User:Richard Bartz/Archive 1 09

Ephemeroptera on Equisetum arvense.jpg

Hello, Botanist and beginner in entomology, I like sincerely your art since my debuts on WP. I would appreciate one day to reach your level. On this magnificent photo Image:Ephemeroptera on Equisetum arvense.jpg, you indicate that it is about Equisetum arvense. I believe you made a mistake, it is credibly about Equisetum hyemale. It would really be necessary pity to leave such an error on a photo so beautiful. Cordially. PS Can you write me (in English) on my French-speaking page (User fr Abalg)? Thank you in advance --[[User:Abalg|Abalg]] (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Abalg. Will fix it soon. Richard

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alaskan Malamute R Bartz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 top quality --Böhringer 08:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Admiral Vanessa atalanta rb.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 na klar --Mbdortmund 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Wunderbar ! --null 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Calliphora vicina vs. vomitoria?

I am writing to you regarding your pictures Image:Calliphora vicina diagonal.jpg and Image:Calliphora vicina portrait.jpg. Are you sure it is C. vicina and not C. vomitoria? What I see in the pictures does not correspond to the diagnosis I see in my keys. The fore part of the cheek must be reddish but in your pics the cheeks are uniform grey. Did you catch the fly? Who provided the id? Alexei Kouprianov (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Link between photographers page

Hello.

I have made a topic called "More good photographers" on my user page. You could create a similar topic on your user page and you could include me in it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FPC discussion

A big discussion is taking place in WP:FPC about the promotion and closing processes (various topics). You may be interested in participating and help improving things there. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

Benh (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Phallus Impudicus

Your 3D image appears to be erroneously identified as Phallus Impudicus. Please check and correct, if necessary, thanks. --85.77.235.111 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Flash lighting and more

Hey Richard, I appreciate your comments about my pictures. How should I get the plastic look? Flash diffusion? Secondly, do you have other forums like diptera.info that specialize in bugs, dragonflies and the like. Thirdly, why have you stopped uploading you great macro pictres? Muhammad 17:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried a few images today in the morning without flash. Since I was handheld, apart from a slight blur, the pictures turned out quite good. I also have some pictures I took with a self-made diffuser, I think it looks quite plasticy :)

The German Macro website is quite good. I translated it with google and pretty impressive picture. I await for April for more of your pictures with the MP-E 65mm. Thanks for all the help, Muhammad 05:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grosshesseloher Brücke R 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. Comments Just at minimum size (duh), however, does show train, bridge and river nicely. -- Klaus with K 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read

Richard, please read proposal for FPC gudelines in the discussion page #REDIRECT [[1]]. I believe that concensus could and should be built in order to improve quality of the page, project, etc. It is clear that there are disagreements on the personal level for some, but I believe that everybody agrees that there is definitely room for improvement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Panos zefix

Salute Richard, es ist ganz einfach mit den Panoramafotos. Es gibt nur ein paar wichtige Sachen die Du einhalten solltest. 1.) Bildformat vertikal = ergibt nach dem Zusammensetzen mehr Möglichkeit zum "beschneiden" Das Pano wird nicht so flach wie ein Wurm. 2.) Blende und Verschlusszeit manuell = nimm den Mittelwert, der die Automatik vorschlägt. Je 1x im dunklen und 1x im hellen Bildbereich den Wert ablesen. 3.) Jedes Bild sollte vom nächst folgenden ca.30-50% überlappen. 4.) Ich habe auch schon "freihand" Bilder geschossen. Bei Landschaften, wo der Vordergrung ruhig ist geht das. Aber: 5.) mit Stativ wird das natürlich viel genauer. (Hast Du sowieso meistens dabei). 6.) Idealerweise nimmt man eine Brennweite von ca. 50mm, dann gibt es am wenigsten Verzerrungen. probier mal das aus und wenn Du ein paar Bilder hast, flicke ich Dir so ein Pano zusammen. servus --Böhringer (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Danke für die Tipps. Was ist mit dem Nodalpunkt, die Paralaxensau ? Da gibts doch bestimmt Fehler --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Tigerwater edit2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tigerwater.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

