User talk:JJ Harrison/Archive1

Removal of conversion of utilities from Newline article
Wow, well, maybe your edit was consistent with Wikipedia policy, but removing the conversion utilities made this article about 1000 times less helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.254 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:MLS diffusor.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:MLS diffusor.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! WLU 15:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

My apologies
I had a cursory glance and couldn't see why a search for "c3a" would need to point to an article called "Cement chemist notation". I'll clean it up now. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a go at cleaning the formatting; please fix any mistakes I made, I have zero knowledge on the subject. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosin Rammler distribution
Hello. Could you address my question at talk:Rosin Rammler distribution? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eco-cement
I noticed this edit summary:. Have a care. The article I deleted was part of an aggressive spamming campaign which resulted in a lot of aggravation and at least one editor being banned. The new article is fine, but there was no need to be insulting in the edit summary, I did know what I was doing. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accept the subject can be covered neutrally (I do have some knowledge here, I used to write asphalt plant control systems so have some limited but out of date knowledge of this area) and appreciate your rewrite. No biggie, but please do be on the lookout for spammers and single-purpose accounts; feel free to call the cavalry in case of problems. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Address Image
I've fixed the spelling error now. Thanks! Laïka 11:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Subwoofer reversion
Thanks for notifying me about your changes. I've replied on the talk page for the article. ww (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Weibull distribution
That was hardly "vandalism" but rather an attempt to add a potentially useful reference by someone with little knowledge of mediawiki editing. Please assume good faith! Qwfp (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Freebody diagram
Although Normal force is generally represented as coming from the middle of an object, I see where you're coming from. Are you proposing something like this?. If so, I'll make a variant for you, if you'd like. -- penubag  (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I have time, I'll fix up my picture, thanks for feedback! -- penubag  (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sigma 150mm
Hi Noodle snacks, First off I highly recommend the 150mm as a macro lens - it really is very good. However butterflies are quite large (on the macro scale) so you may be able to find a cheaper lens without dedicated macro stripes. That said I think in the long run you would be better off with the 150mm as I'm pretty sure once you get a taste for the macro you'll be after more power.

