User talk:Diliff/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your pictures

Hi, just wanted to drop you a note that the pictures you've been uploading are of truly stunning quality. Thanks!--Deglr6328 07:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on the fine quality of your photos! I've got the Harbour Bridge one at my desktop background! - G 02:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your pictures are amazing. I love your work, and I think Wikipedia benefits greatly from it! Don't stop! :) --GilHamilton 07:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll add high quality photos? You are far too modest Diliff, your work is superb. Thanks for contributing it to Wikipedia. --Wgfinley 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated Sydney Harbour Bridge

Hi,

I've nominated the Sydney Harbour Bridge photo as a feature picture candidate. It's an absolutely stunning and beautiful image, well done. chowells 14:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to announce that the photo has been promoted. Thank you Diliff for taking such a wonderful picture and sharing it with us. Raven4x4x 06:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Two more have now been promoted: Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg and Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg. Thanks again for your wonderful work. Raven4x4x 08:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
And another one: St Vitus stained glass. Congratulations! Raven4x4x 09:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
And now Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg! Quite a collection you have there. Raven4x4x 04:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Raven. I do it for my fans ;) Diliff 05:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In recognition of your work ..

I hereby award you the photographer's barnstar for your fantastic photos. It is truly rare to see panoramas with such seamless stitching and stunning sharpness. Your images are a great addition to Wikipedia, and it is always wonderful to see professional work under a free license. I am going to use some of my favorite ones in a keynote speech I'll give about Wikipedia on October 25 in Munich, as examples of the best work produced by Wikipedians so far. I hope that many more contributions will follow, but your work so far is already outstanding. Thank you very much!--Eloquence* 07:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diliff

I echo the sentiments of the editors who have left notes before me. The sydney Harbor Bridge on FPC is some of the highest praise I may have ever seen for a pic. There are some spectacularly stunning shots in that little camera of yours. I see you already have a barnstar, but just know that you should have a bunch more just like it. Thanks for all you do. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] great pictures

Hi! You make great pictures!

I would be interested to know what camera you use/own to to them (e.g. that to-be featured-picutre photo of the brigde. What lenses? Maybe just a short list on your user page?

--Msoos 13:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I came back to the Agnes Scott College page to find several changes, including your pictures. Thank you very much! I was planning to take pictures of the college in Spring, when the college's Dogwoods are in bloom. These fall/winter pictures are great. 2003graduate 06:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What equipment did you use?

Just out of curiosity, what equipment did you use to take the Sidney Harbour Bridge shot? I'm not the first to notice the stunning composition, but the level of sharpness and detail, coupled with the virtual absence of noise is incredible. It doesn't look like output from a digital camera... was this a medium-format shot?

Well actually it was a digital camera - a Canon 10D and 50mm f/1.8 lens in portrait format. Modern digital SLRs are quite capable of great results with low noise. However, it would not have had the resolution (nor would most lenses been able to cover the angle of view required) without taking around ten separate shots and stitching them using panorama software. Thanks for your interest though. Diliff 00:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Astronaut featured picture comment

Astronaut and Earth was one that I thought long and hard over before promoting the original. The final reason that I kept the original is that after five days no-one had commented on your edit, and without any comments I didn't feel I was able to promote it. Raven4x4x 06:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another FP
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

And this is one of your best. Congratulations once more. Raven4x4x 09:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shrine of Remembrance

Thanks for being bold and cleaning up the extraneous images in that article. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, you did good! Pages such as these need an editor with a good eye. There are far too many similar pages taken over by zealot eitors who insist that their pics get put on the page. Go for it.128.250.99.135 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tram interior image

Thanks for your message, and let me clarify a few things. Considering the discussion about this image an exercise in pointlessness, I was trying to prevent people from spending their time unwisely and unproductively. I didn't know I was being, and have never intended to be, considered destructive.

What would be an example of "constructive efforts on my part"? And how can an image, which is a static object completed some time in the past, have "potential"?

