User talk:Smial/Archive/2013

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:MARTa Aussenansicht IMGP2520 wp.jpg

And also:

• File:MARTa Aussendetail IMGP2508 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Aussendetail IMGP2514 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Aussendetail IMGP2578 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Forum IMGP2534 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Eingangsbereich IMGP2532 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa innen IMGP2540 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa innen IMGP2547 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa innen IMGP2563 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Eingang IMGP2569 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Eingang IMGP2575 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Saeule IMGP2572 wp.jpg
• File:MARTa Aussendetail IMGP2517 wp.jpg

Yours sincerely, INeverCry 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT[[]]== No worries ==

I assume that it hasn't been an unnecessary work but the best way to answer your question. However, as commons is a multilingual project I can't see any reason not to have a version in German too. I'll talk to Poco a poco and try to fix it. Best regards --Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thx! -- Smial (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Überschriebene Batteria-Bilder

Smial, könntest du die 4 von dir "neutralisierten" Batterie-Bilder bitte in eigene Dateien schreiben, statt (entgegen unserer Überschreib-Regeln) 3 Jahre alte Dateien einfach zu überschreiben. Danach kann man die Projekt-Nutzungen ggf. mittels CD austauschen.
Werden eventuelle Augenschäden durch dein obiges Posting eigentlich von deiner Haftpflichtversicherung übernommen? --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ach, so wichtig ist da nicht. -- Smial (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! New ixo IMGP1649 smial wp.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. --Coyau 11:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zeche Königsborn 3 4 IMGP0065smial wp.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. --Moroder 08:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Network cable tester IMGP1639 smial wp.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. --Kreuzschnabel 10:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! New ixo IMGP1648 smial wp.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 picture, however, there is very little space between the edge and the main subject. The fund could be a neutral color that creates more contrast, for example, white or light gray. --The Photographer 20:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC) * This was intentional, but perhaps you like the other version (new candidate) more? -- Smial 11:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC) * Yes :) --The Photographer 13:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Seems ok to me. Mattbuck 20:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Black Rust Lindenbrauerei Unna IMGP0567 smial wp.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 to me--Lmbuga 18:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Deine Erklärung bzgl. Überblichtung auf QIC

Hallo Smial! Vielen Dank, dass du zur Illustration deines Arguments noch extra eine Zeichnung angefertig hast. Zugegebenermaßen ist mein Monitor zwar kallibriert, aber nicht so top, dass die Korrektur der Überblichtung sich deutlich von A unterscheidet. Wenn ich dich richtig verstanden habe erzeugt die nachträgliche Korrektur des überbelichteten Farbverlaufs in den hellen Tönen einen Farbstich, weil bei der simulierten Überbelichtung nur noch (255,255,255) als hellster Ton gespeichert ist und eine Korrektur zu (223,223,223) statt zu einem Grauwert wie in A führt. Ich bin mir allerdings nicht sicher, ob die Lightroom-Lichter-Korrektur auch so funktioniert Lightroom korrigiert die Lichter nach meiner Erfahrung so, dass sie grau widergegeben werden, was auch unschön aussehen kann, weil man dann eben Einheitsgrau hat (dieser extrem Grau-Peak im Hisogramm deutet genau darauf hin). In dem von mir abgelehnten Foto glaubte ich genau diesen "Grauwerdungseffekt" beobachtet zu haben. Auch die Blätter auf der linken Seite sind klar ausgebrannt. Bei dem unterstützten Foto war ich vermutlich etwas zu locker, bei dem abgelehnten Foto bin ich allerdings nach wie vor von der Korrektheit meiner Ablehnung überzeugt. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe selber Bilder, die ohne jede Überbelichtung einen stumpf grauen Himmel haben und genau denselben (nahezu) neutralgrauen Peak. Da ich die realen Aufnahmebedingungen bei dem Galizia-Bild nicht kenne, kann ich das Bild deshalb wegen einer vermuteten und möglicherweise künstlich beseitigten Überbelichtung, die dann zu einem Einheitsgrau im Himmel führen würde, nicht ablehnen. Denn es kann jederzeit auch genau so ausgesehen haben. Mit Bildschirmkalibrierung hat das auch nicht so viel zu tun, bei meinem Erklärbärbild kann man einfach mit der Pipette über die Farbbalken gehen und sich die HSL-Werte anzeigen lassen. Während "hue" beim Originalfarbverlauf weitesetgehend konstant bleibt, wackelt der Wert bei B und C herum, was eben genau einem partiellen Farbstich entspricht. Nun haben wir hier auch noch überall nur 8 Bit Farbtiefe. Wie man am Balkenbild sieht, kompensiert meine Bildbearbeitung diesen Nachteil dadurch, daß sie den Farbverlauf mit einem Streuraster erstellt, um einen visuell gleichmäßigen Verlauf hinzubekommen. Dasselbe machen Diafilme durch ihr Korn (da sind ja tatsächlich nur genau DREI Farben vorhanden) und dasselbe machen auch Digitalkameras "automatisch" durch einen gewissen Rauschanteil. Ich bin deshalb auch ein Gegner allzu heftiger Rauschunterdrückung - bei 8-Bit-JPgs führt das zu genau demselben unangenehmen Effekt, daß zarte Farbverläufe treppig wirken bzw. Farbbänder entstehen und im Farbton an Stellen schwanken, wo beim realen Objekt keine Farbschwankungen sind. Für einen natürlichen visuellen Eindruck ist ein gewisses Rauschen daher notwendig, erst bei 16-Bit Farbtiefe kann das Auge die einzelnen Abstufungen nicht mehr wirklich unterscheiden. Btw.: Ich will dir deine Urteile auch keineswegs mies reden, es geht mir nur um Sachzusammenhänge und technische Erklärungen, die hoffentlich zu gerechteren Beurteilungen bei QI führen. Die ausgefressenen Zweige und Blätter können auch schlicht auf Überstrahlugen zurückzuführen sein. Bei einem grauen Himmel ist das immerhein eine Aufnahme direkt in die Beleuchtungsquelle hinein, der Kontrast ist an der Stelle extrem hoch, da ist jede Kamera und jedes Objektiv an der Grenze. -- Smial (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe deinen Kommentar auch nicht als "mies reden" verstanden. Ich freue mich immer wieder über technisch fundierte Erklärungen und eine Versachlichung von Diskussionen. Zudem scheinst du ja, gerade was Bildbearbeitung angeht, über sehr umfangreiches Wissen zu verfügen und es ist sehr nett, dass du dieses auch weitergibst. Was die Überstrahlung an den Ästen angeht: Mir (und auch vielen anderen) wurden deswegen schon Fotos auf QIC abgelehnt, daher hatte ich dieses Kriterium als besonders wichtig eingestuft und habe eben sehr genau hingeschaut :) Die Überstrahlung hätte sich durch eine moderate Belichtungskorrektur bei der Aufnahme wahrscheinlich vermeiden lassen. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mein Bildbearbeitungsfähigkeiten sind ziemlich eingeschränkt, wenn damit umfangreiche Manipulationen oder gar Montagen gemeint sind. Ich verfolge einen ziemlich streng dokumentarischen Ansatz. Ich behebe abgesoffene Schatten, allzu störendes CA, grobe Weißabgleichsfehler, Staubflecken und ziehe schief aufgenommene Fotos soweit gerade, daß sich ein halbwegs harmonischer und für den Wikileser informativer Eindruck einstellt. Man kann auch übermäßiges Rauschen dämpfen, solange keine Bilddetails dadurch verlorengehen. Diese zwanghafte Glattbügelei und dieses "alle Kanten müssen 100% senkrecht sein" geht mir, ehrlich gesagt, ziemlich auf die Nerven, weil Objekte dadurch häufig entstellt werden. Vor ziemlich langer Zeit hat mich der leider verstorbene mbdortmund zu den QIC eingeladen, weil dort keine esoterischen Forderungen an die Bildqualität gestellt wurden wie bei KEB und FPC, sondern der Schwerpunkt darauf lag, unter all dem Kernschrott, der so nach commons hochgeladen wird, diejenigen Bilder auszufiltern, die einem gewissen Mindeststandard genügen und ungeübten Wikiknipsern Hilfen und Anreiz zu geben, einige grundlegende Qualitätskriterien zu beachten, auch, damit commons und wikipedia nicht zur Titten- und Dödelsammlung verkommt. Zu der Zeit hat niemand Perfektion gefordert. Nach MBDs Tod, der mich sehr getroffen hat, habe ich meine Aktivitäten zurückgenommen, ich brauchte eine Pause. Nu versuche ich wieder einzusteigen und stelle fest, daß sich QIC stark verändert hat. Beinahe jedes Bild wird zunächst einmal wegen irgendeines Kleinscheiß kommentiert, häufig werden Bilder verschlimmbessert, weil einer ein bisken Rauschen im Himmel gefunden hat, die Rechthaberei hat unglaublichen Anteil gewonnen. Das ist nicht mehr das Ziel, wofür mich damals mbdortmund begeistert hatte und wie ich es immer verstanden habe. Was die Ablehnung von Bildern mit kleineren Mängeln angeht: Es existieren Aufnahmesituationen, bei denen kleinere Mängel unvermeidbar sind. Ich stelle von meinen eigenen Bildern ganz bewußt nur hin und wieder eins vor, wenn ich glaube, daß das ein "typisches" Beispiel sein kann. Eins sogar aus einer ziemlich alten Kompaktknipse mit nur 5 MPixeln, die weder Rauschunterdrückung noch Nachschärfung kennt, einfach als Beispiel, daß man bei sorgfältigem Arbeiten auch mit so einem Dingen enzyklopädisch brauchbare Bilder machen kann und die Ausrede "ich habe ja nur eine einfache Kamera, damit geht das eben nicht besser" nicht wirklich gilt. Inzwischen werden Bilder aus einer D800 abgelehnt, weil einer entdeckt hat, daß da Bilder rauskommen, die nicht aufs Pixel genaue scharfe Kanten haben. Gute Güte, es existieren nur eine Handvoll sehr teurer Objektive, die die Auflösung des D800-Sensors überhaupt nutzen können, und auch dann nur, wenn nicht weiter als etwa auf f/5.6 abgeblendet wird, weil sonst schon die Beugung zuschlägt. Das ist simple Physik. Oder in einem Fall, über den ich mich sehr geärgert habe, saß der Fokus bei einem sehr hochauflösenden Portrait nicht 110%ig exakt. Vorgeschlagen wurde dann, das Bild auf eine geringere Auflösung herunterzurechnen, weil es dann "scharf aussieht". Welch ein Humbug! Als Thumb im Artikel ist das unmanipulierte Bild genauso scharf, ebenso in der Voransicht auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite. Ein Nachnutzer, der die volle Auflösung runterlädt, wird die Aufnahme eh nach seinen Vorstellungen bearbeiten, da ist es jederzeit besser, wenn der alle verfügbaren Informationen zur Verfügung hat und nicht mit einem verschlimmbesserten Krüppelbild abgespeist wird. Solche Anforderungen kann man gerne bei KEB oder bei den FPC stellen, da ist ja immer "wow" gefragt, bei QIC geht es mMn um einen pragmatischen Ansatz, das allgemeine Niveau für unsere Bildersammlung anzuheben. -- Smial (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Heute Abend antworte ich ggf. ausführlicher da ich gerade sehr busy bin. Zwischen den Zeilen lese ich, dass du auf einige Bewertungen auf QIC von mir hinzielst. Wenn dem so ist, bitte ich dich um entsprechende Links, dann ich ich dir durchaus begründen, warum ich ein bestimmtes Foto abgelehnt habe. Genauso wie du bei File:Steinbruch Ilsfeld 2013.jpg übergenau warst, was den Himmel angeht (für mich Kleinkram, der die Qualität nicht einschränkt), sind für mich unscharfe Augen bei Porträts absolut nicht akzteptabel. Wenn bei einem Porträt etwas scharf sein muss dann die Augen. Ich hatte DICH bei Bewertungen von Bildern als eher "übergenau" (was ja vollkommen OK ist, jeder ist anders) wahrgenommen, daher überrascht mit dein Post hier mit der Kritik von kleinkartierten Bewertungen - jedem sind andere Qualitätsmerkmale wichtig. Zur D800: Ich hatte einige Foto von Wolfgang Moroder abgelehnt, das stimmt. Wenn 1/3 einer Landschaftsaufnahme unscharf ist, ist das für mich ein Ablehnungsgrund, unabhängig von der Auflösung und von der Kamera. Ich hatte Wolfang auch schon mal gesagt, dass ich denke, dass mit seinem an sich sehr hochwertigen 24-70er-Objektiv etwas nicht in Ordnung ist. Ich habe selbst mit einer geliehenen D800 fotografiert und deutlich schärfere Resultate erzielt. Zu deinen allgemeinen Betrachungen wie gesagt: heute Abend mehr. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ich weiß nicht mehr, an welchen Stellen wer beteiligt war. Sowas vergesse ich aus Prinzip in kürzester Zeit. -- Smial (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Daria Teuber (Newphoria) IMGP2374 smial wp.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 for a concert shot. I would crop a bit tighter at the top. Have you tried it? --Tuxyso 07:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) * This is already cropped in a manner so the golden ratio is approximately on the eyes. -- Smial 08:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Golden ratio is not a guarantee for the best possible crop. Especially for portrayals golden ratio crops depend very much on the perspective. I made a suggestion for an imho better crop (see note), but it is nonetheless QI. --Tuxyso 08:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Kleine Bitte beim Layout der Bildbeschreibung