In terms of flashes yes you'll definitely need something, 95% of my macro shots were taken with a flash. I managed for quite a while with a shoe flash (580EX) and they do the job fine. However with shadows that really depends on your ambient light. Even with a softbox you're never going to get a shadowless image (well maybe with an umbrella) if you need to provide a significant amount of light. I'm not familiar with the flash cords so can't give you any advice there. Hope that helps! --Fir0002 11:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Meadow Pippit April 2008
Wow - thankyou! Really kind of you to fiddle around with the pic. Much appreciated!-- Seahamlass  07:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no... now someone is asking for a noise reduced version that isn't scaled down... This picture thing is waaaay harder than I thought. I just thought you stuck your pic up, people either supported or opposed, and that was it. It's rather off-putting actually. But I really do appreciate your help!-- Seahamlass  10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh - thankyou! (Again)> Should I remove the original version, so they can't see it ... or is it too late now?-- Seahamlass  11:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Headphone Ref
You requested a ref in the balanced armature section of Headphone for the statement, "The design is not mechanically stable; a slight imbalance makes the armature stick to one pole of the magnet." There is no reference for this, but it is a well known, behavior. It would even be obvious to one looking closely at the design. Do you have a big problem with removing that flag? John (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Shiveluch - 10 July 2007 - iss015e16913.jpg
Hi, I've noticed your name at FPC before, and I was wondering if you could crop out the ISS number at the bottom of the image, please. Cheers, &mdash; Sunday  Scribe  23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! &mdash; Sunday  Scribe  00:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Urban exp photos on commens
Hey bro, why are you trying to have my images on commons deleted. I know where the ip comes from. I don't think that having images with graffiti in them is a valid reason for having the image deleted. If graffiti is vandalism and a crime which could possibly put the author of the graffiti in jail, why would they come forward and claim responsibility for it when doing this could possibly lead to their arrest. I know that you recently had an image that was being used in urban exploration that was deleted. This image was a featured picture, well that's what I thought, and I thought that it should have been deleted due to personality rights violation, I now know that this was a mistake. I believe that this images deletion on the grounds of copyright violation deu to graffiti being in it was unjust and I also believe that you should have fought its deletion tooth and nail. If I knew about the deletion earlier on I would have put my two cents worth in. Cheers Adam (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I had nothing to do with it, I am on a dynamic IP. Furthermore my particular IP address at any given time is used by quite a number of people. So I'd call it a Coincidence. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats ok. It just seemed like a bit of a coincidence. First the revert wars, then the deletion of your picture and then an ip trying to have my images deleted on the same grounds. It was probably once of those losers from the Cave Clan Adam (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Close packing
I see that you recently moved close-packing to close-packing of spheres and then to close-packing of monodisperse spheres. I believe this final title does not conform to the Use the most easily recognized name section of Naming conventions, which says "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". I do not think the term "monodisperse spheres" is in common use, neither will it be used as a search term by general readers. May I suggest that you move the article back to either close-packing or close-packing of spheres, and then start a discussion on the article's talk page to see whether there is a consensus for the longer "monodisperse spheres" title ? It would also be a good idea to notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to get wider input from Wikipedia users who regularly edit mathematics articles. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Intrigued
You show interest in so many things in your user boxes yet seem to show no interest in identifying yourself as a Tasmanian resident or in the tasmanian project - btw the new Gordon dam piccie is good SatuSuro 11:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The other items on you user page are very very impressive (oh for an eos ) - and if you do have similar of Hobart and adjacent locations - you should make sure you dont have photographs for some of the articles! - you might want to check out the project and portal - (in some contexts consdiered dead as a doornail - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tasmania - but hey - like the strathgordon road - hardly a busy urban highway :)   Please do not feel compelled by my admiration of your photos (baby nikons and old pentaxes are my legacy exhausted pixels and jpeg dropout) to even consider your local context as something you have to do - its just that most mainlanders never understand anyways ( I once lived a double life of queenstown/west hobart alternate weeks in the very deep past) SatuSuro 13:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the repair
Thanks for fixing my entry Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Tiled roof over the Weolbong Temple bell. I doubt it was a "bug" that caused my problem but rather my inability to decipher the cryptic directions. Obviously, I'm new here and struggling to figure out procedures. Can you tell me what you had to do, or tell me what not to do to avoid creating that problem again? As far as the the picture goes: I see your point on the sharpness issue but was afraid more sharpening would cause too much noise in the sky portion of the picture (is here the place to discuss this?). The "White point": I presume that you are referring to the finial on the peak of the roof? If you don't mind, what could/should be adjusted there and why. I am the "creator" of the picture and I don't know where the "Eric Rolph" came from. I'm going to assume I can correct that without a revert so will attempt to do so. Thank you again for your time and efforts and I appreciate the fact that you corrected my error(s) rather deleting my entire effort. Steve46814 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moon
Hehe yeah I took the exact same (1.4 TC and all!) photo myself when I first got my 400mm about 6 months ago! But yeah it is quite impressive the magnification you can achieve --Fir0002 02:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah wild birds can be tricky and extra zoom would definitely be welcome, but the massive price jump from the 400mm f/5.6 to even the 500mm f/4 (which User:Mdf puts to great use) doesn't really justify it for me. I'm doing Aerospace Engineering/Law at Monash - yourself? --Fir0002 07:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh right - we'll I'm in first year too! But tell me - when are your exams? Coz seems like you've got a lot of spare time whereas I'm busy with revision! --Fir0002 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pff, busy is for wimps. Real men walk into exams with a blank mind and it all comes to them in an epiphany ;-) As for Mdf's lens, I just yesterday saw his set up on the bird photography article. Thats certainly an impressive combo. Wish he was more active in the community, it would be interesting to pick his brains a bit. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, stalkers! I lol'd when MDF's setup was labeled as a "typical bird photography setup" in the article. I do recommend getting a page magnifier (a plastic frensel lens), figuring out the focal length and making a diy better beamer (the thing on MDF's flash). The ability to throw fill flash a reasonable distance is pretty useful for fill when photographing birds in bright sunlight, particularly for birds in flight. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm dunno - if you were into bird photography you probably would be using a pretty similar rig (i think User:Wwcsig users similar). But yeah I've been meaning to get a better beamer for my 400mm myself - you say you've handmade yours Noodle? Anyways I'd better put myself on a wiki hiatus so I don't keep getting distracted and checking talk pages ;-) --Fir0002 09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, home made from a page magnifier, part of a cardboard box, four skewers and gaffer tape. Only real downside is its a bit longer than the commercial version to match the focal length of the frensel I found. See this for an online example. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Canon 70-200mm f/4
Hey Noodle, I want to purchase a macro lens to use for both macro and landscape and animal pictures. I noticed you took some very nice pictures with the lens. Without a teleconvertor, can you take macro pictures. With a teleconvertor, what is the ratio? Having used the lens, would you recommend I buy the lens? Regards. Muhammad (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry for butting my nose in, but just my two cents. Noodle snacks uses not just a teleconverter but a number of extension tubes which allows the lens to focus much closer (but also means the lens cannot focus to infinity when they are connected to the lens). That said, if you don't mind connecting/removing the extension tubes, it might actually be a more flexible set up than a dedicated macro lens. I suppose it depends on whether you value flexibility higher than ease-of-use. I'm not sure how well autofocus works on this lens with the extension tubes, maybe Noodle Snacks can answer that one. And Noodle, no I wasn't stalking, just followed the thread from Fir002's page. Originally the one above and now your page is on the watchlist. ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I originally got the 70-200 F4L not knowing what exactly I wanted to do with it. I then proceded to get the teleconverter as birds quickly became my main interest. Supposedly the maximum magnification of the lens without any accessories is around 0.21x, with a 1.4x teleconverter you can get around 0.294x. I did find however that the 70-200 gets a little bit soft around the minimum focus distance, and this is exaggerated with the teleconverter, so it's not a combo i'd recommend for macro purposes. I purchased a kenko extension tube set which gets me to slightly over 1x maximum magnification. High quality results are definately possible with that setup. The only real weakness is that the working distance isn't as good as a dedicated macro lens because maximum magnification is achieved at 70mm and the lens with a stacked set of tubes is 24.5cm long. Generally for insects and the like I just leave the whole set of tubes on there, changing the focal length changes the effective magnification, I usually only have to start removing them if its a fairly big subject. The autofocus works fine with tubes, but like a macro lens it is often more convienient to use manual focus. I would recommend a 70-200 F4L, a set of extension tubes and a flash/softbox over a 70-200 and a macro lens by a long shot. I'd also have a look at the sigma 70-200 F2.8. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. The sigma 70-200 is out of my price range. Seeing the quality of the Sigma 150mm, I think I'll go for that now. I better save and buy the 70-200 f/2.8 later I think, than buying the f4 now. Do you know if the kenko extension tubes work well with macro lenses for greater magnification? Thanks again for the help. Regards, Muhammad (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems. The sigma 70-200 f2.8 isn't that much more expensive, but I do think its the better buy, offering more low light flexibility and a greater degree of background blur. What is more important than the macro lens/extension tube setup you buy is the lighting, make sure you at least get a flash and a softbox. There is no other good way to freeze the motion at narrow apetures. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I did notice the lighting part you mentioned. I think I will go with the 430ex for now, the 580 is a bit expensive. When you say "get the flash off camera", do you mean that the flash is not connected to the camera and is remotely triggered? Thanks for info about the extension tubes. Muhammad (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Calander
I am a new user so my apologies if I am not using correctly. I am interested in using one of your shots on a calendar for distribution to charities to sell to raise money for their cause. Would you please contact me regarding this. Susanmaree (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow!
Your photos are amazing! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused about date
Hello, I'm a little confused, on your image, (Image:Gordon_Dam.jpg), how is the featured date "month=12" (December) were only in Nov., is it a future featured pic? Sorry I'm not too familiar w/ the how featured pictures are selected. Great pics btw -- GateKeeperX (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Need Your Expertise...
Hi! I am looking for consensus on the image to be used for Barack Obama. I see your name on the FPC page all the time and hope you can weigh in on which photo you think is better by visiting Talk:Barack Obama. Obviously this is no FP candidate, but I'd like to get people with some experience in that realm to comment (composition, quality, etc). Spare a minute and help out? Thanks! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

