User:Richard Bartz/Archive 2 09

FP Promotion

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

Featured picture promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Phalacrocorax-auritus-020.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phalacrocorax-auritus-020.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Karel (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bombylius major (Bee-fly).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks like the best image in the category and meets all the criterias.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - This is not the best, Richard, and we both know it -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  Which one do you suggest? --Eusebius (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume he had [this] picture in mind which is very nice but I prefer a diagonal view where you can see the wings and the shape of the animal much better. I considered it very well before nominating this picture. By the way - the sideview was reverted to the diagonal view by an enthologist at german wikipedia which I think was the right decission. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this FP and liked it, but I agree with Richard that while FP image is of a better quality, the nominated image is better as VI.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, that is not my opinion. Except for the wing venation, the FP is a clearer depiction of this amazing fly, imo -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The file mentioned by Joaquim is of course prime quality, but IMO this one shows the animal better as you would encounter it in the field, hence my support. Lycaon (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose

=> Promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Eristalinus megacephalus.jpg

Hey Richard, You mentioned that an edit could fix some of the concerns. Could you upload an edit so I can see what you mean? BTW, good seeing your noms at FPC again --Muhammad 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I know those comments. Anyway, if it isn't asking too much, I would like to see an edit; might help other images of mine ;) --Muhammad 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you the mail. No hurries, but did you get it? --Muhammad (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't received it yet. Could you resend? --Muhammad (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The added part looks very natural ;)

Its too late for both FPCs, this time. Hopefull, next time I will paint before uploading:-) --Muhammad (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Is there something that makes this particular model notable? --Eusebius (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a technical master stroke --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support It has a stable article on its own, so I consider it ok (filling the "usedin" field can actually be useful...). Other criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Is there something that makes this particular model notable? --Eusebius (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It has been considered notable enough to warrant a stable article on its own on en:WP. Other criteria met. --Eusebius (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gefundenes fressen :-))

Have a look at this. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crab spider'Xysticus sp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Wonderful. But, what is meant by a species name of sp? I have found reference to the species spasskyi, sphericus, and spiethi in this genus. --Notyourbroom 01:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC) sp. or spec. means that only the genus can be identified --Richard Bartz 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Farbmanagement

