User talk:Tuxyso/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Tuxyso!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Image:MH-Schlossstrasse.jpg was uncategorized on 31 July 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
• Image:Flaechennutzung-MH-2009.png was uncategorized on 4 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Kategorien

Hallo Tuxyso, Deine schönen Bilder sind leider nicht oder nur schlecht kategorisiert. Lese bitte erst einmal Commons:Categories. Dort steht, wie es geht! Grüße, -- Ies (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Bei dem letzten Foto Media:Ruhrtalbruecke-Sonnenuntergang.jpg habe ich bereits Kateogorien berücksichtigt. Stellst du dir das so vor, oder sollte es noch feingranularer zugehen? Ich werde mich in jedem Fall mal einlesen. Mir war bisher insbesondere die Georeferenzierung meiner Fotos wichtig. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bahnhof-MH-Vorhof-2012.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 perspective distortion --Iifar 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Please re-review, I've corrected distortion, highlights and made a slightly different crop. --Tuxyso 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 09:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ruhrtalbruecke-Sonnenuntergang.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very pretty, but tilted clockwise. Mattbuck 12:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I've rotated and sharpened it a bit, plese re-review --Tuxyso 13:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)  Support Fine with me. --Iifar 13:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg-Anholt-Westfassade-2012.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 Not the best light I guess, but still OK for QI, very nice view. - A.Savin 13:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)  Support --Iifar 13:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg-Anholt-Schlosstor-2012.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 Slightly CA left side. but acceptable. Good Quality --Rjcastillo 23:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC) I've slightly corrected CA now. --Tuxyso 06:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heissen-Markt-Und-Alte-Buergermeisterei-Abend.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  Comment perspective distortion --Rjcastillo 15:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) I've corrected distortion and sharped a bit. Please re-review --Tuxyso 18:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)  Support  Comment much better --Rjcastillo 20:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amurtiger-vor-Baum-Zoo-Muenster.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 composition and good Quality --DKrieger 23:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amurtiger-Zoo-Muenster.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 04:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mantelaffe-mit-Baby-Zoo-Muenster.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. --Rzuwig 21:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Katta-Zoo-Muenster.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. --NorbertNagel 19:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ara-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments looks good to me. Sharp head and eye, nice bokeh --Nichtvermittelbar 16:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anholter-Schweiz-Schweizer-Häuschen-2012.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. --NorbertNagel 18:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Linnep-Vorderansicht.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  Comment very well, imo a small tilt, but acceptable. --Rjcastillo 23:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your positive review. I am not an expert of perfect perspective. Can you specify the direction of the tilt. I have the NEF, so I can easily correct it. --Tuxyso 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Petri-Kirche-Innen-Altarbereich.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 chromatic aberration --The Photographer 14:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Very complex CAs because of HDR processing. Tried to fix it. Please re-review. Thanks! --Tuxyso 15:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)  Info QI now, well done --The Photographer 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MH-Stadtmitte-von-Schlossbruecke.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 01:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RheinRuhrZentrum2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK to me. - A.Savin 20:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bahnhof-Wetter-Ruhr-2012.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 --Iifar 19:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rathausturm-Muelheim-2012.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 to me. - A.Savin 12:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zentraler-Platz-Terneuzen-2012.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 There is some ccw tilt on the buildings - A.Savin 10:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry for my inconvenience, but I do not know what a "ccw tilt" is. Can you clarify and/or mark the area(s) on the photo? Many thanks. --Tuxyso 11:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC) It means that vertical lines are not straight, slightly leaning counterclockwise. Should be visible without image notes if you watch the pic at 100%. - A.Savin 10:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I've slightly corrected the tilt. OK? Please note: The white high-rise building in the middle in not completely straight in reality. See for instance see (1) and Google StreetView (51.337596,3.832056). Please re-review, thanks! --Tuxyso 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC) New version looks OK to me. - A.Savin 23:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grillo-Theater-2012.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 Add geotag --The Photographer 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Coordinates added. OK now? Plese re-review. Thanks! --Tuxyso 13:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Syrischer-Braunbaer-Zoo-Muenster.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sunrise-Fog-Zoutelane.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice. --King of Hearts 18:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloesschen-Borghees-2012.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 IMHO the cropped horse spoils the composition. --Berthold Werner 15:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I've slightly modified the crop. I cannot crop the 2nd horse completely, but I think it is better now (2nd horse is only a dark frame to the scene. Please re-review. Thanks! --Tuxyso 15:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC) IMHO good now. --Berthold Werner 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

File:P-vesyolkin-np-5430.jpg

• What place is overexposed and how did you check? Thanks.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks. I don't think there are 255, 255, 255 colour places. I will check if anything can be done, but those places are always light being ligthened by skylight.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Checked by my eyes :) Following setting in LR 4 give be perfect exposure to your photo:

• contrast: middle
• lights: -50
• black : -20
• white: -30

If you like I can send you my version. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• • I use ACR plugin, so your settings won't fit my data fields . Overall, black -20 means there will be no details in black areas.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Derivative