As always, these are not rhetorical questions. All the best, <KF> 19:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. I have never read any of the discussions about featured image candidates, and had assumed that photos which are modified in any way after they have been taken are automatically excluded. I understand now that I was mistaken. I'll see if I can find the original version. Thanks for your detailed answer. Best wishes, <KF> 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
And thanks to you for improving the image so much! <KF> 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One more featured picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Koala climbing tree.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Of all your FPs so far, this is by far the cutest. Congratulations again. Raven4x4x 04:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Hopetoun falls.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

I think I've run out of congratulatory phrases! Raven4x4x 05:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Day

POTD
POTD

Hi Diliff,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day on the 25th December. And I must say I'm pleased that such a fine panorama should happen to be due up on Christmas Day. As this will also be a weekend it should also appear on the Main Page. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 25, 2005. -- Solipsist 23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another FP

Hi I've nominated

for Featured Picture as it is truly magnificent. Well Done and keep up the good work. PS: Is the photo taken using Positive film with polariser? --antilived T | C 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Blue mountains - three sisters.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Once again, wonderful. Raven4x4x 06:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Los Angeles Pollution.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

We may just have to automatically promote everything you do... Raven4x4x 02:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will you comment on a potential FPC?

Hello Diliff - This is Debivort, the FPC contributor who made the annotated San Juan Panorama, about which I valued your comments. I was wondering if you had time to comment on another potential FPC that I am making. You can find it at here. Thanks if you have time! - Debivort 09:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your image of Notre Dame

I just shared your image with some friends on IRC and thought you might be interested to know that it was very well liked, every photographer likes positive feedback, right?

[00:19] <Keir> honestly perhaps the nicest photograph I've seen in my life
[00:20] <Kosh_Naranek> good lord, the detail...
[00:20] <Owyn_Darklighter> hmm
[00:20] <Kosh_Naranek> my art history prof would be drooling over this
[00:21] <Khan> wow, nicĚ
[00:21] <Keir> It's...beyond fasĆinating
[00:21] <Col_vLuck> 39. megapixels of sweetness
[00:27] * Kosh_Naranek saved that photo

Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Diliff. On this image's nomination you stated that you had a rectilinear projection of the image available for reference. I would like to see it and compare it to the cylindrical projection you mentioned. Could you let me know where I could find it? Thanks! ~MDD4696 01:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Diliff, just wondering what kind of tripod (I'm assuming you use one) you use to make your great panorma/s? Is it a specialized one or just an ordinary tripod? Thanks --Fir0002 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm including Diliff's response to Fir0002's Talk: here so others won't have to hunt it down in future. I was curious as well what type of equipment you were using to make such wonderful panoramas. --MattWright (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fir002. Well, its a gitzo 1227lvl tripod, with a ball head. Its pretty nice but the panorama I took could easily be done with any tripod if you make sure you overlap the images. Mastery of panoramas is with the technique mainly. Why do you ask? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh I was just curious --Fir0002 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Day

POTD
POTD

Hi Diliff,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Yarra Panorama.jpg is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day on the Tomorrow. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 10, 2006.. I will probably be putting up twilight version of this panorama at the weekend. -- Solipsist 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Pollution.jpg

Congratulations on the selection of Image:Los Angeles Pollution.jpg as a featured image. Thanks for contributing it. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panoramic photos

I've been admiring your photos for a while now, and I was surprised to see your comment that you don't use a special panoramic tripod head. Have you considered using one? Or just not found it necessary? Qutezuce 08:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A panoramic tripod head does more than just leveling and panning/tilting. Its main purpose is to keep the nodal point of the camera/lense stationary while panning/tilting the camera in order to avoid parallax error. This might show up when you stitch images as unaligned features along the seems of the images. But if it isn't causing you any problems, I can't argue with your results. Qutezuce 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Zion angels landing view.jpg

It's an FP now as well! Raven4x4x 05:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the day 2

POTD
POTD

Hi again,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:St Vitus stained glass.jpg is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day on the 12th January. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 12, 2006.

