User talk:W.carter/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cherry blossom buds 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Danish flag in Nørre Vorupør.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! Wood anemones and tree shadows in Gullmarsskogen 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birch forest Gullmarsskogen 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! Birch forest Gullmarsskogen 7.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! A small gully in Gullmarsskogen 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sunlit top of a bare tree in Gullmarsskogen.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! Tinder fungus on a birch in Gullmarsskogen.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! Birch forest Gullmarsskogen 4.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! Birch forest Gullmarsskogen 12.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wood anemones and tree shadows in Gullmarsskogen 4.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! Reflection of a tree in koi pond.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! Stile in Gullmarsskogen 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Cherry blossom buds 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cherry blossom buds 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tinder fungus on pine.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! Small stream at Gullmarsvik 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! Tufts of grass at the edge of mudflats.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Fisherman at Gullmarsvik mudflats.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! Wetland grass at the edge of Gullmarsvik mudflats 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lugworm casts at Gullmarsvik 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lugworm casts on Gullmarsviken mudflats 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! Lugworm casts on Gullmarsviken mudflats 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
-1 blade
Ahoy. Thanks for the comments at QIC. Per one thing you mentioned re: the pitcher plant, there is now another version (relevant only if I correctly interpreted what you meant :) ). Could still use a bit of cleanup, but it seems passable. Of course, that doesn't mean it's necessarily FP material -- this is honestly another one you've surprised me with by mentioning FPC. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 01:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I love it when people understand very subtle hints and do something about it. :) I've tweaked the light just ever so little to make it more balanced. Let's see what the rest of the gang thinks, but I think the lines in this photo are irresistible. --cart-Talk 10:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't really make a lot of sense to have the QI and the [prospective] FP be different files. I uploaded a new version since I wasn't sure my photoshopping was good enough and didn't want to mess with what was about to be tagged as a QI. Would it be disruptive to upload the new version over the old one, tag the one currently at FP for deletion as a duplicate, and redirect to the first? Is there a better way? — Rhododendrites talk | 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: The best thing is actually to keep everything as it is now, anything else would be disruptive. This will not be the first, or the last, photo where the QI is on one file and the FP on another. Tweaks happens all the time at and around FPC and it is better to keep the different assessments clear and apart. For example, I had this as a QI, but it only made FP after a crop nominated as an alt version so the FP is on the second version. This happens each time an alt version of a QI gets more votes than the original, so more common than you think. I'm glad people seem to react the same way to your photo as I did, it is very good. --cart-Talk 22:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
FP Promotion
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Lugworm casts on Gullmarsviken mudflats 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lugworm casts on Gullmarsviken mudflats 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ooh this is good. A nice "what IS that??" image. Speaking of which, I came across this the other day: razor clam. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
My comment below that picture on QI
Hello my comment below the picture "Befestigungsanlage im Bereich des Hungerturmes (Schloss Schrattenthal)" from 11 May 17 wasn't primarly intended by me to answer your decline since I wasn't the nominator and my signature didn't resolve. I wanted to give the nominator some tips on how to achive better quality (I've noticed too that he was stop too far down, had diffraction blur because of it and had in my mind that he needed a wider aperture). Since I saw at other pictures of him that his English level is not advanced enough I commented in German in the hope he might see it but I only summoned you.
Sorry for the inconvenience. --Steinfeld-feld (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Steinfeld-feld: Ah! That explains it! Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was odd that the nominator would make such a comment himself, but we see stranger things around here. ;) Yes, that user doesn't speak English and since not many German-speaking editors seems interested in reviewing his photos, I tried to make a little drive for them. Unfortunately, I can read German but writing it requires Google translate, but then again bad German is better than no review at all. All the best, --cart-Talk 21:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
double comment at qic
Just a heads up that it looks like you have two opposing comments in the review for File:View on Rodelle 05.jpg at QIC. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 23:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! I forgot to strike the first vote when I changed to 'oppose'. Glad you saw it. --cart-Talk 23:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Jetty at Gullmarsvik on a rainy day.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! Trunk and top of a bare tree in Gullmarsskogen.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! Small stream at Gullmarsvik 4.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
FP Promotion
b.jpg) |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Sarracenia leucophylla at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81396)b.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarracenia leucophylla at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (81396)b.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Outhouse at Holma boat club.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! Blackcurrant leaves and a tree trunk.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Windblown snow
Hi, cart!