I see your variant and I may call two troubles with it. The 1st one is simply technical: you file is twice larger, this means it's twice less usable. But there is another, more serious trouble. As you made the image darker, not only the dark places lost their details. A more unpleasant result appeared: the man became older in your photo. This is not a result I headed to. anyway, I see your reason and I admire it. If the current one fails, I will check the image again and will try to increase face contrast and to keep forehead details. Thank you for a good advice.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I understand your impression of the aged man... It is due to increased clarity and sharpness. The size is due to "high quality" in LR, also fixable. If the photo would not become QI I can upload a new version. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to upload more . If any, I will fix this in a month .--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Do you know if it is possible that I delete the photo I've uploaded? --Tuxyso (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of this.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Limbecker-Platz-Einkaufspassage-2012.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Limbecker-Platz-Einkaufspassage-2012.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 -- Lothar Spurzem 21:39 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Limbecker-Platz-Ausgang-Berliner-Platz-Hoch-2012.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Limbecker-Platz-Ausgang-Berliner-Platz-Hoch-2012.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 -- Lothar Spurzem 21:42 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Limbecker-Platz-Ausgang-Berliner-Platz-2012.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Limbecker-Platz-Ausgang-Berliner-Platz-2012.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 -- Lothar Spurzem 22:17 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nationalpark-Maasduinen-2012.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.--JLPC 18:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boerse-Vlissing-2012.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 The shadows have improved considerably, however, that there are people sitting still underexposed. The court has spoiled the composition, has removed unnecessarily sky, sky to remove both the composition is tight note. I never suggested cutting the picture, I suggested removing the ugly that had labeled zone, this can be accomplished using cloning. --The Photographer 15:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I only use LR not PS. Cannot manage cloning in the desired way - give up. Reverted to previous composition (I also prefer it). Feel free to correct it. --Tuxyso 16:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)  Support Good quality imo. - A.Savin 10:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wildkatze-Anholter-Schweiz.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 Slightly dark, but still good for QI. - A.Savin 10:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Could you mark the dark areas (or do you mean overall brightness)? Local corrections should be possible. --Tuxyso 12:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC) The shadow in the right lower part, it's nothing dramatic. - A.Savin 21:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luftbild-MH-Nordosten-2009.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 --Rjcastillo 16:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Overloaded nomination

Hi Tuxyso, I so that you reverted the edit. I tried to say that when I give a comment to a picture, it refers to a certain picture. If you replace the picture with another one the review is not consistent anymore. If you nominate the other version of the building I will be more than pleased to have a look at it. Poco a poco (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Is it possible to link to an older version (I would do so for the version you have declined. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Es ist möglich ein altes Bild zu verlinken, aber ich habe keine Ahnung wie das in der Vorlage von QIC klappen könnte. Sorry! Poco a poco (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Blick-auf-Zoutelande-2012.jpg

Hi Tuxyso, Sorry, me neither. I haven't the good soft to remove it. You can ask Iifar He has all that you need. --Moonik (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Nececidad de Agua.jpg

Such problems do not exist in Venezuela, on the other hand, this person not only agreed to take the picture. I went out there and that person asked me to photograph while throwing water in his face. Your comment has more to do with copyright and here are evaluating the quality of the photos, if there is certainly apparent copyright or permissions ideally place the template for discussion. Thank for your review --The Photographer (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gasometer-Abends-Kanal-View-2012.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 Hi Poco (Ich wusste nicht, dass Du so gut deutsch kannst, klasse!), as usual you are right. But given to the light conditions, the noise is just what you have to expect, IMO it is better than to much photo shop, therefore QI to me --DKrieger 22:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Fixed Thanks for the review. I've applied a selective noise reduction. Please have a look. --Tuxyso 22:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Es ist dir gelungen. Poco a poco 22:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Oberhausen-Rueckansicht-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. QI --Rjcastillo 20:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Oberhausen-Innenhof-2012.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 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rhein-Herne-Kanal-Abenstimmung.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good and atmospheric -- Lothar Spurzem 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maria-Magdalena-Kirche-Wattenscheid-Taufstelle.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 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gelber-Frauenschuh-Holzminden.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 21:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Oberhausen-Kleines-Schloss-2012.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. Prenn 12:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Burg-Anholt-Westfassade-2012.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burg-Anholt-Westfassade-2012.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Haus-Puellen-Wachtendonk-2012.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 10:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Improved by your advice