POTD
POTD
..and again, as predicted, your photo Image:Melbourne yarra twilight.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on the 14th January. As this will be a weekend, it should also appear on the MainPage. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 14, 2006. -- Solipsist 09:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

You should be Wikipedia's official photographer :) sikander 05:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Notre-Dame_de_Montréal_Basilica_Jan_2006.jpg

Great work! This is the sort of quality workmanship which should be used to illustrate our articles. Something you might want to try the next time you shoot a scene with broad dynamic range is to also perform exposure braketing for quantigraphic reconstruction (see Steve Mann's paper on comparametrics). I'm not sure if there is any software for windows to perform range stiching, but you can use ALE on unixish platforms. --Gmaxwell 05:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting article. I haven't got the time to read it in detail but I do understand basically how digital images are poorly recorded toward the dark end of the luminosity spectrum, and therefore the benefit in exposure bracketing to maximise the recorded information. Although the scene in question definitely had high dynamic range, I don't feel like I was unable to capture it all in a single image... the issue being discussed is/was whether the image should be presented similarly to how I perceived it at the time, or to artificially compress the luminosity to appeal to those who like bright and colourful images. :) The problem with high dynamic range images, as far as I can see at the moment, is what to do with the images once they have been created. It seems that as things stand, having a high dynamic range image 'future proofs' it for devices that can output a broad dynamic range, but there are no real benefits to it now. Most monitors are really unable to present this sort of output and so we are forced to limit the dynamic range that we present. You really need a high dynamic range output to view them in a way that is meaningful, otherwise you have information stored in the image that is unable to be viewed simultaneously throughout the complete luminosity range - eg, you can adjust the view of the image to output a specific range of luminosity at the dark or bright ends of the scale, but usually not simultaneously. The third option is to take the high dynamic range image and compress the luminosity back down again to a standard JPG format with 256 values of RGB, which is similar to merely reducing the contrast of an image to achieve a perceived increase in dynamic range. I'm assuming that all of this is what you were referring to when suggesting to exposure bracket for a high dynamic range image, anyway. Maybe I'm way off track? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll throw my 2 cents in here as well. Photoshop CS2 will take a series of exposure bracketed images and create an HDR image, also HDR shop works with HDR images. Where HDR may be useful to you (Diliff) is if you are trying to capture a scene with more than 8 stops (12 stops if you're shooting raw) of dynamic range. In which case you can take enough exposures of the scene (varying the shutter speed) to capture the darkest shadows and the brightest highlights. Then use Photoshop (or other software) to create an HDR image, and then use tone mapping to map the HDR image back down to 8 bits of dynamic range. Of course you don't get an increase in dynamic range, but you can capture a scene whose dynamic range would normally be too great to capture in one image. Here is a good example of that process. Qutezuce 08:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats what I was referring to earlier. The problem with doing what is shown in that example is that if you're not careful, you'll end up with a photo that looks manufactured and washed out, as you're squeezing too many stops of 'natural light' into a limited and narrow range of output. As I said previously, to do so is similar in effect to lowering contrast on a typical image - you might be able to 'see' more information in a photo, but that doesn't mean it will look correct, as light shadows will be 'pushed' toward the middle of the exposure range in order to make room for the darker shadows, and in a typical display, would make the light shadows appear washed out. I've experimented with HDR imaging before, and its possible that I didn't explore it as much as I could, but I wasn't happy with the results and couldn't squeeze much out of the images that I couldn't do with RAW processing (yes, I do shoot RAW), as a result of the effect that I described before. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrine of Remembrance

You may want to participate in this discussion --Fir0002 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal FP
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

I'd never seen a picture with so much detail before. I especially love the snow on the roofs. Wonderful all round. Raven4x4x 07:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Image:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

But this is even better. I never thought I'd see a 12 meg jpeg. Raven4x4x 07:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of the Day

POTD
POTD

Hi Diliff,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on the 28th January as this will be a weekend it should also appear on the MainPage. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 28, 2006. -- Solipsist 14:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software

Hey Diliff,

First: Damn, you are GOOD. I'm amazed at the consistent quality of these photos.