I'd like to nominate one of your photos of windblown snow to FPC, but I'm having trouble deciding between File:Windblown snow on a wall.jpg, which has the virtue of mystery (as in, what is it stuck on?), and File:Snow sticking on corrugated wall.jpg, a really wide picture with a long line. Do you consider either featurable, and if so, do have a preference between the two?
Best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Ikan, thanks for considering my photos, that is kind of you. Back when I took the pictures, I thought they might have some FP quality and I definitely think the "mystery" one is the best. However, looking at them now the novelty of them has faded and I'm not sure they really are good enough. The light is rather dull, not bringing out the best in the shapes. Do as you like but I will abstain from voting on them. Cheers, --cart-Talk 08:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. If you wouldn't vote for them, I think it's best for me not to nominate them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Kindness Barnstar
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| Cart, you have been very kind and helpful in showing how the QI process works and in helping me learn to take better pictures. I know I still have a lot to learn about photos. I do truly appreciate all your help. PumpkinSky talk 16:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) |
- Awwww...
Thank You! Always happy to share what little knowledge I have about photos. Looking forward to you next photos and will have a look-see how it's going. --cart-Talk 16:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank YOU. I'll let you know after I do more reading and practice on focus modes. PumpkinSky talk 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ladder stile in Gullmarsskogen.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! Tinder fungus on a log 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! Hollow pine log at Holma.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! Granite cliff with common houseleek and pink jelly bean plant.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Corner of observation deck at Nørre Vorupør.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! Gullmarsskogen nature reserve.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Ostrich ferns and wood sorrel.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! Rain on grass at Holma 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! Red hiking sign in Gullmarsskogen.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Granite cliff with pink jelly bean plant and common houseleek.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Granite cliff with pink jelly bean plant and common houseleek.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Blackthorn bushes at Holma 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Twig with blackthorn flowers 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Promotion of QI pictures from WLE Brasil
Hello w.carter, I'm promoting some pictures received during WLE Brasil 2017. Some of the pictures were upload in medium sizes following the minimum recomendations from our contest. I guess we will need to improve the recomendations in compatibility with QI image rules to avoid future issues. Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Rodrigo Padula, yes, that would be best. Right now it caused a bit of a mess at QIC. Could you please ask the photograper of these excellent but downsized photos to upload new versions over the old ones. All the best, --cart-Talk 12:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- I did it, the photographer will upload the new versions asap. I guess we will need some support to improve the photo contests rules with the QI policy to have better compatibility between both. Can you help me with general recommendations? Rodrigo Padula (talk)
- Hi Rodrigo Padula, there are actually several pages with recommendations for how the photos should be. First there is of course the things written on the QIC page itself, see: QIC - section "Guidelines". Then there is Commons:Image guidelines with more specific examples of what to do and what not to do for a QIC or FPC. Finally, we are working on a page explaining all the things we usually complain about when reviewing: Commons:Photography terms. Just reading that page can help you understand and be prepared for all the things you can encounter here in the reviews. It's not quite finished yet, but there is enough info and links to start with. --cart-Talk 20:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- I did it, the photographer will upload the new versions asap. I guess we will need some support to improve the photo contests rules with the QI policy to have better compatibility between both. Can you help me with general recommendations? Rodrigo Padula (talk)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Young beech in spruce forest.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! Cliffs by a misty road in Holma.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! Wood sorrel and haircap moss.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! Wood sorrel after rain.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Request
I've posted two new photos of tree bark at QIC in the May 28 section. I'd appreciate your honest reviews as I see your reviews are both accurate, fair, and provide useful feedback. I wouldn't normally ask immediately after posting but I have one from before that still needs a review. It's also of tree bark and is the fifth from the top left of the May 25 section. If you don't have the time, that's okay too. PumpkinSky talk 13:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky: If soemone doesn't beat me too it, I'll take a look at it later. :) Right now I have quite a backlog of my own photos that I'm in the process of uploading. Thought I'd get that done today. --cart-Talk 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- By all means, do your own photos first. PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- One of the biggest problems with DSLR cameras, if not THE biggest, is learning how to properly use all the features and how to set them properly.PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- By all means, do your own photos first. PumpkinSky talk 13:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Dynamic ranging vs subtle toning
My only excuse for abusing dynamic ranging was that I was too lazy to go back and adjust it. I went ahead and uploaded it with my eyes closed because I wanted to use it for a bit of humorous diversion on en.wikipedia, but should've known better than to nominate it. My apologies to those who had to work extra as a result. Ok, so I've toned it down, but this new replacement monitor tends to lie every now and again, so would you be so kind as to give it another look-see before I nominate it for FP? It's File:Arches_Fingers_IMG_0058_3.jpg and I thank you in advance. Atsme 📞 19:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Hi! No problem, fixing things is what some of us do here. :) The light, noise reduction and all looks fine no, there is just a bit of that pesky, hard-to-get-rid-of red CA (
chromatic aberration) left before it's ok. Take a look at the lower left corner and you will see a bright red "shadow" following the contours of the light-colored cliff as well as some other places. It is visible at a rather normal screen size but it is easiest to spot if you look at the photo at 100%. Will vote for it at soon as that is fixed. :) --cart-Talk 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, that did it...I'm getting cataract surgery!! No, wait...I already did!! Now the problem is dry-eye.