I'd like to thank you for the advice about academician Vesyolkin's portrait. Now the photo is redone and heavily improved. Please check the new variant and tell me, is it reasonable to put it in the QIC page. I have darkened the top half, and also heavily retouched the face. Thank you, pal!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you send me a link to the photo? Cannot figure out which one you mean. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I mean the new variant.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is much better. You've well managed the spots. I will positively review. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! --PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gnadenkirche-Heissen-2011.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 19:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! U-Bahn-Durchgang-RRZ-2012.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. --JLPC 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg-Anholt-Teil-Vorburg-2012.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 --Rjcastillo 17:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St-Laurentius-Kapelle-Klein-Winter-2012.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, nice sharpness.--ArildV 09:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Friedrich-Fürstenberg-Hugenpoet-Anna-Wolff-Metternich.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 10:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St-Laurentius-Winter-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice actuell photo. Good quality -- Lothar Spurzem 21:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hugenpoet-Wassergraben-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice but please see image note.--ArildV 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Done Thanks for the review. I've uploaded a new version. Perspective correction is tricky here, because front and back part are far away from each other. Please re-review. --Tuxyso 08:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)  Support--ArildV 08:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hugenpoet-Herrenhaus-Suedfassade.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  Comment Its a nice photo but very dark foreground and shadows, possible to improve (especially if you have the raw file).--ArildV 08:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)  Done It was a difficult decision. On the day of the photo there was a marked not permanently belonging to the castle. My idea was do let those areas darker so that the photo of the castle is not distracted. I've slightly corrected it. Better? --Tuxyso 10:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I understand your point now. The new version seems to be a good compromise.--ArildV 10:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Klosterkirche-Saarn-Innenraum.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 QI --Poco a poco 21:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Germanisches-Nationalmuseum-Nuernberg-2012.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 11:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eingangsportal-Lorenzkirche-2012.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 --Rjcastillo 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sabalduskirche-Petersaltar-2012.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 The crop in the top -with decapitated heads- not optimal, but QI overall --Poco a poco 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jakobskirche-Nuernberg-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK for me --Rjcastillo 21:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zoutelande-Promenade-Sonnenuntergang.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orgel-Klosterkirche-Saarn.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}}}

Merry Christmas !!!

  Merry Christmas !!!...Best regards,--Rjcastillo (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Innenhof-Kongresshalle-Reichsparteitaggelaende-2012.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 19:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sebalduskirche-Innen-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very, very nice. --Tupungato 00:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ETA-Hoffmann-Theater-2012.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 Useful and QI. --JLPC 18:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bamberg-Altes-Rathaus-2012.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. --Tupungato 13:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saarn-Panorama-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Rjcastillo 14:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Strasse-der-Menschenrechte-Eingang-2012.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 It works to me.--Jebulon 18:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 22:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	You improve Wikimedia Commons with your photos. Thanke You Steinsplitter (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've not expected a "barnstar". I think Commons is a great project and gives me the possibility to present my photos to a broader audience. Much better than letting the photos resting on my harddisk :) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Borbeck-Komplettansicht-Sonnenuntergang-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very nice --Poco a poco 19:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Borbeck-Wirtschaftsgebaeude-2012.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 19:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Muelheim-Hochhaeuser-Hans-Boeckler-Platz-01.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. --Smial 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Muelheim-Hochhaeuser-Hans-Boeckler-Platz-04.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. --Smial 13:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ruhrturm-2012.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 --Rjcastillo 23:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Townhall-Essen-2012.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 Better now, although it could use some additional exposure overall --Poco a poco 09:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)  Done I've slightly increased overall brightness. If possible, please take a look if it is better. Thanks. --Tuxyso 11:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Indeed Poco a poco 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sabalduskirche-Strahlenkranzmadonna-Innenraum-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice look of the interior of the Sebaldus Church here in Nuremberg! --Nichtvermittelbar 22:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Strasse-Menschenrechte-Nuernberg-2012.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dutzendteich-Kongresshalle-Winterblick-2012.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Interesting --Poco a poco 11:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bamberg-Altes-Rathaus-Seite-2012.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. --Ralf Roletschek 21:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Schloss-Borbeck-Komplettansicht-Sonnenuntergang-2012.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss-Borbeck-Komplettansicht-Sonnenuntergang-2012.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dutzenteich-Winterblick-2012.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 Tilted anticlockwise. Mattbuck 15:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the info. Plese re-review. --Tuxyso 09:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Better. Mattbuck 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Muelheim-Hochhaeuser-Hans-Boeckler-Platz-02.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 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

About the comment

I meant that I have been looking for help in understanding the issue of alignment, however, I have not been successful --The Photographer (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CCD-Eingang-Duesseldorf-2012.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 QI for me --The Photographer 22:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CCD-Duesseldorf-2012.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 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Looper-Innenhafen-Duisburg-2012.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}}}

Your comment on File:Lion (Panthera leo krugeri) 03.jpg

As I mentioned in my comment on the photo, the National Currency Foundation is the digimarc account I set up some time ago. I've been using it to mark my photos, but they are not copyrighted. Is there something I need to do to prove this. I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea... My intent was only to tag the images should they be used without attribution. -- Godot13 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also posted a message to copyright admin for advice. --Godot13 (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you are the creator of the image, but the fields you use for your tagging are very confusing:

• Online copyright statement: http://mcrouter.digimarc.com/ImageBridge/router/MCRouter.asp?P_SOURCE=101&P_ID=112075&P_TYP=4&P_DID=0&P_CPY=2013&P_ATT=5
• Copyright status Copyrighted

A solution could be that you use a reference to your Commons account as online copyright statement. A further problem is that there is already an organization called "National Currency Foundation", see http://www.nationalcurrencyfoundation.com/ If you are not associated with this org the use of the name is VERY problematic. If you absolutely need a copyright in your images I would suggest to do it like User:The Photographer He uses the fields

