User talk:Diliff/Archive2

Hi Diliff!
Yeah Westminister looks like a good place to pay a visit. I'll be seing a pic appearing on FPC in two weeks then? :-)
Anyway what I really want to say is could you accept the following sitiching challenge? Be warned though I took these photos terribly - no tripod and on a hill. In fact they are so bad source images that I would fully understand if you declined on sight. But I was hoping you could use your considerable expertise to make me a pano. Don't worry if you can't get all of them in - I'd be happy with only three. Make that two even. Here they are:

I would be very gratefull for your help. Thanks, --Fir0002 www 08:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bust in here, but I still have that page on my watchlist and the topic sounded just too tempting. Mind if I give it a shot too? I have an almost fully automatical stitching setup running. Here are the direct links for fast downloading --Dschwen 09:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead!--Fir0002 www 10:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

The EXIF tags seem to have been lost during the processing of the frames. Do you still have the focal lenth settings? Crop factor is 1.6 for your cam, right? --Dschwen 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've got a slow internet so all have passed through Save for web in photoshop. But here's the exif details:

Pano 1: Image's 1 & 2 are 1/200 sec, f/8 ISO 100, 17mm. Image 3 is 1/250 sec, f/8 ISO 100 17 mm (stupidly I hadn't had my cam in manual at that point - I warned you the source images were terrible!)

Pano 2: Image 1 is 1/800 sec, f/8 ISO 100, Image 2 is 1/400 sec f/8 ISO 100, Image's 3 & 4 are 1/200 sec, f/8 ISO 100, Image 5 is 1/250 sec, f/8 ISO 100 all at 17 mm (as above still in AV mode :-(

Pano 3: all are 1/250 sec, f/8 ISO 100, 17mm- finally in manual mode!

And yes my camera's got a 1.6 cropping factor

Hope you guys can do something with it! --Fir0002 www 10:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Set3: 4MB tif and 250kB jpg 30% preview. The other ones will need exposure correction. I'll see if I manage. --Dschwen 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's great! Damn I wish I took those shots better! I almost hate to show you this as I know your strong position on cloning, but here's what I made through a bit of retouching. It's only a preveiw as fortunately I have reasonably easy access to the spot I took the pic in and I can hopefully reshoot in similar lighting and substitute more land in. --Fir0002 www 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fir, I can do the stiches but with such a small amount of land (to aid in perspective - I don't really know to what extent the hills are rolling, etc), they look pretty awful. In order to crop out the warping of the images, you end up having to crop just about everything but the tops of the trees. I can compensate for the exposure differences, but I don't think you'll get much of a useful panorama out of it. Want the results regardless? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much trouble I would like anything I could get. Perhaps the first one with only three would work out best?--Fir0002 www 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the images again, what you probably should have done was a mosaic of 2x3 or 2x5, so that you could capture more of the sky and more of the foreground. It would have required more extensive warping, but any super-wide angle image is going to need that. And for that matter, you probably should have taken more images but in portrait format. I almost always take my panoramas in portrait format (unless they're mosaics) simply because of the extra angle that it gives you. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's good advice, and these pics were taken a while ago when I was young and inexperienced ;-), But seriously they were shocking source images and I'm ashamed at my results. Looking at Dshcwen's image just makes me even more frustrated that I stuffed up what would have been a pretty good pano. I have actually been using the portrait method you discribed to make pano's for a little while. My FPC of the alpine scenery was created using that method --Fir0002 www 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Loch Ard Gorge Panorama July 2005.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

And again! :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 21:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Liquid Crystal Display Macro Example zoom.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates . Thank you for your contribution!

~ Veledan • Talk 23:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering where you obtained this image from. Is it yours? I think it would be a good candidate for featured picture, but as it stands, would benefit from a higher resolution, as images are generally not accepted unless over 1000 pixels in either height or width. Do you have access to the author or the original higher resolution file? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, I think I probably just moved it to commons, the original uploader was User:E-mail adress, but I am not sure how active that person is. Sorry for the bad news.. :) - cohesion 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it would be possible to obtain a version of the original full size image with your decreased black point changes. The full size version as is looks too grainy at full res.

To clarify, I saw that the version on wikipedia isn't the full 100mb image and was wondering if there was a version of the full size 100mb image with the black point change.

I'm sorry the last two posts were mine. I forgot to use the tildee's. The full image I'm refering to is available here: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a+warn Ergzay 07:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal guess is that the one on wikipedia is merely a scaled down version of the above pasted website. That may explain while it looks soft as when you scale it down it removes some of the softness. Ergzay 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With another FP. Great to see you're still going strong.

