will have the problem of different tone mapping settings being applied for each section, because the tone mapping result depends a lot on what is in the scene. A dark area will not be processed in the same way as a bright area, so you could have issues with the stitching. It's better to do what DXR has suggested, which is to create 'blend planes' (that's what they're called in PTGui which can do it automatically, but Hugin needs more manual steps which DXR described) which are complete panoramas stitched with each exposure level. Then the entire panorama can be processed together and you won't have blending problems. For the perspective correction, that is 100% done during the stitching phase in Hugin (or maybe some minor adjustments in Photoshop afterwards). For the focusing with the 50mm f/1.8 lens, it may be a good idea to get Magic Lantern for your 6D. It has some really useful Live View features like telling you the DoF range based on your current aperture. Modern lenses have focus distance information in them (I'm sure your 50mm does too) and Magic Lantern uses the focal length, aperture and focus distance to tell you what distance range is in focus. For example, if you are using a 50mm lens at f/13 and focused on a point 8 metres away, you will have DoF from 3.5 metres to infinity. The lens focus distance isn't perfectly accurate but it is good enough to give you a good idea. Finally, to answer your question about churches being empty long enough, it really depends a lot on which church, but from my experience, it is usually possible to capture the church without anyone in it if you are patient, because most people don't stay in one place for long and you can capture different sections of the church so when one part is empty, you shoot it. Sometimes people sit down on the left side. So you shoot everything else except the left side and then you wait for them to move. ;-) And when they finally move, you complete the panorama by shooting that part. From my experience, it works at least 90% of the time. Sometimes people really just won't move even after half an hour. That's when I give up and accept that they must be in the scene. ;-) But usually these people are very still so they don't cause too much blurring from the long exposures and bracketing. The bigger problem is when people are walking around and cause ghosting. Anyway, hope this information helps. DXR's advice is also excellent and probably easier to understand because you both speak the same native language. Diliff (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ich mache normalerweise 0,+30, -30. Es hält dich zwar niemand davon ab, 0, 30, 60 zu machen (und Hugin wird es auch problemlos berechnen), aber dann bekommst du so hyperweitwinkelige Ergebnisse, die kaum noch realistisch aussehen. Eventuell ist auch +15, +45, -15 sinnvoll (zum Beispiel bei hohen Bogen u.Ä.), das ist aber praktisch etwas schwieriger umzusetzen, weil dir dann das neutrale "0, 0" Bild fehlt (Alternative mit mehr Aufwand ist 0, 30, 45, -30). Das Bild, und wie ich glaube fast alle Bilder von Diliff sind auch nach der 0, 30, -30-Formel entstanden, die recht realistische Weitwinkelergebnisse bringt. Das Ergebnis entspricht dabei ungefähr einem 12mm-Objektiv, generell sehen viele Bilder komisch aus, wenn man über 105° Blickwinkel in beide Richtungen hinaus geht. Ich würde es an deiner Stelle einfach mal ausprobieren (vielleicht absichtlich mit mehr Bildern als eigentlich notwendig), sodass du ein Probeset mit Bildern zum rumspielen hast. Dabei natürlich nicht vergessen, die Kamera so zu montieren, dass du keine Parallaxen bekommst. --DXR (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- @DXR: @Diliff: @Colin: Here we go: My first HDR/Panorama of a church interior. I'll be happy about your comments. All in all it was not as difficult as I expected it to be. The main problem was the postprocessing: First I followed DXR's instructions to create five differently exposed panoramas. To do the HDR I tried Luminance HDR which was a mess. It looked terrible. Then I tried Photoshop which looked even worse. Then I wanted to do the HDR with Lightroom but Lightroom didn't work properly because Hugin deleted the Exif information from the stitched pictures. So I added aperture and exposure time manually with Exiftool and then finally I could do the HDR with Lightroom. This worked very good in the end. I don't know how it could happen that the woman got on the picutre - when I started to take the pictures the church was completely empty and maybe I was so nervous that I didn't notice how she came and sat down. A pity. I'm not sure whether I should upload it on Commons this way. Maybe I'll have to come back and take this picture again without people (the sexton asked for five euros to take a picture, not the cheapest photo I've ever taken). Anyways - any hints for what I could do better next time? Update: FYI, I set the focus on the pulpit at the left. I also uploaded a retouched version without the woman. --Code (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Looks great. I don't see any problems with the HDR processing or any stitching faults. My only complaint (or preference) is that I think you should have used rectilinear projection rather than cylindrical (or whatever Hugin calls that projection) because the curved horizontal lines are a bit annoying and unnecessary. The horizontal angle of view doesn't look too large so I think you could have used rectilinear without a problem. As for the woman in