Bitte benutze in Zukunft {{int:license-header}} statt des bisherigen {{int:license}}. Damit würde ein späterer Botdurchlauf zur Korrektur überflüssig. Danke. Und nein, ich habe keine Ahnung warum das plötzlich auf -header geändert wurde, eine solche Änderung bei int:filedesc aber nicht erfolgte. --Denniss (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wo stellt man das im commonisten ein? -- Smial (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Keine Ahnung, welche Version vom Commonist nutzt Du? Aktuell ist wohl 0.6.0, wenn damit auch die alte Überschrift verwendet wird, muß ich wohl mal den Entwickler anpingen. --Denniss (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ich benutze stets den webstart. Da sollte doch eigentlich die jeweils aktuellste version geladen werden? -- Smial (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Eine noch ausstehende Antwort

Eine Antwort auf diesen Beitrag stand noch aus. Der Thread ist mir wieder in den Sinn gekommen nachdem ich ein schönes Foto von mbdortmund von einem Warzenschwein aus dem Zoo Münster gesehen habe. Zunächst einmal tut es mir sehr leid, dass dein Freund mbdortmund gestorben ist, was einmal mehr zeigt, dass sich das, was hier passiert nicht nur virtuell abspielt, sondern an das reale Leben angekoppelt ist. Im Kern hattest du damals an neueren Entwicklungen auf QIC kritisiert, dass die Bewertungen zu kleinkariert werden. Meine ersten Erfahrungen mit QIC, die weniger als ein Jahr zurückliegen haben mir zunächst auch diesen Eindruck vermittelt. Teilweise wurden marginal schräge vertikale Linien immer und immer wieder angesprochen, was mich ziemlich genervt hat und mich fast dazu bewogen hatte, mich dort nicht weiter zu beteiligen. Trotz aller Kritik an QIC kann ich sagen, dass meine Bilder durch aktive Beteiligung an dem Prozess einen enormen Qualitätssprung erfahren haben. Ich finde die dort praktizierten Kriterien sehr einleuchtend und nachvollziehbar (ganz im Gegensatz zu KEB).
Ich finde es auch nicht schlimm, dass auf QIC oft sehr genau hingeschaut wird. Reichte "damals" noch eine gute Kompaktkamera um technisch gute Bilder zu erstellen, hat sich die Sensortechnik auch weiterentwickelt. Es geht bei QIC ja auch nicht um "enzyklopädisch brauchbare Bilder", sondern um technisch hochwertige Fotografieren nach den Maßstäben aktueller Kamera- und Sensortechnik. Demnach wundert es mich nicht, dass ein Bild mit geringer Auflösung und schlechtem Detailgrad heute abgelehnt wird, während es noch vor einigen Jahren locker durchgekommen wäre. Dieses Foto wurde z.B. mal in den frühen Jahren der de-WP in den Artikel eingestellt (ist immer noch drin). Nett, aber heute würde niemand mehr ernsthaft so ein Foto hochladen geschweigedenn in einem Artikel verwenden.
Beschäftigt man sich wissenschaftlich mit Wikipedia stellen z.B. einige Forscher einen Trend zur Professionalisierung fest. Dazu gehört u.a. auch, dass die Anforderungen höher werden (z.B. bei den exzellenten Artikeln oder eben auch bei QIC). Ob man das persönlich gut findet oder eher schädlich mag mal dahingestellt sein. Die Professionalisierung und teilweise Bürokratisierung baut an manchen Stelle möglicherweise höhere Einstiegsbarrieren auf als eigentlich notwendig.
Was ich damit sagen will: Lass dich von kleinkarierten Bewertungen auf QIC von Leuten wie mir nicht entmutigen, weiter Fotos beizusteuern. In dem Sinne wünsche ich ein gutes Wochenende. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"Kleinkariert" ist nicht das Problem, das mich umtreibt. Wenn ich mMn sachlich unzutreffende Argumente lese, neige ich selber leider gelegentlich zu Kleinkariertheit. Ich kann meinen Kram aber gewöhnlich belegen und habe mir angelegentlich auch schon viel Arbeit damit gemacht, um bestimmte Effekte zu erklären, z.B. bei meinen Lieblingsthemen "unbedingte Rauschfreiheit", "ausgefressene Farbkanäle" oder "überzogene Perspektivekorrektur". Bei meinen rudimentären Englischkenntnissen fällt es mir jedoch offensichtlich schwer, Kritik in höflicher oder eindeutiger oder klarer Form zu formulieren, jedenfalls habe ich gelegentlich den Eindruck, mit einer Parkuhr zu diskutieren. Manche Forderungen, die bei QIC von manchen Bewertern gestellt werden, führen nämlich keineswegs zu besseren oder "professionelleren" Bildern, sondern zu grotesk verzerrten Gebäudefotos und Entrauschungen, die Details verschmieren und Oberflächen wie Lego-Plastik erscheinen lassen. Es geht mir tatsächlich nicht darum, irgendwo zwanghaft recht haben zu wollen, sondern um Bilder, mit denen ein Nachnutzer noch etwas anfangen kann. Dazu gehört imho, daß Fotos nur soweit geschönt werden, daß offensichtliche Fehler beseitigt werden. Jede übermäßige Bearbeitung ist nicht enzyklopädisch - es sei denn man will einen Blumenpott bei KEB oder FPC gewinnen. -- Smial (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Ps.: Bei mir geht praktisch jedes Sach- oder Architekturfoto durch ShiftN, aber ich glaube, bei den wenigsten wird man das auf den ersten Blick erkennen können.

Du sprichst einige interessante Punkte an. Aus deinem Geschriebenen klingt für mich allerdings heraus, dass du davon ausgehst, dass es stets eine optimale, realistische, "enzyklopädische" Darstellung eines Objekts gibt. Man kann mit Qualitätssicherungsportalen wie QIC versuchen, objektive Kriterien einzuführen, wird das aber nie komplett hinbekommen, da es viele unterschiedliche Sichtweisen gibt. Von daher suche ich auch nicht künstlich nach natürlichen Darstellungen, sondern versuche ein fotografiertes Objekt so widerzugeben, wie ich es gesehen habe. Wenn dafür Bildbearbeitung nötig ist, dann ist eine Bildbearbeitung sogar absolut notwendig. Sofern man in JPG fotografiert, sind die Bilder aus der Kamera ja im Prinzip auch schon bildbearbeitet. Zu deinen weiteren Punkten

Rauschen: Da stimme ich dir 100% zu. Es gibt nichts schlimmeres als glattgebügelte Bilder. Allerdings haben uns weise Softwareprogrammierer von Adobe oder von NIK Tools geschenkt, mit denen man selektiv editieren kann. Wenn du dir z.B. dieses Bild (File:Elephas-maximus-Ear.jpg) bei ISO 900 anschaust. Es hatte dort schon ordentlich gerauscht, ich habe die Rauschunterdrückung aber nur auf den kleinen Unschärfebereich ganz oben angewendet. Was spricht dagegen? Ähnlich sieht es es beim Rauschen im Himmel aus. Zudem bietet z.B. Lightroom 4 eine ganz fantastische Schärfung, bei der man homogene Flächen Maskieren und damit vor übermäßiger Rauschbildung schützen kann. Wieso soll ich eine solche Funktion nicht verwenden und stattdessen z.B. ein schönes Bokeh oder einen schönen Himmel durch übermäßige Schärfung verunstalten. Vielleicht solltest du nicht zu sehr pauschalisieren und NR (und oder selektives Schärfen) per se verurteilen.

Perspektivkorrektur: Manche übertreiben es damit in der Tat, allerdings sehe ich es schon so, dass man bei Architekturaufnahmen die vertikalen Linien gerade haben sollte. Ich versuche das durch einen gut gewählten Aufnahmestandort und durch eine ausgerichtete Stativaufnahme zu gewährleisten. Auch hier gilt für mich: Sinnvoll angewendet ist eine moderate Perspektivkorrektur sinnvoll. Ich freue mich schon auf die neue LR-Version, die das automatisch können soll. Die Perspektivkorrektur nimmt mir momentan noch etwas zu viel Zeit im Workflow weg. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ich erkenne jetzt nur noch graduelle, keine prinzipiellen Unterschiede in der Auffassung, denn du beschreibst keine übermäßigen Bearbeitungen, und nur gegen solche wende ich mich. Was hältst du davon, bei Gelegenheit eine Hilfeseite zu basteln mit Bildbeispielen, die ein paar typische Beispiele aus der QIC-Praxis zusammenfaßt, wie sinnvolle Korrekturen bei Bildmängeln aussehen können und wie man es besser nicht übertreiben sollte? Ok, wäre evtl. eher ein Projekt für die lichtarme Jahreszeit. -- Smial (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ich bin für jede Art der Zusammenarbeit offen. Allerdings fehlt mir für die Erstellung umfangreiche Tutorials momentan die Zeit (und Ruhe). Falls du einen Erstaufschlag machst, beteilige ich mich gern mit Bild und Text. --Tuxyso (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chrome Division Ogee IMGP3127 smial wp.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 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chrome Division Damage Karlsen IMGP3075 smial wp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Karl Nagel (Kein Hass da) IMGP4162 smial wp.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. --Tuxyso 14:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

f8 f11 Photo

Hi,
Thank you for the advice and for the review! Regards --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 15:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope my comments can help to improve future images. -- Smial (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jay Northington (Nothington) IMGP4197 smial wp.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 good --A.Savin 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tiger Lilly Marleen (Bonsai Kitten) IMGP4455 smial wp.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 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crossplane Marcel Mönning IMGP2562 smial wp.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. --Mattbuck 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jay Northington (Nothington) IMGP4197 smial wp.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 good --A.Savin 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tiger Lilly Marleen (Bonsai Kitten) IMGP4455 smial wp.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 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crossplane Marcel Mönning IMGP2562 smial wp.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. --Mattbuck 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Geolokation...

Für den Fall, dass du das Tool noch nicht kennst, da du auf deiner Userpage Javascript-Code dafür vermerkt hast: Geolocator, damit kannst du sehr einfach Location und Object-Tags erstellen. Nutze ich sehe gerne. Grüße, --Tuxyso (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC).

Danke, kenne ich, zumindest in einer älteren Variante (das hat irgendwann einmal etwas anders ausgesehen nach meiner Erinnerung), hat mir damals aber nicht besonders gefallen. Ich nutze seit längerem Geosetter, das die Bilder mit meinen GPS-Tracks aus dem Autonavi, dem Garmin oder dem Royaltek-Logger synchronisiert und die Koordinaten direkt in die Exif einbaut. Ich mache auch OSM, daher läuft auf fast allen meinen Wegen irgend ein Logger mit ;-) -- Smial (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Alles klar, wollte die Info nur nicht vorenthalten. Ich habe ein Dakota 20, das immer mitläuft. In Lightroom füge ich dann Bilder und GPX-Datei zusammen. Grüße, --Tuxyso (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Adobe kommt mir nicht ins Haus ;-) -- Smial (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (ok, gegen flash kann man sich nicht wehren)

Thanks for your revisions in QI

(poor english) I have uploaded a new version of File:Rúa da Senra. Santiago de Compostela. Galiza.jpg and I removed the label "withdrawn". Do not hesitate to criticize or decline the photo if you consider it appropriate. Thanks--Miguel Bugallo 14:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done ;-) -- Smial (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Manny Murders (The Generators) IMGP4641 smial wp.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--Lmbuga 14:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4757 smial wp.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 Lower crop improvable, but good to go --Poco a poco 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)  Comment Crop was in this case intentional, I also have some other versions like this one ;-) -- Smial 08:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Let me detail my comment: there was no reason to cut off the hand, I would have kept it fully or cut it off totally Poco a poco 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Jazzer-Quality Images