• Author
• Copyright holder (for the licence)

You current practice is rather confusing and evokes questions. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nationalcurrencyfoundation.com is my organization... I do not have clean files for all my images, but I am about to load a clean file for this particular image. BTW, if you send an email to me through the contact page on the foundation website, I will respond. I am too new here and enjoying this too much for anyone to have questions... -- Godot13 (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I did not know. Probably you should ask the admins for the best way. The easiest (and most clear) way would be to place a reference to your Commons account on http://www.nationalcurrencyfoundation.com/contact and on your userpage of Commons an information that you are the founder of the Nationalcurrencyfoundation. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No worries... Can you look at the web page (above) now and let me know if you think it is adequate. I wrote the references going both ways from the site to Wikicommons... Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I think your statement there is very clear. If you like you could also link this page FROM your Commons userpage. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johannes-Weyer-2013.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. --A.Savin 12:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ulla-Burchardt-Dortmund-2013.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. --Martin Falbisoner 10:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Other version

Nope. I just use my Sony camera, tripod, light from the window, and ceiling light. And a background of course (usually just A4 paper from the printer. Previously I got a big calendar that I used reversed as a white background, but left it once on a rain and had to throw it out). As for other_versions - I don't know about this guideline, but as far as product photography goes - I seen it used simply to link together shots of a one product from a single session under different angles (or configurations).

That photo was made when I still had my calendar. So I could bend it getting a perfect background (you can see an edge of it reflected in the lens). I also used paper from my printer to bounce the light from above the camera (thank god for IR remote - otherwise I'd break my bones trying to press the release). As for depth of field: F/16 and precise manual focusing (no idea how I managed to hit the spot with a small viewfinder on entry-level camera though). At home I don't use focus stacking, besides: It's damn difficult unless you have FF with huge viewfinder (like Canon 1Ds or Sony A900) or an SLT camera. So I doubt I'd be able to do that with the A200 anyway. Getting perfectly white background though requires tiny bit of photoshop - I usually use dodge tool set to midtones range. Works wonders if you got slightly overexposed images. I used to shoot product photography in my previous job, so I know the workshop (although I never did final correction, there were dedicated graphic artists for that), but at home I do not have any studio (don't need it for anything) so that's why I try to use what's available for my wikipedia shots :) SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Muelheim-Hochhaeuser-Hans-Boeckler-Platz-03.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 Bit dark, needs perspective correction. Mattbuck 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)} Thnaks for the review. Can you mark the areas meant? I cannot see a perspective problem. Photographed with T&S optic and water level. I think brightness I OK, it was early in the morning and reflects the mood at this time. --Tuxyso 05:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)  Not done Mattbuck 08:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)  Done Sorry, overseen your comments --Tuxyso 13:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC) OK then. Mattbuck 03:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nikkor-135-f2.8-Ai.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 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 85mm-1.8-AF-D.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pentax-ME-35-105.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 14:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! P. crispus × onocrotalus - Zoo Gelsenkirchen - 2012-04-30 (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pelikanhybrid-Zoo-Gelsenkirchen-2012-01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK --The Photographer 13:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erdmaennchen-Zoo-Gelsenkirchen.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 done --The Photographer 13:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nikon-85mm-AF-D-1.4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments ok --Mattbuck 13:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tiegelgussdenkmal-Essen-2013.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 QI for me. --Kadellar 19:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-2013.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 and very beautiful light. --Léna 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Teilansicht-Essen-2013.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. Nice to have taken the picture in winter. --Léna 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Interesting reflections, good quality-Godot13 19:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Tuxyso, could you add location, please? --Kadellar 19:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)  Done coordindates added. --Tuxyso 23:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-2013.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-2013.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tiegelgussdenkmal-Essen-Detailpanorama-2013.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 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Petri-Kirche-Innen-Orgel.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. --JLPC 15:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bahnhof Untermenzing Aufgang Bauseweinallee

Hallo Tuxyso,

vielen Dank für Deine Anmerkungen zu meinem Bild

• 

, auch wenn Du es im Moment nicht promotest. Da es mein erster Versuch diesbezüglich ist will ich doch was dabei lernen. Das mit der Schärfe verstehe ich nicht ganz, kann aber sicher sein. Was mir völlig unklar ist, das ist die Sache mit dem "Überprozessieren". Was genau meinst Du damit? Die Farbe ist das eigentlich spannende an diesem Tunnel. Ansonsten könnte ich Dir noch anbieten, einen Blick von der anderen Seite (also von oben nach unten -

• 

hier), oder eine Vergleichsfotografie mit meiner Canon EOS 60 am Wochenende. Ich habe bisher einfach keine Erfahrung in der Bearbeitung der Bilder mit Programmen jenseits von IrfanView, das ich auf das Schneiden reduziere. Über ein Antwort würde ich mich freuen --Mummelgrummel 19:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Mummelgrummel! Ich bin auch noch nicht so lange bei den Qualitätsbilder dabei, am Anfang wikt das Prozedere dort etwas abschreckend, wobei ich die Reviews dort ausgesprochen sachlich finde. Man kann wirklich viel lernen und die Qualität der eigenen Bilder nachhaltig verbessern. Deswegen mein Rat: Bleib dran und lass dich (z.B. von mir) nicht demotivieren. Zu deinen Fragen (ich fürchte ich muss etwas weiter ausholen):