the photo, you might be able to mask her out if she only appeared in one of two overlapping sections? I can't help you with instructions, but I know Hugin has a masking feature just as PTGui does. Essentially, you tell it to include or exclude part of the image from the final panorama, so if the woman is there in one segment but not in the other, you can remove her without having to 'photoshop' it. You can also use it if one of the segments has an ugly lens flare or something. Because lens flares depend on the angle of the lens to the light source, you can usually remove them because they don't exist in the neighbouring section (or have shifted to a different location at least). This only works if you have enough overlap between segments though. And five euro for the photo!! That is a bit overpriced. It's an interesting church but to pay such money to take a photo is a bit unfair. Even the grandest cathedrals in the UK charge not much more than that. It might not make any difference, but sometimes I've been able to get free entry or special access to a church if I've explained that I'm taking the photos for Wikipedia as a volunteer. The offer for them to use your photo is often enough to convince them too. ;-) Diliff (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Code, your photo looks great. I agree that you should try rectilinear. Sometimes when you flip to that projection on Hugin, it looks really weird as it may attempt to fit the (very distorted) edges of your set of frames into the view. Take a note of the current hfov and vfov settings and then change to rectilinear and try to apply them. I'm puzzled that hugin should have lost the EXIF data since it uses exiftool as a step at the end to re-apply the data -- all my non-hdr panos have EXIF data. I don't mind the woman at all and prefer keeping her than photoshoping her out. I haven't really used the masking in Hugin. If I have a scene with lots of people, I get Hugin to save the individual distorted planes (what it sends to smartblend) as well as the final image, and then use Photoshop layers to hand-blend people in or out of the image. -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: @Diliff: Thank you very much for your hints. I tried a different (rectilinear) projection. I think this is better even if the church looks larger this way than it really is. I know the WB is a little bit too warm, I've chosen it intentionally. With a cooler WB the church looks really nasty. I noticed that the left side looks a little bit hazy. I don't really know where this comes from. Maybe I should have used a lens hood - or what else could have caused this strange effect? However, I think I will upload the picture during WLM 2015. Maybe I can clone out the woman somehow until then. Masking doesn't help - she's visible on every segment. Thank you very much again - your pictures are a great inspiration and motivation! --Code (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, any wide angle view makes an interior space look larger than it really is because our brains are not used to processing a rectilinear view that wide. It's not really so different to a telephoto or macro lens making an object look closer/larger than it really is. The difference is, telephoto/macro photography is quite common, whereas super wide angle rectilinear photos are quite rare (few non-fisheye lenses are capable of such a field of view). As for the rectilinear view, I notice that it has a stitching error that wasn't there in the cylindrical version. Also, I don't like the aspect ratio as much in that version as it contains more ceiling. In my experience (and personal taste), a square aspect ratio or slightly landscape aspect ratio is more pleasant for church interiors, although it really depends on what is in the scene. I don't really see a haziness on the left side. It's nothing to worry about anyway.
- I've got a photo that I took recently in Ireland and I was tempted to save it for WLM too but I just noticed that Ireland's list of monuments is actually very small and seems to be mostly archaeologically significant buildings (sometimes ruins and needing protection but not historically significant recent buildings), not what other countries consider a monument. the building I photographed (this one isn't mine though, mine is nicer than that!) is one of the most famous historical buildings in Dublin and was built 1710, and yet isn't considered a national monument. The Wikipedia article for Ireland's monuments suggests that in 2010 there were less than 1000 monuments in total, whereas the UK has around 450,000! Oh well. Diliff (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Now that you say it I found at least three stitching errors in the new version. Strange. I think I'll have to play around a little bit with Hugin this evening (and with different crops as well). Concerning the monuments I think Germany is more like the UK (although WWII destroyed so much especially in Berlin). However, still a lot work to do for a photographer. I have an appointment with another church tomorrow. Hope it will work as good as with this one. ---Code (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible you didn't get the nodal point exactly right (the adjustments on the Nodal Ninja head), but it could also be a problem with the control points in Hugin. Ireland has a lot of interesting 'monuments', the problem is just that they aren't officially listed by the national organisation, so they can't be included in WLM. Anyway, the photo I took is here. I actually think it's one of the best interiors that I've ever taken and hopefully would do well on FPC (maybe even POTY but churches don't seem to get as much interest so I'm not sure about libraries!). Diliff (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good picture, Diliff, but only 5 views and 1 fave. What is up with Flickr? I suggest you crop just above the top of the nearest bookcase/pillar (about 650px from top?). The aspect ratio is then better, the top arch fills the frame better and the dark part of the wood forms a leading diagonal from the corners. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I only uploaded it an hour ago. ;-) Give it time (actually it's 22 views and 6 faves now). But yeah, the total views and faves on Flickr seems completely dependent on how many followers you have, rather than how good your images are. I've never put any effort into friend-making on Flickr so I usually see inferior photos with much more faves than mine. Doesn't bother me really. I'm not much of a self-promoter. Diliff (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh and you're probably right about the framing. It doesn't benefit from the extra height in this case as the upper books are obscured by the railings anyway, I'll crop it. Diliff (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I only uploaded it an hour ago. ;-) Give it time (actually it's 22 views and 6 faves now). But yeah, the total views and faves on Flickr seems completely dependent on how many followers you have, rather than how good your images are. I've never put any effort into friend-making on Flickr so I usually see inferior photos with much more faves than mine. Doesn't bother me really. I'm not much of a self-promoter. Diliff (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Diliff: @Colin: @DXR: Sorry for bothering you once more, but: The more I tried different projections with Hugin, the more stitching errors occured. Probably I really didn't get the nodal point right. Do you have a hint how to set it as exactly as possible? Am I right that I can add the entrance pupil length of my lens and the distance between the middle of the tripod mount and the lens base of my camera to get the nodal point exactly? According to this the entrance pupil length of my 50mm f/1.8 is about 23mm. I measured my camera (6D) and found out that the distance between the middle of the tripod mount and the lens base are 40mm, so probably it would be correct to set the upper rail of the NN3 to 63mm, right? Or am I doing something completely wrong? btw when I did the photo the upper rail was set to 70mm which doesn't seem to be so far from 63mm but maybe I underestimate the importance of exact measurement here. --Code (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry for being a bit quiet, I'm currently on a rather non-photographic vacation ;-). I have a feeling that npp errors of more than 5mm can result in minor stitching errors, becoming worse with the size of error (so 7mm is not nothing). If possible, I would certainly try to find the point as closely as possible and would guess that the results in the table are pretty accurate. --DXR (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I tried using measurements that had been found by others but they didn't work for me. Not sure why. So I just found the NPP for my lenses manually. The difference between NPP of my Sigma 35mm and 50mm is 6mm from my measurements, and sometimes I forget to adjust my panoramic head when I switch from 50mm to 35mm, and I've never had any real problems with that. But when I switch to my Samyang 14mm ultrawide rectilinear (which has the same NPP as my Sigma 35mm and therefore the same difference from my 50mm) to do a 360x180, I've had more significant stitching problems when doing a 360x180. I don't completely understand why, because although it's much wider, the effect of parallax should be the same (the 14mm needs a much bigger rotation and therefore has more parallax between shots, but also at 14mm, the number of misaligned pixels is also much smaller, so they cancel each other out). My guess is that when I'm doing 360x180, the software can try to correct parallax by adjusting everything a bit and hiding the error, but eventually it needs to stitch back around on itself and the error has nowhere left to 'hide'. Just my guess anyway. I can't understand how it would be affected by different projections though. Have you tried using Smartblend with Hugin? I'm guessing it would do a better job of hiding the parallax than Hugin's native blender (it's often better than PTGui too, but much slower so I only use it when I need to). Actually, it's funny to compare the stitching results between PTGui's native blender and Smartblend. They both produce similar overall results but very noticeable differences in the blend lines. You can sometimes see where either blender has manipulated the scene slightly, by making a pillar a bit thinner, or something like that. You don't notice it in the final image, but when you flip back and forth between, you see these little adjustments that the blender has made to hide tiny parallax errors. Diliff (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Today I did another church interior with the new settings and I'm going to stitch it tonight. We will see if the result will be better. I'll give you an update. --Code (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I tried using measurements that had been