File:Calliphora head 2.jpg

Hey Richard, Good to see the fly nomination at FPC, very nice. I was going thru at diptera.info and came across something which has me wondering, is File:Calliphora head 2.jpg correctly identified? Regards, --Muhammad 04:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The fly was identified twice. At Diptera.info and Entomologie.de. There was a 2nd picture with a different species for identification, too. Maybe you saw this or there was a new later post which i have overseen. Can you give me the link, please. --Richard Bartz (talk)

Here is the link. The file name here at commons may be incorrect, the image description is fine though --Muhammad 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This picture has a lot of usage so only an admin could rename it into Caliphrodae head --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a template {{bad name|correct name}} which you could use. I am sorry if I am too persistent or nagy but this is one of my favorite images and I would like it to be perfect :) --Muhammad 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have used this template a few times before but you have no choice which admin is doing the job. Many pictures was lost in the projects when renaming. This is fussy, really ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the image gets lost form the articles then its no use renaming. Sorry if I bothered you :( --Muhammad 10:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am doing that job lately mostly ([2]) ;-)) (requests accepted). Lycaon (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Schmetterling

Hi Richie. The structures you asked about on QIC are most likely labial palps. Those palps are mustache-like scaly mouthparts of adult butterflies that are on each side of the proboscis. They are covered with sensory hairs and scales, and test whether something is food or not. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats wicked. I want that, too ;-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Partnachklamm rb.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice --Böhringer 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tetanocera sp rb.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Ok. --Berthold Werner 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Randkluft Fringe gap rb.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Interesting formation--Mbz1 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vierfleck Libellula quadrimaculata rb.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, great detalisation. Not for NG journal, but merits to be promoted --Twdragon 10:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Icicles Partnachklamm rb.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

QI

˙dn s,ʇɐɥʍ sı sıɥʇ

Hi Richard and thanks for the clarification.

I have a couple of questions about the QI evaluation process:

1. You said: One thing you should keep in mind is that when sending nominations inconsiderately to consensual review the BOT cannot automatically archive the nom any more. Same with shifting from promotion to discuss.

On the Commons:Quality images candidates page it is said: If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

So when exactly should I change the template to "Discuss"?

You change it to discuss when you don't agree with a promotion by having a concrete argument/consideration.  

• We take this as an current example. Böhringer (which is one of our best macro photographers) promoted it, you placed a comment. If your comment is neutral then there is no need to turn it into discuss. But if you consider the promotion wasn't justifiable then you should turn it into discuss and your opinion counts as oppose. There are some special cases when you are not really shure about a promotion and want to have more opinions. But then we get a lot of overhead because A user or admin must archive, evaluate and close the nomination (consensual review) by hand which is very time consuming.

If an image has received two supporting votes (and thus using the Promotion template) and I decide to give an opposing vote, should I change the template to Discuss or leave it to Promotion as the total of the votes still is on the positive side?

You should change it to discuss, then  

1. If one does not use the {{Support}} or {{Oppose}} templates before the consensual review, how can it be decided later if a given vote was supporting or opposing? For example, if the Nomination template is changed to Promotion with the following text: "Looks fine to me." and then later someone changes the template to "Discuss" and adds: "But perhaps not a QI." When the template is Discuss, both of these statements can be considered neutral.