Hi Smial,
habe soeben erst bemerkt, dass da ein paar meiner Bilder vom Konzert mit Pharoah Sanders als QI nominiert und teils auch akzeptiert wurden. Danke Dir für die Nominierungen! Ich freu mich immer sehr, wenn "meine" Bilder bemerkt werden, umso mehr wenn das so geschieht. Sowas ist immer auch gleich ein neuer Motivationsschub. lg, Tsui (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ja, schade daß der Pianist durchgefallen ist, das fand ich gestalterisch besonders schön. Aber auf QIC diskutiere ich meine Vorschläge nicht, wenn abgelehnt dann abgelehnt. Wenn ich mich streiten wollte, würde ich WP:KEB als Forum wählen ;-)
Ich mache das eh nicht zwecks Bapperl-Jagd, ich behaupte mal ganz arrogant, daß ich sonst einiges mehr an eigenen Bildern aus den unterschiedlichsten Bereichen nominieren könnte. Aber mit den Festivalsommerbildern setzen wir für Commons Standards, und ich dachte, das sollte sich bei QIC ein wenig widerspiegeln ;-) -- Smial (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.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, especially the diagonal composition with the guitar. --Tuxyso 12:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)  Comment* Mehr Glück als composition. Jake randaliert wie Rumpelstilzchen über die Bühne, ich habe dutzende unscharfer Bilder weggeworfen. -- Smial 12:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Trotzdem gut! Der junge Mann sieht auch schon ganz schön geschwitzt aus :) --Tuxyso 12:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jet (UK Subs) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP5194 smial wp.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. This one is better ;) Don't forget to add these pictures to the category Quality images of concerts! --Kadellar 19:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Charlie Harper (UK Subs) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP5144 smial wp.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--Lmbuga 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chelsea Light Moving - Samara Lubelski (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP7390 smial wp.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. --Steindy 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Max Prosa (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP3896 smial wp.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. --Steindy 21:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Misteur Valaire (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP6662 smial wp.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. --Steindy 21:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chelsea Light Moving - Thurston Moore (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP7514 smial wp.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. --Mattbuck 15:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paperstreet Empire - Christoph Remplewski (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP3794 smial wp.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 OK --A.Savin 12:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krczycz (Bonsai Kitten) IMGP4295 smial wp.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 A pity we can'r see his right hand, but really good quality. --JLPC 17:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)  Comment In most cases I'm nominating only one out of a series of images, there are more, i.e. File:Krczycz (Bonsai Kitten) IMGP4290 smial wp.jpg. -- Smial 18:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund phoenix west IMGP9514.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. --Steindy 11:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund phoenix west IMGP9508.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 Great shot! --Steindy 11:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund phoenix west IMGP9504.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 (the over-exposed chimney falls not so much weight). --Steindy 11:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund phoenix west IMGP9502.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. --Steindy 11:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund phoenix west IMGP9496.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 good --A.Savin 10:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Ym124g.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ym124g.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. --Jastrow 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stadtkirche Unna Nachtbeleuchtung IMGP2569.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. --Bgag 14:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Automatik-Balgengeraet balmin-as.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 useful. --Ralf Roletschek 07:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Automatik-Balgengeraet mit Kamera, Objektiv und Umkehrring.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 07:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burger king kamen.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 OK --A.Savin 13:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Josh Hudson (Nothington) IMGP4187 smial wp.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 A drummer moves a lot... So this picture is fairly ok. --Adbar 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beschriftungsgeraet IMGP0881.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 Can I decline until you come back with one which says Commons? --Mattbuck 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dvi verlaengerungskabel IMGP0886.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 DOF slightly too low (blur on female), but ok. --Mattbuck 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraftwerk Heil IMGP7286 wp.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 16:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tropfen IMGP5839 wp.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 --Lmbuga 21:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Phoenix west IMGP9515.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 QI for me, but I do not promote the image because I do not know German. I'm forced to use automatic translators--Lmbuga 21:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC) QI for me--Lmbuga 21:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund phoenixhalle IMGP9366.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--Lmbuga 22:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ZBZ schatten IMGP1428.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--Lmbuga 22:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ZBZ Witten Baustelle IMGP1426.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--Lmbuga 00:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DDR2 RAM PC5300 IMGP1059.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. EXIF data would be interesting. --D4m1en 10:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weener Emsfreileitung nord IMGP9976.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.Good, fixed description --Moroder 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Abzweigmast IMGP4478.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 OK --A.Savin 14:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gipskartonduebel IMGP0872.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 though it could have been a little bit sharper --Dirtsc 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schnellbauschrauben Pozidriv IMGP0880.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. --Dirtsc 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Duebel Nagelduebel IMGP0889.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. --Dirtsc 10:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund phoenixhalle IMGP9345.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 06:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luenen Siedlung Ziethenstrasse IMGP9150 wp.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--Lmbuga 19:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Luedo St Magdalena IMGP0547.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 10:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Chris (Sondaschule) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP6497 smial wp.jpg

Very nice image, but not QI for me. If you want, I can say what, but I don't want problems. I only have my opinion--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In the end, unfortunately for me, I will say what I think (see notes)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Was die Profis so fotografieren (Beispiele):
  • http://www.coolibri.de/redaktion/musik/0613/traumzeitfestival-2013-tag-1.html
  • http://www.festivalguide.de/reports/2013/06/24/traumzeit-festival-2013-in-duisburg/
  • http://www.musikexpress.de/magazin/galerien/article437635/traumzeit-festival-2013-live-fotos-von-editors-thees-uhlmann-shout-out-louds-cat-power-u-v-m.html
• Was Wikipedia-Amateurknipser so zum selben Event abliefern (noch bei weitem unvollständig):
  • Category:Traumzeit Festival 2013
• Vom Profikram würde vermutlich kein einziges Bild den Ansprüchen der gestrengen Juroren bei com:qic genügen. Bemerkenswert dort die recht häufig vorkommenden Schwarzweiß-Umwandlungen - eine sehr gute Möglichkeit, Bilder unter den bescheidenen Lichtverhältnissen überhaupt erkennbar zu machen. Ich weiß, warum Profis das machen, ich habe daneben gestanden und mitgelitten, die anderen beteiligten Festivalsommer-Knipser dürften ganz ähnliche Erfahrungen gemacht haben. Wenn man in den Profi-Galerien genau hinschaut, kann man auch sehen, daß da manches Bild mit Unschärfen dabei ist, sei es durch Bewegung der Musikanten, sei es durch Fehlfokus. Der kann schon mal ein paar Handbreit daneben liegen. Man bedenke dabei, daß diese Online-Galerien idR mit 600 bis 800 Pixeln Bildbreite auskommen, was alleine schon eine Menge Kram unterdrückt, z.B. Rauschen bei ISO3200 oder ISO6400. Hier auf commons wird ein Knipser abgewatscht, wenn das linke Auge im Profil etwas unschärfer als das rechte geraten ist. Ich nenne hier keine Namen und ich will auch nicht, daß es persönlich wird, deshalb bitte keine Diskussionen über die Qualität der Fotos anderer Mitarbeiter hier. Aber ich habe bei einigen der Kritikaster mal ins Œuvre geschaut - und dort viele, teils hervorragende Bilder gefunden, aber weder Sport- noch Stage-Fotografie, also Sachen, wo man oft wirklich widrige Fotoumstände hat. Mir ist der Spruch mit der Milch und der Kuh durchaus bekannt, aber es gibt Dinge im Leben, die muß man auch mal selbst gemacht haben, um drüber reden zu können. Bitte jetzt keinen Exkurs über katholische Priester... -- Smial (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Btw: In den Profigalerien sind durchaus auch einige Aufnahmen drin, die ich gerne ähnlich hinbekommen hätte, egal ob tilted oder etwas unscharf, aber die Leute haben auch ein Auge für Gestaltung, daran übe ich noch.

¡¡!!

The name of this in spanish is -I think- "...": http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=100442630 --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Muesersiedlung Bogenstrasse IMGP7731.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, but I am not sure if the licence tag has to be pixelated. BTW: This urban settlement is VERY similar to the settlement Mülheim-Heimaterde --Tuxyso 07:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zeche Gneisenau Klimatisierung IMGP7845.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. --Dirtsc 07:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rotterdam West-Kruiskade IMGP0259 smial wp.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 good quality (+ nice tower) --A.Savin 19:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Streifenrasterleiterplatte IMGP5364.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. --Yndesai 12:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wolkenstrahlen Abendsonne in Dortmund IMGP9055 smial wp.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. --Dirtsc 07:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately licensed

Hallo Smial, nix fuer ungut. Die Diskussion und damit schliesse ich mein Beitraege ausdruecklich ein, war so nicht konstruktiv. Es ist natuerlich voellig ok entsprechend die Antworten auf meine geloeschten Beitraege zu loeschen. Sonst haengen die ja in der Luft. Das nur zu "it cannot be legal to disallow any changes for other users immediately thereafter". Niemand will das disallowen, oder? --Dschwen (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand German. I've restored both sets comments. At least on Wikipedia we don't generally remove what has been said. You can strike it though if you retract it, but once commented on then what has been said has been said. Colin (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. A lot of crap has been said which did not contribute constructively to the discussion. It is my decision to remove my crap to avoid polluting the rest of the discussion. I see no benefit in having my divisive, sarcastic and useless comments restored. So with all due respect I'm going to have to revert you. --Dschwen (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich bin in commons-diskussionskultur nicht geübt und kenne auch die Funktion dieses Hat nicht. Meine Argumente, bevor die Sache unerfindlich eskalierte, halte ich weiterhin für gültig und wundere mich nun, daß die Abschnitte komplett "archiviert" werden, bevor irgendeine Adminentscheidung gefallen ist. Alles sehr merkwürdig und in der Form in der deustchsprachigen wikipedia völlig unbekannt. -- Smial (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dschwen: Es wäre fair, entweder auf meine Version zurückzusetzen oder aber alles drin zu lassen, damit das irgendwie noch schlüssig bleibt. -- Smial (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, ich dachte ich haette auf Deine Version zurueckgesetzt. Moment, ich checke nochmal... --Dschwen (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Jo, habe ich doch auch. Verstehe den Konjunktiv nicht. Ich habe nur Colin's aenderung revertiert, also nicht an Deiner Aenderung herumgepfuscht. Lass halt stehen was Du stehen lassen willst. Ich will da nur nix mehr von mir haben. --Dschwen (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Jetzt zum dritten Mal nachgeguckt und ich kapiere es immernoch nicht. Wo ist denn ein Abschnitt komplett archiviert worden?! --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

orrrrrrrr BK BK BK. Nu erst das eine: ::: Ich habe hier ein sehr langsames Netz, als ich den Konjunktiv schrub, war die revertierte Seite noch gar nicht geladen, so glaubte ich aus deiner antwort hier eins drüber schließen zu können, du hättest DEINE Version genommen. Überschneidung. Alles ist gut. -- Smial (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Zur "Archivierung": Das steht doch in dem Baustein oben drin "ist archiviert, hier nix mehr ändern". Deshalb frugtete ich doch, daß mir die Funktion dieses Einklappdings unklar ist. -- Smial (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Um es noch einmal deutlich (auch für ggf. mitlesende admins) auszudrücken: Es ist ok für mich, daß die nicht konstruktiven und unerfreulichen Beiträge in dem Abschnitt rausgenommen wurden. Also sowohl die von Dschwen als latürnich auch meine eigenen. -- Smial (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bga und via IMGP4531 wp.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 ok --Steinsplitter 11:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luenen Siedlung Ziethenstrasse IMGP9097 wp.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 okay --Steinsplitter 11:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bergkamen Haus Aden nachts IMGP9341 wp.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 10:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

QIC: Decline und neue Version

Zu deiner Bemerkung zu diesem Bild: Ja, als ursprünglich Ablehnender kannst du dein Votum natürlich ändern. Am besten mit sichtbarer Durchstreichung, damit die alte Äußerung erkennbar bleibt und es nicht nach Manipulation riecht, und dann schreib „OK now“ oder so etwas drunter.

Aber das bedeutet für mich als Nominator, daß ich mich darauf verlassen muß, daß in den nächsten 48 Stunden entweder du selbst noch mal vorbeischaust oder jemand anders sich trotz des abschreckenden roten Rahmens nochmals neu mit den Bild (oder zumindest dem Text darunter) befaßt. Ein Decline fliegt nach zwei Tagen automatisch raus. Deshalb schiebe ich es in so einem Fall gleich nach CR (das darf man als Nominator ja auch dann, wenn man eine Zweitmeinung haben möchte), damit jedem klar ist, daß dieses Bild noch keine endgültige Bewertung erhalten hat.

Gibst du aber, wie vorgeschlagen, nur einen Kommentar ab und läßt den Rahmen blau, dann bleibt die Nomination noch lange genug stehen, um auch andere zum genaueren Ansehen und Bewerten einzuladen. Ich als Nominator möchte einen Decline grundsätzlich nicht auf Nomination zurücksetzen (und damit quasi das Contra eliminieren), das halte ich für schlechten Stil, selbst bei einer neuen Version, die den angemerkten Fehler behebt (auch wenn es da sicher vertretbar wäre).

(Und wieder war es gut, das RAW noch zu haben – das JPG hat nach Aufhellung zu stark gerauscht. Und in 16:10 sieht es noch schöner aus.)