found by others but they didn't work for me. Not sure why. So I just found the NPP for my lenses manually. The difference between NPP of my Sigma 35mm and 50mm is 6mm from my measurements, and sometimes I forget to adjust my panoramic head when I switch from 50mm to 35mm, and I've never had any real problems with that. But when I switch to my Samyang 14mm ultrawide rectilinear (which has the same NPP as my Sigma 35mm and therefore the same difference from my 50mm) to do a 360x180, I've had more significant stitching problems when doing a 360x180. I don't completely understand why, because although it's much wider, the effect of parallax should be the same (the 14mm needs a much bigger rotation and therefore has more parallax between shots, but also at 14mm, the number of misaligned pixels is also much smaller, so they cancel each other out). My guess is that when I'm doing 360x180, the software can try to correct parallax by adjusting everything a bit and hiding the error, but eventually it needs to stitch back around on itself and the error has nowhere left to 'hide'. Just my guess anyway. I can't understand how it would be affected by different projections though. Have you tried using Smartblend with Hugin? I'm guessing it would do a better job of hiding the parallax than Hugin's native blender (it's often better than PTGui too, but much slower so I only use it when I need to). Actually, it's funny to compare the stitching results between PTGui's native blender and Smartblend. They both produce similar overall results but very noticeable differences in the blend lines. You can sometimes see where either blender has manipulated the scene slightly, by making a pillar a bit thinner, or something like that. You don't notice it in the final image, but when you flip back and forth between, you see these little adjustments that the blender has made to hide tiny parallax errors. Diliff (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry for being a bit quiet, I'm currently on a rather non-photographic vacation ;-). I have a feeling that npp errors of more than 5mm can result in minor stitching errors, becoming worse with the size of error (so 7mm is not nothing). If possible, I would certainly try to find the point as closely as possible and would guess that the results in the table are pretty accurate. --DXR (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good picture, Diliff, but only 5 views and 1 fave. What is up with Flickr? I suggest you crop just above the top of the nearest bookcase/pillar (about 650px from top?). The aspect ratio is then better, the top arch fills the frame better and the dark part of the wood forms a leading diagonal from the corners. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's possible you didn't get the nodal point exactly right (the adjustments on the Nodal Ninja head), but it could also be a problem with the control points in Hugin. Ireland has a lot of interesting 'monuments', the problem is just that they aren't officially listed by the national organisation, so they can't be included in WLM. Anyway, the photo I took is here. I actually think it's one of the best interiors that I've ever taken and hopefully would do well on FPC (maybe even POTY but churches don't seem to get as much interest so I'm not sure about libraries!). Diliff (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Now that you say it I found at least three stitching errors in the new version. Strange. I think I'll have to play around a little bit with Hugin this evening (and with different crops as well). Concerning the monuments I think Germany is more like the UK (although WWII destroyed so much especially in Berlin). However, still a lot work to do for a photographer. I have an appointment with another church tomorrow. Hope it will work as good as with this one. ---Code (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: @Diliff: Thank you very much for your hints. I tried a different (rectilinear) projection. I think this is better even if the church looks larger this way than it really is. I know the WB is a little bit too warm, I've chosen it intentionally. With a cooler WB the church looks really nasty. I noticed that the left side looks a little bit hazy. I don't really know where this comes from. Maybe I should have used a lens hood - or what else could have caused this strange effect? However, I think I will upload the picture during WLM 2015. Maybe I can clone out the woman somehow until then. Masking doesn't help - she's visible on every segment. Thank you very much again - your pictures are a great inspiration and motivation! --Code (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Code, your photo looks great. I agree that you should try rectilinear. Sometimes when you flip to that projection on Hugin, it looks really weird as it may attempt to fit the (very distorted) edges of your set of frames into the view. Take a note of the current hfov and vfov settings and then change to rectilinear and try to apply them. I'm puzzled that hugin should have lost the EXIF data since it uses exiftool as a step at the end to re-apply the data -- all my non-hdr panos have EXIF data. I don't mind the woman at all and prefer keeping her than photoshoping her out. I haven't really used the masking in Hugin. If I have a scene with lots of people, I get Hugin to save the individual distorted planes (what it sends to smartblend) as well as the final image, and then use Photoshop layers to hand-blend people in or out