User talk:Fir0002/Archive 4

Hello. Remember that panorama of mountains you wonderfully stitched for me ? [1] I have just been in the same place this weekend but the weather was completely different. It rained all day. So I have made similar pics from the same place like the last time. It would be nice to see the changes of weather. Can you take a look at these pics? They are at: [2], [3], [4], [5],[6] . Thank you very much. I think it could be problem with clouds as the wind blowed stronger and they were faster. Thank you in advance. - Darwinek 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow again! Thank you very much. I use Photoshop regularly but still can't do these miracles. Winter panorama could be great too but it is quite cold there in winter and often too much snow to get there :). Fall panorama wouldn't be so much striking as the vast majority of these forests are conifers. Thank you again. - Darwinek 10:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fir,

Whilst I'm applaud your new panoramic sunset photo (nice job), you could have been a little more diplomatic with your edit summary when replacing the previous image.

I notice that we also now have a bit of a POV issue on the sunset page, in that all sunsets appear to occur within the vicinity of Swifts Creek. On the whole I agree with User:Dschwen's decision to remove the gallery (well its a bit borderline), so it would be good to replace one or the other of the images there with an alternative from Commons. For one thing, the article really ought to have a sunset image that shows the sun at or near the horizon - one involving a sunset over the sea is another idea. -- Solipsist 08:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Where did you get the pic of the chapel from? Now it seems like it is a Chapel that was on the Island of Ensay (Scotland), so not sure of its relevance to our article. Why not put it into the currently non-existent article on the island instead? --jjron 08:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; I made the article and shifted the pic into it. Hope that's OK. --jjron 08:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly give the source of the image (now on Ensay, Outer Hebrides)- an approx date would be good. Also what is the source of the comment about the image of the church because I don't think it makes sense - see User_talk:Jjron#Ensay, Outer Hebrides?--JBellis 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The description still doesn't make sense to me, dark ages society in Scotland was pretty primitive - I'm not aware that there were even prisons, never mind rehabilation trips for convicts. Could it be a typo for converts? Also what is the date of the book - it would give some idea of the age of the sketch. Thanks--JBellis 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went up to the snow with my family last week. Both along the great alpine road and at dinner plain I tried to pick the spot from which your panoramas had been taken. Thanks for staying on board; your photos are fantastic and have been enjoyed by my whole family (including my uncle who's a professional wedding photographer).Don't worry too much about VCE, I'm sure you'll do fine. :-) • Leon 10:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have the photo in front of me, but I thought one of them may have been taken from a stretch of road on the Bright side of the main village, although there was nowhere to stop so perhaps it wasn't. We came up through Bright but returned via Omeo. If you're in Swifts Creek, we saw a huge slide there which my sister wanted to go on - but it was shut ... also, we realised afterwards it was in a school of some sort. Oops.• Leon 11:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swifts' Creek if I remember correctly struck my dad and I as being really green, which is good because I don't like endless fields as scenery, or at all really :-(. It's certainly wonderfully located (even though my sense country geography sucks)! Our family doesn't usually head out north east so it's a good change. • Leon 12:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment was recently posted by Samsara on the Siberian tiger FPC. It concerned placing the image in another article (see the subpage for the exact comment). I have now added the image to the stretching article, so you may or may not consider changing your vote (this is just to inform you of the change). Thanks. --Tewy 00:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your recent change to the Bullfrog article. The new photo is barely better than the original in focus (if any), and does not show the distinguishing characteristics of the frog. Generally, a photo of a frog should be of the same posture as that of the original. A photo should show the tympanum (which can only just be seen in the new photo), dorsal patterning and general shape of the frog. The new photo barely shows any of these. Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have moved it down the article a bit, and reinstated the old one for the taxobox. --liquidGhoul 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be able to lighten the background on this image Image:Australian coat of arms 1912.jpg. Thanks. --Peta 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks heaps better. --Peta 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot access your wiki e-mail, so I answer here. Yes please, I'd like you to make a try... The image in question is here - the editor of Live Steam magazine loves it, wants it on the cover, and we have discussed the low resolution. The problem is, she wants to crop it to a vertical format, thus using only half of the available pixels... If you can do something, it would be great! (I've done what I can in Photoshop, but need something even better...) You can find my e-mail address low down on this page. Thanks, --Janke | Talk 08:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fir0002 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for mentioning the votes on FPC page which weren't real. I promise those weren't my socks since the IP was diffrent than mine. (I have the same IP for at least a week). I took the votes off. And you got a nice page dude. Arad 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations! - Mikeo 00:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Canada goose flight cropped and NR.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 30, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 17:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

And again... ! Raven4x4x 09:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Curlew - natures pics.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on November 3, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, but i think that this user supported my images because he is Iranian (Pejman is an Iranian name) and those images were from Iran. And maybe because I told some Iranians on Wikipedia to comment on my images and FPCs. Anyways, User Pejman47 is not a recently created user. I think user Babayi might have the same case, although his account is new. Congratulations for your Featured Pictures again. I'm pretty sure Pejman's votes weren't just give aways. Thank you Arad 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, was down in Bairnsdale on Sat and noticed that the flower beds are coming out in full bloom. Could be time to get some good pics, e.g., of the rotunda. In a couple of weeks the trees will probably even have leaves and look more attractive.