Then "Looks fine to me." counts as support and But perhaps not a QI. as oppose. Promotion is support --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

--Siipikarja (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

Best regards.--Mywood (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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}}}

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Tetanocera sp rb.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tetanocera sp rb.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Best regards.--Mywood (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reupload pic

Hey Richard, I don't know if this has already been discussed, but can you reupload File:Snipe-fly_Rhagio_scolopaceus_copulation.jpg si it's at the same resolution as before rather than a thumbnail? Thanks --Dori - Talk 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to a harddisk crash the original is lost. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cantharis livida.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Wow! Lovely colors, excellent composition, proper focus, nice use of DOF. Easily a QI, potentially an FP in my opinion. --Siipikarja 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mirror Lock up

Hey Richard, After your advice on natural lighting, I took my tripod and went hunting ;) I got some very cooperative flies and I used some long exposures with remote shooting. One thing I noticed in the pictures was that they were not as sharp as I would have liked with minor motion blur and full res. I researched a bit and suspect that it may be the mirror causing the shake. Have you experienced such problems? Do you lock up the mirror when shooting such long exposure pictures? Regards, --Muhammad 20:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, between 1sec and 1/50sec you will have problems with the mirrorshake. To avoid this use a remote and activate the mirror lock up. Happy hunting :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Richard, Wow! What a great and kind barnstar you've given to me! This one is going to be very special because you've made it yourself! I will put on my user page. Thank you. Congratulations with your recent FP promotions.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

User cats

Hi Richie. It is customary to make User categories hidden with __HIDDENCAT__. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can put them any where on your category like so. Lycaon (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. I noticed. I 've put some cats on your cats so they connect. I did something similar a half a year ago: a man 's gotta do what a man 's gotta do ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this or this is also a neat trick. Lycaon (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

9 more hours and I'll be at sea: time to start packing... Lycaon (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Over here and the rest of the Belgian (tiny) part of the North Sea. Be back in two weeks time. Lycaon (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Schön. Hatte ich doch schon gesehen ;-) Danke für die GODSPEED. Lycaon (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Chromatic aberrations

Hi! Could you help me and fix the chromatic aberrations from this file? You can edit photo as much you want. Thanks. —kallerna™ 15:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). Do you know if I could do the same with Adobe CS3, or do I have to buy a new program? —kallerna™ 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) —kallerna™ 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Danke für die Bildnachbearbeitung !

Habe erst gerade eben gesehen, dass du ja mein Foto mit Rettungshubschrauber nachbearbeitet hast. Vielen Dank für deine Mühe !

Curnen (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Allianz arena daylight Richard Bartz.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good, looks good --High Contrast 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)  Support Very good and valuable. --Siipikarja 21:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Florfliege Alderfly Sialis lutaria.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 warum ist die traurig? --Böhringer 08:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) :-)) Hmm .. auch Alkoholprobleme bei Schlammfliegen sind nicht zu unterschätzen :-) --null 18:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erdfunkstelle Raisting 5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 Looks good. Mattbuck 22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support I think it is slightly better than this one at illustrating the aspect of the insect, in spite of the water droplets on the thorax. --Eusebius (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Euphorbia cyparissias quadrat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice lighting, sharp, good composition and DOF. --PieCam 13:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Cantharis livida 2 edit1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cantharis livida 2 edit1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Question It is absolutely great and amazing macro. The only thing that worries me here is the scope. Is it too narrow? Maybe other flies have similar looking male genital, and we could change the scope?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bittacidae or Boreidae of family Mecoptera don't have this genital, changing the scope to Panorpidae male genital is 2 vague, because the genital in detail differ from species to species --85.181.29.199 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support--Kuvaly (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. Not geotagged. Lycaon (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• The picture was taken in my aquarium, so geotagging makes less sense --85.181.42.100 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'll be at sea. Cancel my opposition when you make a statement about privacy (or something similar) on the image description. If images are not geocoded (which is possible) it should be stated why (e.g. privacy, studio, etc.). Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done. --85.181.29.199 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Macro Lens

G'day Richard.