May I please ask for your expert opinion?
Hi Noodle snacks, I'd like to ask for your expert opinion about this image of mine, if of course you have a time: Image:Fata morgana of the sun glitter.jpg. The image was not post processed at all, except cropping, and nothing in the image is a camera artifact.All colors are represented the way they were in reality. I saw everything with my own eyes before I took the image, yet some people believe that there's some artifacts, and that green and red edges came from Chromatic_aberration. May I please ask you, if there's any way to prove that the image correctly represents the scenery from the photography point of view? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Noodle snacks, Thank you for the fast response! May I please make myself clear? I am 100% sure that my image is not CA. In other words for me it is absolutely not a question, if it is CA or it is not. I know it is not. The blue(green) and red colors came not from Refractive indices but rather from green and red rims of the sun magnified by the mirage of sun glitter. I saw everything including the blue (green) colors before I took the image. The only question for me is, if it could be proven maybe not even by  physics of the matter (it is not a matter, it is a mirage), but rather from the photography point of view. I know you are a very, very good photographer. That's why I thought you might be the right person to ask the question.Would it help, if I upload original image? I cropped the image only because it is very tilted. I was too excited to see this amazing mirage to think about holding my camera in the right position. Please do tell me, if you have no time.I'll understand. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Urbex image
I've put up both images in the Talk:Urban exploration page so that everyone can discuss and come to a conclusion on which image would be better or a third/fourth image may be better. Brothejr (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My vote on you photo
I gave an honest opinion on your photo. I was going to vote support until I had a closer look at the image based on other users  comments and simply agreed with them. If I can find a way to prove that the background has not been faked or photo shopped I will change to vote support-Adam (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The photo does look great but possible falls short of being a fp. There may be plenty of people that dissagree with me and vote in favour of your foto. You might get luck with this one eventually. Cheers -Adam (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My comment on Featured picture candidates/Picea Pungens Young Cones.jpg
I'd like to apologize for messing with your integrity as a photographer. Fake is not the word I meant, and I hope you'll take me seriously in my apology. I've uploaded a crop of the image highlighting an example of where I'm dissatisfied with the background. Again, I'm sorry.  Spencer T♦C 15:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding Eritrean photo
I don't know much about geocoding, but see my response on my talk page —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

