User talk:Diliff/Archive12

Image of Roman Baths
Dear Diliff,

I work for Anchor Books, publisher of an annotated edition of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (The Annotated Pride and Prejudice, annotated by David Shapard, first published in 2004). We are working on developing an enhanced eBook edition for the iPad that will incorporate color art and audio and video clips relevant to the novel and to Austen’s times, and are planning to release it in April 2014.

I found your photo of Roman Baths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Baths_in_Bath_Spa,_England_-_July_2006.jpg) and thought it was great. Would you be willing to grant us permission to use this photo for linking to a map of places mentioned in the novel? This ebook will be available in the itunes store and is sure to generate a lot of excitement from fans of Jane Austen.

We will give you credit and copyright acknowledgment for the image. Please let me know if you are willing and I can email you the permissions form, which you can sign and return to me. Please let me know if you have any questions and feel free to email me directly at rkrupitsky@randomhouse.com.

Thank you very much, Rachel Krupitsky Anchor Books, a division of Random House, Llc. rkrupitsky@randomhouse.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.171.1.5 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking for information on the field of view of some of your panoramas
Hello David,

I found some of your panoramas while looking for high resolution CC-licensed images for use in a project similar to this. The only problem is that I need a usable estimate for the field of view of the panoramas, which is not provided. If you have this information for some images, could you please contact me at 5p8fOhf9DwFR@meltmail.com (as a spam avoidance measure this forwarding address will cease functioning around 20:00 Jan 28 London time). I could explain better what this is about and how the images will be used in an email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarroColorado (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Permission Request
Hey Diliff, may I have the permission to use File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg to enhance it for Featured picture candidates/Bixby Creek Bridge? Thanks, ///Euro Car  GT  02:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the licensing, I've went ahead an uploaded it, however if you would request me to remove the image, please tell me at my talk page. The image is located at: File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013 edit.jpg, you may also re-vote at the nomination page. ///Euro Car  GT  04:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated Feature Picture Nomination
Hello, changes has been made at Featured picture candidates/Bixby Creek Bridge, an edited image has been added. Feel free to change your vote. Thank you. Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of ///Euro Car  GT  04:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare's funerary monument
Are you far from Stratford-upon-Avon? Was doing some reading, and I realized that you would probably be the perfect person to get some good pictures of the monument and the church it's in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a 2 hour drive, so not super close really. Is there any particular significance to the church, other than it's in need of better photography? :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The monument, basically. But it was more of a "nice if we could have it" thing than anything else. Alright, no worries. On a perhaps more interesting note, outside is perfect for more artsy photography right now. We've got an inch or so of ash from Kelud throughout the city, and the sky has an orangish tint. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Portraits
I may have a chance to photograph Ahmad Tohari sometime this month, and I was wondering if you had suggestions for lighting if it's an interior shot and I'm not allowed to bring lights. Do you think an ISO of 320 and F-number of 7.2, with a shutter speed of 1/110, would work well? (Assuming your standard fluorescent lighting). Of course, I'll try and see if I can get him outside so that lighting is a lot easier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's hard to predict what settings you will need before you actually get there, because the brightness of the lighting will greatly affect what settings will be appropriate. It sounds like your settings are a little optimistic though, unless it's particularly bright. I would certainly try not to reduce the shutter speed though, because you will quickly find that it becomes too slow to hand hold the camera and keep the image sharp. That depends also what focal length you would be using. A rule of thumb is to not use a shutter speed slower than the focal length. So for example, if you're shooting at 50-80mm (fairly common for portraits), you don't want to go below 1/80th of a second. But this is only for blur caused by camera movement. Blur caused by movement of the subject is also an issue no matter what focal length you use, so you will want to keep them fairly still regardless. I know this is all fairly elementary, but it's important too. :) What I would suggest is that you try to take a few test photos (ideally with someone else standing there in the place where you hope to get his photo) and see how they look. If you have to do something to brighten the exposure, I would first increase the aperture (decrease the number). Stopping down the aperture is great if you can, but it's less important than a fast shutter speed and low ISO. And one other tip, try to position him so that there isn't a distracting background directly behind him. The further away from the background (wall, etc) he is, the better the background blur. Fluorescent lighting isn't ideal for pleasant portraits, but if you don't have a choice, you'll just have to make do. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. My portraits on Commons thus far have not been very good at full size, although at thumbnail they've been useable, so I wanted to get a some input for better pix. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama 2, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 14, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-03-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow.
Dilif, those are great pictures, you have here. Hafspajen (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Nave 2 - Diliff.jpg
Hi Diliff, I'm hoping this shot of Canary Wharf is yours (hero image on page).

http://www.jordahl-group.com/en/407/references/curtain-wall/canary-wharf-london-england/http://www.jordahl-group.com/en/407/references/curtain-wall/canary-wharf-london-england/

I'm a designer at branding agency me&dave who are based in london. We are working on a project near Canary Wharf for a real estate developer and would like to use this image in the brochure. Would you allow us to use it and if so could you please send me a high res file. We would only need a license for 12 months.