I had a search around but couldn't find the information I was after. I have been using a 70-200 and extension tubes for quite a long time, but at 1:1 magnification the working distance is only about 4cm. I am therefore looking for a macro lens with lots of working distance as one of my higher priorities. I noted many of your photographs list a 180mm focal length and was wondering what you are using or might recommend. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Good quality, full body shown hence much encyclopedic value. Natural background. --Muhammad 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Scope guidelines say that the scope should be at the species level, which is "Apis mellifera". Is this subspecies really worth a scope? --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope changed - subspecies differs only in size as written in the german article. --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from 'Apis mellifera carnica (Carniolan honey bee) to 'Apis mellifera (European honey bee) --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Comment I've adjusted the scope (the "scope" parameter should reflect only the final scope, ready to be processed by the bot). --Eusebius (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment A selection of possible competitors (several of Commons's macro photographers have shot this species...):

• 
• 
• 
• 

Any comments that could help us choose are welcome... :-\ I really think we should have a VI for this species. --Eusebius (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I still think this nominated image has the most EV. The first one while good DOF due to a stack, does not show the legs quite well. The second and third are two dark with distracting elements. The fourth one is quite good but for the scope I prefer a single bee. --Muhammad 09:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Meets all criteria including geocoding. The only image I could see in the category that shows this process. --Muhammad 06:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Question What in the picture is specific to the "drone" part of the scope? As for a scope of simply "Apis mellifera (Honey bee) hatching", I think this series would make a good VI set:

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 

If we can get them geocoded, of course, but the uploader seems to be active. --Eusebius (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Drones have larger oculi compositi (eyes) and are larger as well as more compact --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info. The bee depicted is the set is not a drone then, right? Is it reasonable to have both a VI for the drone, and a VI set for honey bees in general? Or would scope inclusion be a problem here? Opinions welcome. --Eusebius (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  No that's females, drones are males --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek

Hi Richard, nochmal danke für deinen Edit für de:keb. Habe gleich mal ne Frage dazu: Wie entfernst du Farbsäume? Ich habe da noch nicht das richtige Mittel dagegen gefunden. Ich muss dazusagen, dass ich mit einem PS7.0 unterwegs bin.

Leider performt mein 24-105mm im Weitwinkel nicht sonderlich. Eine wirklich überzeugende Schärfe im WW wird mir wohl immer ein Rätsel bleiben. Bei meinem alten 17-85mm konnte ich die sehr schlechte WW-Performance noch einsehen...aber von meinem 24-105 f/4(Canon) hatte ich mehr erwartet. Oder ist das der Preis für den recht großen Brenntweiten-Bereich? Oder sind gar meine Ansprüche zu hoch? Vor lauter Schärfe-Paranoia habe ich glaube ich schon die Objektivität verloren. :-) Was sagst du denn objektiv (so als Fachmann)? Ist das noch im Rahmen? Gruß Matthias--AngMoKio (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Danke für deine Antwort. Dieser Review hat mich damals zu der Linse gebracht. Wobei ich zu meiner Schande gestehen muss, dass ich nie wirklich darauf geachtet habe, bei welcher Blende meine Linse am schärfsten ist. Das werde ich aber von nun an mal testen. Mir erscheinen meine Bilder mit dieser Linse immer etwas soft...aber wie gesagt, ich habe meine Objektivität verloren :) --AngMoKio (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Murnauer Moos with horse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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 high quality, good composition --AngMoKio 10:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

QI candidates not very high-resolution?

Regarding your recent QI candidates, I think both of these images are wonderful, but both are at a relatively low resolution. Do you have a higher-resolution version available of either picture (or of both pictures)?

I'am afraid, no. Both pictures are cropped out areas --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment I'm hesitating with the front view: , why do you think this one better? Anyway, both are gorgeous, criteria met, best one is among these two I think. --Eusebius (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the wings are displayed better on the nominated picture--Richard Bartz (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment True. But the other one shows the head better, and it is a very distinguishable and characteristic feature of the species, no? --Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Both pictures shows the beard where the bird has it's name for. Wings are very important, too because it's a bird. Lets wait for another opinion --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support While I like the other one better, I see slightly more value in the nominated one which is the important thing here (If it was FP, I'd pick the other; if it was QI, I'd pick both). -- Rocket000(talk) 03:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Macro Bellows

