User talk:Benh/Archive/2014

capitole toulouse by night, pyrenees

I would like to know if i can use some of your nice pictures to print on postcard and/or calendar about toulouse or pyrenees or albi. Is-it possible ? Is-it free of charge or any charge to pay ? Thanks a lot for answer

Jehanobellianne

You are free to go as long as you both mention that I'm the author and which licence it's shared under ! (and don't share unaltered emails on such public pages !) - Benh (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos Grands Moulins de Pantin

Bonjour,

je suis responsable de la photothèque du groupe BNP Paribas Real Estate. Nous avons notamment rénové les Grands Moulins de Pantin, que vous connaissez bien pour les avoir photographiés. C'est au sujet de cette image que je vous contacte. Nous aimerions l'utiliser pour une brochure Corporate. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grands_Moulins_de_Pantin.jpg

Quelles sont les conditions d'utilisation de cette image ?

D'avance merci pour votre réponse,

Cordialement,

Véronique Dumax-Arouls Responsable Pôle Information - Photothèque COMMUNICATION

BNP Paribas Real Estate

Bonjour, je répondrai aussi par mail (je l'ai effacé pour vous éviter les spams) au cas où. L'image est sous licence CC-by-SA 3.0. Vous en faites donc ce que vous voulez tant que vous mentionnez clairement mon nom ainsi que la licence elle-même. Plus de détails sur la page même (qui donne aussi un lien vers le site créative commons avec les détails des licences). Cordialement, - Benh (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

FP

Bon jour,
I have nominated your File:Chambord Castle Northwest facade.jpg for FPC. Please vote for the image. Thank you. The Herald 06:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

And stay. Share some pictures. We miss you. :-) -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That's some nice words for sure, thanks :) I'll share any picture which are worth it (but haven't travelled a lot lately) - Benh (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Benh, glad to see you back! Jee 03:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jee ! Long time no see, and remember I forgot to answer one of ur email (very sorry). Don't know if it's a "come back" because not sure I have time for that. Will see (and hopefully I can travel more this year so I can take more pictures) ! - Benh (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Just look at your pictures...Simply WOW!! The Herald 04:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:OperaCoupe 20070324.jpg

Hi Benh, Re: File:OperaCoupe 20070324.jpg. Isn't Richard Peluzzi the copyright holder for the model? I don't see anything that says a license has been granted to publish a photo of it. Shouldn't the photo be nominated for deletion? --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• You probably are right. You can go ahead. Sad though because it has a lot of encyclopedic value. - Benh (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• We do have many architectural elevations and sections of the building from Garnier's shop. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

File:OperaCoupe 20070324.jpg

File:OperaCoupe 20070324.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Robert.Allen (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much light?

Wrt Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sony A77 II.jpg, you say "There's too much light IMO for the intended result". Have you seen the earlier revision of the file. In my opinion, the earlier version was better in terms of contrast and low-key effect but it seems too many people see a picture too dark (or don't understand the intention) and so I raised the levels. I now feel that on my high-quality monitor, the camera is too light and not enough hidden for the effect but am trying to find a balance most can accept. I would be interested to know if you prefer the earlier version.