Second, I had a question: What stitching software do you use to put together these panoramas? Or do you do it manually in Photoshop? I'd really like to know, as I've got a bit of a panorama fetish myself.

Thanks! Suntiger 14:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I tried out the PTGui demo this morning and it looks like it might be one of those programs that would actually be worth paying for. Smartblend, though, seems to have disappeared from the internet - any chance you have an install file or anything lying around your hard disk? Suntiger 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your other photos

Hi Diliff,
I've just been having a look at your photos on PBase, and I was wondering if you could consider uploading some higher res versions to wikipedia with a suitable license? There are plenty of good photos which would help illustrate articles. Here are the ones I picked out: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

You also have some really nice photos on photoSIG - the kookaburra and the cat are probably the most suitable for an encyclopedia, but the others are artistic and sure to be appreciated. Anyway hope you give it some thought because wiki would definetly benefit from more of your high class photos. --Fir0002 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuttlefish promoted
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Georgia Aquarium - Cuttlefish Jan 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Keep 'em coming Diliff 8-) ~ Veledan • Talk 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested photo

I saw your Tower Bridge photo... and was wondering... could you do a 360° panorama which includes the tower bridge, the tower of london and the various surrounds at daytime?  ALKIVAR™ 11:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Grand Central Station Main Concourse Jan 2006.jpg

I know the file is marked "Jan 2006" and was uploaded on January 16th, but when exactly did you take this photograph? What day and approximately what time of day? It's been nominated as a Featured picture. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-linear panoramic horizontal compression

There's a new technical term for you... ;-) See my example entry on the FPC page/Grand central, please. I'd really like to know if there's a way to do this automatically, with software. Doing it manually and well, is a PITA. Greetings, Janke | Talk 09:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stitching

Diliff - you're the unsurpassed panorama stitcher on Wikipedia - would you care to try to stitch all the nine ten originals of my Hanko panorama? I have no suitable software myself, that image was stitched manually - camera is tilted down in all shots, horizon is slightly bent in each image due to barrel distortion... whew! Please let me know if you might accept this "challenge", thanks! --Janke | Talk 19:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks - it will be interesting to see what you can do with your software. The original images are here (note that the numerical order is "broken", and goes from right to left, starting at the # mark - but this is the order I'd prefer, due south in the middle of the panorama):

[[Image:STG 0981.JPG|50px]] . . . [[Image:STH 0982.JPG|50px]]

PS: I did a new attemp to fix the rectilinear Central station pic - what do you think? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 20:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PPS: I removed the Hanko images from this talk page, since I have speedied them as "orphans". --Janke | Talk 10:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the Day

POTD
POTD

Hi Diliff,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on the 25th February. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 25, 2006. -- Solipsist 22:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guess what...
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Once again, well done. Raven4x4x 10:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hanko stitch

Thanks for trying! You know, the software that came with my camera did just the same, i.e. curved the horizon horribly. I think I know the reason: all the images are taken with the camera tilted downwards, and there is some barrel distortion, i.e. the horizon bulges slightly in every shot. There's no way to get vertical lines to line up, since they're tilting everywhere except in the middle of each shot. What I did to stitch manually was to distort the individual frames, removing the bulge in the horizon and the tilting at the sides. After that, I used layers to composite the image. It was hard work! Next time I'm up in the tower, I'll try to shoot verticals, with camera level, i.e. the horizon in the middle. That ought to work better. --Janke | Talk 08:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum Reading Room image

Hello! Having followed through some of the links provided at the featured picture candidates pages, I have eventually discovered this page. Sorry for not telling you earlier about my nomination of your photograph. I think that it is quite exceptional and I am glad that many voters feel the same way. Looking at some of the other images that you have contributed to WP, you appear to be a photographer of rare talent - your Sydney Harbour panorama is amazing! I hope that the British Museum Reading Room is featured before too long, as it would be a shame to just have it on the article page itself and not enjoyed by a wider audience on the front page. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  20:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Amundsen-Scott photo edit

Not only can you take photos, you can edit them as well! Image:Amundsen-Scott marsstation ray h edit.jpg has just become an FP. I know you personally didn't like the image, but well done anyway. Raven4x4x 07:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goats in mountains cont...