One more check, and I'll leave you alone. Pretty sure I got it all. Atsme 📞 21:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Good to go!
Remember to put the /2 after the file name when you renominate it, just like it says right over the "Creat new nomination" box. Good luck! --cart-Talk 21:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Good to go!
- Ok, that did it...I'm getting cataract surgery!! No, wait...I already did!! Now the problem is dry-eye.
.jpg){kind=link}
b.jpg){kind=link}
On this photo, why did you use a f/5 setting or was it on automatic mode? I really like the photo but I'm surprised a f/5 resulted in that much DOF. PumpkinSky talk 11:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky: The photo was taken with aperture priority/"mode" and I chose f/5 to get just the whole tip of the closest branch in focus and the rest of the background unfocused. That way a few catkins got "isolated" from the rest of the pic. DoF can be explained sort of like this: If you tie a rubber band between the scene you are shooting and the camera. Then you mark the DoF you get with two markings on the rubber band. If you then move the camera away from the object, the rubber band will stretch and the distance between the markings will get larger. DoF has become larger/deeper.
- I shot this photo about 2 meters away from the bush so with f/5 at that distance, I had a DoF of about 20-30 cm. That covered the thing I wanted in focus rather nicely. If I had moved the camera to less than a meter from the twig, I would probably had got a DoF of just 5 cm and only got one of the catkins sharp. All this business with f/X and DoF are very flexible and depends on how far from your scene you are and how much DoF you want.
- When I did the sorrels I was so close to the plants that even with f/8 I had to do three shots and mix them or I would only have got about 1/3 of it sharp. I could have backed away and got it all acceptably sharp, but that would not have been as knife-sharp as you get when you are close and have a very small DoF.
- On this page there is a DoF calculator where you can see how much DoF you get with different f/X and distance from the scene. Enter your settings and you will get rather accurate information about how much will be sharp.
- It is very good that you look at other photos and examine what settings they are made with! :) --cart-Talk 12:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Others have told me the same basic info, and I've read that too, but that's the best explanation yet! I think a similar thing happened with the tree ring photos I just shot, the ring part of the branch seems to leap out of the photo and has a sort of 3D effect. PumpkinSky talk 12:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky: At first the DoF-f/x-distance is very confusing and you need to try different apertures at different distances from the thing you are shooting. After a while though it will be like when you are driving your car, you get a "feeling" for when to start braking at different speeds and how hard to step on the brake. :) --cart-Talk 12:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Others have told me the same basic info, and I've read that too, but that's the best explanation yet! I think a similar thing happened with the tree ring photos I just shot, the ring part of the branch seems to leap out of the photo and has a sort of 3D effect. PumpkinSky talk 12:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Altostratus with stratocumulus under 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Assortment of rusty pipes 4.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! Broken red and black roof tiles 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! A tuft of lakeshore bulrush.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Broken black roof tiles 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Broken red roof tiles 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tufts of grass and lakeshore bulrush.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! Salix caprea in Gåseberg.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! Fenced in wires.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! Assortment of rusty pipes 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Clouds
This photo is a pale semblance of what was an amazing sight and lends credence to the story of the three children of Fatima. And exactly 100 years later. I wonder what the weather was like at the time. There was a halo round the sun ten minutes later.I will upload that photo shortly.Keep your eyes on the sky Notafly (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Robert, this is looking very promising. I look forward to the other uploads. As you know, I spend quite a lot of time looking up for interesting clouds. :) Did you see this one? Like I told Ikan, I think that some music would look like this if it was photographed. --cart-Talk 19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The promised halo
see the Vision of the sun Fatima event.