www.me-and-dave.com 0207 490 5020 richard@me-and-dave.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.67.128 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sari



 * Hi Diliff, and thanks for the feedback. How do you feel about the perspective for this stitch? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, and sorry to be a bit harsh on your image, but there are some fairly big image quality issues. Better to sort them out earlier rather than later. As for your new stitch, I have to say that the left side is now pretty close to perfect but the right side is now leaning outwards! It's fairly simple to confirm, just view the image in the browser at 100%, then zoom in further (ctrl + on most browsers I think) and scroll around the image so that a vertical in the image is against the edge of the screen. That's the easiest way to evaluate a vertical line and involves no intuition as the edge of the screen acts as a 'plumb bob line'. Hope that helps. Not sure if you've got to the point of tackling the green and pink patchy discolouration in the clouds but it's still there. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The f****** haloes ... they're in the original files too (motion blur on leaves?). There's this, which may be easier to work with rather than the current stitch, and cutting out some of the files which overlapped significantly with others appears to have had an effect on the perspective... but they all have issues. Straightening this one is a lot easier, but that was taken from a bit higher up (holding the camera above my head, with the LCD facing down... can't really get a panorama like that). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If the haloes are present in the original files too then it's usually a sign you've pushed the processing too far. I don't think it's motion blur on the leaves. Or is this a HDR tone mapped image? Sometimes the tone mapping can create that kind of halo when there is movement between frames... But motion blur itself doesn't create haloes. I assume you shot it in RAW as per previous panoramas and then processed it in Camera RAW/Lightroom? I don't mean to try to solve all your image issues myself, but it might help if I had access to the original RAW files so I could make sense of it. But 40 RAW images is not going to be particularly quick to send (and I assume Indonesian broadband may also be a limiting factor?). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 40 raws, 800+ mb? 48 hours, at least, I'd think. I'll give it a try at this end, and if nothing I can just reshoot and bring a stool — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to get a good handle on multi-row panoramas, as Borobudur would be a considerable investment of time (yet is so big it almost requires a panorama). Still experimenting in the county leagues, as it were. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You poor thing. 800mb would take me about 20 minutes to upload, at most. Well my only advice then is to start at the beginning at the RAW processing stage, carefully check the image quality at every subsequent step of the way, look for the specific issues I mentioned, but also look for something new that you might be inadvertently introducing. If nothing else, you will be able to identify exactly what has caused the issues. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My IP is stingy with the uploads, 25 kb/s maximum. Downloads are capped at 80 kb/s. I'm getting no straight lines right now with the images I have right now, but will keep fiddling... for a while at least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 25kb/s = 800mb in 9 hours or so. Hmm, getting straight lines is simply a matter of centring the image's centre point on the horizon. When the horizon is obscured, you have to guess, but it will essentially be a line parallel with the camera. In other words, something around head height in the image. The trouble is, I'm not sure how reliable the vertical lines are in the image so it will be difficult to know when you've found that true centre point. I used the first set of 'vertical' bricks when I drew the red lines, but using them as verticals put the second row of verticals slightly off. Even so, it should be possible to get close. Approximate is fine, but none of your images so far have even been approximately vertically corrected on both sides simultaneously. 3 degrees doesn't sound like a lot, but it's fairly visible. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is... still working... and hoping. — Crisco 1492 (talk)