Hi Diliff
Didn't really want to see another huge discussion like the one on the hay bale pic, so moved it over here

What I was thinking of when I wrote my comment on the burn was - here I am lightening up your photos and the edits getting rejected for being too bright, and you come and darken my photos! I don't know if you'd see it same as me, but I found that kinda funny and couldn't resist using the "not true to life" argument quoted by you on many of my edits. Anyway that's just me :-)

With respect to RAW, I very rarely uses it. I personally find it over-rated and definetly not worth the space on the card and my hard-drive. Occaisionally on a really high dynamic scene (I try to avoid them in the first place) I may remember to switch to raw as it does give you a little advantage. But generally I find jpeg adequate. What I don't like about RAW (apart from the file size) is the grainess you get when you bring out the dark spots. I use CS2 and a jpeg will give me a much nicer photo after manipulation than a RAW. It's also not as compatible, for instance with a panorama stitcher.

You I presume use RAW? --Fir0002 www 11:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal Pictures

I see that User:Gjm130 has uploaded a version of your Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2006.jpg as Image:Montreal Twilight Panorama 2007.jpg, which has been (according to the text) doctored. He has also uploaded Image:Montreal skyline 7.jpg which may have also been doctored. And Image:Montrealskyline4.jpg which has no copyright info. I was wondering if you have any other pictures of the Montreal skyline that could be used in place of them? Also I will bring this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Central Terminal picture

Janke's edit of your Grand Central Terminal panorama, Image:Grand Central test.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture! Congratulations once more, but I also have a few questions. In all the articles in which it appears I replaced the original with the Featured version, before noticing that the Featured version states 'temporary file' in the discription page. If you would like to upload the Featured version over the original, I'd be happy to go back and change all the pages it links to. Also, I notice that Image:Grand Central Station Main Concourse Rectilinear projection Jan 2006.jpg isn't in any articles now that it hasn't been promoted. If you don't have any need to keep it uploaded I can delete it as a redundant image, with your permission of course. Raven4x4x 10:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that duplicate or redundant images are supposed to be removed, but I haven't thought much about it until now. The reason I ask is that I'm now an admin, so I am able to delete images on Wikipedia now. I can't delete images on commons though, but if anything is uploaded to Wikipedia I can help. Raven4x4x 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Raven4x4x 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eagle Nebula image

There's an interesting explanation of why the Hubble image appears incomplete, see FPC. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 15:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merit of image peer review

I recently created an image, and not only was it my first image for wikipedia, but by most standards the first image I've ever created. I was hoping for some feedback but there's not really a place for feedback on images aside from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and my image is certainly not of that caliber, and never will be. Rather than tracking down some people to review my image I decided to create a new page for this purpose. It's far from finished and I'm happy to finish it myself, but before I put in the effort I want to be sure that the idea has merit. I've outlined enough of the page that you should have a clear idea of what it will be. I'd appriciate if you'd take a look at it here and then leave me a note on my talk page and let me know if you think it is worthwhile. Vicarious 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been informed that a page with this intent already exists (Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review), although frustratingly nothing points to it so I didn't spot it before. Anyway, please disregard. Vicarious 10:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Museum Reading Room Panorama

You picture Image:British Museum Reading Room Panorama Feb 2006.jpg has just become Featured! Congratulations again! Raven4x4x 06:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopetoun Falls image

