User talk:Benh/Archive/2011

File:Blue Mosque Courtyard Arcades Wikimedia Commons.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

image candidate en FP

J'ai corrigé une partie des problèmes que tu as relevés, par contre, je me suis planté de projection. Penses tu que la nouvelle image puisse être recevable si on exclue cet aspect purement technique. (J'économiserai 50 mo d'upload et d'espace disque si ce n'est pas recevable.) Merci. Esby (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Salut ! Je continuerai à voter contre car on voit toujours les traces de fusion d'exposition dans le ciel. Ça n'est pas le panorama le plus facile car tu prends le soleil en pleine poire, mais peut être qu'il faut accepter que le ciel soit très clair là où il y a le soleil. En tout cas, même si tu enlèves les discontinuités de tons dans le ciel, je continuerai à voter contre pour l'aspect non naturel. La fusion d'exposition fonctionne moyennement sur des scènes de jour avec ciel bleu à mon avis. Aussi, à ta place, je ferais 3 panoramas (pour chaque exposition) puis je fusionnerais le tout, j'ai vu que ça donnait de meilleurs résultats. - Benh (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Le problème est que j'étais accompagné, donc j'ai pas eu tout le temps que je voulais. Sur mes stacks normales, le soleil était trop fort, donc j'ai été obligé de faire une deuxième série de stack en pleine poire (celle du bas grosso modo), j'aurai bien aimé la faire pour le haut aussi, mais bon, on était pressé en fait. Merci pour l'avis. Je verrai si je withdraw la nomination ou pas demain. Esby (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting image

You're welcome ;-) . I've tagged this file for deletion. I can't delete it by myself cause i'm not an admin. Regards--Dэя-Бøяg 11:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Salut Benh!

Sans vouloir paraitre arrogant, j'attends impatiemment ton avis sur ma dernière nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mycale laxissima (Strawberry Vase Sponge).jpg ;) Cordialement --Citron (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Raphia

Je ne suis pas mécontent que tu me rappelles. Je comprends facilement ton avis technique, çà je n’y reviens pas, mais j’ai été très touché de ton dénigrement du travail que nous faisons Lez et bien d’autre que des fonds de muséologie. Tu n’imagine pas la difficulté qu’il y a convaincre une conservateur de t’ouvrir ses collections et à la faire de façon pérenne en lui faisant signer un contrat, c’est ce que j’ai fait à Toulouse et pour le Transvaal Muséum, d’autre sont en cours. C’est vrai que çà peux paraitre barbant de voir défiler des silex taillé ou des ammonites qui se ressemble ou des coquillages, mais c’est utile. Dis-toi bien que pour moi voir défiler des photos de trains ou des paysages me laissent indifférent mais je ne m’en mêle pas. Bref nous avons cédé l’un et l’autre à un mouvement d’humeur, mais nous avons le même idéal de partage çà devrais suffire à nous rapprocher. Notre première rencontre aura été un peu rude, mais çà n’aurure pas pour autant mal de la suite. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Demande de conseil technique

Bonjour Benh.
Dans votre critique relative à l'image des voûtes du Collège des Bernardins, vous avez indiqué qu'il faudrait "apply some unsharp mask filter to emphazise details". Je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit nécessaire en l'espèce, mais je voudrais en savoir plus sur la manoeuvre évoquée. Pourriez-vous s'il vous plaît être plus précis et m'indiquer à quoi vous faites allusion ? Je dispose de GIMP. Contient-il quelque chose permettant ce que vous suggérez ?
Merci à l'avance de votre réponse.--Jebulon (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merci de la réponse et du temps passé. Je savais que tu utilisais GIMP, c'est dans ton "profil". Je suis d'accord avec toi sur la dépense et le piratage, j'ajouterais que GIMP est bien suffisant pour mon ambition. Je connaissais l'outil, mais je ne comprends pas le rapport avec l'expression anglaise du "masque flou". Bon, en tâtonnant comme tu dis, j'ai essayé quelque chose, ça ne me parait pas flagrant comme amélioration, mais c'est vrai qu'il y a un "léger" mieux. Pour le reste, comme pour le pont visiblement trop tordu de je ne sais plus quelle ville (?!), n'aie aucun doute, on s'accrochera encore beaucoup, c'est tout à fait sûr.