Hi Richard, hab mal wieder ne Frage an dich. Diesmal bzgl des großen Mysteriums "Farbmanagement". Bettest du in deine Bilder eigentlich ein Farbprofil ein? Ich vermute mal, dass du im PS mit AdobeRGB oder sRGB arbeitest, oder? Jetzt ist es ja so, dass das normale Windows kein Farbmanagement unterstützt, was darin resultiert, dass (zumindest bei mir) Bilder von den Farben her im PS anders aussehen als z.B. in einem Windows-Bildbetrachter oder eben einem Browser. Wie gehst du mit dem Thema um? Man will ja Bilder im PS bearbeiten und diese dann im Web präsentieren, wo diese dann aber anders aussehen, da der Browser kein Farbmanagement unterstützt. Also das verwirrt mich alles sehr :-) ....kennst du dieses Problem? Ich habe mal eins deiner Bilder runtergeladen und es im PS und dem Windows-Bildbetrachter angeschaut. Auch dein Bild ist im PS deutlich weniger gesättigt. Was jetzt besser aussieht sei mal dahingestellt...ich hatte aber auf jedenfall schon Bilder bearbeitet, die im PS gut aussahen und im Browser dann aber total übersättigt waren. Wie gehst du mit dem Thema um? Ich habe im PS übrigens sRGB
Es güßt Matthias --AngMoKio (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ja äh ich nochmal :-) ...also habe gerade bemerkt, dass ich den Bildschirm-Egenschaften ein Farbprofil mit dem Namen meines Monitors hatte. Wenn man das rauswirft stimmt PS mit Windows-Bildbetrachter wieder überein. Verstehen tue ich das trotzdem nicht. Es grüßt ein verwirrter aber doch wieder halbwegs glücklicher Matthias (ich gelobe zukünfitg die Finger von dem Zeug zu lassen) ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Aber sobald ich ein Monitorprofil verwende stimmt Windows und PS nicht mehr überein. Wenn ich aber Bilder ins Netz stellen will bringt es mir doch nichts, wenn die Bilder nur im PS korrekt aussehen und sonst nirgends (also auch nicht im Browser). Wie machst du das mit den Bildern die du ins Netz stellst? Ich habe mal bei Saal Digital (kennst du bestimmt) Bilder ausbelichten lassen. Die Bilder kamen dann eigentlich dem Windows-Bild näher als dem PS-Bild. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ich habe den HP LP2475w, den ich auch echt super finde (vor allem für den Preis). Ich muss zugeben, dass ich jetzt schon soviel rumprobiert habe, dass ich gar nicht mehr alles nachvollziehen kann. Aber jetz ist es wieder so wie es zu Beginn war. Ich habe ein Monitorprofil "LP2475w", das wohl bei der Installation des Monitors erzeugt wurde. Wenn dieses geladen ist zeigt Windows und PS wieder dieselben Farben an. Sehe ich es richtig, dass ich zum kalibrieren (mit Spider oä) dann nur noch am Monitor die RGB-Regler und evtl die Kontrast und Helligkeit Regler verstelle? Der Spider sagt mir doch dann an welchen Reglern ich drehen soll oder? --AngMoKio (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also eine letzte Frage habe ich noch: Ist es bei dir so, dass PS und Windows (irfan, Internet Explorer,..), das Bild gleich anzeigen oder nicht? Was für einen Monitor hast du eigentlich? --AngMoKio (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I'm a bit ill-at-ease with these four optics nominations. I think that there shouldn't be a VI scope for every single model of every single kind of object (camera optics are quite present on Commons because the project is full of photographers, but it is a bias). I know we already have two camera-based scopes (Chinon CP 9 AF and Agfa click) but reviewers then asked for a reason. This is why I'm asking: is there something that makes this particular model notable? There's nothing in COM:VISC that would help us decide whether these scopes are ok or not, so it is a matter of personal (subjective) evaluation. For me, notability for a scope is roughly equivalent to notability for a WP article, and I don't think we would accept an article for every single model. Additionally, we currently don't have a guideline for linking scopes to categories, so for the moment, please don't (I'll remove the links). --Eusebius (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support These are notable lenses, in my judgement. The other three images illustrate articles on several sister projects. I'm not sure why this one is not; it is of similar importance and has been reviewed by several independent reviewers. (Disclosure: I own this lens, but not the others.) Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Indeed, two of them illustrate articles about the model itself, but it's not the case for this one, so I think I should oppose. --Eusebius (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose seem a bit ad libitum 2 me. Guideline says: "Does the image/set have to be in use? No. It is not required that a VI candidate is in current use in any Wikimedia project." --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment It is not exactly my point. No, it does not have to be in use, you're right about that. What is interesting is to know whether there is an encyclopedia article about the subject. My opposition is made according to the second criterion, because I'm afraid the scope is too narrow in this case. As I said, it is a subjective/personal evaluation, as it often occurs. After a search that I should have made beforehand (my bad), I realize that there is an article about a scope a little broader at en:Canon EF 70-300mm lens. According to my own little personal guidelines, I would be ok with such a scope (should this picture be the best candidate for it). The scope would then be about a class of optics and not only a single model. I'm still ill-at-ease with that (because of this photography-related bias), but I wouldn't oppose. I know, I'm a pain in the neck. I only try to be consistent with both myself and the under-specified guidelines. --Eusebius (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment My inclination is to accommodate relatively narrow scopes. At its worst, an article writer will have to select from among a few VI illustrations and that isn't much of a disadvantage. For example, if I were writing an article on DSLR zoom lenses, I would want to illustrate it with photos of notable lenses. This is a lens that I would discuss in such an article, but whether I'd use this picture would depend on layout and space. If the scope of this nomination were changed to DSLR zoom lenses, I'd only have one VI. Even if the scope were 70-300mm DSLR zoom lens, both of the lenses in the article you found as well as a couple of others are notable lenses and it would be helpful to have VIs of each from which to choose. About this lens, in support of its notability, the source cited by the article says, "the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range." Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess our POV differences come from the idea we have of a VI. I see a VI (in the context of an encyclopedia) more like a good candidate for being the header image of an article, not just a good illustration of a part of it. I respect your POV though, of course. --Eusebius (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And how in your opinion a Canon EF 70-300mm header picture should look like ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the tricky part, it looks like either this one or the DO. Maybe this one is more representative of the "standard" look of a 70-300-or-so, and the DO is more representative of what Canon specifically does... But you know I'm not a specialist, and that's why you asked. --Eusebius (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DO is a different species :-) --19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, from what I read it is an EF 70-300 as well, one of the two listed in the article. --Eusebius (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I'am not really be in the know regarding the oppose, so think what you like. For my part I took the trouble and created a very valuable package for this lense, including Anaglyphs and still think it's the most valuable picture showing a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lense --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Info Removing my opposition (redrawing my own personal line between "not enough reasons for a support" and "enough reason for an oppose", I guess it doesn't hurt my so-called consistency). I still think what I've said, I just consider it as a justification for my not supporting. --Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments "Beautiful" you said. No doubt it is!--Mbz1 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eichen-Schmuckwanze Rhabdomiris striatellus.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 06:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tachina fly Gonia capitata feeding honey.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Feeding on honey? Or is this a fly that makes honey?-- carol 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC) You're a native speaker, what is the corect translation ? Feed on honey ? --Richard Bartz 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC) ---- Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Xylota segnis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Clearly the best in the scope and meets all criterias.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dirce Beauty Colobura dirce.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments einwandfrei --Böhringer 21:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Coenomyia ferruginea.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment It shows a male and female on one picture --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Super! --Slaunger (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Proboscis of Diptera.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment - The scope is too broad. There is a great variety of proboscis and of animals having one. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Scope changed to Proboscis of Diptera --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - For sure the most detailed photo available -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support After change of scope. Now full support. Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Brücke