- I've been fiddling with t1 lines... it's a bit straighter, but the right edge still seems to be leaning out a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Several alt straightenings... I rather prefer the second up there, so I'll be making a full size version w/ as many leaves as possible removed and colour adjustments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they are all very much closer to perfectly straight, so choose the one you think is best. As long as you can resolve the haloes and patchiness in the sky, I think it'll be a much improved image and I'd probably be happy to support it. I assume you saved the project so that you can simply update the component images from RAW once you've re-processed them with a little more 'punch'. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll be uploading later. Still some editing to do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently the blasted halos won't quit. They aren't as bad now, but ... anywho, what I've got is being uploaded in the second file (07 on Commons) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said though, if you're going to have any chance of eliminating the haloes, you need to determine when they are being introduced. Are they present when you process the RAW file? If so, it's certainly the processing settings you're using. If so, what specific settings cause or amplify the halo effect? Also, the coloured blotchiness is still evident in the sky, although the JPEG compression artifacts are not as bad as before. But did you do as I suggest and work with TIF files until the point at which you save as JPEG and upload to Wikipedia? That should minimise any chance of compression artifacts. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently the raws are gone... damn... oh well. I'll withdraw the current nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...gone? How did that happen? Well that's disappointing, you should always keep your RAW files safe because you never know when you might need to refer back to them. Anyway, I guess I've done enough lecturing on image processing and management to last you a while. Sorry to hear you're not able to progress further. The image is still good, but it has the potential to be better. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree... there's potential there, and my last hurrah (still processing) will, at the very least, not have as many leaves... now it's just a matter of waiting for a reasonably sunny morning (the temple faces east) and reshooting for good quality.
 * At the very least I got some good shortcuts, to process such large images more quickly despite my hardware limitations; I didn't expect creating two similar panoramas, differing only in resolution, and then using the smaller panorama to fiddle with settings in light room before using the synch command would be such a time saver. The T1/T2 lines are also a very nice shortcut, rather than eyeballing and using the numerical transform function. As for the quality advice: this thread has been fantastic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Royal Albert Hall, London - Nov 2012.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 20, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-04-20. Thank you for all of your contributions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Youth Olympics Game Nanjing 2014
Hi David, I`m planing a 5-day visit with photographers and authors to Nanjing. Today i have only the question to you: Would you like to visit China for 5 days between 16. and 28. August 2014? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ralf. Well, that's very exciting, and thank you for the invitation! I'll have to think about whether it will be possible for me, I will get back to you soon. I will probably also need to consider whether Wikimedia UK will be able to cover some of the costs. Will you be able to get press photographer passes to allow us full access to the venues? You Germans are always great at organising special access. :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a Grant-Request: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Ralf_Roletschek/Youth_Olympic_Games_2014 and this is the request for 4 Main-Members of the team. All others must ask her Chapter. I want to have you as one of the best photographers, also you are in the Grant. I also ask in Hong Kong and some other photographers and authors. Nanjing is different to Strasbourgh, we need professionals. I was 2012 in Innsbruck at the Olympic Games, here are my Blog (in german): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ralf_Roletschek/olympiablog - i think, Google can translate this. Because i was there, i have a accreditation of IOC, this is`nt to Wikimedia, its my. And because this i can "invite" some other persons. Please go here:
 * https://secure.registration.olympic.org/en/media-registration
 * register please there with the Organisation "Wikimedia Austria". Its without cost. You need a photo and your passport. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, and glad to make your list. ;-) I'll register on the site. Just one question, why are you only planning to visit for 5 days, when the games are for 12 days? I may prefer to go for a bit longer. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of Photo
Hey,

I am making a web series and was hoping to use your image to fill in a green screen out the window of an office. We would love to credit you prominently in the credits of the video. Is this OK?

Thanks,

Jeremy jeremyproduces@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.248.67 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeremy, this should be fine, but which photo are you interested in using? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sari again

 * Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Infinitely better image quality! The sky is great now and there are no artifacts in the trees. I noticed you changed the angle slightly. You seem a bit closer to the building, presumably to avoid getting the foreground foliage out of the frame? It has the effect of making the building a little more distorted, but given the trouble you had with the haloes last time, probably necessary. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much why I did it, yes. I wanted to avoid those ******* leaves. Sadly, I wasn't able to get a bit higher up to compensate for being that much closer. Alright, I'll let this stay in the article for a week before having another go at FPC.
 * BTW, thanks for helping with the talk page questions yesterday (and the edit!). I wasn't on my laptop (it was busy stitching this) so I didn't have much of a chance to check them out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

image
where did u get the photo from becuse i have fond the same thing on bing images from jacob dragonitefb95@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.16.253 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Brighton pics
Hi Diliff – I replied there. The pics throughout the article need an overhaul, which I keep planning to do as part of a major rewrite. On a separate note: Brighton has many excellent viewpoints for wide and spectacular panoramas, but as a beginner I am clueless as to how to get the best result from a set of 5, 6, 8 or however many photos: stitching them, balancing light levels etc. etc. Any advice you could give would be very welcome! Cheers, Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  12:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Some comments
I have just looked at all the pictures that you have on your Wikimedia Commons User page. They are exceptional, as you already know well.

My broad comment here, once again, is that the notion of making lines vertically parallel and horizontally parallel equates with accurate representation, or good geometry is nonsense.

Again and again, because of the medium that you are using, you accept the arc as a recurring phenomenon in your photography, when it occurs as part of the horizontal perspective. Does this make them poor photographs? Of course it doesn’t. They are all beautiful photographs.
 * Your motorway of the Sydney Harbour Bridge forms an arc.
 * The foreshore at the Yarra’s edge forms an arc.
 * The city of Salzburg forms an arc.
 * The panoramas of Hong Kong, New York and Melbourne form arcs.

And again and again, you accept horizontal lines that have become diagonals, through the function of perspective. You know that they are in fact horizontal, but accept the process that turns them into diagonals, as part of the image.
 * The weir on the Tagus River
 * The jumping castle on Joss Bay beach
 * The architrave on Grand Central Terminal building

What I am trying to encourage you to do is
 * 1) accept the curves as part of the vertical process, as well as the horizontal and utilise these curves in your interior views as well as the exterior views.
 * 2) see that since you ‘’must’’ accept the occurrence of pictorial diagonals that you know are really horizontal, then any notion of real accuracy being rendered in verticals and horizontals is not a realistic one. It might seem like pure geometry, but it is geometry of the simplest kind.

What I am on about is a more subtle approach. Believe me, you do not stand to loose anything by trying it. You are already using it in some of your photos.