Mais ça n'empêche pas d'essayer de s'améliorer, alors autant s'approvisionner en conseils chez les "bons". Et à n'en pas douter, tu es obviously un "bon".

Quant à moi, je ne sais pas quel est mon "niveau", mais je sais très bien quel n'est pas mon niveau, je sais parfaitement que j'ai du chemin à faire. Peut-être atteindrai-je un jour le Nirvana, et ne serai pas de prime abord rebuté par les horribles panoramas déformés au premier plan que mon pauvre cerveau rectilinéaire refuse d'accepter (pas de ma faute)... !

Heureusement (si, si !!), ce n'est pas un critère pour participer aux revues des FPC.

Merci en tous cas à nouveau.--Jebulon (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Colorspace and profiles

A colorprofile is only needed in postprocessing to correct issues with color resolution (24 bit, 8 bit per channel). It is used to describe a transformation between sRGB (Cube) to something else (prism/irregular cube). What it does, is to define a transformation matrix for raw pixel data (RGB) back to sRGB. This was introduced when cameras where able to create images (sensor data) with higher color resolution then 8 bit per channel. It describes the mapping from e.g. 14 bit per channel to 8 bit. But it can also be used to store color values outside of the default sRGB color space within 24 bit images. To profit from this transformation the program used must support at least 16 bit per channel. But this has also a price. You have only 2²⁴ distinct colors inside an 24 bit file format. That means that you will have higher color resolutions in some parts of sRGB and a lower resolution in other parts. So far the theory.

In practice we have many issues with color profiles. The first is, that this color profiles are relative and not absolute. That means, that the color profile itself guarantees only the transformation to sRGB, but does not preserve lightness, saturation or hue. That means, that it can't be used to reproduce the correct colors (as if you would be there) on a calibrated display. It alone can't do that, if the camera itself isn't calibrated or the colors are changed by the user in a later step.

The next issue is the color resolution of the format and display. As stated above, an format with 24 bits per pixel has only 2²⁴ distinct colors. This is an color profile/space independent problem for JPEG and other formats. But this is still no real issue. The real issue is if we also have a display that does only support 24 bit color depth (MS Windows settings say 32, but it are only 24 (RGB (24) + Alpha (8))). So lets now take a simplified look at an example how the conversion is done.

For my example i use a custom color profile. I call it "red2", because it is identical to sRGB with one exception: The Space for red is stretched by the factor 2. That means that your camera has the ability to capture a bigger scaled red resolution, but will reach oversaturation on the red channel half as fast. If we store such an image as a JPEG with "red2" as the color profile anything seams fine. But now Firefox comes by and converts "red2" to "sRGB" for your display (nearly all common displays work with sRGB as the default). What Firefox would do in this case is a simple calculation. It would take the red value of the pixel and multiply it by 2. The following table describes the mapping for the red values:

Value (red2)	Value (sRGB)
0	0
1	2
2	4
...	...
127	254
128	255
129	255
...	...
255	255

Note that the values are clipped to the range (0,255). Now we have two evils within this picture:

1. It misses half of it red tones (uneven numbers), reducing the number of distinct colors to 2⁷ or 2²³
2. Anything higher then 127 (254) is clipped to 255. That means, that you photographed a full red flower with distinct colors and now all the stronger red tones merge to one. It will look massively oversaturated/posterized.

This was a rather harsh example but it also applies to Adobe profiles and any other then sRGB. You convert integers to integers by multiplying integers with float values and round them to integers again. The result is clear: Missing colors on all channels. It has the same effect as to stretch color channels in Photoshop with 8bit. The result is a histogram with holes, possible high peaks at the center portion and in worse cases even peaks at the left or right edge.

To conclude: Colorprofiles are used to map the values of a raw to colors in sRGB space. A normal camera doesn't have sensors that directly produce sRGB itself and a limited output format (JPEG, ...), which isn't able to map all values of the sensors to sRGB without losses. Therefor it uses a colorprofile to describe the mapping to sRGB. This is usefull if you open that image with an imageeditor that understands more then 8 bit per channel, since it can use the inbetween values as well the extended values (in comparison to 8 bit sRGB). But as soon you safe an image in a 24 bit format which is displayed on a 24 bit display you will loose all possible advantages. Even worse: You loose quality due the conversion to sRGB.