--Kreuzschnabel (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Du kannst den Status auch auf discuss setzen, wenn niemand dueberschaut. Ist zwar wieder mehr Arbeit, weil das Bild laenger in der Disku-Section unten bleibt, und wieder mehr Leute ihren Senf dazu geben, aber so faellt es wenigstens nicht ganz von der Seite. -Dschwen (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Genau darum ging es mir ja: Wenn bei behebbaren Fehlern gleich ein Decline gegeben wird, muß ich nach Behebung des Fehlers das Bild auf Discuss setzen (das von dir vorgeschlagene Verfahren, das ich im hier zugrundeliegenden Fall auch anwendete). Ein neutraler Kommentar aber würde den Status offen (blau) lassen und insgesamt am wenigsten Arbeit verursachen. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Andererseits bleiben Bilder mit Kommentaren anscheinend gelegentlich bis zum Nimmerleinstag blau und in der Liste. Ich meine schon welche drei Wochen lang gesehen zu haben, bis sich (meistens) mattbuck erbarmt, das abzuschließen. -- Smial (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Das waere dann ein Bug in meinem QICBot. Es koennte aber auch sein, dass Du diese drei Wochen Kandidaten gesehen hast, als der Bot mal gar nicht lief. --Dschwen (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ja, möglich, mit den Auswertungen habe ich mich nie befaßt. -- Smial (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Zwei zurückgezogene Vorschläge

Moin Smial! Ich bin einfach zu neugierig, als dass ich nicht fragen könnte. ;-) Du hast zwei Bildnominierungen zurückgezogen und dabei eine Begründung benutzt, die sich so liest, als ob Du ein ernsthaftes Problem mit den Kommentaren eines bestimmten Benutzers hättest. Das finde ich schon ungewöhnlich. Aber vielleicht ist das zugrundeliegende Problem auch für andere von Interesse, um Bewertungen aus dieser Richtung richtig einordnen zu können. Falls mich das Deiner Meinung nach nichts angeht, dann lösche Diesen Beitrag einfach. Ist dann auch OK. Ansonsten bin ich hier bei Commons oder ggf. besser in de:WP zu erreichen. Wünsche Dir auf jeden Fall einen schönen Tag, --Dirtsc (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Der Herr kennt die QI-Kriterien nicht und beurteilt die Konzertfotos wie Architekturfotos bei Sonnenschein vom Stativ. Das fing bei einem Bild an, das nicht einmal von mir ist, nur vorgeschlagen von mir. Da habe ich Einspruch erhoben, seitdem habe ich ihn an den Hacken. Das Faß zum Überlaufen brachte das Anbringen von image notes ("tilt!!") bei einem Vorschlag von mir, ohne das entsprechende Foto in der Kandidatenliste überhaupt zu bewerten. Es juckt mich nicht die Bohne, wenn Bilder declined werden, sofern die Begründung nachvollziehbar ist, siehe "Unsharp/overexposed left." beim Lütgendortmunder Amtshaus. Da habe ich eben nicht genau genug hingesehen beim Vorschlag. Aber Miguel scheint inzwischen auf einer Mission zu sein. -- Smial (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Da du auf meiner Watchlist bist gebe ich auch noch meinen Senf dazu: Ich verstehe die Strategie mit dem Zurückziehen nicht. Wenn du das Bild erneut nominierst, kann es ja gut sein, dass er es wieder bewertet, weil es ja bereits für gut befunden wurde. Ich persönlich würde mich über einzelne Reviewer gar nicht groß aufregen. In dem Fall, indem du die Bewertung nicht teilst (wie bei dem Tilt im Konzertfoto) kannst du ja immer noch CR anrufen. Ich habe selten erlebt, dass ein Bild, das wirklich OK ist, bei CR ebenfalls durchfällt. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Die Strategie ist einfach: Er mag seine Finger von meinen Bildern lassen. Punkt. Ich brauche die Bapperl nicht, die sind mir wurscht. Ich mache bei QIC im Sinne von mbdortmund, der mich damals eingeladen hatte, mit, um Nachnutzern eine Hilfestellung zu geben, wo sie zwischen dem ganzen Dödelschrott auf commons taugliche Fotos zu verschiedensten Themen finden können. Aber wenn jemand wie Miguel praktisch eine komplette "Produktgruppe" mit immer demselben Unsinnsargument platt macht, dann ist die Sache gegessen. Er kann dort gerne alles und jeden beurteilen, aber nicht mehr meine Bilder, da erwarte ich kompetente Mitarbeiter. Da ich Kandidaturen nicht einfach aus der Liste löschen darf, wenn da schon jemand anders etwas druntergeschrieben hat, bleibt mir nur Withdrawn. -- Smial (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Ach so: Wenn ich was zurückziehe, wird das selbstverständlich nicht erneut nominiert, jedenfalls nicht von mir.

Ob ich dazu "Mission" sagen würde, weiß ich nicht. Aber Verkippung und perspektivische Verzerrung sind schon seine Hauptpunkte bei Reviews, das habe ich auch selber gemerkt. Und es ist häufig genug anstrengend, weil man eben auch bei "Architekturfotos bei Sonnenschein" oft einfach "echte" Perspektive hat und von daher nicht nur rechte Winkel auftreten. Da habe ich aber z.B. zwei Mal meine Meinung vertreten und er hat es in beiden Fällen akzeptiert. Natürlich hast Du Recht, dass man immer die Umstände berücksichtigen muss und es gerade da, wo Bewegung und schlechtes Licht ins Spiel kommen anders bewertet werden muss. Und wenn Du anderer Meinung bist als der erste Reviewer, dann mach es doch einfach so wie Tuxyso geschrieben hat: ab nach CR und sehen was andere so sagen. Manchmal klappt es dort ja. --Dirtsc (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Naja, ein Bild mit image notes zu versehen, das man gar nicht bei QIC zu beurteilen gedenkt, ist schon sehr eigenartig. So nach dem Motto "Ich saach ja nix, aber wenn ein anderer Bewerter die notes sieht...". -- Smial (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Konsequent bist du ja, allerdings bestraft du dich selbst damit, weil die Bilder dann ggf. keine QIs mehr werden, obwohl sie sehr gut sind. Formal würde ich übrigens auch die Möglichkeit sehen, von Promote auf Discuss zu wechseln, z.B. mit der Begründung: "I would like to hear another opinion because I am unsure if the the reviewer is right.". So wärst du zumindest noch im Rennen mit dem Bild. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ich sehe in einem QI-Bapperl keine Belohnung, in einem decline keine Bestrafung. Mir geht es um hohe Qualität in commons für Nachnutzer, egal ob innerhalb oder außerhalb der Wikipediawelt. Wenn Miguel die Finger von meinen Bildern läßt, muß ich nichts zurückziehen. -- Smial (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Richtig. Bestraft sind hier leider die Nachnutzer :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ja, das tut mir leid, aber ich muß mir auch nicht nachstellen lassen. Mit Sticheleien kann ich nicht gut umgehen. "No other words here. Thanks to everyone and to Smial--Lmbuga 22:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)", "Kommentar Thanks for your vote when I speak, Smial--Lmbuga 23:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)" - hingegen keinerlei Zeichen, daß er die Hinweise auf die Qualitätskriterien gelesen, verstanden oder auch nur ansatzweise in seine Überlegungen einbezogen hätte. Im Gegenteil wird bei CR-Bildern mehrfach noch einer draufgesetzt, vor lauter Aufregung sind auch schon mal acht Edits für einen kurzen Abschnitt nötig. -- Smial (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Miguel scheint sich jetzt zur Aufgabe gemacht zu haben, meinen Bewertungen bei jeder Gelegenheit zu widersprechen und das mit spitzen Bemerkungen zu garnieren. Ich vermeide ganz bewußt Bewertungen seiner Vorschläge, um Ärger aus dem Weg zu gehen und hatte ja bereits geschrieben, daß er seinerseits die Finger von meinen Bildern lassen möge. Nun gut, er tritt nach, das muß ich mir nicht antun. Bin dann mal raus. -- Smial (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Beruhige Dich doch mal wieder. ;-) Glaub mir mal, dass mich seine Fixierung auf "tilt" und "distortion" nicht auch nervt. Manchmal hat er Recht, manchmal muss man ihm einfach widersprechen und erklären, warum das in diesem Fall sinnlos ist. Wenn Du dich aber zurückziehst, dann sieht er sich in seiner Ansicht doch nur bestätigt. Speziell beim Bild für das er jetzt wieder einen Kommentar abgegeben hat steht es doch aktuell 2 zu 1 für das Bild. Wäre echt schade, wenn Du dich deswegen zurückziehst, man braucht gerade für QI mehr als nur ein paar wenige Aktive. --Dirtsc (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hast du dir die anderen Kommentare ebenfalls angesehen? -- Smial (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Nikolai Altefaehr Schiff imgp7760.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 Relatively strong image editing / sharpening (look at the bushes) but still OK for QI. Please add an English desription. --Tuxyso 14:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Added english description to Category:St. Nikolai (Altefähr). Sharpening: I'm using almost no sharpening except very low setting in shiftN when correcting perspective. -- Smial 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arnsberg Alter Markt IMGP6807.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 --Rjcastillo 12:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stapelmoor Kreuzkirche IMGP0046.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 16:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stapelmoor Kreuzkirche IMGP0041.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 --Rjcastillo 12:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smial

Hi Smial.

Please let me promote your photographs. I will try to offer you the best deal possible. Sorry--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer we keep out of way. -- Smial (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I would prefer you know that I don't have problems with you--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My approach is: I leave your images alone und you don't touch mine. -- Smial (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monsters of Liedermaching (Rio-Reiser-Fest Unna 2013) IMGP8356 smial wp.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. "Monsters of Liedermaching" is a funny term :) Never heared of this festival, but Rio Reiser, one of the prime fathers of German pop music, was great --Tuxyso 06:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alte Kolonie Eving IMGP3798 wp.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 light and good quality. --Tuxyso 06:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alte Kolonie Eving IMGP3804 wp.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, but I would do a slight horizontal correction because it looks as if your shooting position was not exactly centered in relation to the intersection of the two sides of the roof. Further vertical correction would lead to excessive distortion thus the verticals are OK for me as they are.--Tuxyso 06:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Froendenberg katholische Kirche IMGP1150 wp.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 Extreme perspective, but imho the overall composition works in the case here. Have you got space left at the bottom left. It would be better to see the tower touching the ground, it is a bit unfortunately cropped there. --Tuxyso 17:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC) There is nothing cropped, I own only a 12mm wide angle lens, there is absolutely no room to get more distance, so if I had catched the floor, the top of the church tower would have been cut off. -- Smial 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Good quality, although 10mm had done it :) --Tuxyso 09:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arnsberg Alter Markt IMGP6783.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 05:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warm und kalt IMGP7847.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 although the composition looks a bit random to me (e.g. the overlapping of the vertical red and blue pipe). --Tuxyso 10:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Eingezäuntes, teils zugewuchertes Industriegelände. Mußte auf einen Poller/Betonklotz klettern, Streulichtblende abmontieren, Objektiv durch den Zaun stecken, Streulichtblende wieder drauffrickeln, Angst haben, die dahinter fallen zu lassen... ;-) -- Smial 10:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Du hast hoffentlich keine Gesetzte gebrochen :) Passt schon! Ich habe bei solchen Aufnahmen nur immer diese fotografischen Meisterwerke im Hinterkopf. --Tuxyso 10:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zeche Haus Aden Rotherbachstrasse IMGP9937 wp.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 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Good for me also--Lmbuga 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luenen Bruecken IMGP9710 wp.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 16:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luenen Bruecken IMGP9684 wp.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. --Bgag 15:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Luenen Bruecken IMGP9686 wp.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 --A.Savin 09:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is your

The problem is your. Sorry. I can comment images. Also your images--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If I can, I will comment all your images in good faith (or with good faith). Your attitude is stupid, not you. --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to disappear, disappear, but it's your decission. I'm not an asshole bastard, as you would like--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm 51 years old. When you think you can be a normal user in QIC? When I die (you may not have to wait long)? Why so much hate?--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 01:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not hate anyone. I never called anyone an asshole. After an unresolved conflict I begged to leave my nominations alone and promised not to comment yours, to avoid further conflicts in the future. You do not respect my wish, so I consequently only can withdraw. -- Smial (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

es Como usted ha visto, yo ya he dejado el proyecto (propondré alguna foto, pero paso de comentar o estar activo)

Sus derechos no empiezan en el justo momento en que se atenta contra la libertad de expresión de los otros usuarios: Que yo promueva o considere positiva una imagen suya es un acto mío de libertad de expresión que no atenta contra sus derechos; pero supongo que eso es demasiado para usted: Abra su mente.

En contraposición, renegar de una valoración de otro usuario cuando esta es positiva, es una afrenta y un insulto: Abra su mente.