Considering some of these pics individually:

Bridges
 * Sydney Harbour Bridge: It looks as if you have battled with those bloody pylons to try and get them to conform. They don’t, of course. In reality, they are markedly tapered.
 * By contrast, Hammersmith Bridge is a beautiful shot. On the left, you have an inward-leading diagonal, visually bracing the arch, and on the right, you have allowed all your vertical cables to retain a little perspective. It is probably not enough to register to the average observer as being anything but vertical, but to my eye, the slight angle registers the fact that the bridge rises high above eye-level.  The difference is subtle but very effective because it places the viewer in relationship to the image.   For this reason, the Hammersmith Bridge works better than both the Tower Bridge pictures where the straightening defies the low vantage point.

Westminster
 * The tower and castle in the Toledo pic both work because of their perspective. But the Westminster Palace Clock Tower and Victoria Tower do not. Both are leaning outwards. The reason is that the real perspective is working counter to your vertical adjustment. Neither of them wants to be dead straight; both need to lean in just a little.

Buildings on either sides of the main building
 * Royal Albert Hall, Trevi Fountain and the Admiralty building all have distracting side buildings that are falling outward to the left or right because they are over-straightened. In the case of Trevi Fountain, the whole building has the typical outward splay problem.
 * NOTE: “Horse Gardens” should read “Horse Guards” i.e. the mounted cavalry guards of H.M..

The problem with two-towered facades
 * Royal College of Music is a great picture to demonstrate a particular problem of perspective. Because here the façade is very wide, you can see the inner sides of both the towers. This has the effect of making them turn outward from each other. When viewed with the eye, from your lowish viewpoint just above the balustrade, the two towers would appear to converge, countering the apparent outward rotation. It’s not been allowed to happen, with the result that the clunky turrets and enormous chimney-stacks are forcing the towers off either end of the building.  Any picture of a building with two towers, (e.g. cathedral) where you can see the inner side of the walls of the towers as you can here, needs to be allowed to maintain a little vertical perspective, to stop it cracking apart down the middle. You have to counter one visual distortion with another. It isn’t a case of “accurate geometry” based on horizontals and verticals. As long as there is lateral perspective present, your picture is being shoved about by a powerful and pictorially dynamic force.

Curves
 * Champs de Mars, great shot. Look how the curved diagonals are working to advantage.
 * Cabot Square, Canary Warf. In this pic the diagonals are driving your two cornerish buildings out of the picture. The only way to stop them is to acknowledge your low viewpoint, and let them converge a little. Subtley, until the outward thrust is visually counteracted.  Once again this is more complex than straight-line geometry, because your most dynamic lines (visually) are not straight.

Interior
 * Exeter College, Oxford. OK. This interior has been allowed to retain some vertical perspective.  And it really works. By contrast, the Chapel at Versailles is over-corrected, and looks much better when it is allowed to converge in a similar manner. Similarly the Great Hall of Westminster. Here the distortion caused by “correction” has warped the nearest chandeliers.  Both images take on a greater immediacy when a little more natural perspective is returned to them. (I have tried it with both pics, but not uploaded them)

Vertical perspective at work
 * Giralda Tower. So it leans into the picture and tapers? It is a beautiful shot, balanced and given size and context by the street lamp.  By contrast, It really bothers me that the Washington Monument isn’t centred!
 * City Hall Montreal. Beautiful!  It has been allowed to retain a degree of vertical perspective that is in keeping with the angle of the shot and the obvious intentions of the architect to create something elevated and impressive.
 * The London Eye at night. This pic has pronounced vertical perspective, with all the trees of the avenue converging, not only into the distance but above the viewer, as they taper inwards. The hub of the wheel is far above the straight-line geometric centrepoint.  That perspective is the only thing in this image that conveys the fact that the wheel really is enormous.  A heavily adjusted image that balanced the wheel about its axis would not convey that important fact. As it is, it’s a very impressive photograph.

Amandajm (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Mont Saint Michel is in Normandy. The title is wrong!!!
Mont Saint Michel is in Normandy. The title is wrong!!!

St Paul's
I notice that you changed the pic of the grubby old view for a shiny new one. I have a couple of problems with it. The colours are intense, and clash with the other pics. The trees are in full leaf, and block the view of the south portal, which was really the reason why the photo was included. Also, the fact that St Augustine's tower has been so distorted is bothersome.

I like the paler image with the bare trees better, in the present context. So I fiddled with the tower in your image and did a cut and paste, and uploaded it at low resolution, for your consideration. It is crude, and I am sure that you would do it very much better. Can you have a fiddle with the tower, please. I used Photoshop, the function that allows you to pull the corners. I had dropped one corner to make the tower more square (it's not completely square in reality. The spire is the best guide.) I then tapered the outer side slightly. I haven't uploaded it to the St Paul's category. It can be deleted after you have looked at it. Meanwhile, I will replace the image in the article with the evening shot. Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Amanda, I won't be able to respond properly for a couple of weeks so do what you think is best. I'll have a look when I'm back. I'll also try to respond to your thoughts on the other photos above at that point. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I won't use this one with your name on it. The cut'n'paste is too crude. Amandajm (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of your image in a commercial brochure
Hi! We would like to use your picture in a commercial brochure that will be distributed on a USB in pdf. format to 700 visitors at a trade show in UK.