Talk 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hopetoun falls.jpg is incredibly beautiful. It's really stunning. Thank you for putting it on Wikipedia for the world to see. I'm thinking of making it my desktop background, so that I can look at it all the time. Please accept this photographer's barnstar as a token of my gratitude. NatusRoma | Talk 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I already have it as my desktop image :) Matei Tache 22:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadenhall Market

rotated 0.7° ccw
rotated 0.7° ccw

Hello Diliff,

I noticed a slight tilt in your Leadenhall Market image and tried to correct. The nescessary cropping slightly affects the composition (in particular the ends of converging beams in the ceiling are cut). So I'm not sure wheter to present it on the FPC page. What do you think? --Dschwen 11:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machy Picchu banding mystery

... examined on WP:FPC. Please check there. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 06:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loch Ard Gorge

Can you make your Loch Ard Gorge photo a seperate nomination? Its confusing having it in the other nom. I am pretty sure it will make it (don't most of yours? :) ) -Ravedave 22:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 5D

Hello again, I'm thinking of getting a 5D as well. Can you give me some advice on what lens to get for a start? I noticed Image:London_Eye_Twilight_April_2006.jpg (nice pic btw.) is perfectly sharp in the lower right corner, but not so sharp in the lower left corner. How can that be? Are you happy with the 24-105mm f/4L? I just don't know whether to shell out big bucks for an all focal lengths in one solution or get the lenses successively. --Dschwen 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I noticed that as well, to be honest! I haven't seen that in other photos with that lens so I'm a bit puzzled as to whether the lens is in need of recalibration or not. Its well and truely covered under warranty (and has to go back to a service centre regardless, as it has a known manufacturers fault and was recalled back in October last year). Overall, I'm pretty happy with it, though. One downside to the 5D is that, due to be full-framed, it shows up a lens' weaknesses at the edges. The 24-105mm is slightly softer at the edges, but it definitely should not be as bad as in the London Eye image. I'll give it another test and see if there is a fault. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the lens. The image stabilisation definitely more than compensates for its (relatively) average aperture (f/4). It depends what you would use the camera for. A 24-70 f/2.8L might be a better lens if you do street photography, because image stabilisation can't stop motion blur of the subject, only compensate for the motion of the photographer. :) Anyway, if you intend on developing your photography further, you might regret getting an all-focal-lengths-in-one lens. Would you consider a 24-105mm one of those lenses though? I certainly wouldn't. I also have a 17-40mm f/4 ultra wide angle (which was my standard wide angle when I had the 10D with a 1.6x focal length multiplier), a 50mm f/1.8, a 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 macro and 70-200mm f/2.8L telephoto zoom. ;) Even then, I occasionally wish I had a longer telephoto lens, but not often, as my photography tends to be more landscape'ish, rather than wildlife! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, that's quite a heap of glass. I'm thinking of getting a Sigma 28-70mm F2,8 EX DG Asp. IF or a Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro and cover higher focal lengths later on. I noticed you have 3 fixed focal length lenses, do you use them frequently? I have to browse through your images and find some examples, but upload.wikimedia.org is down right now. Arghhh, so many decisions, this is even harder than choosing a cell-phone provider... ;-) --Dschwen 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I've heard that the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 is a good lens - not so sure about the Tamron. I would personally prefer to have the 24mm end of things on my general purpose lens, as it really gives you a bit more wide-angle flexibility. I'll so a bit of research on the lenses and see what I can find. I'm not against non-Canon lenses but so far, I've only ever used Canon. I've paid a slight price premium but I like some of the features (Eg, all my L lenses use a 77mm filter screw) and they are often best-in-class. As for my fixed focal length glass, I used my 85mm f/1.8 quite a lot in my stitched mosaics, would you believe. Usually when the angle of view is small, I find it is the best lens to use. It is VERY sharp (along with the 100mm macro lens, probably the sharpest in the set). I haven't done many portrait shots lately, but my fixed focal length lenses are ideal for them. And of course, when you want to do macros, the 100mm macro lens is the best of the lot. The 50mm f/1.8 is definitely worth getting, too, if you don't want to lay down the cash for better fixed focal lenth lenses. It is extremely cheap (both in price - probably not much more than 50 euro - and build quality) but you can't get better value for money.Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Have a look at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews if you're interested in comparing lenses and haven't already found that site. The Canon 24-105mm f/4L and 24-70mm f2.8L get better reviews than the Sigma and Tamron but only just. Heres an amusing review that I found on the Sigma.. Gotta love the Polish sense of humour ;)