Bei den Qualitätsbildern / Quality images geht es im Kern darum die Spreu vom Weizen zu trennen. Dabei kommt es fast ausschließlich auf die technische Qualität der Fotos an. Maßgeblich für die Bewertung der Bilder sind die offiziellen Image guidelines. Nach meiner Erfahrung sind folgende Faktoren besonders wichtig (nach subjektiv empfundener Wichtigkeit auf QI):

1. Ausgebrannte Lichter: Gerade wenn es sonnig ist und du fotografierst ein im Schatten stehendes Gebäude, ist der Himmel oft übergeblichtet. Überbelichtete Bereiche haben fast keine Chance auf QI. Auf deinem Foto sieht man diesen Effekt z.B. an dem Fenster des Durchgangs (s. meine Markierungen). Wenn du dich ernsthaft mit Bildbearbeitung beschäftigen willst, würde ich dir eine Software wie Lightroom empfehlen. Du hast eine tolle Kamera (die Canon 60D, richtig?). Du verschenkt eine Meng Potenzial, wenn du die Bilder ohne weitere Bearbeitung, sozusagen Out-of-the-cam verwendest. Gerade für ausgebrannte Lichter ist die Verwendung von RAW zu empfehlen.
2. Verzerrung: Wenn du Weitwinkel-Aufnahmen machst und die Kamera nicht exakt vertikal ausrichtest, werden Linien, die in der Realität exakt vertikal sind, leicht schräg dargestellt. Diesen Effekt siehst du auf deinem Foto bei der ersten schwarzen vertikalen Linie (s. meine Markierungen). Vor allem Gebäude sehen in so einem Fall sehr unschön aus uns fallen sofort durch die Qualitätskontrolle, bzw. der Fehler wird angemerkt und man kann noch berichtigen.
3. Schärfe: Unscharfe Fotos werden auch keine QIs. Wenn du z.B. bei zu langer Belichtung einer Aufnahme verwackelst. Oder wenn bei Blumenaufnahmen nur ein kleiner Teil scharf ist.
4. Ersoffene Schatten: Bei unterbelichteten Bereichen kann es vorkommen, dass man keine Details mehr sieht. Auch das kann man relativ gut über die Lichter-Schatten-Korrektur mit Lightroom in RAW lösen.
5. Komposition: Wenn du ein Gebäude z.B. sehr eng zuschneidest und links, rechts, oben und unten gar keinen Platz lässt, fällt es in der Regel auch durch. Oder wenn störende Äste etc. wichtige Teile eines Gebäudes verdecken. Bei Tieraufnahmen / Porträts werden angeschnittene Gliedmaßen meist kritisch gesehen.
6. Overprocessing: Ist ein Sammelbegriff dafür, wenn du es mit der Bildbearbeitung übertrieben hast, z.B. extrem nachgeschärft hast oder ein Bild übersättigt ist. Oder auch wenn du bei einem Bild mit hohem Dynamikumfang (viele Lichter und Schatten) versucht hast etwas zu retten und das Rauschen des Bildes extrem nach oben gegangen ist.

Noch mal zu deinem Bild: Schau dir mal den schwarzen Boden in 100% an: Sieht sehr komisch aus (s. Anmerkungen). Ich hatte overprocessed geschrieben, weil es nach Pixelmatch aussieht, der meist entsteht wenn man versucht Schattenbereiche eines Bildes zu retten. In deinem Fall glaube ich inzwischen, dass dieser so komisch aussieht, weil du das Bild extrem stark komprimiert hast. 700 KB bei fast 3000 Pixeln ist sehr gewagt. In IrfanView würde ich mindestens JPEG-Qualität 90 einstellen.

