User talk:Digon3/Archive1

Luzern old part of town.jpg

Thanks for the comment about my picture. I´ve just nominate it. We´ll see what the others will say about it. Simonizer 14:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes you can nominate it at wikipedia too. Thanks Simonizer 00:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Desert pictures

I've been looking at the desert pictures you have put in Commons:Quality images candidates. They all seem "washed out" as if affected by some veil or mist. Did your try to reinforce the colours in order to obtain that ocher tone you have in your FP? -- Regards, Alvesgaspar 08:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I dont quite understand what you mean. Are you saying the colours look dull and that I should increase saturation or are you asking if I have already done so? The only editing I had done so far on those pictures was adjust the brightness. --Digon3 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think you should try to increase saturation, specially in the two last photos (the more interesting). The other have other problems and, for that reason, I've just made a negative review. Sorry... -- Regards, Alvesgaspar 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• You have to download the large version in order to see the changes [1][2]. Why do the changes not appear on the image description page? --Digon3 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any difference between theses images and those in the page Commons:Quality images candidates. You will have to give different names to the new ones and reflect the changes into the page above. Alvesgaspar 21:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, now the edited photos are uploaded as new files. Tell me if I need to increase of decrease saturation.--Digon3 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is better now but I think you were a little too shy... The colours we perceive when looking at a landscape depends, not only on the objects themselves, but also on the distance and transparency of the air. And the ilusion of depth is given, not only by geometric perspective, but also by those graduations of saturation which are caused by variable distances (see my picture Image:Sentinels.jpg). Regarding the second picture (Church_Rock_Utah) I think you should try bringing a bit more of colour to the object in first plan. Alvesgaspar 08:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• I dont know how to only increase saturation in the object in first plan, only how to increase all of the picture. As for the wilson arch picture, do you want me to increase saturation even more? --Digon3 17:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know either... But I think the edit process will have more effect in the first plan. As for the Wilson Arc pic, I don't like the composition. Because it is taken from below the horizon is not visible and has little depth. -- Alvesgaspar 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco sunset

I like the contrast between the warm (rose) and cold (blue, gray) tonalities of your picture. But, once again, I think you should reinforce that contrast by increasing slightly the colour saturation. -- Alvesgaspar 16:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on your San Francisco panorama, assuming you just used your standard photo editor. If you had been using some dedicated program, then apologies, but the wavy shoreline suggests otherwise to me. You do link to panorama software, so maybe I have been preaching to the converted. Back to the wavy shore...maybe some lense parameters went wrong then..?--Klaus with K 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have also uploaded the individual post hugin pre enblend photos so you can modify the fringes before blending.

1. Image:SanFrancisco panoramahelp30000.jpg
2. Image:SanFrancisco panoramahelp30001.jpg
3. Image:SanFrancisco panoramahelp40000.jpg
4. Image:SanFrancisco panoramahelp40001.jpg

Vignetting can be funny and non-symmetric, one usually finds out with photos of little overlap. Use a gradient (towards the corner) as mask and adjust brightness, repeat if necessary. Good luck, it worked for me on a similar little-overlap picture set.--Klaus with K 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I got some really funny distortions touching the a and c parameters in hugin.

• Thanks again for correcting the problem. I have three questions. What is vignette correction and how did you introduce 3 vertical lines in hugin? Also, how do I feed the individual post hugin pre enblend photos into enblend with[out] going through hugin? --Digon3 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Vignetting is the image getting darker towards the corners, in hugin (I'm using 0.6) on the Camera and Lense tab you find "Vignetting: edit parameters" bottom left. What I use with my old digital is "Division, Polynomial, 1, 0, -0.2, 0". This corrects all four corners the same (independent of your parameter choice), but with my camera I found that left and right corners are different. Hence my photoshopping recommendation for a little-overlap image pair.
  • Vertical (and horizontal) control lines - in Control Points you load the same photo into both windows. Put points on a vertical feature, one point per window.
  • So you want to run enblend standalone. Call it from the command-line, there also exists "Enblend Front End" to get you round this. After getting the bottom right corner of the left photo brigher, you want to turn the photos into TIFFs, enblend does not read JPEG.

Hope that helps.--Klaus with K 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tried it myself with hugin sprinkling control points generously onto the high-rise building and introducing 3 vertical lines. I am using rectangular projection and allowing Barrel parameter for left stitch and "Everything" to optimise for the right stitch. Maybe the wavy impression would have been there with cylindrical projection?