--- Review Date: Feb 8, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 Pros: Helps you take sharp photos with good contrast and nice deph of field control. Cheap. Cons: Heavy and not very ergonimic.

This lens is heavy and not exactly ergonomic. When new, the zoom ring is as stiff as my great aunt Agatha (but in her case the stiffnes is the net result of an unfortunate case of pleurosy), but unlike poor old Agatha, the Sigma loosens up with use. Build quality is OK, but it ain't top end Nikon, Canon 'L' etc. In fact this lens has only got one good thing going for it ... it produces beautifully sharp, contrasty images with great depth of field control. I bought my first one when an accident left me stuck without a lens on a trip to Crete. Now I have two, one which I use with a Canon 5D and one which I use with a Nikon F6. Both have the same quirky ergonimics, but both produce great photos. ---

The fact that the 24-105mm f/4L IS has image stabilisation shouldn't be underestimated though. I have done the vast majority of my indoor panoramas handheld with this lens, at shutter speeds down to 1/8th of a second or so. It really is that useful. It all depends on how much money you have and whether IS is useful to you, or whether you'd prefer the DOF and shutter speed benefits of a faster lens. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks! This is a lot to chew on. Now that the images display again I checked some of yout other uploads and the lenses you used. The 85mm prime is really impressive. I'll have to think some more (not the impulse buyer type). --Dschwen 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC), P.S.: Do you use a pano head? --Dschwen 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not an impulse buyer either, particularly about big purchases like this. Yeah, the 85mm is indeed impressive. It is a perfect portrait lens and extremely sharp. No, I don't use a portrait head. I see the point of it, but I find that unless you're shooting something very close, the parallax error is so minor that good stitching software can mask it without a problem at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leadenhall Market promoted
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Leadenhall Market In London - Feb 2006 rotated.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Another unanimous promotion! Congratulations ~ Veledan • Talk 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HDR photos

That's ok about removing the other photo. I don't really feel either way about it. I just thought why not include both? After all, they're in a section called 'Examples'. I'd say your photo is actually the best of them all. You can see my opinion of some of the other Photoshop CS2-processed "HDR" images on the HDRI article talk page. They just look ghastly. Your photo still looks natural and also has the two seperate photos to demonstrate the dynamic range of the scene. Imroy 09:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another FPC

I've nominated your image of the London Eye that you took a fortnight ago; it's wonderful. Sorry for the intrusion; please keep taking the wonderful images! :-)

James F. (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of that shot, do you have one with a longer exposure? I think that composition with a 30 second exposure sure would be interesting! --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] river pic (Harrietville Trout Farm)

Hi Diliff,
As you correctly guessed the image was put together from an exposure bracket. The bracket was shot in jpeg tho ;-). It wasn't ever made into a HDR as such, as I actually "hand made" that pic. I used I think 5 layers in photoshop and just erased around areas with 30% opacity eraser until I got the kind of exposure effect I wanted. Glad you liked it tho
London not too photogenic? I always thought england was full of quanit old villages called Shaftesbury the you find on biscuit tins? Not to mention the rolling parklands etc and places with names like "Yorkshire" full of castles and stuff. Anyway I obviously have never been there. Tower of London? A cathedral? Buckingham Palace? What about the british parliament? Maybe you could get some ideas from here ?
I like your London Eye, so don't completely give up on England! --Fir0002 www 23:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Padaung girl promoted
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Karen Padaung Girl Portrait.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Another unanimous promotion! keep them coming :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 16:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)