Possible ways to prevent that are:

1. store the image with sRGB as the color space on 24 bit formats. (Best for displays)
2. store the image in a format with 16 bit integer, 16 bit float or 32 bit float per channel. (Commons only supports TIFF with 16 bit integer. Colorprofiles loose their advantages within such formats since any mapping to sRGB 16 bit or higher is good enough. They can still exist, but can be converted with much lower losses in quality)

Final conclusion: Images stored with sRGB or without color profile are even better suited for Commons as images with other color profiles in 24 bit formats. Overall quality is the same and we have no advantages from the profiles in 24 bit formats. Instead we have little devils. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't you believe that you wrote this after my try to explain it to you. The colorprofile has no significance in images that were created by multiple exposures. The profile embedded in the original files will used to create to transform the image to sRGB (linear, float, inside range 0.0 ... infinity). After that they are combined in sRGB space. Saving the image in sRGB (0.0 ... 1.0, Gamma of 2.2 applied) afterwards is perfectly fine. See: [1] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 08:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw nowhere the fact the exposure blending program automatically converted the profile to sRGB (which was my main concern). But now OK. - Benh (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, how do you know which program is used by wladyslaw ? I will look for what I can on enfuse (the one I use) tonight. Thanks. - Benh (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as i know Wladislaw uses tofuse. It recognizes profiles automatically converts them lossless to linear sRGB and stores them as tonemapped sRGB. Be carefull to not confuse it with exposure blending, which creates unrealistic results. The colorprofile is omitted since it is useless after tonemapping. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't find anything about tofuse... but thanks anyways (if tofuse takes several exposure bracketed shots as input, I believe it's exposure blending. It may use any algorithm of its own to get more realistic results, but I guess it stills blends several exposures all together into HDR, and then tonemaps this into something we can view on "standard" LDR devices. I use enfuse which yields realistic results to me, at least on night shots, and sometimes on day shots). - Benh (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tour_Eiffel_top.jpg

File:Tour_Eiffel_top.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!

Grcampbell (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Glacier Argentière

The derivative work

Hello. I was surfing through some featured pictures in Commons and I got really curious about the different yellowish tone of this picture. I got curious enough to try how it would look after some certain color adjustments I've made before too. I hope it doesn't matter. Here is what I got after a while. I don't want to complain about the different tastes people might have but I personally think it would look somewhat more natural this way (if not even better with some further adjustments).

I've been in the Graian Alps too and have familiarised myself with these reddish–brown–grey granite rocks of the Mont Blanc massif and the nature around a few times. I also have some photographs taken there, so I think I have a kind of clue what it perhaps should look like over there. But I just wanted to let you know about this recent version so check at will. :) --Ximonic (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Ximonic, you're right about my picture of the glacier, the white balance is off, and it's certainly too yellowish. As you said, this is a matter of taste, and I did this on purpose. But now that I look at it back, I think it's really too yellowish... your work might be a but too blueish, I'm not sure. Anyways, I'd even delist the picture as FP... it's not really worth its status :) Thanks for letting me know about the derivative work. - Benh 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the derivative might be somewhat on the blue side now, yet it was quite a quick experiment. But you got the idea and the main purpose was, maybe, to inspire :) You do what you regard as the best. --Ximonic (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg

I reduce the noise on the image so is the image good enough now to get your support? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm afraid it won't be enough. It's not only a matter of noise, but lack of wow, composition, sunglasses, and so on. - Benh (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi pictured passed even tho he had his glasses on. As for the wow factor, It's a picture of an of the activists of the Egyptian revolution -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't vote for Gaddafi. And I don't see any wow with the fact it's an activist from Egypt revolution.- Benh (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Toutes mes félicitations pour votr travail photographique!

Il y a longtemps que je ne suis plus venu sur Wiki commons, je vois maintenant l'évolution de votre travail photo que je trouve particulièrement soigné et des panoramas extraordinaires!

Bonne continuation ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Coming back from Paris

A pity that we couldn't meet in Paris! And that the weather was not the best for pictures. Anyway, I took a couple of shots of the Eifell Tower, from the Trocadero, which might challenge yours! Best regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Feel free to nominate on FPC ;) My shot isn't special by any mean anyways, and I'm sure there will be plenty of better ones soon or later - Benh (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Demande d'utilisation de photo

Bonjour, je suis graphiste et souhaiterais utiliser votre superbe photo de Paris la nuit vue de la Tour Montparnasse (Paris Night.jpg) pour un magazine associatif. La photo sera bien sûr créditée et il sera indiqué la Licence GNU Free Documentation. Me donnez-vous l'autorisation ? Merci. --Elzeard Bouffier (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ephesus Celsus Library Façade .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. --Sfu 09:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pha That Luang Vientiane Laos 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 More than good. Nominated as FP.--Jebulon 08:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rendez à César...