As for focal length, my 50mm is a 75mm equivalent but yes I believe something closer to 100mm equivalent might be more normal. I have an 85mm lens that would be 127.5mm equivalent. Do you think that would be better? I only ask for future pictures, as I'm happy with the result in this one and life is too short to keep re-taking the same picture. -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Colin! After my comment, I also realised you could have increased the contrast. So yes I prefer the earlier version. People will always have their opinion. This matter being only subjective, I suggest you go for what you prefer. To complete my comment, I think light direction should be perpendicular to the direction of the lens (Hope you understand my english here). As for the focal length point, it would be more "the distance between your camera and the subject". The farther you are from the subject, the more parallels you keep the lines which are meant to be so. So yes I think using a 85mm (which forces you to be farther) would be better, and I think this is less a subjective issue. - Benh (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oh I don't know what to do. The earlier version didn't get any support and three comments that it was too dark. The new version has some supports and one comment it is too light. The contrast is already quite high and was higher originally -- but I think those people with low quality screens are just seeing most of the dark grey as black and so they don't see the bottom third of the camera at all. I can't win and to be honest don't care -- I have to accept FP is a pretty random game.
• Wrt light direction, it already is perpendicular to the lens (directly from above). One lighting possibility is this photo which I think is lit from above-left but also a kind of "hair-lighting" from behind to pick out the outline. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Colin, Yes it's quite random... Like anything art related. That's why when anything is subjective I'd rather go with my own idea first. But I understand ur frustration when people obviously don't review pictures fairly. The example u give is quite good! This is what I'd try to do. I think u are right about lighting scheme. Will you give it a try? - Benh (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• When three people say you are wrong, it is reasonable to entertain the possibility that they are right :-) And it is hard to separate opinions of taste from fact: what is "too dark" or "too light" is a bit of both. It is also harder when you don't know people and so have no idea if they've ever really considered that kind of photographic lighting. Low-key lighting is rare on Commons, and what we have are mostly art nudes. There are lots of valid ways of lighting a camera. The example I gave requires two lights, which I don't have. Perhaps later but I've spent enough on kit for now :-). Also it could well be Photoshopped (e.g. fake reflection). It is much easier to create a convincing photoshopped image at 600x480 than at 14 or 24 megapixels. I made a challenge to create a brochure-quality set of photographs of my new camera and got three pictures that I'm happy with. My next mission is really to use the new camera, rather than just look at it :-). -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Colin, I heartily disagree :). If three people tell me they don't like Van Gogh, it's their mater. Opposing based on fact that they can't tell the camera appart from the bg, is same as opposing because, say, they don't like portrait, or don't like macro, or don't like nude... And I have negative view on mass effect when it comes to opinion. Suffices it that one person says one thing, and you'll see a few people coming behind with the same saying. Why Van Gogh never made a living out of his paintings, but they began to sell for millions years after he passed away is beyond my understanding of things. End of digression. On a more interesting side, I built myself a very cheap lighting kit a few years ago. Buy any "lamp shade" (??) in aluminium, and put inside any low consumption light bulb. You'll achieve soft lighting. It doesn't matter the temperature because this can be fixed easily in post processing (only make sure all bulb are similar of course). It doesn't matter the power also, because for static objects, you can use long exposure to compensate! You'll get started for less than 50€ for 2 light sources as far as I remember. You'll have to trust me on that one but the result is also very good! The bigger the "lamp shades", the bigger the objects you can photograph. - Benh (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to say is that there are three kinds of comment that "too dark" might mean:

1. Fact. "Much of the camera is black on the screen". Now this has to be weighed against the possibility that their screen might not be set up right, or that mine isn't set up right. And whether this appearance is bad or not leads into the second...
2. Judgement. "I understand low-key lighting and you've misjudged the ratio here". Again, if several people think my judgement on degree of lighting is wrong, then that's a possibility I should consider. Of course, it could still be all of their judgement is poor. This is like your comment on focal length.
3. Opinion. "I don't like low-key lighting (for Commons)". And we just have to agree to disagree like you say for Van Gogh.

I disagree with the oppose votes and I agree with you that it doesn't matter how many people think they want to see all the camera distinct from the background. I'm a bit sensitive wrt "too dark" because an early "QI" was commented on as being too dark. So I'm concerned that my judgement of light levels on screen is wrong.