The picture is full A4 page and it include the attribution as specified in your page.

Could you kindly confirm it is ok for us to use this?

BR,

Adriana

(contact details redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.161.219.37 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Adriana, it would be really useful for Diliff if you told him which image you wish to use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The image is More_London_Office_Development_at_Dusk,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg.

Could you kindly confirm?

BR,

Adriana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.161.218.204 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Los_Angeles_Pollution.jpg file in Rachel Carson film?
Dear David,

I love your photo "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Los_Angeles_Pollution.jpg" and would like to use it in a Rachel Carson video that I'm currently working on. I filmed several notable authors, scientists, and historians at a couple of events dedicated to the life and work of Rachel Carson, and I'm creating an hour-long compilation video that I plan to sell as a DVD (and possibly other formats). I could use your picture under the creative commons license that you have listed except that I cannot adhere to the share-alike clause. Would it be possible for you to waive that clause for my aforementioned use?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely yours, Mark Dixon

markedixon {at} gmail {dot} com

P.S. Thank you for your generous contribution to the Creative Commons! I have begun to make my own contributions to the space-- largely as a thank you to the work of contributors that I have used in other film projects. You can see my photos here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/9602574@N02/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.163.112 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead picture Dachshund ... not that good at all
This is all we have, the pictures from Dachshund are really not that good.. If you happen to walk by a Dachshund with your camera think dog article.... and remember, we would need some help. Hafspajen (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm expecting to see any Dachsunds in the near future but I will be sure to take a photo if I do. ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, one never knows... Hafspajen (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

JA Wealth are using your image without licence
wwww.jawealth.co.uk

just a heads up!

more info on this sham company is here:

http://jawealthscam.blogspot.co.uk/

best,

Veniamin.tal@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.133.51 (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Workflow question

 * When doing your church interiors, you do HDR first, and then stitch, right? Not with PTGui's included HDR tool? I'm considering going back to Ganjuran Church (this being the... fourth time, if I go, after the trip which produced this [on the right] and others) with my tripod to see what I can get, and was wondering how best to process it.
 * Actually I used to do the HDR first, then stitch each HDR tone mapped segment. But it was a bit more time consuming and also, each segment of the panorama was processed slightly differently by Photomatix and I sometimes had trouble blending them properly, particularly with skies. So now I use PTGui to create the HDR file and then import that HDR file into Photomatix to tone map it. When there's a lot of people walking around, PTGui does a good job of aligning the images, but doesn't do so well with ghosts such as moving branches or people while creating the HDR file, so in that case, I tell PTGui to output the blend planes only (images of each exposure of the entire stitched panorama) and feed them into Photomatix which can usually remove ghosts more successfully. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try and hunt down the necessary software and see if I can get something working. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On a related note: is it possible/feasible to put together a panoramic tripod head for a Canon 60D on one's own, without buying? I was asking at the shop where I bought my macro lens, and they said that such heads are essentially never used here. A couple people used special tripods (in which I'm assuming the head is included with the legs), but even those are rare; to compare, other camera shops I asked had no idea what a panorama head was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's definitely possible to make your own panoramic head, I've seen a number of tutorials on the internet on how to do it but you'd need to be reasonably good with tools. I think JJ Harrison mentioned to me once that he made one out of blocks of wood. But you need to be aware that each lens has a different internal location that it must rotate around in order to completely eliminate parallax issues. Essentially this is because each lens has a different focal point that the light passes through and inverts. It's usually the point in the lens where the entrance pupil is but given you can't really measure where it is without taking the lens apart, the only way to determine the distance from the tripod mount to the entrance pupil is by mounting it to a panoramic head and running some tests. You do this by finding two vertical lines of different distances from you (a fence post, a door, anything really). You then align them so that they are both in the same vertical plane (in line with the centre of the camera's field of view. Then you rotate the camera left and right and see if the lines deviate from each other as you move it. If so, you aren't rotating the camera around the focal point and need to adjust it. You need to move the camera backwards or forwards on the panoramic head until you no longer find any deviation of the lines. Here's a simple demonstration of how to do it. This is why a proper manufactured panoramic head is good. It has measurements on the arms and it's easily adjustable to find the correct location. If you were to build a panoramic head yourself, creating a mechanism to adjust the camera mount on the arms would be difficult and it would probably make sense to build it with only one camera and lens in mind. That way the mounts are all solidly built in one location and you shouldn't need to ever adjust it.


