Thanks for uploading Image:Louvain-la-Neuve01 1999-11-16.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Rüdiger Wölk06:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is so easy to overlook this pulldown-menu. Previously, I knew to add {{GFDL}} to my text, but now this menu is so successful in hiding itself. Thanks for not deleting so far, I was away on business for one week and could not fix it earlier.--Klaus with K17:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes these are Hiatts handcuffs. If you look at the photo full size, you can even just read the inscriptions HIATTS MADE IN ENGLAND, slightly better on the left side.--Klaus with K14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used hugin and enblend for the panorama, but no matter what I did it kept distorting the left image (I don't know anything about lenses, so I used the default). There isn't much overlap because I didn't know about panoramas when I took the pictures. A raw stitch correcting the sagging problem would be a great help, thank you! The images merged were Image:San Francisco at Sunset.jpg and Image:San Francisco at Sunset 2.jpg. --Digon318:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for correcting the problem. I have three questions. What is vignette correction and how did you introduce 3 vertical lines in hugin? Also, how do I feed the individual post hugin pre enblend photos into enblend with[out] going through hugin? --Digon315:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vignetting is the image getting darker towards the corners, in hugin (I'm using 0.6) on the Camera and Lense tab you find "Vignetting: edit parameters" bottom left. What I use with my old digital is "Division, Polynomial, 1, 0, -0.2, 0". This corrects all four corners the same (independent of your parameter choice), but with my camera I found that left and right corners are different. Hence my photoshopping recommendation for a little-overlap image pair.
Vertical (and horizontal) control lines - in Control Points you load the same photo into both windows. Put points on a vertical feature, one point per window.
So you want to run enblend standalone. Call it from the command-line, there also exists "Enblend Front End" to get you round this. After getting the bottom right corner of the left photo brigher, you want to turn the photos into TIFFs, enblend does not read JPEG.
Thanks for the info. If you compare your stitch to Image:SanFrancisco panoramahelp4.jpg you notice that the sail boat trace is still a wavy line. But it is not noticeable big time. I still note the vignetting darkening in the corners and some darkening below the middle arch. On the plus side you do away with the brightness jump I have at the left edge of the arch in the water. And you do a good job in filling the top right sky part, there are a few dark blue parts on the left hand side absent in the right, but hey, nature could be that way. Bottom line, unless you are really eager to improve on the residual cat tail and vignette darkening, about the best one can get out of the starting material with that little overlap and vertical misalignment.--Klaus with K18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took me some time to wait for the sun to briefly come out and light the flag decorated town hall in Antwerp before I could take the two original photos I have stitched together for this image. In the stitch I aligned the vertical lines, this gives the building a towering impression, but I wonder whether a partial perspective correction would look better. I think that some cropping (original left, cropped right) would be beneficial, but I am unsure about where to crop best.--Klaus with K19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried the suggested crop. In principle I would have liked to keep the highest point of the gable within the cropped view, but then edges of other objects (other building, flag, umbrella) would have come into view. Would you extent the crop further right?
No, i wouldnt. In my opinion the people and umbrellas to the right give the observer a feeling for size and the street on the right and the buildings give the observer a feeling of depth. So I´m fine with the new version. Simonizer08:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest cropping to eliminate the building on the right entirely. There's a light pole with some cloth wrapped around it (or maybe two umbrellas, one on each side 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)). If you crop just to the left of the cloth, eliminating all the cloth, the light pole, and the building, it looks better to me. Cropping this way leaves a man with his back to the edge of the frame. That seems appropriate. However, it's only visible close up. The major point in cropping this photo is to keep the viewer's interest inside the frame. Removing the building on the right helps that.