The "soft box" I used was home made, so I'm happy to experiment with home made lighting. Do you have any photos on here or Flickr that use your kit? Obviously taking a picture of my new camera while it is still clean has advantages, but I really should be using it and going outside rather than in a room with the blinds closed -- that can wait for bad weather days. -- Colin (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• I our case, all opposes use the "can't tell appart" wording and imply you objectively did something wrong. None, but Yann, says it's 'too dark' only (so still discernable), so I tend to understand they don't have calibrated screen (or don't wear proper glasses ;) ) : unfair review. If we fall into ur judgement bullet, then a review has to be more thorough and justify. It's not opinion, or the wording would have been otherwise (a simple I don't like it, or in my opinion is fine). But we don't have the same command of english and this might explain a lot of things. I don't have any more examples of shooting I made with my lighting equipment, and it's now stored somewhere in my garage... :) So there's not much I can show you. And yes, we should take more pictures, and talk less ;) I have myself bought a Fuji X-Pro 1 which I have used a lot, but more for taking people (which my 35mm f/1.4 excels at). But I also have a few pictures from some recent trips around France that I'll upload from time to time. - Benh (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• BTW, I remember my ancient roommate and I experimented with moving our light sources during the exposition. You could give it a go to make up for the single light source you currently own. - Benh (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps I could have asked for clarification and yes language difficulties lead to terse comments and misunderstandings, though people really should make an effort to explain themselves. And our FP noms are closed purely numerically rather than on the weight of the arguments, so I shall keep my fingers crossed. (I got your talk-page message and other notifications, though I've been watchlisting this page anyway). -- Colin (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pont du Gard BLS.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Processing

I wonder if you are shooting yourself in the foot by emphasising the processing that you have done to a nomination. My initial reaction on seeing your comment is that you'd Photoshopped in a dramatic sky or something unforgivable. But if you are talking exposure blending/HDR and some Lightroom adjustment, then that's not particularly noteworthy these days. Any advanced technique is, I think, worth pointing out on the image-description page. Plenty images have been globally adjusted to a large degree in Lightroom without the nominator pointing this out to everyone, and thus giving ammunition to negatively inclined reviewers :-).

Btw, this is a useful tool for examining EXIF data, including Lightroom adjustments (if retained). However, there is a danger of reviewing based on the EXIF data rather than the image. I'm curious if your "I think product photography needs longer focal length" comment was considered before or after you looked at the EXIF for my image :-)? I must experiment to see if 90 vs 75mm (equivalent) is readily apparent. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Colin, I just dumped everything down to show I'm aware of the technical weaknesses of the picture, and don't want to hear about these points (I can't do much about them anyways, but am listening to anything else). I don't really calculate anything. People like it, fine. People dislike it... less fine, but I'll live with it. I like getting feedback like yours and Slaunger's which are always well thought, and worth reading. This changes from "likes" à la Facebook. I knew you used a short focal length before looking at EXIF :). I have a well trained eye for geometry I believe. And I try to be objective in my review, so no danger with me I think. People tend to forget that a picture is to be looked as a whole, and that it's also about feeling. Your tool is amazing, and even freaky. This would be a valuable add to MediaWiki software. - Benh (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your well trained eye! My comments weren't intended as advice on how to "play the game" (I dislike game-playing too) but more that you seems to be giving reasons why someone might oppose, and this doesn't start the reviewer off on a neutral point. On the Photo Challenge, I designed the submission and voting pages so that reviewers are unaware of who created the image (or indeed, anything other than the image itself and a title) and are also unaware of other voter's opinions (unless they "lift the flap"). I'm always surprised when I create the final results pages to discover who actually took the pictures. I think it especially gives the new/beginner photographers a fair chance against the names one automatically associates with high quality work. The drawback on that competition is that there isn't the same opportunity to discuss or refine an image. Pros and cons.