 * As for why you can't find anyone who knows about panoramic heads, they're kind of a specialist thing. I'm sure there are people using them in Indonesia though. Virtually any interior 360 degree panoramic image has likely been taken with one because you simply cannot accurately rotate the camera around the focal point by hand. Outside, it's not much of an issue because of the greater distances to the subject. Anyway, hope that helps? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that helps a bit; suggests that I'll need to order online, since I'm not very handy with this stuff and the people I know wouldn't understand optics..
 * The 360 degree shots were brought up, but that's when they started talking about specialist tripods rather than heads (though I can still inquire further into that). Then they started talking about the variety of cameras being produced which can go up to 360 degrees without a special tripod, which is not quite what I'm looking for, but would be useful for such things as the mausoleum of Rangga Warsita (I ended up throwing away the results) and probably for the underground mosque at Taman Sari (though what I've got didn't end up too badly; wondering if I should be using plain white for the bottom though...). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what sort of specialist tripods they were talking about. The ability to take good panoramic photos relies entirely on the rotation around the focal point, and a tripod alone can't facilitate that. Yeah, there is a specialist type of camera (and actually an SLR lens)that you essentially point directly at the ceiling and a cylindrical mirror bounces the light from 360 degrees around you into the lens. But the quality is obviously fairly poor. You're having to essentially stretch a camera's vertical resolution across 360 degrees, not to mention that the mirror itself is probably not sufficiently smooth to render the scene properly. Ah well, I wouldn't be too hard on the Indonesian camera shops. I doubt many Western shops would have much of an idea of panoramic heads either. I ordered mine from a specialist online panoramic photography retailer in the UK. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks quite interesting; I'll have to look further into it later. Alright, I'm off to bed. Thanks for all the help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.17.113 (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Acquiring rights to use one of your images for a website homepage
Hi David,

I'm writing on behalf of a small, Australian business based in Sydney and Melbourne - been around for 50 years. We're in the middle of updating our branding and redoing our website. We've fallen in love with your night-time image of Melbourne (view over the Yarra) and wondering if we can acquire the rights to use this image for our homepage and then receive a high-def version appropriate for that use.

Happy to discuss this and also to forward a mock up of our homepage design.

Please contact us through aberystwy85@gmail.com or our website www.johnsonscorporate.com.au.

Best regards, Aberystwy85 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 12/05/2014

St Paul's
Congratulation! That is absolutely brilliant!


 * 1) What is very useful is to have the best angles photographed both vertically and horizontally i.e. the straight view looking down the nave as both a vertical shot and a horizontal shot. The reason is that I use a lot of such photographs in galleries where images of different buildings are compared. See Architecture of cathedrals and great churches.
 * 2) A good view of the choir end of the building that doesn't focus on the mosaic.
 * 3) A ditto view that does focus on the mosaics.
 * 4) A view diagonally across the central space that shows the way Wren made adjustments for the fact that the piers are not equidistant at the corner angles. This is particularly apparent at the gallery level.
 * 5) A view of the dome that is taken at an angle (as well as one looking directly up). The angled view gives a better impression of form and height.
 * 6) One of the side chapels at the west end.
 * 7) One of the magnificent brass screens at the eastern end.
 * 8) The organ case.
 * 9) The pulpit
 * 10) The choir stalls
 * 11)  If you have time for details, then some of the ornamental carving is amazing. Grinling Gibbons was the greater woodcarver in England, and did a lot of the work himself, (as well as designing it) and some of the stone swags and cherubs on the exterior.

Having succeeded at St Paul's, your next target ought to be the Abbey. The set of rules that apply may be quite different, because it is a Royal Peculiar.

Re vertical angles: it doesn't take much- just a little, as you did on the Hammersmith Bridge, and that Town Hall at night. It counters other optical illusions caused by the fact that the diagonals which are actually horizontal are not also being straightened. Ever. Amandajm (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes! You photographed the right screen. I simply forgot it was black. What fun.
 * We must talk about St Stephen's, Walbrook. You have a photo there which emphasises the circular nature of the dome, and the current seating arrangement. Do you have any pics that are not so wide and expansive, and which take in the areas under the coffered ceilings on either side of the dome?  That is a building of extraordinary subtlety that is seriously under-appreciated and mis-understood as a work of architecture. The great chunk of rock forming the altar (like a misplaced piece of stone henge) is a real mistake.