Next, you expressed concern about left-right balance. If you want to crop the left, also, you can eliminate one or even both of the light buildings at the left. In my opinion, removing both of the light buildings strengthens the photo. Fg204:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt do that. That makes the subject centered. And centered subjects are boring. Also the cloud above that buildings is a good diagonal from the upper left corner to the subject. This diagonal emphasizes the subject. Thats my opinion.Simonizer07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you can try another thing. Keep the left completly an cut the right like Fg2 said. That is also a good crop, I think, allthough you loose the things I mentioned above. Simonizer07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the diagonal. I already tried cropping left, see above, but as you say, then the diagonal cloud alignment no longer starts close to the corner. Now on the right I have removed the umbrellas behind the lamppost. Regarding symmetry, the eagle at the top is almost exactly in the middle, but the building corpus is off-center to the right and faces the square visible on the left. (P.S. should the cloud edge start exactly in the top left corner?) --Klaus with K13:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your photo is in many ways more appealing than the dreary one currently being used in en:Antwerp City Hall. But since we are on the ground looking at an upward angle, we would expect the vertical lines of the building to appear to converge slightly toward the top. Making the vertical lines parallel makes the top of the building appear too big for its base. Perhaps you can make two versions of this photo, one with and one without perspective correction. --Opie19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a quick fix modifying the first photo. It is 99% ok, for a 100% correct perspective I would need to dig out the working files I have saved at home on CDROM. Now the vertical lines converge slightly towards the top. Do you feel more slant is needed? For me the towering feeling is gone, and the price of slanted vertical lines just still acceptable.--Klaus with K16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of an erroneous tagging for deletion :-((
Thanks for uploading Image:Corcovado_statue01_2005-03-14.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Dantadd✉19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot prove it for this case, but I have the reliable habit to state at least "own photo" on the photo pages of my photos. After my holidays I notice the disaster, could you please undelete it and reinstate all unlinking that has occured.--Klaus with K13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, go to Commons:Undeletion requests and gather some evidence to your request. If you took that picture I'm sure you have other similar pictures taken on the same moment, in a different angle. Sorry, but a picture like that is rarely taken by amateurs and there is only one way to photograph in such position: in a helicopter. Dantadd✉14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you do say my photo looks too professional and hence cannot be trusted? I hope not! Yes, it is a helicopter photo, as is this one:
As I was on holiday, I could not spot this erroneous deletion request of Image:Corcovado statue01 2005-03-14.jpg in time. While I would dish out most of the blame to User:Dantadd for tagging despite the note "own photo" and proper licence, I wonder why the admin who then actually did the deletion did not spot something fishy. In particular the many pages to unlink should have raised his suspicion.
Sorry Klaus, but you can not blame me. Every single day dozens of pictures are uploaded with "own photo"/"own picture" statements and they are just not true. I'm sorry if I didn't believe you and cause you any harm. Dantadd✉20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dantadd, apology accepted. You probably understand that such experience can be rather upsetting. Maybe the experience from this case helps you to better distinguish between a genuine contribution and a falsely self-attributed photography upload. At least for this photo I'll see to it that I add some information which is difficult to know without being the photographer.--Klaus with K13:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the category all pictures created with hugin, regardless of quality. An early work of mine is, if I may say so, a prime example of how awful a hugin panorama can turn out (and there's nothing enblend can do about it). In my opinion, taking shots with a constant exposure is key. Varying exposures produce very noticeable effects. I just added hugin to Commons:Software, but a tutorial or some hints like the ones you mentioned would certainly be helpful. Rl09:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real shame that many of Fuji's cameras are so low quality. A friend of mine has a Fuji S5000, and quite a few of these pictures were taken with it. Some of them are very good, but they all show that stereotypical smudging, even in the good ones. View this image at 100%, and you can see the quality problems, even though overall it's a good picture. As for your picture, I like the composition and the clouds and were the out-of-camera quality higher it would have been a QI. If you disagree with my assessment, you can always ask for the picture to be moved to CR (consensual review) for more comments from others to see if I am alone in my opinion. It isn't that you can't take good pictures, it's that the camera is so bad that it falls below the threshold for a QI. A QI is supposed to highlight the technically best pictures, of which this is not. To make the argument, since it could have theoretically been taken with film, there was a higher quality alternative, unlike a picture from the early days of photography (which is truely old). -- Ram-Man14:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a shame that some of the older digital cameras produced substandard quality. Because of this, I was dual-shooting for a while and I indeed do have a good collection of photos on slide film, but the digital photos are so much more convenient to upload. However, I am not sure I have an analog version of the viaduct photo. I ponder whether I should go for CR to get more opinions on how high the bar is currently raised for QI technically.