Dann will ich dich mal nicht länger suchen lassen hier das Bild mit Kreisen auf den Fehlern. Ich hoffe ich war da nicht zu kleinlich. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So ich hab's durchgewunken. Sich so Bäume mal im Detail anzuschauen hat was meditatives oder? ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tele Macrolens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Is there something that makes this particular model notable? --Eusebius (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course, it's one of the best & sharpest available macro telelens on the market --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose I was not fast enough to vote on the other lens nominations, but I do not particularly fancy that the scope relates to a specific macro lens model. Rather I would prefer a scope, like "macro lens", and you could possibly also persuade me into accepting a suitable subscope thereof, specifying, e.g., a specialized usage, but not "Tamron SP AF-180mm F/3.5 Di Macro Lens". --Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Scope is OK now. I do not think I have the competences needed to evaluate the image though under the new scope. --Slaunger (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the scope to TELE MACROLENS ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be an OK scope for me. (I do not have the competences needed to actually review the nomination, then, but I know there are other lens specialists here, who would be qualified to review it). --Slaunger (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Scope changed to Tele Macrolens --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it needs to be categorized as Category:Macro lenses. I think it is better than the Sigma 150 images, but I'm not sure about Image:Micro-Nikkor_AFS_VR_105_mm_f2.8_IF-ED.jpg which qualifies (barely) as a Tele Macrolens, I think. But, I'm inclined to give this one the nod. Because it is very long, it contrasts more with short focal length macro lenses. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye, [[Category:Macro lenses]] added to the image description --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support because it is easily distinguished from a shorter focal length macro lens, as the Nikkor 105 mm might not; i.e., it illustrated the scope better. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Rhabdomiris striatellus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Excellent. Fulfils all criteria. From an aesthetic point of view I think the composition in File:Eichen-Schmuckwanze Rhabdomiris striatellus.jpg is better but for illustrating the scope this tighter crop is the best one in review size. --Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I linked the other version to the description, so designers have a good choice. They order, we (commons) deliver ;-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good . --Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Info scope tailored according to the current guidelines. --Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Colobura dirce.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question When I was looking around I noticed two very different types from this species. For example, [1]. I thought maybe it was a male vs. female thing, but that's not it. Do you know why this is? Is it maybe worthy of a subscope? Rocket000 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your link. The first 4 pictures shows a male from top, bottom - female from top, bottom. I don't think the side of the wing is worth a scope --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. I didn't notice they were top and bottom views of the same wings. Nevermind.  Support. Rocket000 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bayerische Staatskanzlei pano.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nix zu meckern --Mbdortmund 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laufwasser Kraftwerk Isarwerk1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments erstaunliche Details --Mbdortmund 09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grosshesseloher Brücke Fußgängerübergang.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 image, like its sharpness. Meets the QI-criteria. --High Contrast 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grosshesseloher Bruecke und Schleuse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Überzeugt mich voll. Tolle Schärfe bei der Entfernung. Welche Linse? --AngMoKio 13:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)  Comment 70-300mm, novoflex pano pro, sva, fernauslöser --Richard Bartz 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments On the upper left and right corner are stiching errors above the trees. Da muss nachgearbeitet werden! :-) --AngMoKio 18:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)  Question Wo genau ? Das Bild besteht aus 3 Bildern, und die Kanten sind erst hinter den Zügen .. Ich find nix, hilf mir mal - mach Kreise rein, plz ... --Richard Bartz 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Jetzt ! FIXED --Richard Bartz 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) so gefällt mir das :-) --AngMoKio 20:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Es freut mich, dass ich ihre Gespräche lesen kann, weil ich so viel Deutsch vergessen habe. Ich soll mehr praktizieren :) --Notyourbroom 17:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