...ce qui lui appartient.

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

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

J'ai reçu ceci, c'est évidemment à toi que ça doit parvenir. Félicitations ! --Jebulon (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merci surtout pour la nomination. L'image n'est pas extra extra mais je suis content qu'il y ait qq FP du Laos ! - Benh (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

J'ai fait un voyage au Viet Nam, mais je ne connais pas le Laos, qui a l'air fascinant, rien qu'au vu de cette photo. C'est aussi ça que j'aime dans Commons, la découverte.--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Request permission to use photo

Dear Benh

I write to you on behalf of the newly amalgamated Department of Aesthetics and Communication from Aarhus University, Denmark (Aarhus University is a publically funded Danish research university. University education is free for all Danish citizens). We would like to know and would be very grateful if we could be permitted to use your (brilliant) photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_Night.jpg on a new departmental web site currently in the works, by attributing it in the source code. We look forward to hearing from you, regardless decision. On behalf of the department, best regards, Kasper Simonsen, teaching assistant, B.A. (Personal remark: Stunning photos you've got! Great work :-)) --KSimonsen (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, You did not have to remove your request (I'm notified by email anyways). First thank you for the kind words. You are of course free to use (this includes commercial use, and derivative works) my photo(s) as long as proper credits are given. Please refer to the license on the image page. Regards, - Benh (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A preview before I proceed

New stitch from another set of images.

Hi Benh,

Thanks for your encouraging comments regarding the Upernavik cemetery pano. I have been working quite intensively on the other set of photos for some 3-4 hours now. Quite some problems left due to parallax errors. But much more foreground and all photos are fairly sharp (I think close to "as good as it gets" with that camera). I dunno whether the light is still "very flat" , but at least it is different. I think the pano is fixable by better masking (all those small white crosses are making me dizzy!), and by some selective cloning. However, before I proceed, I would like to hear your opinion about the progress so far? There are some quite serious stitching errors left, but how obvious are they? Also an issue with color banding in the sky, which I need to look into. I am concerned that the crop will now be too tight on the right hand side, and I am in doubt if it is worthwhile to invest more time in it. What do you think? I do not think I can combine the images from the two days, although it would have been nice to reuse the right-hand-side landscape from the first day. I am asking Alves and Paolo to voice their opinion here as well, as they also showed an active interest in the first version. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Slaunger, I'm answering your post here. Thanks for your kind comments. I have a very bad internet connection here at work, very unstable, it comes and goes. 18Mb seem impossible for me right now. I'm checking your two new images in detail in the evening (UTC diff -4.30Hrs). Then I'll be able to "diagnose" the panos. Have an awesome day (good luck with the storm!),

Regards, Paolo.