Ich hoffe ich konnte dir mit den ausführlichen Infos erst mal weiterhelfen. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ja - das konntest Du auf jeden Fall. Da muss ich mich dann mal wohl wirklich an die Bildbearbeitung machen. Da auch das Zeit benötigt, die ich nur sehr rar habe, wird es dauern. War ja auch erst einmal ein Versuch bei dem ich zumindest von der Perspektive begeistert war. Dieses spezielle Foto ist nicht mit meiner (neuen) EOS 60 entstanden, sondern mit einer IXUS 125. Die ist auch für die Komprimierung verantwortlich. Doch dafür sind die Bilder (für den Alltagsgebrauch) aber nicht schlecht, wie ich finde. Wohl eben keine Qualitätsbilder ;-). Ich hoffe, dass ich dafür ein "Auge" für die Kriterien entwickeln kann, denn ich fotografiere eigentlich sehr gern. Ich werde mir vor allem das Motiv noch einmal vornehmen. Vielen Dank für die Infos. --Mummelgrummel 05:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Die IXUS 125 ist keine schlechte Kamera - im Gegenteil, habe sie selbst zu Weihnachten verschenkt. Nur für solche Aufnahmesituationen wegen der kleinen Sensorgröße nicht optimal. Die kleinen Kompaktkameras neigen leider dazu Details glatt zu bügeln. Hinzukommt, dass Kompaktkameras in der Regel einen schlechteren Dynamikumfang haben. DAs Motiv finde ich übrigens sehr sehenswert. Optimal wäre es natürlich aufzunehmen mit der 60D + Stativ (inkl. Getriebeneiger) und Blitzschuhwasserwaage. Häufig hat das Sicherheitspersonal im Bahnhof allerdings etwas dagegen. Ansonsten Kamera möglichst gerade halten und ggf. später in der Software die stürzenden Linien beheben. Lightroom spart aus meiner Sicht übrigens eher Zeit als Zeit zu fressen, ist wirklich genial das Programm. Lade dir doch mal eine Demo-Version runter.
Ich persönlich finde das zweite Foto deutlich besser gelungen als das erste. Vielleicht nominierst du dieses auch noch. Lediglich das tiefe Schwarz ganz hinten ist etwas störend. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ich hatte die Antwort schon gesehen - trotzdem Danke für den Hinweis auf die ausführliche Antwort :-). Das Praktische an der IXUS ist, dass man sie quasi überall dabei haben kann (was ich gerade extensiv tue). Das gestaltet sich bei der EOS 60 schon deutlich aufwändiger. Aber dafür kommt vielleicht mal mein Stativ zum Einsatz - das hat schon eine Wasserwaage dabei. Mal sehen, wie die Fotos dann werden. Das Wichtigste was ich lernen muss ist, ein Gefühl dafür zu entwickeln, wo (und vor allem wie) es sich lohnt nachzuarbeiten. Ansonsten fahre ich mit dem direkten Download von der Kamera nicht schlecht. Da ersetzt im Moment die Quantität die Qualität. Ich werde mir also bei Gelegenheit mal Lightroom zum Ausprobieren genehmigen. Und an verschiedenen Motiven ausprobieren. Ein Kollege von mir ist ganz begeistert davon. Und im Laufe der Woche das andere Bild als Qualitätsbild vorschlagen. Hab noch mal Dank für Deine Hinweise, sie haben mich auch dazu motiviert, dieses Kapitel anzugehen. --Mummelgrummel 10:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Und noch ein Nachtrag: Das mit der hohen Komprimierung / kleinen Datei hat mich echt verblüfft. Es ist mir aber erst aufgefallen, als Du darauf hingewiesen hast. Ich kann es mir im Moment nicht erklären. Evt. habe ich dieses Bild mit einer Sondereinstellung - oder Zoom - gemacht. Genau weiß ich es nicht mehr. Da ist das andere Bild sowieso viel besser, weil nicht so hoch komprimiert.

Quality Image Promotion

File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Broich-2013-01.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. --JLPC 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Broich-2013-03.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 --Rjcastillo 18:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wappen-Wilhelm-Wirich-Daun-Falkenstein.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. --JLPC 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ruhrpark-Bochum-2012-02.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 perspective distortion handling, good quality. --Julian Herzog 09:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ritter-Wolfgang-Rosenmontag-Muelheim-2013.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 20:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holztreppe-Strand-Zoutelande-2012-01.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 14:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg

This is just an answer to your curiosity about the techniques and equipment for File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg: It was probably a Canon 5D. He is a very talented contributor here, very generous to help others; but mostly active only in English Wikipedia. Feel free to ask any doubts to him. JKadavoor Jee 04:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I think the resoltion (2558 x 5500) does not fit to the 5D with 12,8 megapixels. I guess it is stitched from multiple impages due to the excellent level of detail. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kinderprinzessin-Julia-Maria-I-Rosenmontag-Muelheim-2013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice! --Arcalino 16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ruhrpark-Bochum-2012-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice colours, QI for me. --Indeedous 02:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schloss-Broich-2013-02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. -- Christian Ferrer 08:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Schloss Broich

Deine zweite Version…

…mit kleineren, lokalen Anpassungen

Hallo Tuxyso, ich hab bei deinem gerade zur Exzellenzkandidatur stehenden Bild einmal einige lokale Anpassungen vorgenommen (siehe nebenstehend). Vielleicht ist das ja eine Verbesserung gegenüber der von der dir eingestellten Alternativversion. Schau's dir einfach mal nebeneinander an. Ich finde die Aufnahme auf jeden Fall ganz prima gelungen :-) Herzliche Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Frank! Freut mich, dass dir meine Schloss-Broich-Kandidatur gefällt, vielen Dank auch für deine Editierung. Kennst du das Schloss Broich auch aus eigener Anschauung? Deine lokalen Anpassungen gefallen mir gut. Was genau hast du angepasst? Mit welcher Software? Es sieht etwas nach Sättigungskorrektur und Lichter-Schatten-Korrektur aus. Einzig der dunkle Gebäudeteil recht vorne (s. Noitz) wirkt mir nach deiner Korrektur eine Idee zu rötlich. Wegen mir kannst du die vorhandene Version (sofern du den Schattenbereich noch ein wenig "entrötest") auch gerne mit deiner überschreiben, da ich sie für eine sichtbare Verbesserung halte. Problematisch ist vielleicht, dass die FP-Kandidatur schon recht weit fortgeschritten ist. Ich persönlich würde deine Korrekturen aber nicht als so weitreichend ansehen, dass ein Überschreiben unzulässig wäre. Allerdings bricht bei den FPC schon mal gerne Streit darüber aus, was überschrieben werden darf und was nicht. Eine dritte Alternative halte ich wegen der schon weit fortgeschrittenen Zeit ebenfalls für nicht sinnvoll. Ansonsten könnten ich auch die Originalversion mit deiner überschreiben und im Versionslog des Bildes auf deine Korrektur (Link zu deinem Benutzernamen) hinweisen. Was meinst du?