A few months ago I noticed (afterwards) that some of my photos had been nominated for FC (but so far not successfully) which I found interesting. I have not uploaded that much, mainly when images were lacking for article illustration, and last week filled Category:Files by User:Klaus with K with a quality selection.--Klaus with K15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question The photo looks underexposed on the linear histogram, but the logarithmic histogram shows that brightening up (white triangle) introduces clipping as in the right version. How to choose 100% brightness? -- Klaus with K 17:40, 23 June 2007 UTC)
Info I did not downscale the almost 5Kx3K stitch despite distant building possibly looking sharper scaled 50% (would still be >3MB), shall investigate the noisy sky (will take time, stitch not on this computer), even the sunlit part of trees appear dark because of the high contrast (did not change gamma), without the slanting light the wall relief would be less pronounced -- Klaus with K18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you.
--Siebrand18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Image:Gornji Milanovac Holy Trinity church.jpg,
I find your photo a beautiful shot, and it is a pity that the technical quality is not up to the levels people have agreed for QI.
Overexposure: first I thought it would only affect the right clock face, but inspecting the intensity histogram , and the blue channel histogramm, one sees that the sky is causing significant clipping (gimp is a good and free program that allows you to look at histograms). It happens with quite a few digital cameras, and if the camera allows it, set to underexposure, usually half a stop to one stop is about what is needed.
Washed out: along lines with significant contrast I notice sharpening artifacts, quite some camera manufacturers think that is necessary to produce a visually pleasing output while in reality it spoils the image. Look out for a bright line where the sky touches the building. And also looking at the stonework I have the feeling that there is no detail on the stones visible. I cannot fully exclude that this is reality, but it looks more like some faint structure has either been compressed away in the JPEG encoding, or that the camera applied some kind of noise filter before saving the photo. Each stone is a homogenous color blob, and that is not what my experience of reality is.
Klaus:
May I use your picture of the Christ over Sao Paulo for an article in a local newspaper? The article will be about the new 7 wonders. I need your permission to publish your photo for the article. I will add your name (Klaus with K) as the author of the image.
Probably the image will be edited and be part of a collage with the other wonders.
let me know to email: base2roof@yahoo.com
Tks.
R
After private correspondence I have given permission. May I suggest that people or newspapers in similar cases (after getting the licencing sorted) please consider donating to wikimedia foundation, as they learned about the photos here on commons in first place. -- ~~
Quite a few things. Let's pick a few, selection geared towards improvements: "Don't break the glass" slight crop and try darkes exposure, top right corner looks blown (overexposed). "Feel the corner." Some bulding slightly protuding top left, a chunk of the corner in the top missing. Some would moan that the verticals are slanted, less of a problem for me. -- Klaus with K16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your many good hints and your message on my page. I've benn working hard to try it out, see my new photo and reply on the critiques page. -- Slaunger02:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Klaus. Thank you for your message on my talk page concerning enblending in ver. 3.0 along a line with minimum difference. I had to read it a few times, but now I fully understand how it works. Thank you. I had some problems with enblending moving objects (birds) in this image, which is currently doing well in COM:FPC and COM:QIC (your review of that nomination is of course welcome whatever your opinion may be) and next time I'll definately try ver. 3.0.