The tool I linked to uses a popular free EXIF library and I would be surprised if MediaWiki was using a different library. I suspect the list of EXIF data displayed on the image description page is just a set of what somebody thinks is generally useful, rather than all the data possible. It is at the mercy of what EXIF data the software actually generates or maintains. Simple tools like Gimp seem to keep next to nothing and Lightroom has the option to remove almost all the EXIF data (including, annoyingly, colourspace). In addition to the EXIF tool, Jeffrey Friedl has written other Lightroom plug-ins that I use. For example, Flickr, Creative Commons and MetadataWrangler. The last gives you fine control over what you include in the EXIF, and I tend to pick a fairly minimal set. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Colin, Yes I think noms and votes should be anonymous but on the other hand, I like the debate side. Not easy. Maybe debate, feedback and advices should be separate from the voting process itself. Something bothers me a bit more about FPC, and I've just got comforted in my idea after my last nom + other recent ones. There a strong bias toward encyclopedic value, and "sharpness" issue alone. Wow, lighting and other seem to be secondary issue. I can understand that somehow. Commons pictures are mostly used on wikipedias. But I thought that's why we had QI and FPC separate... Anyways, I complain too much ! Thanks for your always helpful feedbacks.- Benh (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I recently came across that quote from Andrew Mason, which may cast a new light on why I pointed out first the issues on my picture: "Admit your errors before someone else exaggerates them". - Benh (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The lack of consideration for "wow", or even any attempt to check this is amongst "our finest" images, bothers me too. Many voters just "like" an image and don't fully participate in what the forum is for, over and above QI. It is too easy to just say "nice" and be nice (especially if one has nominations of ones own and doesn't want to make enemies). I think educational (vs encyclopaedic) value is important and a criterion, but the scope of this is larger than whether something makes a good lead thumbnail in a WP article. The objective measures like sharpness, resolution, CA, etc are the focus of many photography forums among gear heads. After all, these are things that can be fixed by spending more money, rather than developing one's talent (or admitting to a lack of it). Subjective measures like composition, lighting, motive, emotion, dynamics, etc, are all harder to learn and express. Anyone wanting an easy life will not oppose on those measures because they can be challenged and lots of people are simply unwilling to oppose at all -- they just pass. Which I why I appreciate reviewers like you that are willing to engage in a discussion rather than just go "Like!". I do wonder what proportion of Commons FP are on WP - is it even "most"? WP articles often don't have the size to support many images. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Colin You've summarized it all, and you're right when you say we care too much about futile details than can be fixed with more money alone... I also wish more reviewers were like you, though I also like hearing other points of view. I've met Jebulon and Slaunger in real life. Though I often disagree with Jebulon on the forum, I found him (and Slaunger) to be very nice people, and I'm then so glad I'm part of that little community. Now to answer ur last question... I don't have the faintest idea ;) but I don't think there must be a connection between the two, as I hope FPC is a window to our finest works for other projects than Encyclopedias. - Benh (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Encouragements

Tes commentaires ne sont certainement pas du tout décourageant. Tu es meme plutot très encourageant et je t'en remercie. J'attends toujours avec impatiente tes commentaires et lorsque tu es inspiré tu es le plus que le bienvenue sur mes nominations. J'aimerai prendre plus de photos en ce momment mais je travail chez un vendeur de boissons, et l'été j'ai du travail par dessus la tete et après avoir passé mes journées à soulever du poids je n'ai pas le courage d'aller prendre des photos sous une lumière rasante. C'est pour cela que je tarde un peu à renouveler cette photo, mais tot ou tard je retournerai la prendre...:) -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 05:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

• Oui je te comprends, même si mon travail n'est pas aussi épuisant que le tien, je ressens du stress et de la lassitude et le soir je veux juste me poser. Je parle beaucoup mais je devrais aussi aller prendre des photos au coucher de soleil ;) Ça n'est pas super facile autour de Paris. Je suis à Besançon et autour ce week end. Peut être que ? En attendant tes photos, bonne continuation !- Benh (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Downsampling

I see on File:Mont Saint-Michel - BeBo86.JPG FP you mention that "most of the data in picture is made up from interpolation". This is not true. See my comments at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Jakob Kirche Rothenburg 2014.jpg. There is some interpolation as part of the demosaicing process but it is absolutely not the inverse function of the downsampling process and is far more complex, with each colour handled separately and luminance separate too. Therefore downsampling, which is simplistic global loss of resolution, always loses information. The brightness and colour aspects of a photograph are processed quite differently to create the image (and also within a JPG, which generally has a lower-resolution colour) but downsampling just throws that all away in equal measure. Think of a black-and-white photo (or test chart) -- with good optics and sensor one can get fairly close to full resolution whereas people keep mentioning the nonsense about 70% resolution (i.e. 50% megapixels) is all you capture. If such speculation were true, a 20MP sensor would only be able to capture a 10MP test image, and DXOMark clearly shows this to be false.