Ich finde es übrigens sehr gut, dass du mich hier angeschrieben hast. Ein "zuvorkommender" Admin hatte während einer erfolgreichen Exzellenz-Kanidatur (schon über 10 Pro-Stimmen) einfach meine Version ohne jegliche Benachrichtigung (weder auf der Diskussionsseite, noch bei der Kandidatur) überschrieben. Als ich ihn daraufhin angeschrieben hatte, reagierte er merkwürdig. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Tuxyso, ich habe im Schattenbereich auf der rechten Seite jetzt etwas die Rottöne rausgenommen und die korrigierte Datei über meine neue Version drübergeladen. Die Entscheidung, ob Du es über die Kandidaturversion drüberlädst, überlasse ich dir (ich persönlich finde das im übrigen ok und ich verfolge die FP-Kandidaturen nicht genau genug, um im einzelnen zu wissen wie Andere dazu stehen). Was die Software angeht, so benutze ich Viveza 2. Es ist meiner Ansicht nach das mächtigtse zur Zeit auf dem Markt befindliche Werkzeug, wenn es um lokale Anpassungen geht. In dem Fall des Schlosses habe ich auf der rechten Bildseite für den Eingangsbereich ein größeres Licht gesetzt, gleichzeitig das Tor im Hintergrund leicht verdunkelt und insgesamt die Wärme des Bildes erhöht.

Generell betrachtet ist Viveza ein ideales Werkzeug, um das Auge des Betrachters auf bestimmte Bildbereiche zu lenken. Es ist nämlich so, dass helle Bildbereiche vom Menschen zuerst gesehen werden. Wenn Du also aktiv steuern möchtest, was den Betrachtern deines Fotos zuerst ins Auge fallen soll – im allgemeinen die schönsten oder wichtigsten Bildteile – dann kannst Du das mit einem Tool wie Viveza prima tun (siehe Tutorialvideo).

Leider war ich noch nie persönlich im Schloss Broich. Ich bin nur auf dein Bild aufmerksam geworden und fand es schade, dass negative Kritik kam, ohne dass die Kritiker auch bereit waren, aktiv zu helfen. Ich finde es immer besser, wenn diejenigen, die es besser wissen (oder wissen zu meinen), auch selber Hand anlegen. Auf diese Weise können Alle etwas dazulernen. Herzliche Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Frank! Vielen Dank für erneute Korrektur. Ich bin der Auffassung, dass das Foto dadurch echt gewonnen hat. Du hast dadurch im Grunde eine Best-of-Version der ursprünglichen Version und der Alternativ-Version erstellt. Bei der zweiten Version kam das rechte Gebäude in der Tat schlechter weg als in der ersten Version, dafür war das Himmel in der zweiten Version deutlich besser. Ich habe dich bei der Kandidatur und im Versionslog entsprechend erwähnt.

Von Viveza habe ich bisher noch überhaupt nichts gehört (HDR EFEX PRO ist mir schon mal über den Weg gelaufen) - scheint aber sehr leistungsfähig zu sein. Ich versuche bei der Bearbeitung so wenig verschiedene Software wie möglich zu nutzen, in der Regel sind es nur Lightroom und Photomatix für die HDRs. Vielleicht lade ich mir die Tage mal eine Testversion runter. Wobei die Preise schon recht üppig sein. Vielleicht gibt es ja ein Academic Program, über die man diese günstiger beziehen kann.

Deine Einstellung selbst Hand anzulegen denn zu meckern finde ich klasse. Gerade für diese Fälle sind ja die verschiedenen CC-Lizenzen gedacht, die explizit eine Bearbeitung erlauben. Solche Aktionen wie hier auf der Diskussionsseite oder auch deine sehr umfassenden Reviews auf FPC sorgen für eine positive Atmosphäre.