Amandajm (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral
Wonderfully sharp image. It is now heading up the page. I'm sure Rod won't mind as there are several of his pics from a similar angle in the article. I put the sunlit facade back into the gallery, as it suits the gallery better, colourwise. Your image is now adjacent to the Harvey quote that says it is the ..... oh, whatever it was he said.. ., BTW,  when you name an image of a church,  it's called the "west front" rather than the "west face". You've done too much rock climbing! Amandajm (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for noticing. I saw also that Rodw's image was the lead image for the upcoming Featured Article on the main page. At least I was able to improve on one of the images prior. I would have liked to have spent a lot more time in Wells and really done the cathedral and surrounds justice but time was limited in Wells (just a few hours and with family) so that image was really the only one I got. I might have a photo of the cloister that could improve on Rodw's, but I haven't had a chance to upload it yet. Sorry about the naming, I'm more of a photographer with an appreciation for church/cathedral interiors than an expert on religious nomenclature!
 * Oh, on another subject, you may have noticed I'd added a couple of photos to Exeter Cathedral also. I saw your name somewhere in the edit history, but you didn't seem to have been as active on that article and it seems to show in the relatively small size of the article! I also have a photo of the Lady Chapel which I think would be valuable, but as it stands, there is only really space for it in the 'gallery' at the bottom. I'd much prefer to see the article expanded so that there is sufficient room for the Lady Chapel image at the appropriate location in the article as it always seems sad to pile photos at the bottom of an article with almost no context. But there seems to be no mention of the Lady Chapel at all in the article, except to say that the library used to be there. I found an article that has enough information to create a sub-section but I thought you would be far better suited to deciding what is useful to include as I dabble with article expanding from time to time but it's not really my forte. Let me know if you're interested in helping me out with that. If not, I'll give it a go myself when I have a chance. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Using the Picture 'Hopetoun falls'
Hello! I would like to reuse your picture 'Hopetoun falls' in my application for studying graphic design. Am I allowed to use it, if I mention your name on it? Sincerely, Lisa 93.193.26.109 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisa, yes you can but you need to also say that it is licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Hope that helps. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much! :) Yes, it helps a lot, and of course I will mention it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.26.24 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Cathedral
I think this might be more use on your page than on mine:
 * When it comes to photographing the cathedrals, they are not all of equal architectural value.  If you don't get around the whole lot, then you need to have a very clear idea which are the ones that should not be omitted under any circumstance.  These were all built as cathedrals or abbeys. Many buildings that have become cathedrals in the last hundred years are, architecturally speaking, big parish churches.

Priority list

 * Canterbury - the most historically important- magnificent architecture, much old glass
 * Winchester - historically important- the interior is architecturally superb
 * Salisbury - the "textbook" example of English Gothic- the tallest ancient masonry spire in the world.
 * Wells - "the most poetic of English cathedrals"- what more can be said?
 * Lincoln - arguably the supreme masterpiece of English Gothic. One of the greatest, most awe-inspiring buildings in the world.
 * York - a huge and very pretty cathedral with very important stained glass windows.
 * Durham - one of the most important Romanesque buildings in the world.

List two

 * Ely - has a number of unique features, including the central octagon
 * Peterborough - a very very good Romanesque interior, including ancient wooden roof painting, and a stunning, unique, Gothic facade.
 * Norwich - I love this building. The way that the late Gothic vault soars above the much older arcades is brilliant. It is a great interior.
 * Gloucester - The east and west ends are very very different. The east end is a network, like the interior of Kings College, and the east window is the biggest medieval window in the world. It still contains medieval glass.
 * Worcester - very beautiful! You can get a lovely view of the building reflected in the river in the late afternoon.
 * Exeter - architecturally important as the finest example of the Decorated Gothic style - has an amazing vault and many carvings on the west front.
 * Lichfield - pretty, inside and out. It has retained three stone spires.

List three

 * Southwell - Good old Norman/Romanesque west front. The Chapter House has the finest floral carvings of the English Mediaeval period.
 * Hereford - a very interesting building with bits in lots of different styles.
 * Rochester - lovely old Norman building
 * Chichester - Norman and Gothic - lovely spire. user-friendly
 * Chester - very heavily restored but lovely just the same. The choir stalls are exceptional. The Glass is 19th century and modern. We already have a full coverage of the windows.
 * Ripon Cathedral - it would be wonderful if you could get a good photo of the lovely facade of the delightful friendly place.

List four

 * St Albans - Odd building, partly of Roman bricks. some unfortunate restoration.
 * Southwark - Only half the ancient building remains, the rest is 19th century, but good. (South London, just across London Bridge)
 * Bristol - Like Southwark, the nave is a 19th century rebuilding, but the east end has exquisite vaults.
 * Oxford - Always very small, they demolished most of the nave to build the Quad. The pendant vaulting is special.
 * Carlisle - A small building, because it was partly ruined. The best feature is the east window which is large, and has marvellous tracery.

Modern cathedrals

 * Liverpool is a humungously large and over-powering building, (about as big as St Paul's)
 * Truro is an essay in Gothic-Revival with three towers
 * Guildford is very elegant, plain and serene.
 * Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral (RC) is a truly great modern, centrally planned building.
 * Coventry Cathedral is the Modern replacement for what was previously a beautiful "parish church cathedral" i.e. it was a large parish church raised to cathedral status, rather than built as a cathedral or abbey. Burnt out in WWII.

Minsters
There are quite a number of churches in England which have recently been categorised as "minster churches". The implication in the name "minster" is that they once were monasteries, or else had a college of canons. But although some of them are ancient abbeys, this is not necessarily the case for the modern designation. What it signifies is that the church is much too big and architecturally significant for a small local population in a poor suburb or a small town to manage the upkeep. The title recognises the historic and/or architectural value, and draws funding. Some of the abbey churches are very significant and ought not be missed, if you happen to be in the vicinity.

Be aware that "abbey" can signify three different things:
 * A beautiful old abbey building still maintained and in use.
 * A total ruin, left behind by Henry VIII's troops after the dissolution of the monasteries.
 * A stately home like "Downton Abbey" that is built on monastic land awarded to one of the King's supporters. There is sometimes portions of the ancient building incorporated in the Tudor building.