Es usted puro egoísmo y egocentrismo. ¿Tenemos que pensar todos como usted? ¿Por que no puede permitir que yo no piense exactamente igual o que dude?--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

es Unicamente podría admitir un acuerdo para no votar negativamente sus imágenes (a no ser que estén en discusión= "discuss"), pero no puedo admitir que no permita que yo las valore positivamente, lo siento: TENGO DERECHO A OPINAR y A EXISTIR--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Le recuerdo que no he votado en contra de ninguna de sus imágenes desde el conflicto. Su actitud es ciertamente insultante--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Le recuerdo que no he votado en contra de ninguna de sus imágenes desde el conflicto. Su actitud es ciertamente insultante--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No se extrañe usted si en el plazo de diez o quince días decido comentar absolutamente todas sus imágenes en señal de protesta ante su actitud--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Le recuerdo que no he votado en contra de ninguna de sus imágenes desde el conflicto. Su actitud es ciertamente insultante

Le recuerdo que no he votado en contra de ninguna de sus imágenes desde el conflicto. Su actitud es ciertamente insultante--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No se extrañe usted si en el plazo de diez o quince días decido comentar absolutamente todas sus imágenes en señal de protesta ante su actitud--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ratlos

Ich habe keine Ahnung, was ich zu den beiden Abschnitten noch sagen soll. Ich hoffe nur, daß Miguel einige Dinge nicht so meinte, wie mir translate.google das übersetzt hat. -- Smial (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bitte doch Poco um eine Übersetzung. Der kann exzellent Deutsch. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia ist gängiges Verfahren, daß sich Leute, die einen Konflikt hatten, aus dem Wege gehen. Das hatte ich vorgeschlagen und mich meinerseits seither bis auf einen Fall, bei dem ich Miguel in einer anderen Sache auf seiner Disk Unterstützung zugesagt hatte, daran gehalten. Ich kommentiere seine Vorschläge nicht mehr und ich kommentiere seine Kommentare nicht mehr auf QIC, damit es nicht erneuten Anlaß für Streß gibt. Im Gegenzug stiefelt er mir nach. So geht das nicht. Ich will ihn weder rausdrängen noch ihm das Wort generell verbieten. Er soll mich nur in Ruhe lassen, da ich einige seiner Auslegungen der QIC-Bewertungskriterien für grundlegend falsch halte und daher meine Bilder nicht durch ihn bewertet sehen möchte. -- Smial (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ich will mich nicht in Euren Konflikt einmischen, wollte nur Poco als Übersetzer vorschlagen. Sofern meine, vermutlich in dem Fall nicht genügend informierte, Meinung dennoch von Interesse ist: Mein Eindruck ist, dass du in der ganzen Sache arg überreagiert hast / überreagierst. Ich habe keine Ahnung, was Miguel dir jetzt hier geschrieben hat. Wäre man allerdings bösartig (ich bin das probehalber mal) könnte man dein Vorgehen auch wie folgt interpretieren: Mir gefällt es nicht wie bestimmte User (in dem Fall Miguel) meine Fotos begutachten, also versuche ich sie von meinen Fotos fernzuhalten. Freie Gutachterwahl sieht QIC in der Form nicht vor. Ich verstehe nicht, warum du in Decline-Fällen nicht einfach CR setzt. Das bessere Argument, das in den allermeisten Fällen zweifelsfrei bei dir liegt, setzt sich durch. Ich habe z.B. einen Kandidaten auf QIC, der mit meinen Reviews fast nie einverstanden war und stets auf CR gesetzt hat und immer mit mir diskutieren wollte. Ich begutachte seine Bilder jetzt nicht mehr, weil mir die Zeit zu schade ist. Ein ähnlicher Zustand könnte sich dann auch bei Miguel einstellen. Und ich denke es geht rein menschlich schon an die Substanz, wenn du Miguel mit jedem Withdraw zu verstehen gibst, dass du ihn für inkompetent hälst und deine Fotos nicht von ihm begutachtet sehen möchtest.
Das Problem ist eben, dass man sich auf QIC nicht wirklich aus dem Weg gehen kann, weil wir alle irgendwie in einem Boot sitzen. Auf de-WP ist das mitunter ja auch nicht anders. Wenn z.B. wie jüngst ein sehr hartnäckiger Autor Edits in meiner Heimatstadt vornimmt, mit denen ich nicht einverstanden bin, was soll ich dann machen? Dritte Meinung anrufen, ja OK, aber aus dem Weg gehen wird schwierig. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

a) Selbstverständlich kann man sich auf einer Funktionsseite aus dem Weg gehen. Einen entsprechenden Vorschlag habe ich gemacht, ich zumindest bin in der Lage dazu. b) Wenn man bösartig denken will, kann man diese Edits, die Miguel an einem meinen Kandidaten angebracht hat, ohne überhaupt auf QIC eine Beurteilung dazu abzugeben, schon als Stalking betrachten. Diese Edits erfolgten, nachdem ich zweimal schriftlich nachgewiesen habe, daß seine "Muss"-Interpretation einiger QIC-Regeln falsch ist. An anderer Stelle maßt er sich an, bei einem "intentional" schräggestellten Foto dem Fotografen diese Intention abzusprechen. Aber wenn du meinst, daß meine Notwehr nicht zielführend ist, dann lasse ich das eben. -- Smial (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Ps.: Ich lege Wert auf die Feststellung, daß von mir an keiner Stelle persönliche Angriffe angedacht waren, wenn das irgendwo anklingen sollte, liegt das an meinen mangelnden Englischkenntnissen. Weshalb ich den Sermon hier auch auf deutsch geschrieben habe.

Auch bei der Image Note bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob er dich wirklich stalken möchte. Vielleicht wollte er auch einfach nur einer Auseinandersetzung auf der QIC-Seite aus dem Weg gehen und dich auf diese Weise auf einen Mangel (der hier freilich keiner ist) hinweisen. Du hast ihn nirgendwo angegriffen, ich ja habe nur versucht zu beschreiben wie er deine Ignorieren-/Withdraw-Aktionen auffassen könnte. Wenn er dich wirklich persönlich angreifst, was ich bisher nicht sehe (abgesehen von dem spanischen Pamplet, das er hier verfasst hat, das müsste man sich näher anschauen), hättest du noch den Weg über die VM, falls es so etwas auf Commons gibt. Versetze ich mich mal in Miguels Lage, könnte ich mich auch ärgern, wenn ein anderer User erzwingen möchte, dass ich seine Bilder nicht mehr begutachte, weil er fachlich nicht mit mir übereinstimmt. Das ist ja ganz unabhängig davon, wer recht hat, sondern spielt sich eher auf einer emotional-menschlichen Ebene ab. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Zu dem Zeitpunkt des Einfügens der image notes gab es noch gar keine Auseinandersetzung, nur meine Hinweise, die seine Verwechslung von "must" und "should" angeht, auf die er nie argumentativ einging, sondern selbige schlicht ignorierte und fröhlich an anderer Stelle damit weitermachte. Nb: Dabei ging es ursprünglich gar nicht um Fotos von mir, sondern um Vorschläge von mir und anderen. -- Smial (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Max Henry (Suuns) (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP2650 smial wp.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 13:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chevrolet BelAir logo side IMGP4764.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 13:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ja, Panik (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP3380 smial wp.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. --Vassil 06:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Julia Holter und Band (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP2506 smial wp.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 05:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Milky Chance (Musikschutzgebiet Homberg 2013) IMGP0182 smial wp.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 --Jean11 18:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Florian Ostertag (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP2217 smial wp.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. --Jean11 09:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Loetspitze IMGP9290.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, useful. Could we know the material of which it is made? --Kadellar 15:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC) As far as I know this is a copper core plated with iron. -- Smial 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) That would be useful in the description. --Kadellar 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chevrolet BelAir logo back IMGP4763.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}}}

Schau mal bitte

Schaust mal bitte auf die Disk User talk:Krd, template:Festivalsommer 2013. Es geht darum, dass die Vorlage mit dem UploadWizard nicht toll zusammen arbeitet. Entweder machen wir noch einen Schalter, oder wir leben mit einem Schönheitsfehler. --Atamari (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lee Fields & The Expressions (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP3925 smial wp.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. -- Spurzem 20:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lee Fields & The Expressions (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP3915 smial wp.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. --Kadellar 18:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kokerei Zollverein IMGP5021 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 19:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kokerei Zollverein IMGP5073 wp.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. -- Spurzem 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Milky Chance (Musikschutzgebiet Homberg 2013) IMGP0325 smial wp.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 21:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kamen-Heeren Herz Jesu IMGP2551 wp.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 OK --Rjcastillo 14:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Luedo Hotel Specht Fassade IMGP0569.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 --A.Savin 18:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kokerei Zollverein IMGP5081 wp.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 -- Spurzem 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kokerei Zollverein IMGP5115 wp.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 -- Spurzem 20:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kokerei Zollverein IMGP5104 wp.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 -- Spurzem 20:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blitze IMGP6376 wp.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 OK --Rjcastillo 19:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blitze über Unna (2009) - IMGP6399 wp.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 20:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hd head IMGP6477 wp.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 ganz klar --Ralf Roletschek 12:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Detektor-Kristall IMGP6998 wp.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 OK --Rjcastillo 19:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lee Fields & The Expressions (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP3844 smial wp.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 Kraft 13:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kokerei Zollverein IMGP5028 wp.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 --Kreuzschnabel 19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brieftaubentransporter heck IMGP6756 wp.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 10:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zeche Gneisenau IMGP9821 wp.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 --A.Savin 17:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bausenhagen ev kirche IMGP6639 wp.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.--ArildV 23:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warmen christ koenig IMGP0198 wp.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. --Einstein2 13:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neuasseln st nikolaus IMGP9525 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Scharnhorst neuapostolische kirche IMGP9623 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grafikkarte N260GTX IMGP6200 wp.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 for me.--Jebulon 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraftwerk Heil Gegenlicht IMGP0482 wp.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 great! --Ralf Roletschek 15:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Neuasseln st nikolaus IMGP9543 wp.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 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gcarus

Moin! Kannst Du mal fix ein Blick darauf werfen? Heissen Dank! :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Com:Scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose und Commons:Deletion_policy#Not_educationally_useful. waren gemeint als bandspam. :) --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 22:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wetter Lutherkirche IMGP4549 wp.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 Kraft 12:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Warmen christ koenig IMGP0207 wp.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 19:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eving St Marien IMGP0661 wp.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. --Myrabella 11:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Soelde St Marien IMGP9489 wp.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. --Dirtsc 17:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bergkamen ev Friedenskirche IMGP8788 wp.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. --Dirtsc 17:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Kovalev v Szilagyi 2013 Fencing WCH SMS-IN t194135.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kovalev v Szilagyi 2013 Fencing WCH SMS-IN t194135.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Koenigsborn Windpumpe IMGP1966 wp.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 composition and quality --AngMoKio 19:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Peerless IMGP3770 wp.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 and useful, just a bit tight crop. --Kadellar 18:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lanstrop Haus Wenge IMGP1318 wp.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 Good quality--Lmbuga 08:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unna Effertz Denkmal IMGP4254 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 17:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heeren ev Kirche IMGP0045 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 17:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9372 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 14:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9373 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 14:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Koenigsborn Windpumpe IMGP1958 wp.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 Slight dust spot (see note), but I think that the picture must be QI--Lmbuga 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment Improved version uploaded. -- Smial 17:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)  Support QI for me--Lmbuga 20:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unna Markt Fassaden IMGP6369 wp.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 14:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9434 wp.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 --A.Savin 14:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9440 wp.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. --Dirtsc 15:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9366 wp.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 10:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9464 wp.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 for me, but, please, why your images have 3000x... pixels? Don't resize, please--Lmbuga 16:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9479 wp.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 QI for me--Lmbuga 14:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:Image resizing

I understand and I agree with what you say, you're right.

I think it's recommended -I'm telling you as a friend- that the size of the images were always different (3019x... pixels, 3125x... pixels, not 3000x... pixels always), because, that way, size does not seem to infringe the "rule" of not resize images. Greetings--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 12:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, with the aid of your words, I am opposed to this rule also. I think it is not necessary: The rule causes more harm than good. Thanks--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 14:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Änderungen an File:Genius-Julisaeule-Place de la Bastille-DSC 2360w.jpg by user:P_e_z_i

Danke, schaut wesentlich besser aus. Hatte mich zu sehr auf verlorene Lichter konzentriert; war aber mit dem Ergebnis nicht wirklich glücklich ... --P e z i (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Diese goldenen Statuen und Wetterfahnen usw. sind für Digitalkameras wirklich übel. Hat dein Knipsdings eine Einstellung zur Hochlichtkompensation? "D-Bereich" oder wie immer der Hersteller das nennt? Man gewinnt damit, im Prinzip durch Unterbelichtung um eine Blendenstufe und anschließendem automagischem S-Curving, bei solchen Spitzlichtsituationen eine etwas natürlichere, Dia-Filmähnliche Tonwertwiedergabe. Hat mir schon oft den Arsch gerettet, auch z.B. bei strahlend weißen Wolken. Das ist natürlich keine wundersame Raketentechnik, sondern bei entsprechend knapper Belichtung und Nachbehandlung im Raw-Konverter auch zufuß zu erreichen. -- Smial (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ja, mein "Knipsding" (Nikon D7100) hat sogar 5 verschiedene Stufen für Active D-Lighting. Hab das bisher für Teufelszeug gehalten :-) Muss ich mal damit spielen. Herzlichen Dank für die Tipps! --P e z i (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9349 wp.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 14:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9535 wp.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 21:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9188 wp.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 21:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9227 wp.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 21:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9519 wp.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 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9492 wp.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 14:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg Stadtarchiv IMGP9161 wp.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 21:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9446 wp.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 Good quality. Perhaps minor cyan CAs at left bottom window, but almost imperceptibles--Lmbuga 15:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9452 wp.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 Good quality IMO. The picture seems tilted CCW, but the buildings are not straight. The lines of the center are good and straight --Lmbuga 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9454 wp.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 20:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9466 wp.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 20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9431 wp.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 Can you crop the disturbing traffic sign at lower left? --Dirtsc 07:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Yes, we can! -- Smial 13:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Technically good and now with a much better composition. --Dirtsc 15:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9382 wp.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 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oberaden Martin Luther Kirche IMGP0525 wp.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 problem, need ++Exposure and  Underexposed zones --The Photographer 17:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I think it's ok - what you see as perspective problems, given the church's main body being upright, I attribute as a tapering tower. Mattbuck 21:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9401 wp.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}}}

File:La grande Mosquée de Nabeul, septembre 2013, 11.jpg

Hi Smial,
Thanks, I tried a little modification of the file. I hope the CA is reduced/gone now. Regards --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 12:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to see many more good images from your country ;-) -- Smial (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Musketiere Dortmund IMGP1320 smial wp.jpg

File:Musketiere Dortmund IMGP1320 smial wp.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!