Downsample if you want to please the pixel peepers or if you feel better that the image still looks good when someone clicks on the 100% view. Downsample if the image is very soft or very noisy and just looks awful at 100%. But don't downsample automatically just because your camera has a Bayer sensor -- there's far too many 100%-size images that look fantastic for that to be a real issue. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Île de la Cité

Hi Benh,
I've seen that you were fighting quite a bit with the images. Imo your current non-HDR version is very good (just a bit of PC left to fix, perhaps)! I feel that there are many cases where HDR will not actually help you much and will only make things complicated. Perhaps this is one of them, because I do not get the feeling that you are running into any DR issues with the normal version. I would certainly support this on FPC! Personally, I think the HDR version is too bright, especially the bridge and other highlights, which is weird and somewhat counterintuitive. --DXR (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DXR, I also think HDR is not always of great help. But in that case, I do think it can be useful, because it's a very contrasty scene, and I'd like to recover the dark areas (this is the only complaint I'd have with your version). I did that with the LDR version, but it's very noisy, which is why I provided a slightly scaled down version of it only. The HDR gives me more room for that, but it's true that I screwed the processing (it looks like both a day and night shot). Currently, I have this, and I think it adresses ur "too bright" complaint (with the exception of the bridge which is very bright, as u are urself well aware). Still need to fix a few things (trying to cool down the buildings only, need to clone out the annoying lady with her flashlight at the bottom left corner...). I think it's a little improvement, and hope you agree with it. Anyways, thanks for ur valuable feedback! - Benh (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is really nice! I must admit that I was surprised to see the overall look of your images, because in May, Notre-Dame was far too dark to give any nice image when the sky still had light. So you are quite lucky, apparently this time of the year is better. I'm looking forward to the final edit and I'm sure it will be excellent. --DXR (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My pictures are heavily processed (I do spend a lot of time on them at home, not always with great results ;) ). Even my LDR version of Notre-Dame has its darks heavily recovered. But I suppose that I got the sunset shortly before you got yours (I can try several times, it helps). I think you are right too : I have the feeling they light the monuments earlier (relative to the sunset of course) now compared to spring. - Benh (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tour Eiffel top.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 19:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support brilliant --A.Savin 11:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo in Galician wikipedia main page

Hi, I only wanted to notice you that your photo File:Pont du Gard BLS.jpg is on the main page of Galician wikipedia all this week. Thanks for your great work! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Louvre

Hey, I hope you dont mind, I took the liberty to experiment a bit. What do you think? --Muhammad (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3_G7fHeSHZZcUZTOE1vMTRYTFE/

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Louvre 2007 02 24 c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate 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. --Poco a poco 20:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

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

Nouveau modèle utilisateur

Salut.

J'ai créé un nouveau modèle utilisateur : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:User_info2

Je l'ai utilisé sur ma page utilisateur.

Cordialement. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Utilisation Photos de Paris

Bonjour,

Je travaille pour le groupe Le Monde sur le site Like A Parisian de VIPARIS. Nous souhaiterions utiliser les photos suivantes pour la page d'accueil de note site : - Cour Carrée of the Louvre Museum, Paris, France - Notre-Dame cathedral, on île de la Cité, in Paris. - Courtyard of museum of Louvre, Paris, France. - Pont des Arts, Paris, France - Paris's city hall at night, France - View over Paris, at dusk, from the top platform of the Montparnasse tower.

Pourriez-vous nous confirmer que nous pouvons utiliser ces photos en mentionnant votre nom? Quelle licence faut-il ajouter?

Merci pour votre retour,

Cordialement,

Thanks

Thanks ,really good job. Happy new 2015.--EEIM (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

New level {{User PH-3}}

Hi ; new level 3 for you ?

PH-3

This user is able to take high quality photographs.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Photos toutes somptueuses Arnaud 25 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)