Abbeys that are in use
Many of the oldest abbeys have substantial parts in the Norman style.


 * Selby Abbey - superb tracery in the east window
 * Waltham Abbey - a great building
 * Tewkesbury Abbey - magnificent tower
 * Romsey Abbey
 * St Germans Priory
 * Great Malvern Priory
 * Malmesbury Abbey
 * Boxgrove Priory
 * Worksop Priory
 * Abbey Dore
 * Milton Abbey
 * Hexham Priory
 * Beverley Minster - a collegiate church, not an abbey, exceptional Gothic architecture

If you are going to drive around, then you can plan by region, and if you have time, fit in a few of the abbeys and minster churches on the way. Keep me posted.

Amandajm (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, and thanks very much for your detailed advice. Your lists and explanations about the importance of each are invaluable. I had run through the list of cathedrals and noted which ones to my eyes were superficially interesting, but of course the depth your knowledge is miles ahead of mine and I merely appreciate the aesthetics as I see them. I had already put together a sample itinerary of cathedrals in Google Maps. I don't know how many I could realistically visit in the space of a short trip, but here is a map of the intended route. That's 17 cathedrals, 700 miles and 16 hours of driving, apparently!
 * Earlier this year, I tried to arrange photography access to Winchester Cathedral and spoke to their media director Simon Barwood about it, but he said they'd 'prefer to use our existing portfolio of images' and upload them to Wikipedia themselves. So I invited him to do so, but so far nothing has come of it, despite a few friendly email reminders which has has been ignoring for some time. I suspect I will have some of the same issues with other cathedrals. Sometimes I wonder if it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission with these people. :-)  &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

An interesting list, but I wondered where you would put Bath Abbey, as I'm hoping to go and do some pics there when I get some time.&mdash; Rod talk 14:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rod, I left Bath Abbey of the list!
 * User:Diliff, if you drop things off the list, then its Chelmsford and Leicester, which are both big parish church cathedrals. I haven't mentioned Birmingham Cathedral which, like St Paul's, is Baroque but on a much smaller scale.
 * I would add Bristol Cathedral to the list, in place of one of those two.
 * OK. Winchester- they are much visited and do have some very good images, already.
 * Have you checked on Commons to see which cathedrals are most in need of images?
 * All this is a lot of time and effort, and one would hope that people would be nice about it! I'll see what I can do.

Practical:
 * The process that you are using is time-consuming. It also results in a lot of distortion around the outer parts of the architecture, which, as an architectural writer, I would rather crop out. The "Featured Picture" guys mightn't find it a problem, but then, thy are not the end user. I would suggest that you simply save time and energy by going for the best possible image from the point of view of perspective, which is generally the central part of the wider image.
 * Pics of horizontal format and vertical format are both useful. There are situations where I would prefer a vertical view of the nave, (showing how tall it is) and other where a horizontal view, is preferable in context.

Approach
This is what you tell your contact:
 * A Wikipedia article functions as an effective outreach for the enterprise that is featured in the article.
 * It provides a free promotion of your resource- the cathedral
 * It links to the cathedral's website, so that anyone who wants information about services, opening times, and tourism has a direct connection.
 * The Wikipedia article generally provides an in-depth and referenced coverage of the buildings history, which may be much fuller than that provided on the cathedrals' homepage.
 * Likewise, many of the Wikipedia articles contain a more detailed description of the architecture than is available on cathedral websites.
 * Local editors help to keep information up to date and make relevant changes to the list of personnel etc.
 * Wikipedia articles are open to correction at any time. If a representative of the cathedral notices an error, they can either correct it online, or leave a message on the talk-page of the article requesting that a regular editor make the change.
 * The photos appear as a free resource, and hence to not bring revenue to the building. On the other hand, the articles in which they appear are a significant form of unpaid advertising, and the better the images are, the better for the outreach.

Here is a list of articles that are well written and demonstrate the importance of good images, (or the unfortunate lack of good images).
 * St Paul's Cathedral, gets between 800-1200 hits most days (sometimes much more), 36,000 views last month.
 * Wells Cathedral, 150-250 views a day, 3,000 last month
 * Chester Cathedral is a good looking article with photos taken by my brother-in-law. It gets 80-100 online visitors a day- 2,400 last month. It has the advantage of being in a town on the tourist routes.
 * Carlisle Cathedral (a little-known cathedral in the far north of England) got 1,000 views in the last month
 * Bristol Cathedral, also small and not so well known to tourists, got 40-80 online visitors a day, with 1,900 views in the last month.

Amandajm (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Colourised" images in lead infobox montage on Bristol
A new user has added colour to the images in the montage in the infobox on the Bristol article. As you know I'm not an image expert (although I'm learning from your advice) and I wondered if you would take a look? I've started a space for discussion at Talk:Bristol.&mdash; Rod talk 19:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM A lens, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canon and Zeiss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi David,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Netta rufina (Red-crested Pochard) Male, London Wetland Centre - Diliff.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 9, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-07-09. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)