VPC timer glitch
Sorry about the confusion: there was a glitch in the timer template. As I have very unpredictable internet acces at present, I was unable to fix the mistake until now. All sorted now. The project is underway, so feel free to spread the news around and nominat some pictures. Elucidate ( light up ) 12:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your noms! I've got to go now, but see if you can get some other editors to participate. Thanks, Elucidate ( light up ) 12:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great. Your photos make a significant contribution to the encyclopaedia. I'm sure I'll see many more of your images at VPC. Thanks, Elucidate ( light up ) 13:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Today is a good day to sue
Just thought you might be interested in this. I forgot to mention it when I first got back to London last Friday, but the Metro newspaper (free morning paper, similar to MX in Australia, not sure if they do Hobart tho) ran a science story on the leap second and used your image of the Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory, only cropped and mirrored to face the right instead, and there was no attribution or mention of the licensing. See here. It's a bit frustrating when images are used without any respect for the terms that Wiki's images are licensed under. I don't know if you're particularly concerned but I thought you would at least want to see your image in use on the other side of the world. The instances we can find with simple web searches is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. I've actually started rewording my license terms to be more explicit, as I tend to be contacted regularly to ask what the deal is with licensing, meaning people are confused by it all, and rightly so I suppose. At the moment I'm saying "See license terms. Summary: Attribution is required (to DAVID ILIFF) and use of this image and any subsequent derivatives are required to also be released under the same license - contact me to discuss less restrictive commercial licensing terms.", although it is probably also worth mentioning that as long as these terms are met, you don't need my approval to use the image but under any other conditions, you must first contact me to negotiate the use... anyway, I'm rambling. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

COM:FPC satire
Hey, I loved your satirical page about the com fpc. Sorry the image was not promoted. Muhammad (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture
Hi, I'd like to use one of your pictures, how would you like to be acknowledged? Please send me an email if you want to know more. Knaper (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

:D
Just in case you haven't seen this already:. You've gotta wish we poor en:fpc reviewers could rise to the level of the commons people ;)! --Fir0002 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh Muhammad comment above looks interesting - please share a link! --Fir0002 21:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Focus Stacking
Hey, I am impressed with your images, particularly the one currently at FPC. I tried focus stacking on a few insects and flowers but the there is just to much movement, especially with the flowers. How do you manage to keep them still? What software do you use to stack them? Muhammad (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will have to ask my mum's permission now to use the freezer for the insects. :) Muhammad (talk)

re:Polarisers
Thanks for the advise on Polarisers. I will definitely look into buying one but I may look into spending a couple of grand on a good camera with a decent lens first. I might be getting a cannon 450D or something better. Also if you are into urban exploration you may have a slight interest in some of these pics in this article. Took em today, I actually had no idea that these tunnels were there and how large they were. Nothing special about the pics though. Cheers .        Adam (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:FPX
I agree. I went ahead and made a template. Here it is. Do you have downsampled any image around 2.2mp for nomination at FPC?:)

Also check this out. A different kind of macro. Muhammad (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

FPC Closures
Hey Noodle snacks, see you've been doing a good job helping keep the FPC closings up to date.

Can I just make one recommendation. You are regularly deleting the break tag from the nomination subpage as you close, e.g., this and this. The problem this causes is that the nominations all run in to each other making the archive very hard to follow (depending on how long that nomination is and the structure of the following nom).

Different people do it differently, but I usually replace the line with the closing decision, mainly to try to indicate that no further votes are accepted. I think MER-C does the same thing.

Keep up the good work, --jjron (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I take you meant you meant the preview on the subpage - sounds odd. Anyway, looks good now. BTW, it's getting a bit sad when you have to close your own nominations - seems to take some of the fun out of getting that "promoted image" message on your talkpage :-). --jjron (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Watch FPC talk. Someone (but can't imagine who...) will probably complain about it. I was going to close some of yours when I got time, but looking at the archive there's been a few people closing here and there, so I thought someone else would get around to it. --jjron (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thought it looked like people were avoiding potentially controversial ones, though as you said those ones of yours weren't really. Agree re Strickland Falls, if it's still there next time I'm on I might close it and also some of the others if they're still laying around. May even do the Delist ones, some of them are getting pretty long in the tooth now. And while we're at I spose someone needs to make a decision on that damn Dublin rail map! (I'm not rushing into doing them cos I'm working on a pretty slow connection, so closing can be a bit painful waiting for the various pages to load). --jjron (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yah, turning off the images does speed things up, but makes it tricky to view pages like FPC :-). Also, like with doing closing say, you miss it if you accidentally screw up an image link or something. That's OK, I'm pretty used to the slowness really. Won't do any closing now cos it's getting too late, but I see Wronkiew's jumping in there anyway. --jjron (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific names
Hi. A small (but justified) comment. When you talk about organisms, it is customary, and in the biological world obligatory, to write the scientific names of genera and species in italics. Higher taxa are not italicized. E.g. Hominidae, Homo sapiens. Species names are not capitalized, everything higher is. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Muhammad (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Strickland Falls.jpg