Rudko (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9472 wp.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. --Mattbuck 19:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9268 wp.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 Good quality--Lmbuga 16:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9276 wp.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 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9348 wp.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 23:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9355 wp.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 but Exif gets more and more surprising. At f/0, even an exposure time of 1/200,000 s should result in massive overexposure. --Kreuzschnabel 20:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9256 wp.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 imo.--ArildV 21:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9540 wp.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. I am sure that the house is leaning also in reality. --Isiwal 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9514 wp.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 – bei 1 mm Brennweite (Exif) mußt du aber einen verd… kleinen Sensor benutzt haben, und dann ist die BQ phänomenal! --Kreuzschnabel 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment Ich bin sicher, daß die EXIF früher mal vom Mediawiki korrekt angezeigt wurden, Exifviewer oder Irfanview zeigen jedenfalls keinen Blödsinn an. Auch bei vielen anderen Bildern, nicht nur bei meinen, zeigt die Bildvorschauseite haaresträubenden Unfug. -- Smial 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)  CommentDie EXIF-Daten sind wirklich lustig. Schau mal auf Fotograf, Urheberrechte, Blende oder Speicherzeitpunkt. Da ist eine ganze Menge durcheinander gekommen. --Dirtsc 20:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Exter Autobahnkirche IMGP8781 wp.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 Need sharpening --The Photographer 17:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)  Comment Sharpened. -- Smial 10:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest adding blue, it seems rather grey currently, but OK. Mattbuck 19:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Danke...

... für deine Bearbeitung von File:Cupola Palace of Fine Arts San Francisco 2013.jpg, gefällt mir sehr gut. Ich bin gespannt, was Sportmodusfotograf Steindy dazu sagt. Ich habe auf QIC schon vermerkt, dass es eine neue Version gibt. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Du hast bei der Aufnahme nicht exakt vertikal in der Mitte gestanden, deshalb ist eine wirklich 100%ige Korrektur imho nicht möglich. Hab versucht, einen ästhetisch halbwegs tauglichen Kompromiß zu finden. Über Steindys Fotos und Bewertungen äußere ich mich lieber nicht detailliert. -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ist auch gar nicht so einfach. Immerhin ist dort keine Markierung, die Kuppel verdammt groß und zu allem Überfluss habe ich die Aufnahme noch aus der Hand gemacht, womit die Ausrichtung auch nicht einfacher wird. Ich denke aber, dass die Aufnahme nun gut genug ist, dass sich die QI-Reviewer damit zufrieden geben sollten. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9328 wp.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.--ArildV 06:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9798 wp.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 You've delted my vote, Smial. OK although NR is a bit overdone and fassade could be slightly horizontally corrected. --Tuxyso 09:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Änderungen an File:An der Obertrave-Luebeck-DSC 0482w.jpg

Hi, grundsätzlich mal ein Dankeschön für den Versuch das Bild zu verbessern, allerdings ist mit der Änderung der Staubfleck wieder mitgekommen, den ich schon entfernt hatte. Außerdem sehe ich beim besten Willen kein kippen nach rechts. Denke die Häuser sind alt und stehen nicht wirklich alle 100% senkrecht - je nachdem wo man schaut gibt es kleine Abweichungen in beide Richtungen. Falls du einverstanden bist, würde ich gerne auf die Version ohne Staubfleck zurücksetzen. LG --P e z i (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, den Staub habe ich übersehen. Freilich ist das Original tatsächlich etwas schief und hat leichte perspektivische Verzerrung. Auch wenn die Häuser alt sind, sie werden nicht komplett alle umfallen wollen, ebensowenig alle Fahnenmasten links bei den Booten. -- Smial (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Danke für die nochmalige Korrektur. Zum shift und tilt: Es stimmt schon, dass meine Version nicht perfekt war, aber man kann's mit der Korrektur auch übertreiben :-) --P e z i (talk) 08:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ich halte solche kleinen Korrekturen für legitim. Viel schlimmer sind die gewaltsam geradegezogenen Kirchtürme. -- Smial (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ueberwassergehen IMGP2434 wp.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 14:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwabstedt IMGP3215 wp.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 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nina Garenetska (DakhaBrakha) (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP6625 smial wp.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 14:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Marko Halanevych (DakhaBrakha) (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP6720 smial wp.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. --Kadellar 15:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Patricia Vanneste (Balthazar) (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP3655 smial wp.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 -- Spurzem 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwabstedt IMGP3194 wp.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 now. --Cayambe 20:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwabstedt IMGP3203 wp.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 CCW tilted. --Tuxyso 11:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC) * Zurechtgeschubst. -- Smial 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) QI for me. --Tuxyso 21:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9221 wp.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 technically QI, composition is strange if main object is the sculpture. --P e z i 19:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lueneburg IMGP9229 wp.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 10:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

rollback

Sorry, wurstfinger aufm Tablet. --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Och, sowas schaffe ich auch mit "professioneller" Tastatur und Maus... -- Smial (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Linda Zervakis

Hallo Smial,

danke fürs erneute Nominieren auf QI. Ich hatte die Kandidatur gar nicht mitbekommen und mich gerade echt gefreut. :-) Stepro (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ich hatte gar nicht nachgeschaut und folglich nicht gesehen, daß das schon mal nominiert war. Ich werde jetzt auch nicht in den Archiven nachsehen, weshalb das mal abgelehnt wurde, denn ich fürchte, ich würde mich nur aufregen. Bin über den Umweg Kurier-Disk drauf gestoßen. -- Smial (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

:-) Stepro (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stolpersteine Unna Gerhart-Hauptmann-Strasse IMGP3066.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 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eving Lutherkirche IMGP6416 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 15:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rotterdam West-Kruiskade IMGP0259 smial wp crop from 16MPixels.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rotterdam West-Kruiskade IMGP0259 smial wp crop from 16MPixels.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

• File:Rotterdam West-Kruiskade IMGP0259 smial wpcrop from 5.3 Mpixels.jpg

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Intel extreme boxed cooler bottom IMGP5967 wp.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 Das ist gut für mich. Pymouss 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ueberwassergehen IMGP2349 wp.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 Surprising! OK to me. --Myrabella 22:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KONA LHi video processing card IMGP6071 wp.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 22:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Stadtbezirk Aplerbeck IMGP0897 wp.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 CA in the branches, small, but otherwise good quality --Carschten 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eving Selimiye Camii Dortmund IMGP6369 wp.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 --A.Savin 10:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ueber Wasser Gehen Jetzt IMGP6435 wp.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 QI --NorbertNagel 13:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alberto Iriondo (Txikitin) (Ska-P) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP8662 smial wp.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. --Kadellar 16:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schwabstedt IMGP3197 wp.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 CA on clouds --A.Savin 13:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Colour balance seems wrong to me, and grass seems oversaturated. Mattbuck 18:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) New version uploaded. -- Smial 10:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)  Support OK to me --A.Savin 12:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aplerbeck koeln-berliner 145 IMGP0741 wp.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 Small size, but imho OK. --Tuxyso 14:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund St Martin IMGP0839 wp.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! Cherry flachtastatur IMGP3074 wp.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. --Mattbuck 09:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stolpersteine Unna Weberstrasse IMGP3012.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 shoot, showing the artist in action and the main subject - for me QI --J. Lunau 08:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aplerbeck Ruinenstrasse IMGP0526 wp.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 QI. The thumbnail looks darker than the image. However, you should consider to slightly brighten the image. --NorbertNagel 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aplerbeck St Georg IMGP0681 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aplerbeck Schweizer Allee Pfarrhaus IMGP0549 wp.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. Naja.. ;-) --Moroder 23:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unna Schulstrasse 10 12 IMGP4160 wp.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 Good quality. --XRay 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stolpersteine Unna Gerhart-Hauptmann-Strasse IMGP3069.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 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aplerbeck Ruinenstrasse IMGP0526 wp.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 QI. The thumbnail looks darker than the image. However, you should consider to slightly brighten the image. --NorbertNagel 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aplerbeck St Georg IMGP0681 wp.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 QI --Rjcastillo 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stolpersteine Unna Gerhart-Hauptmann-Strasse IMGP3069.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 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Soelde Soelder Strasse IMGP0267 wp.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.--ArildV 16:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bork Amtshaus IMGP6101 wp.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 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund baudenkmal wickeder strasse IMGP2190 wp.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 15:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Selm FriedenskircheIMGP1592 wp.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 10:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Soelde Rosenstrasse IMGP0753 wp.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 10:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Soelde Rosenstrasse IMGP0753 wp.jpg

Hi, hab versucht die Fassade etwas aufzuhellen. Bei nichtgefallen bitte revert ... --P e z i (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Jo, paßt scho' -- Smial (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Aufhellblitz

Hallo Smial! Zu deiner Frage zu File:130713 Abashiri Prison Museum Abashiri Hokkaido Japan63s3.jpg. Ich war mir bei deiner Nachfrage nicht klar, ob du wirklich eine Antwort haben wolltest, oder ob du mit der Frage nur demonstrieren wolltest, dass du mein Argument für falsch hälst - naja egal. Es ging mir bei meinem Vorschlag nicht um eine perfekte Ausleuchtung des kompletten Gangs - das ist sicher nicht mal eben so gemacht. Allerdings ist es ja in dunklen Räumen nicht unüblich mit einem moderaten Aufhellblitz (z.B. in Kirchen) die Tiefen etwas aufzuhellen. So hätte man zumindest ein wenig Zeichnung in die Balken unter der Decke bekommen. Ich hätte den Blitz vermutlich um 90° gedreht und nach schräg oben gerichtet. Die Herausforderung hier ist sicherlich die seitlichen Bereiche an der Wand nicht zu stark anzublitzen. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Die Frage war durchaus ernst gemeint, denn aus der Beschreibung wurde mir nicht klar, wieso ein entfesselter oder indirekter Blitz in dieser speziellen Situation helfen würde. Gehen wir mal vom 90°-nach-oben-Blitz aus: Man kann es nicht präzise sagen, aber direkt oberhalb der Kamera haben wir vermutlich entweder noch ein Stück des Oberlichts oder aber schon wieder die Holzdecke - und keinen großflächigen weißen Reflektor. Im Fall der Holzdecke braucht man vermutlich einen Atomblitz, denn die dürfte mehr als 90% des Lichts schlucken und obendrein einen bösen Farbstich erzeugen. Im Falle des Oberlichts geht mindestens die Hälfte des Blitzlichts im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes durch die Decke. Was aber viel tragischer ist, ist die Tatsache, daß die angestrahlte Fläche deutlich oberhalb der zu dunklen Deckenpartien liegt, mithin ebensowenig wie das schon vorhandene Tageslicht zur Beleuchtung der von dir monierten zu dunklen Deckenpartien beitragen würde.

Bleiben also Varianten mit von der Kamera gelöstem Blitz. Aufgrund der Enge des Gangs ist der vor der Kamera nirgendwo aufstellbar, er wäre halt stets mit im Bild. Man hätte den sonst außerhalb des Blickwinkels irgendwo links oder rechts aufbauen können. Ok, verdeckt auf dem Rücken des Uniormierten angeschraubt wäre evtl. noch gegangen.

Zwei sehr kräftige Blitze ein Stück hinter der Kamera, die die weißen Wände anblitzen, wären eine ausprobierenswerte Variante. Einer reicht nicht, gäbe einseitige Beleuchtung. Ein beliebter Trick beim Direktblitz (auch bei Nahaufnahmen) ist, den Blitz sehr deutlich hinter der Kamera aufzustellen, dann fällt der Lichtabfall nicht so krass aus. Freilich muß man dann schauen, selber keinen Schatten zu werfen, und wenn sich das in einem 20m langen Gang positiv bemerkbar machen soll, muß der Blitz auch schon noch einmal mindestens 20m weiter hinten stehen, sonst hast du genau wieder denselben Effekt wie in dem von mir verlinkten Bunkergangfoto.