Gerade in der deutschen WP habe ich in letzer Zeit was den Tonfall angeht jüngst eher negative Erfahrungen gemacht. Teilweise wird dort erbittert revertiert und nicht selten geht es darum, wer den längeren Atem hat, wer mehr Leute auf seine Seite ziehen kann und nicht welches das besser oder konstruktivere Argument ist. Schaut man sich einige neuere wissenschaftliche Befunde an, kann man zumindest nachvollziehen, warum gerade die de-WP, so zumindest mein letzter Stand, mit einem Mitarbeiterschwund bzw. einer Stagnation zu tun hat. Ein weiteres Problem, wenn man etwas genauer in die Daten geht, besteht unter anderem darin, dass sich die Anteil der Editierungen auf immer weniger Schultern verteilt - immer weniger Schreiber / Contributor machen immer mehr - eine wie ich finde relativ gefährliche Entwicklung, die dem ursprünglichen Wikipedia-Prinzip widerspricht.

Ich habe übrigens ein wenig auf deiner Benutzer-Seite gestöbert und dabei gesehen, dass du ausgewandert bist und inzwischen für die Wikimedia Foundation aktiv bist. Eine tolle und wichtige Aufgabe. Ich wünsche dir viel Erfolg und Freude dabei! --Tuxyso (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Tuxyso, vielen Dank für die guten Wünsche. Ja, ich bin seit Anfang 2005 bei Wikipedia dabei und arbeite seit Mitte 2008 für die Foundation. Im Dezember 2008 bin ich in die USA gegangen, habe dort meine Frau kennengelernt und lebe inzwischen in Mill Valley. Die Fotografie habe ich erst im letzten Jahr (wieder)entdeckt. Ich nutze das Fotografieren an den Wochenenden zur Entspannung. Meine Fotos lade ich zumeist auf Flickr hoch und ab und an auch hier auf Commons. An Flickr gefällt mir vor allem die freundliche Atmosphäre. Viveza 2 kann ich nur wärmstens empfehlen. Am besten probierst Du mal die 15-tägige Testversion aus… Herzliche Grüße aus der Ferne, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg

I just noticed that you voted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg. But according to our policy "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured". So please vote accordingly at Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg too. JKadavoor Jee 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've voted for the delisting candidature. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Tiegelgussdenkmal-Essen-Detailpanorama-2013.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiegelgussdenkmal-Essen-Detailpanorama-2013.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Danke

Hallo und Danke für dei Tipps bezüglich des Kirchenfotos, welches Bildbearbeitungsprogramm verwendst du? Leider ist meines nicht recht vielfältig und läss nur begrenzt änderungen zu? Viel Grüße--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Adobe Lightroom 4 - auf jeden Fall empfehlenswert. Ich weiß echt nicht, was ich vorher ohne Lightroom gemacht habe :) Kannst dir ja mal eine Demo runterladen. Wie gesagt: Wenn du magst lade ich eine neue Version des Bildes über dein ursprüngliches Bild, dann kannst du gut vergleichen und bei Nichtgefallen gerne zurücksetzen. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Das währe sehr nett. Danke. Ich bin noch etwas Anfägner. Bezüglich des Fotos mit der Perspektivorrektur: Dahinter ist ein Wald und ein Graben, ich hätte vielleicht eine andere Perspective suchen solle. Danke dir für deine Bemühungen, anbei lade ich dich recht Herzlich in den Wikiedia Commons IRC Chat ein--Steinsplitter (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe mal eine neue Version hochgeladen. Kannst ja schauen, ob es dir gefällt. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Tuxyso, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

INeverCry 21:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick granting of the Filemover right. I will use it with care. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carina Nebula.jpg

See my comments about new much larger version. Colin (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fahrradknotenpunkt-De-Banjaard-2012.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. --Kreuzschnabel 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holztreppe-Strand-Zoutelande-2012-02.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 Excellent! --Kreuzschnabel 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Einkaufszentrum-Grand-Bazar-Innen-Antwerp-2012.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. --Kreuzschnabel 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hochhaus-Boerentouren-Antwerpen-2012.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. --Kreuzschnabel 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Typische-Strassenszene-Antwerpen-2012.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. --Kreuzschnabel 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nikon-HN-21.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 imho Good quality --Steinsplitter 21:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AF-S-50mm-1.4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Selbymay 10:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 85mm-1.4-AF-D-diaphragm-blades.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 Dirty but good quality. --Selbymay 10:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC) You're right with the dirt. I have sold the lens thus I cannot repeat the photo. I've uploaded it because I have not found such a detail shot of diaphragm-blades on Commons from the lens's back. In this special case it is interesting because the 85mm AF-D/1.4 is well-known as Nikon's "cream machine" which makes beautiful bokeh for portrayals. --Tuxyso 11:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ruhrpark-Bochum-2012-01.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Easy-Software-AG-2013.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 22:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Forum-Hochhaeuser-Muelheim-2013.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. --Martin Falbisoner 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01-Alternative.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thomaskirche-Essen-Stoppenberg-2013.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 Perfect weather for a gothic church.--ArildV 07:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hauptpost-Muelheim-2013.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. --NorbertNagel 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

HI

I just cropped File:IES3CV.JPG again, in the left and right there are another objects, a cycle and a dog. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 14:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's much better. I always observe my reviews, thus it is a good idea to make a short note on the QI page that you've uploaded a new version like " Info I've uploaded a new version, please take another look" I think your image is QI now. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! Ezarateesteban 14:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please add an English description to your image. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)