 * Now isn't this more exciting! :-) --jjron (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, have just noticed you've given yourself the wrong promotion template above - you've used the 'Nominator' rather than the 'Creator' template. --jjron (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I may have left that comment on FPC talk after you'd already fixed them. Nonetheless, it's a good reminder to others. Yeah, I always reckon that Creator one should be listed first, because, IMO, that's a higher honour yet you're more likely to see the other one first and use it erroneously. I'm sure they also used to display with different coloured backgrounds, but looking above that doesn't seem to be the case now. BTW, I created my own closing summary a few months ago when I was doing a bit of closing which, IMO, is in a more logical order for copy and pastes etc, and cuts out the guff you don't need after you've done a few. It's slightly out of date now, but I think the only thing that's really changed is the tag seems to have been changed to  . --jjron (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Frozen Pinecone
I have added the variety and description. Cheers, Ṝ ed  M arkV iolinist Drop me a line 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

VPC
Thanks for your contributions! We hope to see you around a lot more at WP:VPC!!! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pamukkale FPC
Could you come back to it? I've added a second original for consideration. Thanks in advance, ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

White Pelican
Forgot to say thanks for the enhancing of the white pelican photo I took :) Dakoman (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Rufous Fantail
How is three opposes plus one opposing the alt, versus four supports including the self-support, a "no consensus" result? Please explain. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, you should not have been closing this nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or this one or this one. What on Earth were you thinking? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposes count double, and you never close something in which you !voted. It would be good if you could review your own closes again. Thanks and best wishes, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not to close that on which i'd voted, but frankly the backlog would be a mile long if i didn't Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see you asking for help. You simply chose to take things into your own hands. I'll remind you that your "no consensus" closure is still waiting to be changed to something more in line with the views expressed by the community. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to change it as previously stated Noodle snacks (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Impact Sprinker Mechanism 2.jpg

 * Thanks Noodle snacks (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing check
Hate to say I told you so... ;-)

Just a couple of questions. On Featured picture candidates/Shea Smith quarterback you've said that Edit1 was promoted, but the original has got the FPC template and little star. Something needs to be fixed (obviously my preference is to the edit).

On you've missed the promoted image's filename in the template.

You may also be interested in the answer to this if he can help out: User_talk:Brian0918.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look after yourself. On the bright side, at least you wouldn't have felt like going out much so would have plenty of time to edit Wiki! BTW have made these edits re the Shea Smith one (have to replace the original with the FP version). Will see if anything else jumps out. --jjron (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-shoot
Thought you'd like to know, I've re-shot that photo. Picture peer review/Secondary growth, cheers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Noodle snacks,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Long-billed Corella.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 15, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-15.  howcheng  {chat} 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured Pictures Thumbs
Hi, I changed the order in which these pictures appear at WP:Featured Pictures Thumbs: Hope that's okay. Also, I'm going to create Thumbs 16 tomorrow unless you have any objections. Wronkiew (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tanzanian Muslim Protesters
 * White Pelican
 * Gustave Doré's Arrival of Charon
 * Construction at Mount Rushmore

Pelican Photo
Hi, you said that your edit of my pelican photo because a featured photo, but I can't see the featured photo barnstar on any of the edits... Am i just being oblivious?

Image Updated
Hi Noodle snacks: I updated my image at Picture peer review if you're still interested in commenting. Thanks for the help - I very much appreciate it. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferlal?
I have a question concerning this "wild domesticated goose": is it feral? Thanks for the nice pictures! Berrucomons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.152.37.33 (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-shoot #2!
Hi, I've re-shot that photo. Would you mind taking a look please, cheers. Ryan <font color="CornflowerBlue">4314   (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted one of your closures
Just to let you know: Featured_picture_candidates. Let's wait for consensus before we close, and in addition, let's not close discussions about our own pictures or where we are nominators or !voters. Regards, <font color="#ba0000">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * White Pelican was closed a week ago. There was no complaint about it at the time, and none of the reviewers have made additional comments. I think at this point it would be best to leave it closed. If the differences between the edits are significant, it might be a candidate for delist-and-replace. Alternately, we could discuss the closure at WT:FPC. Wronkiew (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelp Gull is a Pacific Gull
The image that you recently uploaded to the Kelp Gull article was terrific, unfortunately it was actually a Pacific Gull. Could you please take steps to fix it up on Commons and then replace the Pacific Gull's poor taxobox pic with yours, cheers. Aviceda  talk  10:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Promoted

 * Thanks Noodle snacks (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the heads-up about MERC's tool. Is it open source? Can we fix it? <font color="#ba0000">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cropping
Do you crop really really tight on purpose? I've noticed it on several of your pictures. <font color="#ba0000">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible photo op
Hey Noodle Snacks,

I don't suppose you live close by to this? --Fir0002 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Silvereye
The Silvereye on its article page is low resolution, so please at least upload appropriately to that article. Your pictures are gorgeous. --KP Botany (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That image was in the gallery? Shame on you for not putting your stunning little beauty higher up in the article.  I would like to see it in the taxobox.  Although some may argue for the overall shape of the bird, when a picture is this gorgeous readers should be slapped with it up, rather than having to scroll down for it.  Please be a lot more aggressive about putting your images in the articles if you're spending all that time standing still to get these gorgeous shots of native fauna on native flora.  --KP Botany (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Little Wattlebird

 * Wow, that was quicker than expected. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Revisit
Hello. Would you consider revisiting Featured picture candidates/Les Eclaireurs Lighthouse. Rights to the photo you preferred have been granted. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

VPC in Wiki Signpost?
Hey there! I had a thought - why not write an article about VPC and get it in an issue of the Wikipedia Signpost to draw more attention to the project!? So, if it's possible, could you answer a few questions with as many details as possible (I think I might have some of the facts wrong)?