El Gouna bus

Hi Richard! Thanks for nominating my "El Gouna bus" picture on FPC! I really appreciate that. Kind regards, Marc (MJJR (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Wicked

Dear Richie, you're very welcome. I'm glad you like it :) Best regards, too. --Lošmi (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anser anser.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Absolutely to the point Fingalo 14:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wehranlage Auer Duecker Munich.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments erstaunliche Details --Mbdortmund 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isar Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 overall --Ianare 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

File:Vilshofen an der Donau, Vilsbrücke edit.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilshofen an der Donau, Vilsbrücke edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments sieht doch gut aus --Mbdortmund 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Grosshesseloher Bruecke.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Meets all criteria and slightly better than its MVR competitor. --Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Agree with above. Yann (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Grosshesseloher Brücke R B.jpg: 0
2. Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg: +2
=>
File:Grosshesseloher Brücke R B.jpg: Declined.
File:Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg: Promoted.

--Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Richard Bartz!

Tip: Add categories to your files

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

BotMultichillT 06:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Perlenbach edit.jpg is uncategorized since 10 April 2009.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Anas platyrhynchos male female.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Auf dem Weg von der Mikrobe zum Elefenaten eine gelungene Ente... --Mbdortmund 01:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) .. und die hundefressenden [Killergänse] --Richard Bartz 11:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Frage

Hallo Richard!

Mit welcher Software hast du diese Datei entzerrt? --High Contrast (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

El Gouna bus (2)

Hi Richard! Es ist gelungen! The El Gouna Bus pic is featured. I could vote myself for it, but I preferred not to do so. Also without my vote, it succeeded... Thanks again. Kind regards, Marc (MJJR (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

FP promotion

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

FP promotion

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

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Tachina fly Gonia capitata feeding honey.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tachina fly Gonia capitata feeding honey.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

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

FP promotion

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

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:El Gouna Bus R01.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Gouna Bus R01.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Laufwasser Kraftwerk Isarwerk1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laufwasser Kraftwerk Isarwerk1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW Welt Night.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 -- Pro2 11:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Beautiful! Why is the EXIF missing camera data? --Siipikarja 19:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard...brilliant pictures...can i ask you what camera and lens do you use????? Wiki User:luridiformis

Hi Mushypic, you can see my gear-list on the Photographic Masters on Wikipedia Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Inachis io on Salix caprea.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Well done --3268zauber 00:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laufwasserkraftwerk Oberföhring Isarwerk 3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments saubere Arbeit --Mbdortmund 01:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Wow Richard, vielen Dank für den genialen Barnstar. Das hat mich wirklich sehr gefreut!! ...da geht man ja noch motivierter in den Foto-Sommer 2009. Der wird einen ganz besonderen Platz auf meiner Seite bekommen. Das ist übrigens mein erster Barnstar überhaupt. Gruß Matthias--AngMoKio (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Zusammenführung

Hallo Richard!

Es geht um diese beiden Bilder: File:Vilshofen an der Donau, Vilsbrücke edit.jpg und File:Vilshofen an der Donau, Vilsbrücke.jpg, also quasi um die Schöne (QI-Bild) und um das Biest. Da das QI-Bild eine editierte Version des Biestes ist, könnte man folgendes tun: Das QI-Bild als Ersatz bei diesem Bild neu hochladen und das andere Bild als Duplikat löschen lassen. Das hätte den Vorteil, dass keine mehr oder weniger identischen Bilder auf Commons existieren, sondern alle Versionen, sowohl die alte als auch die neue QI-Version in einer Datei zusammengefasst wären. Wie stehst du dazu? Die entsprechenden Verlinkungen beim "zu löschenden" Bild werden natürlich geändert, etc.