Kurz: Das mit dem "easily" habe ich schlicht nicht verstanden. -- Smial (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Lee Fields & The Expressions (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP3844 smial wp.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck!. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Selection WikiCon

Hi Smial,
wie due bereits weißt, werde ich in den nächsten Tagen eine Zusammenstellung von Bildern auf commons machen, die bei der diesjährigen WikiCon in Karlsruhe gezeigt werden sollen - ich habe dabei auch bereits ein paar deiner Bilder ergänzt und du hast ja ebenfalls bereits beigetragen. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn du mir weiter hilfst: Ist es dir möglich, einen Satz sehr guter Bilder aus dem letzten Jahr +/- zu ergänzen, bsp. aus dem Festivalsommer oder anderen dir bekannten Projekten (eigene und andere; gern auch aus anderen Bereichen - Ausnahme WLM Deutschland, da dort eine eigene Show geplant ist) in die Category:Selection WikiCon 2013 zu ergänzen. Gruß, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ja, klar, ich habe vor, das weiter zu füllen, aber jetzt kam mir zunächst die WLM-Jury dazwischen. Paar Fragen dazu: Die alphabetische Bildersortierung in der Cat führt zu lustigen Sequenzen. Ich habe gerade ausprobiert, daß man die Anzeigreihenfolge beeinflussen kann, indem man bei der Kategorisierung mit dem Pipesymbol einen Sortierschlüssel anhängt. Siehe File:Deep Purple - MN Gredos - 01.jpg, das ich mit "00" testweise ganz nach vorn geschoben habe. Im Augenblick sind es erst 69 Bilder, da könnte man das schnell noch für die anderen nachholen, um eine thematische Gruppierung zu haben. Das könnte doch bei der Zusammenstellung der eigentlichen Präsentation helfen, oder? Um Tipparbeit zu sparen könnte man als Schlüssel z.B. "Festival", "Flug", "Bio", "Portrait", "Sport" nehmen. Oder ist das unnötig, weil du dir schon einen anderen Arbeitsablauf überlegt hast? Weiters: Wären zwecks Auflockerung auch "Stimmungsfotos" ohne großartigen enzüklopsigen Wert ok? Also z.B. Schnappschüsse von den Arbeitsbedingungen, Publikum (sofern klar erkennbar ist, daß Einverständnis seitens der fotografierten Personen vorliegt). Gingen auch kurze (!) Videosequenzen? Also nicht länger, als die Standzeit der Einzelfotos und ohne Ton? -- Smial (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smial, ich habe auch weitere Fotografen angefragt (und werde noch weitere fragen), daher das Standardmail oben - siehe bsp. User_talk:Tuxyso#Selection_WikiCon, wo ich auch ein wenig Intention erklärt habe. Stimmungen finde ich prima. Zum Tagging: Ich denke, wir sollten tatsächlich ein random machen statt clustern - daher würde ich eine Sortierreihenfolge nicht machen - insgesamt würde ich stattdessen lieben einen Pool mit deutlich 4-stelliger Bilderzahl im Random laufen lassen. Gruß -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

hast du schon einen bequemen Mechanismus entdeckt, wie man die Urheber- und Lizenzangaben sinnvoll anzeigen kann? Die Slideshow kann das ja irgendwie, zeigt aber viel zuviel überflüssigen Kram an und spielt anscheinend immer nur der Reihenfolge nach ab. Schick wäre auch, wenn die Übergänge zwichen den Bildern variabel wären, besonders bei Hochformatbildern, die ja einzeln stehend immer viel kleiner als Querformate auf der Leinwand stehen, da könnte man z.B. auch einmal zwei nebeneinander stellen, damit die Anzeigefläche schön gefüllt ist. -- Smial (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: Wollen wir Tonnen von Landtagsabgeordneten oder anderen Politikern aus den entsprechenden Projekten haben? Da gibt es ja endlos quality images von Hinterbänklern. Aber ich denke, zwei, drei würden reichen... -- Smial (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tom Odell (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP4273 smial wp.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  weak support Noisy, but good detail and good colors--Lmbuga 16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lee Fields & The Expressions (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP3844 smial wp.jpg, which was nominated by Julian Herzog at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lee Fields & The Expressions (Haldern Pop 2013) IMGP3844 smial wp.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/JKadavoor Jee 06:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Selm Baudenkmal Ludgeristrasse IMGP1673 wp.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 -- Spurzem 15:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Selm Faehrenkampsiedlung IMGP1487 wp.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 but it would be nice to use a short English caption for those who do not speak German. Thanks in advance. --JLPC 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I'm not good in english, tried something at Category:Fährenkampsiedlung (Selm). -- Smial 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Selm Faehrenkampsiedlung IMGP1505 wp.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 17:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Selm Faehrenkampsiedlung IMGP1512 wp.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 15:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Selm Faehrenkampsiedlung IMGP1530 wp.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 15:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bergkamen Baudenkmal IMGP1919 wp.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 tight crop on top but still QI IMO --P e z i 00:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Sulzthal, Heilig Kreuz Kapelle-001 speziellerjurywunsch.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Sulzthal, Heilig Kreuz Kapelle-001 speziellerjurywunsch.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Kann gelöscht werden. -- Smial (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Bismarckturm-2012.jpg

Hallo Smial! Kannst du bitte noch mal einen Blick auf File:Bismarckturm-2012.jpg werfen. Beachte hinsichtlich der Perspektive bitte, dass der Turm von den Außenwänden her nicht gerade ist, sondern sich nach oben hin verjüngt (s. andere Bilder in der Kategorie). Ich habe noch ein wenig an der NR gedreht und etwas runterskaliert, damit das Rauschen nicht zu sehr ins Auge fällt. Das Foto war zuvor aber bereits gecropt, deswegen hatte es eine geringere Auflösung. Meiner Meinung nach erfüllt es die QI-Kriterien. VG, --Tuxyso (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nun kippelt er zur anderen Seite, und zwar stärker, als er zuvor nach rechts kippelte. Ich wollte dich nicht dazu bringen, unnötig viel Arbeit in ein Foto zu stecken, das imho nicht zu retten ist. Das Bild bleibt weiterhin recht unscharf, eventuell ist es sogar leicht verwackelt. Auch das Rauschen ist nicht akzeptabel, immerhin läuft so ein Turm nicht auf der Wiese herum und wackelt auch nicht im Wind, also ist das bei dem Licht eine Sache für einen Stativeinsatz. Die Aufnahmeposition und die Bildaufteilung finde ich übrigens sehr gelungen, du solltest dort nochmal hingehen, etwas geringere Farbsättigung wählen und auf wenig Wind und einen ähnlich schönen Himmel hoffen. -- Smial (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Das Motiv gefällt mir auch sehr gut. Leider hatte ich an dem Tag in der Tat kein Stativ dabei. Ich find die Qualität allerdings bei weitem nicht so schlecht wie du (bis vielleicht auf die Wiese im Vordergrund, die wirklich unschön aussieht) - ich hätte dem Foto vermutlich ein QI ausgestellt wenn es von jemand anderem gewesen wäre. Ich denke schon, dass man mit einer modernen DSLR durchaus auch bei ISO 1600 aus der Hand gute Fotos produzieren kann. Man kann nicht alle Fotos, die nicht mit ISO 100 fotografiert sind per se ablehnen, weil sie minimal rauschen. Mit dem gleichen Argument könnte man ja auch die ganzen Konzertfotos ablehnen - hätte man eine Studioblitzanlage gehabt, hätte man eine D4 gehabt usw. :) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Bei Konzertfotos bewegen sich die Fotoopfer, und das nicht wenig. Soll ich dir meinen ganzen Schrott mal zeigen? Blitz ist nicht erlaubt und auch die D4 hilft da nur graduell, nicht prinzipiell, auch die rauscht vernehmmlich bei 6400. Ich habe ein paar Glückstreffer mit ISO3200, 250mm, Offenblende und 1/15s bis 1/30s gelandet, da hat der Musiker einen Augenblick stillgehalten. Um einigermaßen sicher wischfeste Bilder bei sich bewegenden Leuten zu haben, müßte man bei dem Licht trotz Stabi 1/1000s nehmen - und das hätte ISO 50.000 oder mehr bedeutet, da rauschen auch Spitzenkameras ein wenig. Ich habe auch verwischte Bilder mit 1/250s. Schau dir mal spaßeshalber die Fotogalerien in Konzertberichten an, was meinst du, warum die fast alle in Briefmarkengröße online sind? Ich habe durch die Festivalknipserei einige Kontakte zu Profis bekommen, die waren sogar relativ angetan, hatten auch einiges an Kritik, wofür ich mir den Schuh anziehen muß, nur Meckern über Bildrauschen war nie dabei. Von daher zieht das "gleiche Argument" nicht, denn Bismarcktürme hüpfen nicht herum und schütteln nicht die Frisur, die schöne. -- Smial (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mein Kommentar war auch eher humoristisch zu verstehen. Klar, du versuchst das beste aus den Konzertfotos herauszuholen - das habe ich hier auch versucht (Kamera war gerade im Auto). Nur ist es eben nicht optimal keinen Blitz (bzw. Studioblitzanlage) benutzen zu dürfen oder keine D4 zur Verfügung zu haben. Ich kann mich da an jemanden erinnern, der die schöne alte QI-Zeit herbeisehnte, bei des es darum ging die guten Fotos vom Schrott zu trennen. Trotz aller Kritik würde ich das Foto vom Bismarckturm nicht als Schrott bezeichnen. Auf die Kritk des Bildrauschens habe ich neulich mal ein Foto (nicht dieses) auf 3 Megapixel runterskaliert und schwupps hat es der gleiche Reviewer als QI gewertet - das kann doch auch nicht Sinn und Zweck sein. Klar die Perspektive sollte passen, aber ob ein Bild in voller Auflösung bei 10-16 Mpx nun mehr oder weniger rauscht, sollte relativ wurscht sein. Was soll's ich werde den Bismarckturm bei Gelegenheit vielleicht noch mal fotografieren - weit entfernt ist er nicht.

"weit entfernt ist er nicht" - deshalb habe ich ja eine Wiederholung leichtfertigerweise vorgeschlagen. Ich habe das Foto auch nicht als Schrott bezeichnet, sondern sehe es als nicht entscheidend verbesserbar an. Das ist ein Unterschied. Es ist für mich auch ein Unterschied, wenn jemand aus seiner nicht allzu miesen Kompaktknipse etwas Brauchbares herausgeholt hat, indem er eben alles optimal eingestellt hat. Wenn die entsprechende Aufnahme dann noch ein wenig Rauschen trotz ISO80 oder 100 zeigt oder in unwichtigen Randbereichen etwas soft wirkt, toleriere ich das ohne Schmerzen. Bei einem streng geometrischen Architekturfoto, bei dem die Fenster außen immer unschärfer werden, würde ich ein Foto aus derselben Kamera ablehnen, es war dann eben ein unzureichendes Werkzeug. ISO-hassenichgesehen bei unbewegten Objekten, nur weil das Stativ nicht dabei war, geht in dieselbe Richtung. -- Smial (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

HI

Hi, I tried to reduce the CA in File:LagodeTandil1-oct2013.JPG, see it now please. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much better now, but let us try, hope no one else demands discussion. I like the photo, it is rather good for a compact camera. But pixelpeepers might have other opinion... -- Smial (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

HI

Hi, I tried to reduce the CA in File:LagodeTandil1-oct2013.JPG, see it now please. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much better now, but let us try, hope no one else demands discussion. I like the photo, it is rather good for a compact camera. But pixelpeepers might have other opinion... -- Smial (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

HI

Hi, I tried to reduce the CA in File:LagodeTandil1-oct2013.JPG, see it now please. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much better now, but let us try, hope no one else demands discussion. I like the photo, it is rather good for a compact camera. But pixelpeepers might have other opinion... -- Smial (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Neuapostolische Kirche Wickede IMGP1998 wp.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 Good IMO--Lmbuga 23:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bausenhagen St Agnes IMGP6609 wp.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. --Dirtsc 17:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Wambeler Hellweg IMGP2160 wp.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 14:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Werne am jued friedhof IMGP0297 wp.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 15:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Reichshofstrasse IMGP2116 wp.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 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kal David (Lindenbrauerei Unna) IMGP1216 smial wp.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! Dortmund ev Kirche Wickede IMGP2022 wp.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 I'm not convinced by the sharpness of the clock. Mattbuck 21:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)  Support QI for me. -- Spurzem 10:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

HI

Hi, I tried to reduce the CA in File:LagodeTandil1-oct2013.JPG, see it now please. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much better now, but let us try, hope no one else demands discussion. I like the photo, it is rather good for a compact camera. But pixelpeepers might have other opinion... -- Smial (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Neuapostolische Kirche Wickede IMGP1998 wp.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 Good IMO--Lmbuga 23:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bausenhagen St Agnes IMGP6609 wp.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. --Dirtsc 17:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Wambeler Hellweg IMGP2160 wp.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 14:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Werne am jued friedhof IMGP0297 wp.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 15:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Reichshofstrasse IMGP2116 wp.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 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kal David (Lindenbrauerei Unna) IMGP1216 smial wp.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! Dortmund ev Kirche Wickede IMGP2022 wp.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 I'm not convinced by the sharpness of the clock. Mattbuck 21:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)  Support QI for me. -- Spurzem 10:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the appreciation. I'm glad you like the athletics pics, I got sunstroke for them. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops... I hope you'll do it again in the future though. With better sun protection ;-) -- Smial (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

I wish you a very very happy and prosperous Diwali. --Joydeep _Talk 06:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the good wishes, but I really had to read Wikipedia to learn what Diwali means ;-) -- Smial (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Recklinghausen leuchtet

Möhne leuchtet mit Erlaubnis ;-)

Hallo!