Altostratus with stratocumulus.Wonder what the previous weather was like. Bet it was odd.Pity Karl Heinz Stockhausen (music see Wikipedia) is dead.Met him once and found him to be fascinated by phenonema. Surely we could have worked on this one.Notafly (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Notafly: Very nice halo, thanks for showing me. :) I think this should go into the Category:Halo phenomena, sub-category to the one you used ('Atmospheric optical phenomena of Earth'). I've never seen such a full day halo, only partial halos or full night halos around the moon. The latter are quite common in winter here with all the ice crystals up in the atmosphere.
- The weather before I took 'my' cloud photo was sunny and nice. Rather suddenly clouds began to form as the often do here along the coastline. Stockhausen seems like an interesting composer, I'll search for some of his work online later. --cart-Talk 19:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Sorry, but I'm confused about the dates. Lady of Fatima was 13 May 1917. 100 years later was about 2.5 weeks ago. On the date line of both photos it says "15 December 2013" and the exif data says that date. Sorry I'm all confused but could you clarify when these were taken? Were they taken May 1917, Dec 2013, or May 2017? Congrats on the very interesting photos! PumpkinSky talk 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The photos were taken on 13 May 2017. The camera clock is faulty and cannot be reset.Have changed the text. Glad you liked the pics Notafly (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Honored and humbled
I'm honored and humbled that you thought one of my photos was worthy of being at FPC. I thank you deeply for nominating it. PumpkinSky talk 11:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Scrap metal band with spikes.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! Diamond powder paste.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
FP Promotion
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Wood sorrel after rain.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wood sorrel after rain.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Assortment of rusty pipes 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bent part of a heat exchanger in a cracking tower.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! Rain on grass at Holma 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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Wood sorrel and haircap moss after rain.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Licensing
I saw the Flickr link on your user page and clicked on it and noticed the photos are on wiki too, mostly. Then I noticed that when on Flickr they are Public Domain but on Commons they are Creative Commons. PumpkinSky talk 14:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky: Oh dear, does that mean I have messed things up?
I'm very bad a what the different licences mean so I thought Public Domain and Creative Commons were sort of interchangeable. On Commons I use the default license you get with Upload Wizard. I got the Flickr account fairly recently and since I want my photos to be as free as possible I just grabbed the Public Domain. I have no clue what to do now. I can't change all the licenses I have here for every Commons file, perhaps later I can start cleaning up by converting the photos I have on both Flickr and Commons to Public Domain. What licence should I use then? - Can't do anything right now though, it looks like it's going to be another long day at work. --cart-Talk 14:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't panic. I have a fair knowledge of licensing. PD and CC are not the same. Public Domain lets anyone do anything they want with your photo and don't have to credit you any such thing. Creative Commons means they can use it for what they want but have to attribute it to you (the person who released it under CC) and if they share it use the same or similar license. I'm not certain, so I'm going to ask on a Commons board, but I think once you release a photo under PD that you can't revoke that PD status (but if you did who would really notice?). I'm also fairly certain if you release under CC, you can change it to PD. Since you're busier than me, if you want to change stuff I can do it for you, but first let me verify a few things. PumpkinSky talk 15:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky: I have no problem with converting those photos I have under PD on Flickr to PD here on Commons too. It's very nice of you to offer to help, but unless you have some admin program to do so it's quite a chore and no-one else should have to clean up my mess. In the future I think I'll stick with the CC license on both sites since it is the default license here. On Flickr, I just have to check another box. Thanks for letting me know. --cart-Talk 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind helping you at all. PumpkinSky talk 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like the Upload