• Hi Slaunger, I believe this is not the best projection as the horizon doesn't look straight. With 'rectilinear' or even 'equirectangular' you may get a better result and use more of the foreground at right. Anyway it is a shame that no sea is shown on the right side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• Hi guys, I was surprised to get so many notifications that my talk page was updated ! I think like Alves that the pano isn't wide enough, I'd love yo see the sea back ! But I think you can fix the horizon line by setting the viewpoint appropriately. Anyways, what I would do is using File:Upernavik cemetary 2007-08-06 original stitch.jpg as starting point and grab part from this one to fill holes. Enough talking, let me give it a try (I have 10 min before they come to pick me up...) - Benh (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, the stitching errors ARE noticeable, but I think they can be fixed with careful cloning. You also have inconsistency of lighting in the left part of the sky. - Benh (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry was a bit away. This is what could be done to me using method described above. - Benh (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• It is a good idea! I am working on the same concept now by including selected photos from two weeks after in the first stitch to include more foreground in a new PTGui project. It is interesting how it can be seen how autumn colors begin to emerge on the vegetation during the course of the two weeks - the time interval between the photo series. It turns out that the two photo series are taken with the sun in almost the same direction, and I seem to be standing at almost the same place and height making it doable to merge in the photos from two weeks after. --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• That is a good alternative. The new uploaded file isn't a great option since it doesn't show the right part of the sea. Choose an alternative, and when you are done and get the best final result, I'm still available to help you correcting the blurred band (if still present) and other cloning issues. Now let's stop filling Benh's mail with our comments :) --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Paolo: Thank you for your continued offer to assist me. I will work further on an extension of the first stitch with the ocean to the right. I am a "slow" editor so it make take some days. But then again, there is no hurry (considering how long time it took me to find those old photos). --Slaunger (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I hope you didn't take my comment on mails for a complaint. Such notices won't bother me as I have proper filters set for wiki mails. - Benh (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Benh: Glad you are not annoyed that I spammed you talk page with my problems. I hindsight, I do not quite understand why I chose to hijack your talk page for that purpose. My own talk page would have been the natural choise. --Slaunger (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have merged photos from the two days. There are a number of problems, which I have indicated with annotations. I am afraid my editing skills will cause more damage than good at this stage . Paolo (or anyone else), would you like to have a go at it? (Just take your time, there is in no hurry). I might be able to further suboptimize the stitch, but it is very hard to stitch for me due to the parallax errors and photos from two days taken at a slightly different height and camera position. --Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Slaunger, the result on the lower right part isn't this bad (I'm pretty much sure most wouln't tell at first sight that a merge went on over there). Biggest issue seems to be the band at the left of the cross. You should try to preprocess that annoying picture by selectively adjusting the brightness (either the sky only or the land only) to match the surrounding pictures. I my opinion, you can crop away the lower part to get rid of the empty areas. I don't want to sound like "giving you instructions", so of course I offer you help (but I don't think my editing skills are better than yours... may be contrary ;) ). - Benh (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Benh, your input is much appreciated, and I do not perceive it as "being given instructions". I consider it helpfuladvice. I actually have a sharp photo of the structures in the soft area. I have just masked it out due to parallax eerors. However, I just got an idea: I could divide that photo in smaller parts and stitch them selectively in small patches. I think that would work. I will try that when I get some time. Yes, and then I should do some preprocessing do fix the color banding. I have tried to auto-exposure it in PTGui, but it didn't really help and also worsened other aspects. --Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I finished editing the merged version uploaded by Slaunger. Blur is still noticeable, but it is present only in little areas now. Sky looks good to me, crop and framing don't look bad, the right grassy part isn't that bad either. Main problem here remains the quality of the camera; There are obviously guarantees that this picture is going to get supports. I will, but I'm not so sure about the rest. And if it doesn't get featured, it still is good to have these pictures on the Wikipedia. It would be great if you added it to some gallery on Greenland's page. I think the pano can still be improved: some more sharpening/cloning job can still be done, but I already spent a good amount of time on it (and I'm pretty happy with the result). You be the judges. Have a good day!

File:Upernavik_cemetary_2007-08-06_original_stitch.jpg Regards, --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Heheeh, Paolo, You have done a great job! Thank you for spending so much time and effort on it with your 3 GB RAM. I am impressed with your improvements of the blurred patch and the repair of the color band in the sky. It is really much better now. I agree with you that the main limitation is the camera. I have cursed myself many times that I was such a cheapskate prior to going there, that I did not invest in a decent DSLR at that time. It would have been an FP factory! I was thinking about the crop. Maybe I should crop off the already cropped old church on the left hand side? And maybe even more to get the big white croos closer to a line of thirds. Opinions? --Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm impressed too. That really is the kind of fixes I'd like to be skilled at doing. I would have been able to fix with raw pictures only. I have a few panoramas with this kind of artifacts (and some are definitely FP worthy IMO) but I can't fix the way you did here. Maybe I'll have work for you in the future ;) (but they are several hundreds megapixels pic... maybe hard to work on if you only have 3Go). Out of curiosity, which soft did you use ? Thanks. - Benh (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• And I agree with Paolo that whether it will pass FP or not is of secondary importance. It is the objective of getting the most out of available material, which matters, and to get some diversity of subjects in our galleries. And I really appreciate this cross-country/continental way of collaborating. --Slaunger (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Benh: Several hundred Mpxs sound a bit like nightmare lol. I already had a bad time editing one 80 Mb tiff file of 20 photos of the Colosseum. I use Photoshop Lightroom. It gets very slow... but we'll see! Actually, for this particular case I wanted to use another program to stack the two photos one above the other, so I could more easily clone in Lightroom, going from one picture to the other. That I could not achieve, because of my 3GB RAM. Therefore I had to work taking pieces of the same image. As for the crop, Slaunger; mine was just a suggestion at bottom (I also had to clone little spots in order to get the bigger dimension in the vertical axis). As for the horizontal axis I think panos should show as much as possible, at least for the Wikipedia. It could stay the way it is now, but of course, you are free to pick whatever crop you prefer. Cheers from Venezuela! --Paolo Costa (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Nominated after adding some further metadata to the file page and some annotations. --Slaunger (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I loosing the touch?