Btw, you recently gave me some very good advise concerning Hugin in a large panorama I was working on. In the end I went out and retook the scene. This time - hoping to acheive better results - I rested the camera on a rock (tripods are not available in this remote town) and I took many photos with large overlap. Unfortunately my camera only allows for up to 26 images in a stiching secuence, which meant that I didn't get the complete scene (it did not give a warning while taking them), so a lot of the left part was missing and I could only get this incomplete panorama on this Greenlandic town. However, it has made it to QI, so I'm pleased with that. So, what I want to say with that is that your advise has helped me a lot and has lifted my panorama abilities from beginner to intermediate level. Thank you! -- Slaunger13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slaunger, sorry you have been caught out by that limit. Sounds like a Canon camera. And regarding focussing, taking panoramic ingredients this weekend I might again have been caught out by the camera focussing problem. -- Klaus with K13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear a new version of Hugin is on the horizon. That will ease things a bit. Concerning the gradient in the sky, the gradient over the tip of the rock in my image seems to match well with the original photos, so I do not think it is a processing artifact in Hugin. The gradient in your image may be "real" as well. The blue sky is, as you may know, really diffuse white sunlight, which is Rayleigh scattered by gas molecules in regions of the atmosphere, where the average intermolecular distance is larger than the wavelength (low pressure) of the sunlight. The amount and colur spectrum and polarization of the sky therefore depends on the direction relative to the sun, as well as the angle over the horizon due to the presence of absorbing particles in the lower atmosphere (sooth, dust and so on). However, I only know the theory behind this not so much about how prominent the resulting sky colour gradient will be in photos. But is definetely very natural that the sky has a gradient. -- Slaunger14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, it is the rapid change at 1/3 from the left to dark blue and then again at 3/4 to a lighter blue that look unnatural to me. Maybe one of the photos you pre-processed to keep the white within bounds? -- Klaus with K14:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I did not notice that. Well, I have not pre-processed any om the images at all, so it cannot be due to that. Maybe the polynomial best fit vignetteing is the problem. I still haven't figured ot the best strategy for estimating that (sometimes I get non-sense polynomials). I think for this particular image it is beyond my skills to further improve it. I have spend a total of 8 hours editing the control points, cropping, adjusting the horizon, tone curves, cropping, selective sharpening and noise reduction, describing. I fear that with further fiddling it will begin to be unnatural. And, yes, I will probably focus mostly on getting some further good shots while I'm still in Greenland. Going home in just four days. But after that I've got two weeks of vacation and plenty'o'time for Hugin experiments. -- Slaunger17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I have to fill in this lacking corner, I usually resort to the clone tool. Sometimes I cut and paste with a large feathered edge. But the vignetting, in a few cases recently, in hugin I switched everything else off in the photometric optimisation (custom optimisation). Also, for a given focal length and aperture, one can enter the predetermined vignetting parameters in the Camera&Lense/Photometric if one has obtained them previously, no need to run the optimisation every time - but it is convenient of course. -- Klaus with K17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Digon3 Suggested I ask you about correcting vignetting on this picture. I was under the impression that correcting this sort of thing was difficult if not impossible, I have already edited it a bit. The exposure was the same for each of the segments. Responding here is fine. Thanks -Fcb98119:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fcb981, what is the current situation regarding your correction? At first sight the most recent version does not look too bad, thats the 3rd one uploaded 2007-07-07. For a proper vignetting correction one would need the stitch ingredient images, if you happen to use hugin the pto-file would save me some work. I principle I'd restitch the thing with vignetting correction "switched on". -- Klaus with K11:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did stitch with the vignetting correction "on" there was still some banding in the sky so I did what I could to clone it out. I unfortunately do not have the native files with me as I moved to Boston for a semester and left the PTO file and segments in Portland. The most recent upload is up for FP and Digon was unimpressed with the vignetting. -Fcb98113:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vignetting correction facility itself is ok, the vignetting parameter determination in the hugin 0.7 beta is still somewhat experimental and at times can go wrong, in particular with little overlap in images, and too many parameters to nail down. Also enblend masks can turn out to be less than optimum in case images are offset vertically. For a proper job one needs the input images (that you lack at this moment), the pto just adds convenience. Of course one could try to fiddle with the output result, trying to guess or work out a gradient mask to correct the sky brightness variations, but bang-for-buck there could be better... -- Klaus with K14:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alejo2083, obviously this stitching error seam in your Talamone panorama is even more visible in the foreground vertically underneath the church. I presume you have optimised pitch, yaw, roll and barrel in hugin. May I suggest you change to custom parameters and select the x and y (e and f) parameters as well for optimisation. Make sure you have a dozen or more control points, finetuned and suitably spread in the overlapping area, it helps. -- Klaus with K18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for giving me some suggestions: I have stitched several panoramas recently and they had all minor errors I didn't notice at first. Because of this, for some of them I think I have deleted the original pictures...