Danke für deinen Hinweis. Meine Anfrage an die Stadt Recklinghausen wurde gestern beantwortet. Wie komme ich für das Bild (und ein anderes) an dieses OTRS-Ticket? Wenn du mir bitte helfen würdest? --XRay ^talk 13:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wir haben für eins der WLM-Motive den Lichtkünstler direkt kontaktiert ud innerhalb eines Tages von dem die Genehmigng erhalten. Der Veranstalter hat an der Installation gewöhnlich keine Urheberrechte. -- Smial (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Um es kurz zu machen: Mir ist die Problematik durchaus bekannt, da ich vor kurzem bei einem Bildband-Projekt das gleiche Problem hatte. Aus diesem Grund habe ich auch vor dem Upload angefragt. Die Antwort der Stadt Recklinghausen vom 4. 11. zu meiner Anfrage lautet: Ihnen ist es natürlich freigestellt, eigene Aufnahmen auf den bekannten Plattformen jederzeit selbst hochzuladen. Wenn es nicht in unserem Namen oder in Bezug auf unseren Namen "Ruhrfestspielstadt Stadt Recklinghausen" hochgeladen wird und nicht der Eindruck erweckt wird, dass es sich um offizielle Bilder der Stadt Recklinghausen im Zusammenhang mit der Veranstaltung "Recklinghausen leuchtet" handelt, bedarf es dazu keiner zusätzlichen Genehmigung durch uns. Ich hatte mich auch mündlich am RWE-Infostand informiert. Ein Künstler wird auch nirgendwo genannt. Meiner Meinung nach ist die Antwort der Stadt ausreichend. Daher noch einmal hilfesuchend meine Bitte an dich: Wie komme ich an das ORTS-Ticket? Man könnte sicherlich die E-Mail, die ich erhalten habe, als PDF-Datei dort hinterlegen. Mir ist etwas unwohl, wenn ich den Antrag auf Schnelllöschung bei meinem Bild sehe ... (Und du hast natürlich recht, oft wird die Genehmigungsproblematik übersehen. Das ist aber auch etwas schwierig für uns Laien.)--XRay ^talk 16:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry für meine Unruhe. Ich habe bei den betreffenden Bildern erst einmal um Löschung gebeten. Die Anfrage wg. der Genehmigung ist auch abgeschickt. Du hast schon recht, die mir vorliegende zeigt den Sachverhalt nicht ausreichend. Ich finde es schon schade, dass nicht immer Klarheit herrscht. Für Hobbyfotografen ehrlich gesagt ein schwieriges Thema. Ich hoffe doch, dass die Zustimmung kommt. Danke auf jeden Fall für deine Intervention.--XRay ^talk 19:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ich bin sehr dafür, solche Bilder zu behalten, sofern die Sachlage geklärt ist. Sind ja schöne Dokumentationen. Den Ärger mit den Urhebern bzw. Künstlern (sofern welche dahinter stehen, das wird ja hoffentlich zu aller Zufriedenheit geklärt) würdest ggf. Du als Uploader kriegen, nicht etwa commons oder WMF oder irgendwelche Admins hier. Wenn man als Fotograf absichtlich oder unabsichtlich mit einem Upload gegen irgendwelche Gesetze/Verordnungen/sonstwas verstößt, und man wird verklagt oder abgemahnt, hat man nämlich die Arschkarte gezogen und steht hier ziemlich alleingelassen vor dem Problem.-- Smial (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Selm Ludgerischule IMGP1611 wp.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 19:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Intergalactic Lovers - Lara Chedraoui (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP7732 smial wp.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 --Christian Ferrer 06:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ich wars nicht :)

Keine Ahnung, warum da mein Name drunter steht, aber ich hab das Polarlichtfoto nicht promotet, siehe [1], Nur zur Klarstellung :) Gruss, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Da passieren immer wieder merkwürdige Dinge auf der Kandidatenseite. Ich habe z.B. immer wieder Bearbeitungskonflikte mit mir selbst, das Diff zeigt dann /genau/ nur meine Änderung an. Sowas habe ich auch schon mal abgespeichert, danach war ein Beitrag von jemand anderem verschwunden. -- Smial (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, ok, ich wollte nur nicht in Verruf geraten. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Berghofer Strasse IMGP1168 wp.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 for QI. Can you nethertheless try to remove the magenta CA around the left timbers? --Cccefalon 14:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bergkamen Adener Höhe und Kraftwerk Heil vom Breiten aus gesehen IMGP1392 wp.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 Noted your upload of a new version. Good for QI now! --Cccefalon 14:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Caecilienstr 19 IMGP1249 wp.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 18:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rathaus Wetter (Ruhr) IMGP4503 wp.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 14:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Asselburgstrasse 30 IMGP0985 wp.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 16:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rathaus Wetter (Ruhr) IMGP4497 wp.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 I think it's just about ok, though would have been better sharper. --Mattbuck 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cecil Drackett (Lord Bishop) (Krach Am Bach 2013) IMGP8960 smial wp.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 16:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dortmund Baudenkmal Bahnwaerterhaus Altwickeder Hellweg IMGP2509 wp.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 Please remove one dust spot from the sky. --Iifar 17:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)  Done Thx -- Smial 18:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bodelschwingh Friedhof Velmede IMGP6307 wp.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 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bonsai Kitten IMGP4387 smial wp.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 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Joseph Luenen IMGP6136 wp.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. --Mattbuck 11:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Schweigen

Hallo Smial! Normalerweise bist du ja sehr redselig und aktiv auf QIC. Ich hatte bei zwei deiner QICs die mangelnde Schärfe bzw. fehlende Nachschärfung angemahnt. Gibt es einen Grund, warum nur meine Anmerkung dort ignorierst? Ich habe mir File:Feldchenbahnbruecke IMGP2227 wp.jpg gerade mal in Lightroom geladen und erziele mit Schärfe +40 (Maskieren 30), Klarheit +20 ein signifikant besseres Ergebnis im Vergleich zur aktuellen Version. Das deutet für mich zumindest darauf hin, dass bei der RAW-Entwicklung nicht richtig nachgeschärft wurde oder diese ggf. ganz vergessen wurde. Was meinst du? --Tuxyso (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ich schärfe nur nach Skalierungen nach. Die Bilder sind in nativer Auflösung, da schärfe ich nix. Daß du das bemängelst, ist ok, wenn ein Bild deshalb bei QIC durchfällt, fällt es halt durch. Bei berechtigter Kritik mache ich keinen Aufstand, ich werde idR nur bei Erbsenzählern elektrisch oder wenn ich sehe, daß jemand eine technisch unsinnig begründete Beurteilung abläßt. -- Smial (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alles klar, dann bin ich beruhigt - manchmal bist du ja recht schnell reizbar :) Ich lasse meinen Kommentar einfach mal so stehen. Das Foto ist im Prinzip ja nicht so schlecht, dass man es ablehnen müsste. Nach meinem Verständnis von QIs ist es als Urheber sich nicht falsch so einfache Aspekte wie fehlende Schärfung eben schnell zu korrigieren und eine neue Version hochzuladen. Beste Grüße, --Tuxyso (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hintergrund ist: Für die verkleinerte Darstellung in Wikiartikeln ist die Nachschärfung überflüssig. Externe Nachnutzer bearbeiten die Bilder sowieso nach, sie schneiden zu, verkleinern, färben um, machen Collagen. Und schärfen ggf. auch exakt nach ihren Bedürfnissen nach. Auf commons findet man nun reichlich bereits massiv überschärfte Fotos, die sind für Nachnutzer eher untauglich, denn Informationen, die einmal weg sind, kriegt man so leicht nicht wieder. Ich gehe den Weg einfach anders herum. -- Smial (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Klar, jeder wie er will. Ich gehe eher vom DAU aus, der von Bildbearbeitung keine Ahnung hat und sich über ein scharfes Foto in 100%-Ansicht freut nachdem er auf ein Foto in einem Artikel geklickt hat (oder das Foto über Google gefunden hat). Den allerwenigsten ist ja z.B. überhaupt bekannt, dass man beim Verkleinern von Fotos zwangsläufig nachschärfen muss. Nachnutzer, die Ahnung von Bildbearbeitung haben werden die Bilder so bearbeiten, dass sie nachher gut aussehen, unabhängig ob das Ursprungsbild etwas nachgeschärft wurde oder nicht. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Jakobi Schwabstedt imgp6056fff wp.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. --Alberto-g-rovi 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Deichweg 8 Drage(Nordfriesland) IMGP6182 wp.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 18:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DIMM DDR3 1600 low voltage IMGP6410 wp.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. --Cccefalon 16:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prozessorkuehler komponenten IMGP5332 wp.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. --Halicki 12:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fohlenweg 6 Seeth IMGP6130 wp.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 17:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! POST card ISA IMGP6655 wp.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. --Cccefalon 12:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Supermicro dual opteron server board IMGP7335 wp.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. --Cccefalon 12:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Supermicro dual opteron server board cpu socket IMGP7338 wp.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. --Cccefalon 12:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aron Sanchez (Gase) (Buke and Gase) (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP5866 smial wp.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 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Arone Dyer (Buke) (Buke & Gase) (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP5877 smial wp.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.--Jean11 22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tammo Kasper (Trümmer) (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP5821 smial wp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments High quality. --ArildV 21:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paul Pötsch (Trümmer) (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP5825 smial wp.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 Good quality. --XRay 07:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maximilian Fenski (Trümmer) (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP5818 smial wp.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 Good quality. --XRay 07:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Seb Dilleyston (Duologue) (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP6016 smial wp.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. --El Grafo 10:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchestre Miniature in the Park (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP5557 smial wp.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 Okay for me. DerHexer 23:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

USB-Bilder

Hallo Smial,

Entschuldige bitte meine falschen Änderungen an deinen Bildern. Ich bin nur nach der Form gegangen und habe die Kontakte nicht beachtet. Wobei Mini-USB, im Gegensatz zu Micro-USB, ja nicht ganz falsch ist, denn so wie das aussieht sind sowohl Stecker als auch Buchse kompatible zu Mini-B. Wie kommst du jetzt eigentlich auf Micro-D? --LordOider (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Micro-D" ist eine freie Erfindung von mir, genau wie dieser seltsame USB3-Anschluß anscheinend eine freie Erfindung des chinesischen Festplattengehäuseherstellers ist, an dessen Produkt ich dieses komische Dingen samt zugehörigem Anschlußkabel gefunden habe. "Mini" wäre sicherlich besser gewesen, das "D" ist mir zur D-Form eingefallen, um das von dem "normalen" kleinen USB3-Stecker zu unterscheiden. Ich habe das Dingen schlicht nirgendwo beschrieben gefunden. -- Smial (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok :-D. Schon sehr eigenartig. Die Namensfindung ist aber sehr verwirrend, da es eine offizielle Bezeichnung suggeriert. Micro-B gibt es wirklich, im Zuge von USB 3.1 wird es dann auch Micro-C Anschlüsse geben (kleiner und wendbar). Gut möglich, dass es also demnächst auch "echte" Micro-D Anschlüsse geben wird und die sehen dann mit Sicherheit etwas anders aus ;-). --LordOider (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lindenbrauerei Unna IMGP4317 wp.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 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! A0001 Adlerstrasse 99 Dortmund IMGP6799 wp.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. Rather relactantly because of the cars, but it's technically einwandfrei --Moroder 18:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Can't pay a tow truck... -- Smial 16:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Massener Strasse 21 (Unna) IMGP4247 wp.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 Might I propose a tighter crop to get rid of the broad band of shadow? This will also focus and balance the heritage monument. --Cccefalon 08:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reworked -- Smial 23:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Good quality. --Cccefalon 15:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Massener Strasse 23 (Unna) IMGP4253 wp.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}}}

Stitchingfehler

Na Du musstest die natürlich wieder finden. ;-) Das kommt davon, wenn man mit der 50er Festbrennweite vorm großen Haus steht. :-) Stepro (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! A0701 Adlerstrasse 97 Dortmund IMGP6810 wp.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. --Tuxyso 10:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Massener Strasse Unna 2008 IMGP6384 wp.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.--ArildV 01:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monoptoros IMGP5018 wp.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 imo.maybe better with less foreground?--ArildV 01:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) I wanted to show that thing in its surrounding, bright white with all green around. Going closer or tighter cropping would not show the "real" impression. The building is rather small. -- Smial 07:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Friedrich-Ebert-Strasse 59 Unna IMGP5103 wp.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 16:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New year

I wish you and your family a very happy Christmas and a wonderful new year. --Joydeep _Talk 11:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freileitungswartung IMGP7333.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 15:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lindenbrauerei Unna Kamin 2008 IMGP6397 wp.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 00:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orchestre Miniature in the Park (Haldern Pop Festival 2013) IMGP5673 smial wp.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. --Moroder 16:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Massener Strasse 13 (Unna) IMGP4239 wp.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

Dear Smial, I wish and you and your family a Merry Christmas and lots of health and, of course, nice pictures for the coming year! Your Poco² 14:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Bowmore islay (smial).jpg

And also:

• File:Bruichladdich Infinity 3 2 wp.jpg

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 15:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)