Hi Benh,

I've noticed that you sistematically opposed (or did not assess) all my FPC nominations in the last 3+ years: the last promoted picture that you supported was nominated in October 2008 (this one, which is not even a photograph). Concerning the most recent, even those that received a generous support from the community (like this one, this one and this one didn't seem to impress you. Am I really loosing the touch, in your opinion, or is it something else? Yes, I'm aware of the ostracism (if not open hostility) that my contributions have raised in the last months or so from some users (though I do not fully understand why), but I don't think you are part of that group. Season greetings, Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joaquim, I didn't remember it was so long since I last supported one of your pictures. No no, I don't hold any grudge against you at all. But yes, the pictures you mention aren't really to my tastes. When I don't take the time to assess, it's because I would only duplicate existing comment, or I don't find interest on the subject. I don't spend as much time as before on FPC, and I have to filter. Notice that I haven't uploaded pictures for long now... unfortunately (though I have a lot to be processed). In the case of the tower, Carschten already mentioned that the lower part is blurry, and I believe it's one of the shot which was missed (can see the seam line on the leftmost window). And as mentioned by Jebulon, there's little wow. Honestly, do you think that shot could come from only you when you look at it ? To me it could have been taken by many. When I looked at a Lucag, I could tell from miles away it was from Lucag ; I could recognise a Richard macro at first glance thanks to the very subtle compositions he was a master of ; same for Noodles, Diliff... That's what I'm now missing on FPC, unique shots (like Slaunger's Upernavik cemetary). If only I had their talent and could compensate... ;) Have nice end of year celebrations ! - Benh (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas greetings

Havregrynskugler, a Danish christmas sweet with oatmeal as its main ingredient.

Dear Benh,

Here are some christmas sweets for you, which my daughter and I just made. You will find the recipe in the file page. They are easy to make and they taste in my opinion very good. Merry christmas from Denmark, --Slaunger (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your ingenious photo. That was a neat idea and well executed, I must say. May daughter was really impressed going "How did he do that?". Also thanks for your kind greetings. I hope you are also enjoying some holidays together with friends and/or family. As I guess you have noticed the cemetery pano made it thorugh FP. Once agin thanks for the idea with merging photos from the two days in the first stitch. It tuned out quite well (considering the camera and "raw material"). --Slaunger (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calanque Sormiou 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 Well for me. It would be desirable dark stains of plants on the right slope are more light. --Aleks G 11:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Istanbul Süleymaniye Mosque.JPG

Hi Benh. Because I think it's a private discussion I apply here and not at the FPC site. I'm a bit confused because you often oppose images with the reason dull light... is it different here? I never really understand precisely what you mean so maybe you can explain me it? (I hope it doesn't sound spiteful...) Grüße aus Deutschland --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Carchsten, it is different because here, I'm the author. No... let me be serious, to me dull lighting is a lighting which is a bit dark and even, without contrast. In the case of my picture of the Suleymaniye mosque, you have a cloudy sky and it's also dark, but there's a window for the sun to lit the subject, as you can see with the very bright highlights. I think it help seeing the relief of the building (otherwise, I wouldn't have nominated ;) ) and gives a little mood to the picture. Hope this justifies. Bonnes fêtes de fin d'année ! - Benh (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mantes en FP

Je comprends d'autant plus ton point de vu que je le partage. Mais le paradoxe s'est que si je me laisse aller à laisser passer une ombre ou a faire un fond j'ai plus de remarques sur ce point que sur le sujet lui même. Dans quelques jours j'essai avec un crâne déformé Aztèque tu verras qui en à qui râleront pour la couleur du fond... Tes remarques sont toujours utile à lire. J'en profite pour te souhaiter des bonnes fêtes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)