That would be a pity. I make a point in keeping both input images and pto file.
I'll look for them or I'll try to re-take as soon as I have the chance. Those are the steps I followed to create those (wrong) panoramas:
load the pictures in autopano-sift and create the control points. I have used the following settings: resolution 1400 (with my computer I can't go further), unlimited nuber of control points (it usually creates about 100-200 for each couple), no refinement step because it is really slow.
I set control points manually in hugin. I find that autopano-sift tends to choose poorly. I usually go for 10-12 points per image pair, but as few as 5 or 6 may be ok if well chosen. Quality before quantity, and sometimes one need to switch on "enable rotational search" in the fine-tuning preferences.
load the output.pto in hugin. I usually optimize position and view, if it's not enough I try "everything", but I didn't use it for any of the recent panoramas. I always use rectilinear projection.
"Everything" should be ok, although I dislike using the parameters a and c for mathematical reasons. After a recent repair I find x-shift(d) and y-shift(e) very important for my camera lense. Make sure you include "barrel" in the option you use, that could easily be the reason for the images misalignment.
stitch the pictures using enblend. If I see some errors, I try to delete some parts in the single TIFF files that hugin creates to feed enblend, and then I run enblend by myself. This approach gave good results (e.g. for Image:Galleria borghese facade.jpg that is QI). I didn't even try to fix stitching errors for the panoramas of Talamone because I didn't see them at first.
There is a new version, enblend3.0, the new seam finder tries to avoid areas where the overlapping images are different. Editing the alpha channels in the TIFF is fine, but with enblend3 I have to do it only rarely now. And enblend3.0 runs faster as well.
have you any suggestions? what are the parameter x, y and f you told me about? aren't they optimized if I choose one of the standard settings in the "drop down" menu? (I mean, aren't they included in "everything"?). Thanks Alessio Damato
As above, x-shift(d) and y-shift(e). With my misaligned lense axis I need them big time. I tend to start optimising with "start from anchor", then with the images reasonably in place I tended to go for "yaw, pitch, roll and barrel" or "everything", depending on optimisation quality. -- Klaus with K15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some of the grassy areas in the foreground of the image were quite blurry and out-of-focus, though it seemed to be in only a few areas, in small squares, mainly on the darker-green grasses (sort of a yellow-green). The grass looks like it was blowing in the wind and that might be why it is out of focus (in some small amounts). I don't think there is a problem with your camera. The photo is really gorgeous, though. I think that if you were to nominate it at FPC it'd do better - the wow is there and I'd support, but the only reason I had a problem with it for QI was the little blurry bits. Thank you for your message. Doodle-dooĦ17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it might have a chance at FPC? Maybe because one image of mine just failed there I wanted to go the route of QI first. -- Klaus with K17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answers to a few questions:
@Freedom to share: Camera is Canon Powershot A95, reparied one month ago, I an unsure whether the optics system is 100% ok as a few photos are blurred right and sharp left. It is a stitch, focal length smallest possible. 1/500s at 5.6.
@Slaunger: I notice some rapidly varying colour gradient oscillations in the sky at the upper edge, about one third from the left. You are right, and that is real, the weather was at the edge of being cloudy, fog drifting, forming and dispersing rapidly. Notice the fog patch at the far side of the loch. Compare Image:Portree fog over inlet 2007-08-22.jpg and Image:Sligachan Bridge1 2007-08-22.jpg taken on the same day, same effects in the sky.
@Alvesgaspar: I look at the green and it doesn't look natural to me. The colours can be that way in Scotland. I did not touch the colour balance at all.