Wizard. First I go to a similar photo I uploaded, copy and the text, cats, code, etc in it, then go to Special:Upload and paste all that in, change what's needed to change, and then link to the new photo and then upload it. PumpkinSky talk 15:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind helping you at all. PumpkinSky talk 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- @PumpkinSky: I have no problem with converting those photos I have under PD on Flickr to PD here on Commons too. It's very nice of you to offer to help, but unless you have some admin program to do so it's quite a chore and no-one else should have to clean up my mess. In the future I think I'll stick with the CC license on both sites since it is the default license here. On Flickr, I just have to check another box. Thanks for letting me know. --cart-Talk 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't panic. I have a fair knowledge of licensing. PD and CC are not the same. Public Domain lets anyone do anything they want with your photo and don't have to credit you any such thing. Creative Commons means they can use it for what they want but have to attribute it to you (the person who released it under CC) and if they share it use the same or similar license. I'm not certain, so I'm going to ask on a Commons board, but I think once you release a photo under PD that you can't revoke that PD status (but if you did who would really notice?). I'm also fairly certain if you release under CC, you can change it to PD. Since you're busier than me, if you want to change stuff I can do it for you, but first let me verify a few things. PumpkinSky talk 15:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Creative Commons is a remedy to complex and varied copyright laws that are sort of black and white and err on the side of owners. It basically sits on top of whatever other copyrights apply, allowing for flexibility and ease of sharing in a way that gives those using the work relatively firm legal ground for that use. The elements of copyright it allows owners to retain are requiring attribution (BY), requiring that derivative work carry a license that's no more strict than yours (SA), disallowing commercial work (NC), and not allowing derivatives (ND). Commons doesn't allow NC or ND, but does allow BY and SA. That's why the default is CC BY-SA. Even if you want to donate your work to the public domain, IMO the best way is still through Creative Commons (CC0), because it's a standard way of making/documenting that declaration (and using a standard definition). I don't know what Flickr's policies are, but if it were the other way around, with CC0 on Commons and CC BY-SA on Flickr, it a message to OTRS might be in order to clarify that you are the owner of the Flickr account and you are issuing another license. I've seen licenses change on Flickr, however, even though they're supposed to be irrevocable, but here it can only get more lenient. Changing all of your files to CC0 here is a pretty easy task with AWB -- I can do that for you without much hassle -- but like PumpkinSky already explained, you do give up all rights to be credited, etc. if that's the case. Anyway. Don't mean to butt in here -- CC is just something I talk about a lot with students/instructors. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. Glad for the input. I've linked to my admin noticeboard link: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_licensing_questions. Can you post a short answer to the questions there? PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Rhod, thanks for your input and explanation. I don't worry too much about licenses, I just want them to be consistent if possible. No need to convert all my files to PD, I'll just change those here on Commons that are on Flickr too so they match up. There aren't that many of them so I can do it myself, a small batch at a time.
- From previous experiences way back when, I know that once you've posted a picture online, it is lost too you no matter what copyright or license you put on it. What I do here on Commons is only a hobby, a way to relax, a very small part of my life and an alternative to knitting sweaters for my friends and family. So people are more than welcome to use what photos I upload here in whatever way they wish. I don't care that much. If I don't want to lose it, I won't upload it.
- In the future though, like I said, I will upload the photos under the "CC BY-SA" just because it's more convenient. --cart-Talk 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
OK Rhod, I was about to upload some new photos on Flickr, but they only have a few pre-packed licenses and none of the seems to correspond with the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} used here on Commons. So which one should I use to get things right from now on? These are the ones that I can click on:
- Public Domain Work
- I believe this leads to "CC Mark" on Flickr, which is not acceptable on Commons.
- I believe this leads to "CC Mark" on Flickr, which is not acceptable on Commons.