What do you think of the current Valued Pictures system?
 * Not too bad, every new member comes in with a different idea though and the people running the show need to keep matters simple. It is likely that VPs will pass at a higher rate than FPs in the future and closing procedures etc need to scale appropriately.
 * For simplicity, and to allow easy movement between FPC and VPC of users the criteria needs to be the same, just with looser technical requirements. A completely different process will confuse people and make it harder to move between the two. I don't think we want the degree of segregation found at COM:VI vs COM:FPC vs COM:QI.

What do you see the main purpose of VPC to be?
 * In my view VPC will hopefully benefit the encyclopaedia by providing motivation for photographers that lack the technical means to take featured quality photographs, most of the birds I see for example are not in range of my equipment, and I can't afford a high end super-telephoto. It will also hopefully provide motivation for the restoration of important, but poorer quality historic images.

Are you happy with the success that VPC has experienced so far?
 * Its a loaded question, but frankly something has to be done to increase the volume of nominations. I think part of the problem is poor advertising, and part of the problem is that a VP lacks the recognition that a FP delivers.

'''Where do you see VPC in 6 months? 1 year? 5 years?'''
 * In theory the volume should exceed that of FPC.

'''At 6 successful VP nominations, you're one of the greatest contributors to the project so far. Any comment?'''
 * The one month article requirement is probably a good thing to ensure stability, but it does make nominating images more difficult. In my case it lowers the nomination rate, since I have to remember to go back and check that an image has done its time before nominating.

Any more thoughts/tidbits/ideas?
 * Many wikiprojects (birds and plants) are quite active on their talk pages dealing with new images, perhaps some of the regulars there could be encouraged to submit VPs. Wikiprojects could be more generically encouraged to count FPs and VPs to their names, as well as Featured or Good articles for example.
 * For the time being the volume of nominations could be increased by going through say the last 6 months FP archives and submitting technical failure. It might serve to pad out the volume for the time being. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Intothewoods29 (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Port Arthur Church
Hey. Nice timing on the tessellated pavement. I stayed at the hotel just out the back of there last time I was in Tas. Went out in the morning, probably about 8am, and took some shots which came out OK. It was back when I had only recently had gotten the A95, same time I took the shots from Mt Wellington. I never got around to uploading any of those to Wiki, but I think you're now making anything I got back then pretty much redundant anyway. Shame about the Church, it should be possible to get something pretty good there if you get the timing right. Are you a subscriber or something - from memory it's pretty expensive to get in to Port Arthur? --jjron (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only been to PA once, would have been the end of 1993, but remember it as being expensive then (though admittedly I didn't have much money at the time). I was going to return that time I stayed at Eaglehawk Neck, but ran out of time and was put off by the cost. Yeah, you'd need some type of discount entry to keep returning. Found something on my credit card statements from the time about Lufra Investments, or something like that, at Eaglehawk Neck, so that'd be the place. I was tempted to stay at the Pirate's Bay Penzance Motel (not sure if that's exactly right) simply due to its claim as being the oldest Motel in Australia, but it looked a bit seedy and rundown :-). I think your photo would have been just before sunrise? I'm never certain exactly how they classify it. Also I assume the times given are for Hobart, and you'd be bit east of there, so would be marginally earlier. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All those tourist destinations are pretty much the same, charging too much, but they know the tourists will pay it - how can they explain that minuscule difference for a two year pass? Freycinet Peninsula was a far north as I went that last time I travelled over there. Took some reasonable photos up that way, around Coles Bay, down Bicheno, etc again have never got around to uploading them, and probably never will now. None would really be FP quality, but in general better than what was in most of the articles. I was considering doing the walk around to Wine Glass Bay, but ultimately was on a pretty short time schedule. Costs to get into NPs in Tas are quite steep unless you get an annual pass, so that discourages too when you don't have the time to spend. Heh, my life is spent on dialup - kind of discourages me from uploading that much. Really should put on broadband at home sometime this year. BTW, did you see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Valued_picture_candidates. Haven't seen you at VP for a while; are you still participating? --jjron (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Noodle snacks,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Crescent Honeyeater Edit2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 7, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-02-07.  howcheng  {chat} 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New Holland Honeyeater
I think you have a great eye for color and composition. --KP Botany (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I live on the other side of the world. However, they are such lovely birds that my guess is your local native plant society will know exactly what to plant. If not, try the local good quality nursery, or if there is a university extension office/outreach, they probably have a garden/horticulture teacher, and these are the best sort of people: local to your area, growing their own gardens, and will know the best native plants for the birds.  --KP Botany (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Film Scans
Hi Noodle snacks, Thank you for interest in my shark images. I do have negatives, but I have no scanner neither for films nor for print. The images I nominated were digital pictures of my old prints. I took them using my Canon. Once I was going to have these films to be scanned in a camera store, but they told me that they cannot guarantee the quality. So I never did. I love both of your tessellated pavement images very much. It is so strange that some people oppose it. I've been to Tasmania few years ago. I wish I knew about this place back then. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, to scan the film in a shop is quite expensive. We've been to Tasmania only for 2 days on our way to Ross Sea, Antarctica. First day we took a tour to Port Arthur. Second day we rented a car and went to Mount Field National Park. It was funny to drive on the wrong side of the road for the first time in my life. Few years later we went back to Australia. We drove from Perth to Exmouth, where I snorkelled with whale sharks and Manta rays and then we went to Monkey Mia. We've been to Lizard Island and Kakadu NP too. We loved Australia. What a great nature you have! I live in San Francisco. Congratulations with the promotion of your absolutely beautiful image! Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Renaming
Taking you up on your offer. Thank you! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