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates . Thank you for your contribution!

Raven4x4x 07:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff/Archive2, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on

Thanks, I appreciate it. I like that phot also, but bloody hell, it gave me a fright. Luckily, she was perfectly healthy. In fact, I think the frog in the spider web is the same on as the one on the main page, and it was taken about a year later. --liquidGhoul 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really amazing work, keep it up. Cornell Rockey 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Very nice work. VegaDark 08:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This panorama is really breathtaking! I've just printed a 33cm x 100cm of it. When i'll find the money to frame it, I will hang it on my wall :) Thanks for sharing this beauty, I admire your work. Sandro. 13:22, 13 May 2006 (Rome, Italy)

Appreciate you have a point of view Diliff. Understand also that you have a pretty good eye for photography but with respect I and others do think that it adds to the article. See a few lines above where you wrote on my talk page to see reference by other editor. VirtualSteve 13:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• PS It adds at least as much as the knitting image! VirtualSteve 13:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff - I learned a long time ago not to argue too much on Wiki. There are those that have an opposing point of view and just want to express it before moving on, and those that want to 'fight to the death over their beliefs' spending most of their editing time notching up edit counts over someone elses work.

For what it is worth I think the article encyclopedically discusses pink and then later hot pink. The article is not particularly good but it is about that/those colours. I did not want to show green, or blue, or brown. So I went to a Melbourne location (a pub actually) and set up the shot.

If you want to remove it again because you want to fight over it's exclusion - well you do whatever works for you. Me I am going to try to continue to upload images that add their 1000 words - maybe I won't win a photographers barnstar - but hopefully I will add to a users encylopedic knowledge in my own small way. VirtualSteve 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff, thanks for your advice about downsampling the Château de Chambord panorama on FPC. I've reduced it to 75% of its original size and uploaded a new version (not in the article yet) if you'd like to take a look. You've taken a lot of nice pictures, so I'd value your input. Cheers, --Yummifruitbat 16:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we narrowly missed edit-conflicting each other in reverting the removal of the cleanup tag! Very little feedback was received about cleaning up the external links, but what did show up on the talk page supported removing the links. I'm planning to do just that in the near future. Do you have any opinion on whether a few links should remain, and if so, which ones? --Ginkgo100 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely the best photos I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Thanks! J.reed 06:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Stone Mountain picture! It's fantastic. I could never understand why someone didn't put up a larger, higher res picture before, and yours really filled the bill. Keep it up! Unschool 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features

AmiDaniel (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey. I saw your edit summary on the

Atlant 12:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Why not. :) Well, seriously speaking, there's such a tremendous amount of detail in every seal that I'll take a break before the next one. Otherwise I'll get exhausted and careless. –Mysid^(t) 11:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you've made a number of featured pictures. I wondered if you could have a look at my orchard (right) and tell me what you think. Obviously, it's not up to featured par but it's my first shot at a photo, so I wondered your opinion. Thanks! --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your help, but I was in the process of adding that section to the article. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is amazing. I have recently visted London, unfortunally, (sp) i didn't see the brige at night. What a beautiful picture! Lucky gooseberry for living in England--- make sure you visit Oxford!!

Hi, I just purchased a Canon Digital Rebel XT which I've really been enjoying. Your photos and panorama work have really impressed me. I've been experimenting a little with the Photostitch software that came bundled with my camera, but I haven't been terribly impressed with the results. I was wondering both what stitching software you were using, and if there were any tutorials on this that you might have written or could point me towards? Thanks a ton, Impresario 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff, do you have a collection of all the photos you've contributed to Wikipedia anywhere? I'd love to see it. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? (that I remind you of a friend) Curious. BTW you ovbiously haven't been back to the Commons for a while: we have a nifty Gallery feature now (here's yours. BTW anything that says "orphan!" should be put in a category or on a gallery page :)) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Lower Manhattan from Staten Island Ferry Corrected Jan 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

~ Veledan • Talk 09:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

~ Veledan • Talk 10:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Greylag Goose in St James's Park, London - May 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

~ Veledan • Talk 11:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings:

You dont know me and I dont know you, but i've been looking at the Featured Pictured Cadidates Page for quite some time now (in an anonymus way, without even logging in) and I saw that you have at least 5 FP. I think it would be great it you could put them all toghether in some sor of gallery so that everyone that comes can apreciate the great pictures you have promoted. Just a thought.Nnfolz 12:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates . Thank you for your contribution!