of the image. -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Diliff: @Colin: @DXR: Ok guys, second attempt. I didn't find any stitching errors so it seems that the 63mm-setting on the upper rail of the NN3 was good. The only thing that bothers me here is that the crop seems to be too tight at the top. I hope I can give it another try today. However, another candidate for WLM 2015. Any further critique? --Code (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent. The wires that the lights are suspended from are good plumb lines that should be vertical and also highlight any parallax errors. At the top of the two nearest ones, there are what looks like some stitching errors. If you can't correct that, you may be able to fix it in Photoshop. I doubt very much that any WLM judge would spot that. Those two lines also aren't completely vertical (the others are, though). They may be candidates for you applying some vertical control points to see if that helps (perhaps also add to the distant wires too, to ensure they remain vertical). Sometimes, though, I've found adding these points makes Hugin struggle to find a compromise and you end up emphasising other issues and errors, though on one occasion I recall, the points helped improve overall matching. When you run the alignment algorithm, it is worth examining the control point table and sorting by distance -- any large distances are a sign that perhaps those control points weren't really matches (Hugin got confused by repeating pattern, or something moved, etc). I may then remove those bad points, reset the generated positions and try again. However, one has to draw a line over the wires to find the problem, so I'm sure most won't notice. I would trim the right a tiny amount so the red line goes to the corner like the other side. When I place a crop guide over the whole image, to get a centre line, I see that I'd have to crop a little more than that off the right so that the centre of the church is the centre of the image (at least, wrt to the far wall) but this makes the difference between the left and right pillars more pronounced. Either the church isn't perfectly symmetrical or you weren't quite in the centre (Diliff will be the expert on that). I think it worth making that small trim to get the diagonals right. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with most of what Colin said. If there are stitching errors in the image and you feel that you've got the NNP right, it's worth looking at the control point table and eliminating the largest distance ones. PTGui (and I think Hugin even more so) takes a huge number of control points and you don't need all of them. You probably don't even need half of them, so it's really not a big deal to sort by distance and delete the worst ones. And yes I also agree that if you end up with differences in the symmetry between the left and right sides, it's either because your camera wasn't centred in the building, or the building itself is not symmetrical. It's not always easy to do, because the central aisle of the nave isn't always in the true centre of the church. You won't always notice at the time (but sometimes it's very obvious), but it will have an effect on the symmetry. Even if you do notice, you can't do much about it. If you ignore the aisle and using the centre of the church, the scene may actually look worse because the symmetry of the most obvious foreground objects (the seating) will be asymmetrical. Other than that, I think you've nailed it. Good detail and sharpness. What lens did you use and how many exposures / segments? Diliff (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both. I will try to eliminate some control points and see what result I get. The problem is that stitching of each bracketed exposure takes more than one hour with my six year old computer. To stitch all the five different exposures I had to let it run the whole night. This makes experiments very uncomfortable. The HDR takes another hour with LR6. However: Stitched and tonemapped from 75 images. Each segment is comprised of 5 bracketed images using the following camera settings: ISO 200, 50mm, f/13 and 1/20s, 1/5s, 0.8s, 3.2s, 13s. I used my EOS 6D and the 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Concerning the symmetry: I did my very best. I will try to fix this with PS this evening. --Code (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, that is a really long time... PTGui is much faster than Hugin though. A 8000x6000ish panorama with 5 bracketed images takes about 2-3 minutes for me to stitch and create a 32 bit TIFF file (although more like 10 minutes if I use Smartblend). And Lightroom takes about 60 seconds to process the HDR output for the final JPG. Are you outputting the full resolution (I'm guessing it's something like 20000x15000 at full resolution) from Hugin? If so, that might explain why it's taking so long... Although there are benefits to outputting the highest resolution file from Hugin, if it takes so long, it would probably be better to reduce the resolution to speed up the processing. If you're already ouputing the final resolution from Hugin, there isn't much you can do except upgrade to PTGui or upgrade your computer. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Code, to be honest, I'm nit picking. Given that much effort already, I'd say just try a little crop and be done with it. I'm sure there are other images that would merit your time rather than trying (and possibly failing) to improve on this. One of the speed factors is likely using 16-bit tiff rather than JPG that Diliff uses. I find SmartBlend is the slowest part and I think that's because when you use Smartblend, I need to output very large tiffs rather than cropped tiffs as intermediate files. Each tiff has a large amount of transparent area, with the warped image making up just a fraction of it. I think that the built-in blender can be given offsets, so each tiff only needs to be as large as the warped image frame. It's a long time since I experimented again with this, so perhaps things have changed (though I think Smartblend seems pretty dead as a project, which is worrying). The latest beta Hugin has new blending algorithm that it says handles parallax but also says it uses a hard line rather than blended line, so I'm not sure how good that is. I don't have much time to play on the computer at the moment as I'm going on holiday tomorrow. -- Colin (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's no significant speed difference between JPG and TIFF in my workflow. The difference is mainly file size and therefore storage. I tend to keep all my component files from a panorama (and I have hundreds if not thousands of them) in case I want to make a minor adjustment and don't want to set the whole thing up from scratch again, so I don't want to keep 10-20gb per panorama sitting on my hard drive. I'm pretty sure the main factor in processing panoramas is RAM (I've got 32gb) and hard drive speed (I've got two SSDs in RAID 0 configuration for about 500mb/sec read-write. The next step is a PCI-e SSD drive, which can improve drive speeds up to 2gb/sec!). Some of my larger panoramas use all 32gb of RAM while processing and then it starts to use the swap file, where the SSD becomes useful in minimising the bottleneck. CPU is a factor but my quad core i7 is usually not actually maxed out on all cores either by PTGui or Lightroom, so I don't think either software is particularly efficient in multi-threading. Apparently Lightroom hardly benefits from more than 4 cores, and completely fails to improve its processing speed after 6 cores. Smartblend is dead as a project because it was apparently bought out by Kolor who implemented it into Autopano and apparently improved its efficiency. I just can't stand Autopano's interface and I'm not convinced it's as good in other aspects so I'll stick with PTGui for now. Where are you off to Colin? Rainy Scotland again? ;-) Then again I'm just back from a week in Ireland and it was 17 and raining almost every day! Scotland is positively Mediterranean in comparison. Diliff (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Code, to be honest, I'm nit picking. Given that much effort already, I'd say just try a little crop and be done with it. I'm sure there are other images that would merit your time rather than trying (and possibly failing) to improve on this. One of the speed factors is likely using 16-bit tiff rather than JPG that Diliff uses. I find SmartBlend is the slowest part and I think that's because when you use Smartblend, I need to output very large tiffs rather than cropped tiffs as intermediate files. Each tiff has a large amount of transparent area, with the warped image making up just a fraction of it. I think that the built-in blender can be given offsets, so each tiff only needs to be as large as the warped image frame. It's a long time since I experimented again with this, so perhaps things have changed (though I think Smartblend seems pretty dead as a project, which is worrying). The latest beta Hugin has new blending algorithm that it says handles parallax but also says it uses a hard line rather than blended line, so I'm not sure how good that is. I don't have much time to play on the computer at the moment as I'm going on holiday tomorrow. -- Colin (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, that is a really long time... PTGui is much faster than Hugin though. A 8000x6000ish panorama with 5 bracketed images takes about 2-3 minutes for me to stitch and create a 32 bit TIFF file (although more like 10 minutes if I use Smartblend). And Lightroom takes about 60 seconds to process the HDR output for the final JPG. Are you outputting the full resolution (I'm guessing it's something like 20000x15000 at full resolution) from Hugin? If so, that might explain why it's taking so long... Although there are benefits to outputting the highest resolution file from Hugin, if it takes so long, it would probably be better to reduce the resolution to speed up the processing. If you're already ouputing the final resolution from Hugin, there isn't much you can do except upgrade to PTGui or upgrade your computer. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both. I will try to eliminate some control points and see what result I get. The problem is that stitching of each bracketed exposure takes more than one hour with my six year old computer. To stitch all the five different exposures I had to let it run the whole night. This makes experiments very uncomfortable. The HDR takes another hour with LR6. However: Stitched and tonemapped from 75 images. Each segment is comprised of 5 bracketed images using the following camera settings: ISO 200, 50mm, f/13 and 1/20s, 1/5s, 0.8s, 3.2s, 13s. I used my EOS 6D and the 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Concerning the symmetry: I did my very best. I will try to fix this with PS this evening. --Code (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)