NYPD
Hi there, I saw you made an edit of my picture. Besides the crop and different WB you also made it sharper. Would you mind sharing with me how you did this? I like the outcome :). Thanks in advance, Massimo --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ND filters again
Hey, just following up on the conversation we had a while back about ND filters, I did read somewhere that you can actually create a variable strength ND filter by simply connecting two circular polarisers together and then rotating the outer one, and apparently it varies from 4x to 'almost black' (not sure exactly how many stops that corresponds to, but presumably way beyond most needs. I'd never thought of that before, but it makes sense. Have you tried it, and is the effect the same as a genuine ND filter? I ask because I've decided to get a ND filter. I already have a 77mm circular polariser (the majority of my most used lenses are 77mm: 17-40mm f/4L, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 700-200mm f/2.8L) so it probably wouldn't cost much more to get a second polariser than to get a quality ND filter. Alternatively, I could get a very cheap plexiglass ND filter, but as you mentioned at the time, cheap ones might result in internal reflections/flares. Granted, most uses of an ND filter would be things like waterfalls, but I've considered using them in night scenes where exposures of just a couple of seconds results in distracting ghosts of people moving, whereas an ND filter would make them largely disappear with exposures of 10 seconds +. But night scenes usually do have strong light sources, so I don't want to make them worse if I don't have to.. your thoughts? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agaricus
Here's a selective sharpen of the stalk. Hope it'll be useful. I deliberately didn't change anything else for now, but happy for anyone else to make a subsequent edit. <font color="#ba0000">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issue
NS, not sure if you've seen that there was a copyright issue with one of your photos. I didn't do any research on it, so if you fixed in the past, just disregard this. This was just an FYI. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been through the entire collection of FPs on WP (not just searching this out; I was on another mission) and found no others that had this problem. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 01:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FPC nom
I hope you won't mind, but one of the images in your gallery was so fantastic that I felt I had to nominate it immediately. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment re: Featured picture candidates/San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
Hey Noodle snacks, could you have a look at the nomination again? I have now adressed your concerns. Thanks,  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 01:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Extension tubes
Hey noodle, I was asking around and since you probably have the most experience with extension tubes, I was hoping you could answer a few of my questions. With my 150mm sigma lens, how many mm of tubes can I effectively add? What magnification will I get? Is there a significant decline in image quality? Is there any possibility of damage to the camera due to the extra weight? What would the working distance be at such a distance? Any other information? --Muhammad (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So it is possible to attach around 280mm of tubes to a 150 mm lens? About the working distance, do you have a formula for that? Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In a reverse mount, what exactly is used? The camera, followed by the reverse mounting ring followed by the lens in reverse? And I read that specific rings are used for cameras, do you know the one for the 400D? Does the choice of lens affect the ring to be used? Using two different lenses joined by a ring, is that also achieved by reverse mounting? Sorry for disturbing ;) --Muhammad (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Last question, the width of the macro coupling ring, should it be the size of the filter of the main lens or does it depend on the camera, in my case 67-52mm? Thanks again for all the help and sorry for any inconvenience caused. --Muhammad (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New Norfolk, Tasmania
Just to note - if you manage to exceed yourself and do a better version of this, I'd just do a delist and replace =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Perspective
Are you familiar with GIMP software?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of Valued picture candidates/Victory Monument?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell me are the two sides of the monument now vertical. That is what I was correcting.  They were previously 88.5 and 89 degrees instead of 90.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the sky so pale now? I liked the previous richness of the sky.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am translating what you are saying to mean that in order to see the figure at the top of the monument, you adjusted color balance in a way that made the sky more pale as a side effect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Filters are you kidding me filters (in Jim Mora's voice). I use a point and shoot dude.  I just make pics for my articles. How about my second attempt at Picture peer review/Rock & Roll McDonalds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that is bad. Wait until you see my Regent's Park perspective correction.  Each building is bowed.  Portions are tangent to the straight vertical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is Picture peer review/Regents Park.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you help me clean these pics up?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is McDonald's correctible?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your response sounds like: "Maybe by an expert like me. Not likely for you."  Do you think you might be able to attempt to correct this one. If so, don't correct over the top of my edit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do I correct a barrel distortion with GIMP?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to do one or two other basic perspective corrections tonight. Maybe later this week I will look at the barrel correction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tachysphex specie.jpg
Hey NS, there is an edited version of the image you supported at the nomination. Could you please comment? --Muhammad (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Userpage
Hi Noodle Snacks!