Hi Richard, what can you tell me about bellows? Are they currently used? How effective, what max magnification? Is it possible to be used with my Sigma 150mm? Any more info will be welcome. --Muhammad 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Abut extension tubes, is there a limit to the number of tubes I can attach t my 150mm lens? Fo instance I have three sets, about 210mm of et's, would this combination work? Thanks for the info, I will review your VICs 2morrow as I had n electricity the whole today and am quite busy. --Muhammad 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Comment Needs geotag. Also, categorizing down to the species level would be great, because people might not be able to distinguish Hyperae zoilus from other Hyperae... --Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Geotagged. Species level ? Subfamily is Hyperinae, Genus is Hypera, Species is Hypera zoilus --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. What I say is that the category should probably be "Hypera zoilus", not "Hypera". If the "Hypera" category could be sorted, it would help reviewing a lot. --Eusebius (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I didn't see it was ok now. --Eusebius (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re magic mushrooms

I take delight in getting the best picture I can out my camera, hopefully I will learn enough that once I can afford a decent camera I will also be able to do it justice. Your comments on my recent FP nomination were absorbed, I will take it as a challenge to add a bit more magic to my pictures without having to resort to any more invisible fairies ;-). I have made my first image that uses focus stacking, I still have to work on that magic™ element :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that explains the dirty black bits on the top of the mushroom. Those purple and pink gases swirling about beneath him make me wonder why he is not holding his nose. But clearly he is the king of the fairys, sitting on his thrown ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mandarin duck Aix galericulata .jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very strong images; I move for promotion despite their less-than-ideal resolution. Photographer confirmed these are the highest-resolution versions available due to the fact that they are crops of larger images. --Notyourbroom 13:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Carrion Crow Corvus corone.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very strong images; I move for promotion despite their less-than-ideal resolution. Photographer confirmed these are the highest-resolution versions available due to the fact that they are crops of larger images. --Notyourbroom 13:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Gephyrocapsa oceanica color.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gephyrocapsa oceanica color.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Meets all requirments. Geocoded as well. Of all the images in the cat, I find this the most well composed and natural set. --Muhammad 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Unmatched in quality and detail. --oskila (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support A actually prefer the angle of view in this one, but it has a too distracting backgound and a not so good image quality. Adding up the qualities, this one wins marginally for me. --Slaunger (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

•  Support Satisfies the six criteria, but please link the other version(s) in the corresponding field of the information tag. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The other version has a bad name and will be deleted ……Richard Bartz (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of File:Ephemeroptera on Equisetum arvense edit.jpg which appears to be a crop of this image. It may need a {{Rename media}} tag. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This file was only used on enWP FPC and should be deleted because it has a bad name, too. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the rename media tag. I think it is better to retain the file so that the discussion at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Ephemeroptera on Equisetum arvense.jpg does not have a bad picture link. I noticed that the cropped version does not seem to have been discussed or mentioned, however, even by the uploader, Fir0002. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Question What in the picture tells us that it is actually a subimago? BTW, independently of this review, I think the picture could safely be nominated with the species as the scope, since it is the only picture we have of it (a picture can be nominated several times with different scopes). --Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It has something to do with the look if it's a subimago or not. --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get you? --Eusebius (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Look - appearance --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that I understand, but could you please point out what, in the look or appearance, visible on this image, is specific to a subimago (and by which one can tell it's not an imago)? --Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

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

review

 Comment Shows the scope (singular) in a very simple and effective way compared to the competitors in category Parabolic antennas IMO --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Good quality and EV. Neat illustration. --Muhammad 15:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support There are other good competitors (like File:70 m Antenna in Goldstone.jpg or File:Ceduna OTC, South Australia.jpg), I like this one best: good isolation of the subject, clear view, nothing distracting. --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Only image on wikimedia, satisfies all criteria. --Muhammad 15:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Agree, criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)