Also, the right part of the lake is not horizontal, an obvious side effect of the stitching projection. As there is neither vertical nor horizontal obvious feature, I settled for the electricity poles as vertical feature and put the horizon line in the distance at what I deem eye level. I'll have another look into this. How much tilt do you reckon on the right-hand-side? -- Klaus with K11:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of these guidelines you showed me (Maybe I saw them once). I feel embarassed you noticed that article that soon (I shouldn't have put the link on my page that soon :) because I wanted it to be advanced enough before telling about it to other people.
About the book, it certainly would be worth writing a wiki one, but
I may not have enough spare time
I don't have enough knowledge
Also I would like this article to be something one can understand quickly, and which still get deeply enough into its subject. It may not be very accurate, but will be based on our (sanchezn and I) experience. I believe our panos have sufficent quality for us to share how we make them.
I've just installed Inkscape on my laptop for the diagrams, and started drawing an SLR :). Now I'm building the foundation for the article, soiIt will start slowly at first, but once I've got all the objects, it will hopefully progress faster.
Your examples about what not to do look good to me, I will probably recycle ;). In return, feel free to add your own explanations and to correct any mistake.
I used a total of 25 images for this one, in 3 rows. I checked out the cylindrical projection, but it made my bridge look more like the Gateway Arch than the New River Gorge Bridge. I think the distance helps me get away with the rectilinear. Thanks for the interest, it's great to get a comment from Commons' stitching superstar! :) --JaGa19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About my suggestion to make the projection plane parallel to the bridge — it would work, but probably look less natural and not as expected, as the piers on the left would look different in perspective from the piers on the right. -- Klaus with K22:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Quite good quality, except for the posterization of the sky.
Maybe it can be corrected. - Alvesgaspar 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the level of quality you maintain, and your photographic expertise. But can you point out where there are obvious parts of posterisation in the sky. I do see some noise (oh the joy of having a prosumer and not a fully professional camera, and sensor noise) and some faint clouds, but on my monitor I cannot identify posterisation. Also this image is a second generation JPEG (from this 1st generation photo), both generations with a quite high quality setting, but if that turned out to be detrimental on the image quality, I could redo the changes from the originating TIFF stitch file. --Klaus with K18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Klaus
I think you are right, that is not posterization but noise. Shouldn't be difficult to correct with some gaussian blur tool. I must confess I'm very clumsy with editing and too lazy to use raw or tiff formats. Thank you for your compliments. I have learned more about digital photography in a single year just for participating in COM:FPC that in the rest of my life. -- Alvesgaspar22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alvesgaspar,
I am reluctant to blur the sky as this affects the cloud edges as well, with the fine structure there lost. And if one blurs too much, the natural dithering from the noise disappears and one can really have posterisation effects, even at one bit contour steps. --Klaus with K10:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for some feedback on a panorama i shot of Tjörnin in Reykjavík and a user told me that you could perhaps give me some tips on how to fix the vignetting in the picture.
Nice panoramic view. For hugin there is a version 0.7.0 in the pipeline which will solve your problem. Regarding the vignetting, for now the best thing would be to go to google groups, search for a group with "hugin" in its name, and then brouwse the postings for one of the recent experimental builds. There are still a few rough edges but they are usable. I use them on my Mac, there are also Windows versions to be found. You will find that there is a Photometric optimisation included there, which I find quite robust. Good luck. -- Klaus with K18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Klaus! Bei den QI meintest du, meine Kollegiatskirche sei überschärft. Daher habe ich das Bild nochmals ab RAW konvertiert und einen anderen Algorithmus verwendet. Sieh dir das Bild doch nochmals an. Ich selbst finde das Pflaster mit dem ersten Algorithmus besser gerendert, im Schnitt überwiegen aber die Vorteile mit dem zweiten Verfahren. Gruss --Ikiwaner19:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ikiwaner, habe heute wieder vorbeigeschaut. Bei der ersten Version hatte ich mir das Kindergesicht im Hof angeschaut, und das sah mir zu stark nach Kloetzchen oder Lego aus. Weiters waren die Kirchturmspitzen ganz klar ueberschaerft. Mit der jetztigen Version kann ich mich anfreunden. Gruss --Klaus with K14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have seen, this project is going live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC. Before then, there are a few things to be finished off, and any help you can give will be welcome. The latest discussion is at Commons talk:Valued images candidates#Open action items for Valued images.