- Public Domain Dedication (CC0)
- CC0
OK
- CC0
- Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons
- CC BY-NC-SA
- CC BY-NC-SA
- Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons
- CC BY-NC
- CC BY-NC
- Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons
- CC BY-NC-ND
- CC BY-NC-ND
- Attribution Creative Commons
- CC BY OK
- CC BY
- Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons
- CC BY-SA OK
- CC BY-SA
- Attribution-NoDerivs Creative Commons
- CC BY-ND
- CC BY-ND
Frustrating. Happy for some advice. This is giving me a headache and a bad stomach. --cart-Talk 21:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Even lawyers think copyright law is confusing. Cart, see Commons:Flickr_files for a chart on commons compatibility with Flickr licensing. PumpkinSky talk 21:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons = CC BY-SA (attribution=BY, sharealike=SA). Took the liberty of adding the shorthand of each one in the list above. "4.0" is the version of the license (the specifics of the legalese). It doesn't really affect things for the purposes of what you're doing. Newer versions are more "user friendly," take more international nuance into consideration, etc. but ultimately it's less important and I wouldn't recommend thinking about the version too much. If Flickr doesn't specify a version, I would presume it's the most recent. If one is 3.0 and one is 4.0, I don't think anybody on Commons is going to care. If you're feeling masochistic, you could take a look at the differences here. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oops. Didn't see PumpkinSky's reply, which sort of makes my reply redundant. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to explain Rhod but that list didn't bring me much hope either since according to it the PD I'm currently using on Flickr and have started to add to photos here that I also have on Flickr doesn't seem to work. (****) It seems like the only way now is to change all the Flickr photos to CC0 (that I can easily do) and then rely on one of you guys to change all my photos so far here to CC0 as well. Not sure how that's going to work since I've been helping other users with their photos for some time now and also uploaded stuff derived from other photographers' photos and so on. I don't want to do this all over again just to make things match. But after that is seems I won't be able to use the default license here if I upload the photo on Flickr. <sigh!> I'm this close to just walk away from the whole thing... --cart-Talk 22:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I didn't check to see which you had been using on Flickr. So, to quote a relevant template: "Unlike CC0 or the other Creative Commons licenses, the Public Domain Mark is not a legal instrument; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement. Instead, the Public Domain Mark is a tool that allows anyone to mark a work that they believe to be free of known copyright restrictions. However, it does not say why the image is in public domain and this part has to be added by the user."
- Basically, people use that if they think it's in the public domain. On Flickr, that's good enough. On Commons, we need more information -- why do you think it's in the public domain? There's a burden on the uploader to clarify as such, because pd mark could mean it's very old, could mean the author says it was ok, could mean the uploader's totally guessing, etc.
- Another reason it's problematic, as opposed to CC0, is because the concept of "public domain" has different definitions in different parts of the world, and what "counts" as declaring something as (or releasing something into) public domain likewise varies. If you want to harmonize the licenses by changing the Commons end of things, you don't have to use CC0, but you'd want to make sure the files are tagged with [probably] {{PD-self}}.
- It sounds like what would work would be to change the flickr side from pd mark to cc0, and then to change the files here to match? — Rhododendrites talk | 22:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your patience Rhod. I really made a mess of it, but I think I've found the perfect solution that would save us all a lot of trouble: Just let everything be as it is at the moment here on Commons ( a mix of
{{PD-self}}and{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}) and erase all my photos on my Flickr account. I mean, that account is just a frilly toy and it has been nothing but a pain in the lower part of the body since I started using it. Commons is where my heart is and that is all that matters. If I feel like it I can look at how other Commons photographers have sorted the license bit for Flickr if I feel like uploading something new there later. - Later I can also change those
{{PD-self}}to{{Cc-zero}}at a leisurely pace to get all things sorted here.--cart-Talk 22:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)- Very sorry my discovery led to all this work. I thought I was helping. PumpkinSky talk 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Don't be! Not your fault I didn't know the licenses well enough. I'd rather hear bad news from a friend. In the end this will be a very minor thing. I'm going to nuke my Flickr account now. Mwahahaha!
--cart-Talk 23:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Being helpful and making work for people so often go hand in hand on WP/Commons. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 00:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Don't be! Not your fault I didn't know the licenses well enough. I'd rather hear bad news from a friend. In the end this will be a very minor thing. I'm going to nuke my Flickr account now. Mwahahaha!
- Game over, man! Game over! — Rhododendrites talk | 00:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Cool it, Hudson! --cart-Talk 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Very sorry my discovery led to all this work. I thought I was helping. PumpkinSky talk 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your patience Rhod. I really made a mess of it, but I think I've found the perfect solution that would save us all a lot of trouble: Just let everything be as it is at the moment here on Commons ( a mix of
- Thanks for trying to explain Rhod but that list didn't bring me much hope either since according to it the PD I'm currently using on Flickr and have started to add to photos here that I also have on Flickr doesn't seem to work. (****) It seems like the only way now is to change all the Flickr photos to CC0 (that I can easily do) and then rely on one of you guys to change all my photos so far here to CC0 as well. Not sure how that's going to work since I've been helping other users with their photos for some time now and also uploaded stuff derived from other photographers' photos and so on. I don't want to do this all over again just to make things match. But after that is seems I won't be able to use the default license here if I upload the photo on Flickr. <sigh!> I'm this close to just walk away from the whole thing... --cart-Talk 22:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