The wavy line is probably more a directional misalignment at the seam than a projection thing. Usually I use one lense setting only which means barrel or "everything" applying to all photos. More comments already on my talk page.--Klaus with K 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

POTD

If you want to propose that from X date, all POTD must be FPs or QIs, then make an announcement and take a poll on COM:VP or commons talk:Picture of the day or similar. You can't just unilaterally decide this.

I think you will get enough support that it will pass, but there is something nice about a totally open process that anyone can put anything they want there at any time. So see how it goes. But it is not something for just you or me to decide. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that, I am just looking for suggestions to make the proposal better. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to unilaterally decide policy. Also, I have no idea how to start "propose that from X date, all POTD must be FPs or QIs, then make an announcement and take a poll on COM:VP or commons talk:Picture of the day or similar." What did I say that made you think I was deciding this by myself? I would like to change it if it gave you that impression. --Digon3 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)--[[

Your wording on my talk page made it sound like it was already policy to only have FPs. Sorry, I didn't realise you were trying to propose this rather than just enforce it already. ;) I will make a poll. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for starting the poll.--Digon3 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• To vote, the poll is here.

Nautical barnstar

I've noticed you are looking for a nautical decoration for using in Wikipedia. I just downloaded the following symbols which might serve that purpose: Image:Astrolabe.png and Image:Sextant.png. - Alvesgaspar 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

POTD

When were the rules changed? A POTD did not used to have to be a Featured Picture Gordo 07:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks for alerting mne to a future change in the rules!!! Gordo 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Quality Image

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! San Francisco at Sunset.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church Rock Utah 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. Comments {{{3}}}

Congratulations! -- Alvesgaspar 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grand Canyon South Rim at Sunrise.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wilson Arch 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. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! December Fog 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grand Canyon South Rim at Sunrise 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

-—JeremyA 00:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Delicate Arch in Arches NP 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. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Delicate Arch in Arches National Park 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Jnpet 18:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--Jnpet 10:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon Hoodoos at eye level.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--Jnpet 01:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon Hoodoos 4 perspective.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--Ikiwaner 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bodensee panorama

Thank you for your comment on my picture. It's a pity I can't retake this picture, but I will have a look into future photographs I make, to see if I can make a HDR of it. Bryan 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no original one :) I only have the four source pictures which I manually stiched together, and applied some luminosity filters. The problem probably is that the original pictures suck. I can send you them however, if you like, or the stiched version without any filters applied. Bryan 16:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bodensee_panorama_1.JPG Image:Bodensee_panorama_2.JPG Image:Bodensee_panorama_3.JPG Image:Bodensee_panorama_4.JPG. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Told ye the originals were sucky :) About this HDR one, I don't know. The overexposure is certainly less, but I am missing some contrast now. The problem is I can't retake the pictures since the Bodensee is some 1200 km away. Anyway, thanks for the try :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture submissions

Thank you for you welcome as well as your suggestion to put the pictures up for "quality image" candidate. To be honest, I am a bit confused as to the various categories one can nominate pictures. For example, I thought a quality image had to have first been a featured picture candidate, which apparently is not the case. Not sure what the difference is. On top of that, the picture of the day is another category all together and I assume that is the cream of the crop? Do you know if there is a page explaining the difference and what the valuation of the different picture categories are? Cheers! Jnpet 05:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Delisting

I don't think there is any special procedure for proposing a delisting. All you have to do (if I'm not wrong) is to join a thumbnail of the picture, and your comments, to the section "Delisting" using exactly the same format as in the normal Commons:Featured picture candidates nominations. Don't forget to put a title so the entry may appear in the list of contents. (but I'm just a newbie, why ask me?...) Regards, Alvesgaspar 08:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rio de Janeiro Skyline.PNG

No se puede ser .PNG? Em .JPG la resolución no és buena... João Felipe C.S 19:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re Image:Sunset.jpg

I reverted this upload because it was overwriting an existing picture anyway. Feel free to mark any images you see bundled with Windows, as speedy delete cases. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

QI discussion

There is an important discussion going on here which might result in a snowball with unwanted results. Although I agree that the actual QI guidelines should be tuned up, I can't support a considerable degrading of the existing criteria, towards some "poor man's QI" model. - Alvesgaspar 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image Image:December Fog 01.jpg