Thanks again for another fantastic panorama. Raven4x4x 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/LCD_Delist. Are oyu willing to take another macro shot? -Ravedave 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Salzburg panorama.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

Once again, thanks for the great images. Raven4x4x 08:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for something different, your edit of the Porto panorama, Image:Porto3flat-cc-contr-oliv1002 edit2.jpg, was just promoted. Congratulations. Raven4x4x 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that when you added your hummingbird hawk-moth nomination you managed to revert my archival of old noms. It's not a big thing, I just thought I'd let you know. Raven4x4x 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff,
I noticed a little while ago, but never got around to asking you about it, your comments here. I'm pretty sure that if you did sign the waiver that the images can't be licensed under the GFDL/cc-by-sa as those licenses are commercial. I'm not an expert on the whole licensing thing, but I think it would be worth checking with some other more experienced users (perhaps Gmaxwell) about the licensing. I hope I'm wrong as it would be a shame to lose such fantastic panorama, but it's probably best to be safe than sorry.
Btw which of the 70-200 f/2.8 or the 24-105 lenses do you think is sharper? I'm asking because I recently bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 and I've amazed at the quality. Got the "L" fever! I was planning to get the IS version of the 70-200mm, but BH wouldn't accept the order because of an internal policy not to accept international orders (except with American Express) over US$1500 (and the IS was 1599!). How is the IS on the 24-105? --Fir0002 10:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff,
I used Arcsoft PhotoMontage, it's a basic program but can sometimes be useful. Yeah I love the 85 too, and i'ts just amazing what the quality is like for the price. It's not quite as good IMO as the 70-200, but it is still exceptional. And f/1.8 - when you focus right (it's so easy to focus on the nose and then the eyes are out of focus!) can look fantastic. Compact and light, really good lens. But I agree with you, it is a little hard to find uses for it! It's amazing how well it compares to the f/1.2. --Fir0002 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit picture of yours, Image:Grauman's Chinese Theatre, by Carol Highsmith fixed & straightened.jpg, has just become a featured picture. Congrats again. Raven4x4x 09:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diliff, I was out shooting a wedding tonight and editing other photos the last few days. Not much time then or now to deal with the copyright issues on this site, since Wikipedia is kind of a spare time thing for me. Still don't have time for a long reply. But I understand what's going on here better via your reply. Not sure I'm crazy about giving up copyrights, and I wouldn't have uploaded those extra high rez photos you did. You are more generous than I am regarding your images. Anyway, gotta run, leaving town tomorrow and a ton to do.

Thanks,

--67.169.4.80 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You supported the Hummingbird Hawk-moth FPC (like everyone else who commented), but HighInBC uploaded an edit that absolutely no-one commented on. I can't promote the image without knowing which version to promote, so now I have to ask everyone which version they prefer. Would you mind specifying which image you are supporting? Thanks. Raven4x4x 09:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!! This Photographer's Barnstar is presented to Diliff from LBMixPro for being the first featured picture that really caught my eye, as well as donating that image to the Commons, instead of selling it. May you continue to be a good contributer to Wikipedia.

http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,49282569-2,00.htm -- Zanimum 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Versailles Chapel - July 2006 edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates . Thank you for your contribution!

Your edit of the Hummingbird Hawk-moth FPC, Image:IC Macroglossum stellatarum1 NR.jpg, was also promoted. Congrats again! Raven4x4x 07:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity: Do you have a larger copy of [[16]] you could email me ([email protected])? I used to use it as my desktop background, and I'd love to again, but now that I have a WUXGA monitor the 1200x800 version looks kind of blown up/fuzzed out. Thanks! 64.252.71.172 04:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw bugger, 'twas me. Sorry, forgot to login! Suntiger 04:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured picture The bony fish found in coral reefs, and the aquatic emblem of Queensland, Australia. The species can grow as large as 2.7 meters (9 ft) long, weighing up to 400 kg (880 lb). They are fairly common in shallow waters and feed on a variety of marine life, including small sharks and juvenile sea turtles . Photo credit: Diliff Archive - More featured pictures... Now i've copied the code and mod'd it a little from the main page, which is updated each day, so if it changes to something weird (although it should because i subst: 'd the date codes) then I'm sorry.. Congratulations! I've had a quick look over some of your other work, and some of it is just fantastic! Keep up the good work -- Review 00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply ] Again! Today's featured picture The domesticated geese in Europe and North America. This species is one of the last to migrate and it is thought that the English name signifies late, meaning that they lagged behind the other geese when they left for their northern breeding quarters. Photo credit: Diliff Archive - More featured pictures... Again: Well done! :)