Gruß, High Contrast (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

re Important proposal

There is a different way to go about doing this, with some neat coding. See for example w:Portal:Norway/Selected panorama/2. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Feel free to keep me posted. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Agree, most valuable of the category. Closest competitor is probably File:Male and Female mallard ducks.jpg. --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support preemptively in case anyone contests. --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support the promotion. →Diti the penguin — 18:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurze Frage nach deiner Meinung

Hi Richard, ich brauche mal eine unabhängige Meinung. Ich habe aus diesem Bild ein Kind entfernt und das kam dabei raus. Ist das deiner Meinung nach akzeptabel? Ich würde das Bild gerne auf FPC stellen und wollte vorher man eine unabhängige Meinung einholen. Bin wirklich kein Experte was Retusche angeht. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Danke für deine Meinung...blöderweise wurde die ursprüngliche Version gerade QI. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ich probiere es jetzt mal so und hoffe auf gutmütige User. :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laufwasserkraftwerk Aschheim Speichersee.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 well done! Machst du eingentlich ein Praktikum im Wasserkraftwerk oder ist das ein neues Hobby von dir? ;-) --AngMoKio 18:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Die Kraftwerke stehen hier alle immer so rum wenn ich mit dem Hund spazieren gehe (Huskie - braucht viel Auslauf, ohne Verkehr). Durch die Komplexität (Zäune, Dachschindeln usw.) eignen die sich bestens um Panos zu üben, bevor ich bald an die dicken Dinger in der Stadtmitte drangehe. --Richard Bartz 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Ok, I`ve commented on your proposal, would you mind returning the favour? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

FP promotion

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

Advice

Hi Richard, coming to you for advice. The recently promoted FP has some minor white balance issues which have been fixed with this image. What's the right move? --Muhammad (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! White Stork Weißstorch Ciconia ciconia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 -- Pro2 12:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

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

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Laufwasserkraftwerk_Oberföhring_Isarwerk_3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laufwasserkraftwerk_Oberföhring_Isarwerk_3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

New proposal for the FP candidates voting process

Hello! I've written a proposal to bring more impartiality in the voting process of FP candidates. Could you please give your comment on that here? Regards -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Du,...

...unterschreib doch noch schnell deine Nominierung auf de:KEP :) --AngMoKio (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laufwasserkraftwerk Muehltal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Wow! Beautiful. --Siipikarja 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

re Proposal

IMO probably 2 weeks, just to be on the safe side. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Template

Remind me about this in a couple days if I haven't gotten to it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ixodus ricinus 5x.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 :-) -- Pro2 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Water strider Gerris lacustris.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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}}}

FP promotion

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

FP promotion

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

Schnepfenfliege Rhagio scolopaceus2.jpg

Morgen Richard,
Ich habe gesehen, dass du Schnepfenfliege Rhagio scolopaceus2.jpg mit einer 40D gemacht hast. Da ich auch im Besitz einer 40D bin wollte ich mal fragen, mit welchem deiner Objektive du dieses Bild gemacht hast.
mfg --D-Kuru (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahoi, D-Kuru - ich habe das Foto mit einer Tamron 180mm Makrolinse geknipst.   • Richard • [®] • 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

pixel peeper

seems like you are being a pixel peeper instead of reviewing photos at a reasonable viewing distance. just something to think about.... there was no upscaling done on the atlanta shot it just goes to show you don't know a high resolution photo, welcome to the 50D.

you need to realize that high resolution images from the 50D , 500D, and 1ds III and 5d II all have smaller pixel sites.... that means something like light is going to be captured more specifically thus given that pixel look but only at 100% viewing... Its not fair to the lens or the photographer for you to look at high resolution images at 100%.

Technically speaking any photo I take is focused perfectly, and when printed at 11x17 looks very sharp and focused. For your complaints at 100% I believe they are undue and just pixel peeping on your behalf. Since you comment on just about everyones photos, I think you should at least be educated as to what some of your issues may be. Also its spelled "sure" and "long time exposure" should just be a long exposure the long time exposure is not appropriate grammar.

Followup

You're a superb photographer, Richard. I admire your work. Yet are you familiar with historic photographic technologies? The image you opposed was created in 1919. Only one color photographic technique existed at that time and it was not used in the part of the world where this photo was taken. The bibliographic notes state that it was hand colored; it's fundamentally a black and white photograph. Brush strokes are visible in places and part of the man's woolen jacket is unpainted. Yet you assert a lack of color reference point. Durova (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Ixodus ricinus 5x.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ixodus ricinus 5x.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

File:Eurasische Zwergmaus Harvest Mouse Micromys minutus.jpg

Hi, you uploaded this image and stated that it's Micromys minutus. I have had harvest mice (Micromys minutus) for several years and none of them had any stripes. Could you check where you took this photo and help in correcting name of this file? Thanks! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Realise

That you were that Richard Bartz. Means I'd heard of you before I'd heard of commons. Small world. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some advice on equipment

Hey Richard,

I would like to be better at making plant macros, which I have so far done humbly with my Canon IXUS 850 IS. I'd like to go DSLR + macro lens now then, but my budget is limited, about 700€. I realize that does not get me would I dream of, but here's my idea. I would like to acquire an entry level DSLR with an entry level lens kit, and then buy a macro lens for dedicated macro photography. I will probably need to buy second-hand equipment to do that. I foresee three possible paths, the Canon, the Nikon and the Sony alpha way. I have already asked Alvesgaspar and Lycaon about the latter two options, and I would like to ask you about the Canon path...