The fog picture you nominated is beautiful but I think it lacks some contrast. What do you think of this version ? - Alvesgaspar 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 11:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 21:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Toledo Skyline Panorama, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Toledo Skyline Panorama, Spain - Dec 2006.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Panorama

hi there, thanks for your message. I guess my panorama really sucked, eh?-) I'll try to find the source pics again, do you think it better in future just to upload the individual pieces and then request a panorama? I just don't have the proper tools or knowledge for it. Thanks for helping, I really appreciate it. Gryffindor 10:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

you are going to laugh. just a simple Paint programme found on Windows. Gryffindor 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It was very tedious work, I basically selected the image and just dragged it to the next one and tried to somehow make it fit. If you feel uncomfortable giving out your email in public, just click on my site on "E-mail this user" and I should get it. I'll try to find the images again, I have some other ones as well from my trip to Penang, I hope you don't mind waiting if I can't find them right away? Gryffindor 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Palace of Westminster, London - Feb 2007.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Glarus_Panorama.jpg

I agree with you that this is not an excellent image. There was quite heavy mist compromising the view. But why do you call it overexposed? Do you know how to read a histogram? Im not shure what to think about your comment yet. --Ikiwaner 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm relieved it's a misunderstanding. It doesn't hurt me when people don't enjoy my pictures but it's heavy to be accused of bad exposure. You might raise your awareness of exposure with those two excellent articles: understanding histograms and expose to the right. Have a nice weekend and enjoy photography! --Ikiwaner 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Hoodoos Panorama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Version merging

Hi Digon3. As I wrote on the QIC page, I think that there is no use of keeping 3 versions of one picture. Therefore I suggest you to merge versions and to tag unused edits for deletion afterwards. See e.g. how Ikiwaner did and this diskussion to avoid making similar (small) mistakes. Thank you. --Leyo 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

comment on image

Hello Digon3,

I had Image:Antwerpen Stadhuis persp1 2006-05-28.jpg on the Commons:Photography critiques page (see User talk:Klaus with K#Stadhuis Antwerpen for lost entry there), I see that you do comment on the Commons:Featured picture candidates page. Do you think this photo might be Featured picture-grade (or more on the level of quality image?).--Klaus with K 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FPC/Humanitarian aid

If you want to take another look, I found a larger version and removed some of the noise. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos 4 edit.jpg & Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos 4.jpg

Hi - you recently tagged these two images as {{Badname}}s, but the tags don't quite make sense - the first one points to itself as the correct name; the second points to the first as the correct name, despite the first also being tagged for deletion. Could you double-check and clarify the requests, so we don't mistakenly delete the wrong thing. Thanks --Davepape 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Digon3Credit

Hey, would you mind if I moved this template to your user space as that's really where it should be? Also, could you subst it when you use it (and give me permission to run my bot to subst all current instances of it)? Thanks, Yonatan ^talk 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

QICbot for consensual review?

Have you got any comments about my proposal for QI consensual review revamp[1] to assist QICbot use for Consensual Review decisions. --Tony Wills 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Landwasser

Just if you are interested, I uploaded three more pics of that bridge-tunnel combo taken further to the left: User:Dschwen/Picture Gallery. --Dschwen 18:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Castillo de San Marcos

On the right side there is a guy in cap pointing to the right, above him there are some ghosty blobs, the wall looks soft, and there is a slight discontinuity (a step up, from left to right). However my initial vote was promote. Compared to the tons of crap on commons it is a fairly decent picture, and we shouldn't loose perspective :-). --Dschwen 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of {{Badname}}

{{Badname}} should only be used when both images are identical and the image you placed the template on was uploaded by you. If the image is identical but not uploaded by you use {{Duplicate}} instead. Also please bare in mind that if an image is in a different file format (for example svg and png) they can never be identical. Thank you. Lcarsdata 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Rename image. Lcarsdata 20:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:MSM sunset 02.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:MSM sunset 02.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Reinel compass rose.svg

• Why did you change Image:Reinel compass rose.svg from this? It looked much better the way it was before. --Digon3 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You really should start archiving --15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the image because it looked horrible in here. The problem is the rendering system of Wikipedia, not the image itself. If we open it with Inkscape it will come out perfect. I've identified the problem (the system doesn't deal correctly with objects with holes...) and have been trying to fix it, with little success. You are right, I need to do some archiving work... Regards, Alvesgaspar 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Hoodoos Panorama.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bryce Canyon Amphitheater Hoodoos Panorama.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 07:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eta Carinae Nebula 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mist - Ensay region2.jpg

• What did you use for stitching for this panorama? --Digon3 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Digon, I always manually stitch my panoramas in Adobe Photoshop CS2. --Benjamint444 07:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice photos

Hi, I would like to know if these two photos were shot after an ice storm or during freezing fog or mist:

• Image:Ice Encased Bush in Winter.jpg
• Image:Ice Encased Trees and Bushes in Winter.jpg

Regards,

Carnby 12:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)