Just an FYI that there is a discussion regarding your userpage at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Specifically, it relates to the first paragraph on your page, where you state a procedure for folks to purchase licenses for the images. That bit is in conflict with WP:NOTWEBHOST, a Wikipedia policy that prohibits using a user page for off-wiki personal purposes such as this. I think if you remove that paragraph, then there's no problem.

Lastly, may I say you take some truly stunning pictures! Arakunem Talk 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You already provide a link to your personal web site, which is acceptable on a user page. If you wanted to put your offer to license the photos over at http://www.noodlesnacks.com it might be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gorgeous photos. Wow. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Polemonium reptans 2009 edit.jpg
Hey Noodle snacks, I was wondering if you could tell me what adjustments you made to File:Polemonium reptans 2009 edit.jpg so that I could do them on the original Photoshop file and reupload it. I noticed some jpeg artifacting in my original version, so I'm going to save it at a lower compression to improve the image quality. Did you just do a normal sharpen, or sharpen edges, or something more complicated? Any guidance on the levels adjustment? Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * On an added note, congratulations on being the author of the 50th valued picture! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 00:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Macro and sharpening advise
Thanks for the advise. I've had a hard time figuring out the DOF issue. Your suggestions are very helpful. I had been trying to use a smaller aperture to get better DOF, but as you point out it ruins the focus. I didn't know that was the cause before. Thanks so much for that tip. Now if only I could get the wind to cooperate! Regarding File:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg, I went ahead and redid it before I got your reply. To deal with the noise issue, I actually hand selected the flowers and applied the sharpening only to them. This kept the background nice and smooth, but gave some needed punch to the flowers. It definitely wasn't as efficient as your method, but it seems to have worked OK.

Also, as I noted on the FPC page, although your version has more definition, I'm concerned that it is actually a bit too sharp, as the petals seem to have lost much of their softness and appear a bit more papery than is natural, IMO. (Also there is a bit of a halo effect around the edge of the topmost flower.) Of course it is a matter of subjective opinion and I can't say one is really better than the other :) Thanks for taking the time to work on it and give me some ideas for improvement.

Regarding lighting, I have definitely discovered you are right about needing to use flash. File:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg was my first flower image using flash and it made a huge difference. Unfortunately, I don't have a good lighting set-up at the moment, just a single handheld flash. What do you recommend for field work?

Thanks again for your encouragement and guidance. I still have a ton to learn and am just getting my feet wet :) Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Asilidae Stichopogon sp.
Thanks. I haven't worked with raws as yet, (just piling up on my pc) but I will give it a try --03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

180 mm
Got any insects yet? Would love to see the lighting with the new lens. --Muhammad (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No need telling you they're great. The myrmecia lighting is very nice. The apis portrait is a bit soft, but great wow. Can't wait till I get some tubes --Muhammad (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria
It would probably be best if you replaced the currrent image in the description section with one of yours- we've had two images there, both nominated for featured picture, it would be nice if we could finally have one promoted! J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly, but it could be a member of one of the subspecies. I doubt it would be anything else. Casliber would be the guy to ask! J Milburn (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Noodle,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Silvereye.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 18, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-18.  howcheng  {chat} 21:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Banksia photos
G'day,

Thanks for your photos, especially the Banksia ones.

I thought you might like to know that the best photos of a Banksia inflorescence are ones that are taken mid-anthesis. Before anthesis, the pistils are still trapped inside the perianths. After anthesis, the perianths have split and the pistils have broken free. Depending on the respective colours of the flower parts, this can result in a more or less remarkable change, which gradually sweeps through the flower spike, usually from bottom to top, but sometimes from top to bottom. The ideal photo captures the flower spike mid-change.

Permit me to protest that I'm only telling you this because I presume you would want to know. I think your photos are great, I very much appreciate your efforts, and will gladly accept whatever Banksia photos come my way.

Hesperian 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise you'd nominated it for anything; I just saw you put it on the B. marginata article. I see now it was an FP nom.... Hesperian 13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Melaleuca, Tasmania
Hi Noodle, Our trip to Melaleuca was six years ago so I don't have any idea of current costs but we took a morning-flight with a company called 'Par Avion' (I think!) for $140. They originally were going to fly us out of Cambridge Airport (close to the main Hobart A/P) but were happy to pick us up from the airfield at Bruny Island after they postponed for a couple of days following bad-weather. We were there in February and were lucky to catch one Orange-bellied Parrot, I believe most will be in Victoria during winter. Yellow-throated Honeyeater, Green Rosella and Beautiful Firetail were all fairly easy to see from the hide there. Hope this helps, Tom. Aviceda  talk  09:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)