I was thinking that I could buy a second-hand EOS 400D, with some "standard lens" for "normal easy photography" such as buildings and landscapes and then try to find a second hand macro lens, like the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM. I don't know if I can do that within the budget, but does it seems like a reasonable macro-starter configuration for you? And what cost-efficient lens could you recommend for the "easy shots"?

I could of course also just "upgrade" to a better point and shoot camera, like a brand new Canon PowerShot SX1 IS (483 €). Then I would have some money for extra batteries, memory card, and other auxillaries?

Thanks in advance,

--Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Richard,

Thanks for the advice. I have taken a quick decision today and ordered a Sony alpha 300 w. Its standard 18-70 mm lens kit at a price tag of 470 € (darn 25% VAT in Denmark). That seems like a good entry level camera for me, with IS integrated in the sensor (such that I do not need it in a future lens), live-view with tiltable LCD screen and integrated dust remover.

The lens is ordinary, but I decided to break the investment in two, as my budget seemed urealistic. Then I can spend some time familiarizing me with the DSLR world, and then I'll save up for some decent macro lens, which I will then buy, once I have the money. Till then I'll do my macros with my IXUS, which isn't so terrible after all.

--Slaunger (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

falsche Koordinaten

ich glaube du hast dich bei der Ortsangabe von Laufwasserkraftwerk Aschheim Speichersee.jpg vertan. Das Kraftwerk liegt ja am Speichersee östlich von Ismaning. Dein Ort ist aber der Anfang des Kanals in München Vuxi (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Gut gesehen Vuxi. Ich hatte die Bildbeschreibung dieses Bildes File:Laufwasserkraftwerk Oberföhring Isarwerk 3 .jpg kopiert und vergessen die Koordinaten auszutauschen. bg   • Richard • [®] • 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Image editing

Hi Richard, recently I had the opportunity to photograph an important delegate to Tanzania. I have some pictures of him which can be seen here. Do you think it is possible that after editing, any one can be promoted to FP status here or at enwiki? If yes, would you be willing to help out with the editing? (Your skills with the POTY 2008) were incredible. --04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you want to be edited ?   • Richard • [®] • 08:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I kinda find the shadow distracting. I gave it a go myself but couldn't do it well enough. I have another picture with better composition as well but that one has worse shadows. Is it possible to remove the shadows? --Muhammad (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep it as it is -> to be honest, that's a lot of work (aprox 4-5h) for a picture which basis isn't brilliant. The POTY thing was different because I knew it will made it POTY :-)   • Richard • [®] • 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Befreiungshalle Hall of Liberation Kelheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Einfach gute Bilder, chapeau --Mbdortmund 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kelheim.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Erstaunliche Details, mir ist aufgefallen, dass wenige Elemente ein wenig nach rechts gedreht zu sein scheinen, etwa der gelbe Kirchturm. Vielleicht sähen einige Gebäude ein winziges bisschen dunkler und mit einem Bruchteil mehr Kontrast noch etwas besser aus, aber sicher hast Du schon damit experimentiert. --Mbdortmund 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eng Tirol.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Correct exposure and details. --High Contrast 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schmalensee.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Correct exposure and details. --High Contrast 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reflektor

Ich habe das Konstrukt gestern schon wieder zerlegt für ein neues Setting. Die Überreste mit einer kleinen Demo habe ich dir hier reingelegt. Die Reflektoren stehen am Fensterbrett und waren mit Gaffa am Schirmchen angeklebt. Um den selben Streugrad wie die Reflektoren zu erhalten ist der Aluminiumfolienaufsteller stark zerknüllt. Am Fenster hinten steht eine weiße stark reflektierende Fotopappe. Um den Effekt zu simulieren habe ich geblitzt, normalerweise schiesse ich die Photonen, die von der Sonne kommen wieder zurück. Mit dieser Methode nutzt du Backlight und hellst die Front wieder auf.   • Richard • [®] • 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tenthredopsis sordida female.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 well done. --AngMoKio 18:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)