When the project launches publicly on 1 June, it will need reviewers who are able to jump in quickly and provide prompt feedback. During those critical first few weeks it will be important to have a decent number of reviewers who are prepared to put in the effort to make sure the first nominations are well-reviewed, as that will set the standard for the future.
Would you help, please, with the final tasks now, and also pledge your help with some reviewing on 1 June and thereafter? --MichaelMaggs17:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MichaelMaggs, I have certainly followed these activities, and seen that Slaunger has taken a really active part. I am away on June 1st but should be able to review some nominations on June 2nd or 3rd. In case there is a slow start I am prepared to submit some images of mine, not to push them through but to provide a benchmark, where to set the benchmark. -- Klaus with K16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
★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: Waverley Route. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Info The Waverley Route is a currently disused railway line linking England and Scotland to be partially reinstated in years to come.--Klaus with K (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, je connais ces photos de chasse-neige, tu m'avais d'ailleurs autorisé à en reprendre sur mon site (http://train-mont-blanc.fr/exploitation/hiver/). Ce sera un très bon ajout pour Wikipédia ! :-)
Hi, saw your post. A good way is to contact a specialist on the internet. Try with a photo of the habitus, one of the leaves and one of the open flowers and send them to a specialist (e.g. here). I mostly look up the genus, or family on Google Scholar and look out for an article on classification. Cheers. Lycaon (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply and for not being of much help. I usually shoot wild flowers and have a couple of books on it, but they don't cover cultivated plants. Here is a book that might help (it has some rhododendron cultivars): "Gardening Encyclopedia", Botanica's Pocket, h.f. ulmann, 2007. And a site: [2]. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Klaus, glad to hear from you! I think the right thing to do is just to design a better background for the picture: if you change your picture to LGPL, it seems that'll make it hard for others to re-use. I'm open to re-designs of the background: the xcf file linked to at the image page is higher quality and is made up of layers. --Slashme (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slashme, picked up on you message after some business travel. All ok on the licence front by now? Could also look into some more photos if you desire. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
Hi Klaus,
Thanks for the feedback about using Hugin. I have restitched the image with this great software and am about to upload a new version that has a much more linear horizon. I have a question for you: how do I go about posting the new image without having to restart the whole featured picture nomination from start again?
Best wishes,
~Gregg M. Erickson. Farwestern, 4 March 2010
Upload the new image with a name different to the old one, and then put it under the subheading "New stitch" which I have just created. -- Klaus with K (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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!
★An image you created has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you created 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: Wentworth Castle SE facade.
Hi Klaus, ich habe mir gerade mal die Freiheit genommen, File:Motorway M1 Yorkshire 2007-08-13.jpg deutlich aufzuhellen, da es – natürlich zunächst mal auf meinem Monitor, aber auch im Vergleich zu deinen sonstigen Bildern – für mich arg düster daherkam. Wenn das absolut scheiße ist, kannst du es gern wieder zurücksetzen. :D --Kreuzschnabel18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
, great photo!--Commander Keane 10:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
*
Oppose Underexposed, can be easily corrected with editing. --Digon3 talk 16:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Question The photo looks underexposed on the linear histogram, but the logarithmic histogram shows that brightening up (white triangle) introduces clipping as in the right version. How to choose 100% brightness? -- Klaus with K 17:40, 23 June 2007 UTC)
Info I did not downscale the almost 5Kx3K stitch despite distant building possibly looking sharper scaled 50% (would still be >3MB), shall investigate the noisy sky (will take time, stitch not on this computer), even the sunlit part of trees appear dark because of the high contrast (did not change gamma), without the slanting light the wall relief would be less pronounced -- Klaus with K 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Now you told me the bridge deck is sloped, having it horizontal in the image makes little sense. -- Klaus with K 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
-2.JPG){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tj%C3%B6rnin_Panorama.jpg){kind=link}
-2.JPG){kind=link}
-2.JPG){kind=link}
-2.JPG){kind=link}