It was too late in the day when I got there and the light was all wrong, so I didn't take any. I probably won't get down there again at a reasonable time for maybe a couple of months, so just thought if you are heading down there you might go prepared to take a few snaps.

Re the rotunda, I personally think that angle of my pic is the best, i.e., with the Commercial Hotel in the background, but there's nothing wrong with trying a few different angles. --jjron 03:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fir. A template you used to use to tag your images, {{Template:Fir0002}}, has been moved to User:Fir0002/Copyright. The relevenat disucssion can be found here. Feel free to move it somewhere else, I just picked an arbitrary place. Just a heads up, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ... I think --Fir0002 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, lovely sky. I especially like the first one (well 02 actually), despite the second one being taller and having - is it the moon or Venus - in the sky.

As you said, perhaps not as informative as mine, but as discussed before, the view from there is not the best largely due to the scraggly foreground, and that gets lost in these with the dusk.

Do you think they might benefit from a crop at the left to remove that awkward looking bit of cloud? I don't think it would hurt them otherwise.

It would be nice to work these in somewhere. I have shifted them to the Benambra page on Commons. --jjron 11:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you should try one in the Benambra article in place of mine, just to see how it looks. I rather like the pano at the bottom from Blowhard, but the existing one from McMillan's is a bit scrappy. --jjron 11:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Swapped the panos in Benambra. Mine from Blowhard higher up and smaller, your dusk one full width at the bottom - a nice way to end the article I thought. See what you think (what did you think about the idea for the slight crop at left? --jjron 12:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you didn't *gulp* edit the photo did you? The new one is looking back towards Omeo isn't it? Not sure where that could work in, don't think it really relates to Benambra for that reason (I have added to Benambra on Commons though). See you have it in Deforestation, though that's a bit of a stretch already. Wouldn't be any good in Omeo?

Re the St Mary's, yeah the new pano is pretty good, but also doubt it would get through (and I haven't looked for stitching faults). I think the curve would work against it, and it might just be an illusion, but it seems to curve more on the left than the right. What is your preference out of the others? I probably prefer 02, but not sure it would get through (is it just me or do they need a tiny CCW rotation?), so don't know if it would be better to wait for a reshoot. --jjron 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. My vacation just turned to an end and I have taken a few pics in the mountains. I feel kind of uncomfortable bothering you again. I swear this time is gonna be the last time in this year. :) I can stitch the photos together but can't edit the colors etc. of subsequent photos to look natural together. Photos are at: [7], [8] and [9]. Thank you very much. P.S. You are a pro, what do you think about this panorama? Is it a FP material? - Darwinek 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this pano and kind words. I have nominated that peninsula pano for FP. Have a nice time. - Darwinek 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2B Glider 2 the voting seems to have started again. Would you put in another positive vote? JMcC 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Female mallard nest - natures pics edit2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

I always love to see great pictures like this. Thanks again for finding them. Raven4x4x 03:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Female mallard nest - natures pics edit2.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on November 8, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 16:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter - any chance you could find out what cultivar these are? If you can find the same again in the shop, it should tell you either on the shelf label, or on the producer's box that they are in. Thanks! - MPF 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great question over at the reference desk about deaf people's thoughts. Really got me thinking. Batmanand | Talk 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir0002. I was on your Flagstaffotos site, on the Services page to be precise. I just noticed you typed professional’s, where grammatically it should be professionals. Sorry for being a grammar nazi, I just had to let you know ;). — JeremyTalk 06:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir,

I was wondering if you are going to go to the zoo or any botanical gardens in the near future (or anything similar, where species are labelled). If you do, would you be able to leave a note on WP:AWNB? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to find your page, and I liked the look of it! Cool pictures, too. Also, I saw the argument of the voting thumbnails, and while those with slow computers would get frustrated, I think it's a good idea. Cheers! The RSJ - ^SPEAK_{The RSJ at the RS Wiki} 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I used your voting templates on the Utah English AfD page, but instead of Support, it says Delete. Just thought you'd like to know. •The RSJ• ^{(Main Hub - Rants)} 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I really appreciate it! --Fir0002 22:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir, just thought I'd drop by and say a few things. Firstly, as you well know, your images are awesome, keep up the good work! Secondly, I saw your note to Froggydarb about panorama software and, having used up my trial period, have just purchased a copy of Arcsoft PanoramaMaker - it's excellent, so thanks for the recommendation. Thirdly, I'd appreciate any comments you might have on this image which is the first new pano I've shot since handing over my cash. Is it encyclopaedic? I've had it unfavourably compared with this one on Talk:Severn crossing but I don't think that's really fair. I'm not suggesting you weigh in on that discussion (I think JRawle is largely right) but I'd like to know what you think of the image. Cheers, --Yummifruitbat 20:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Fir. I agree about the limitations, not least the maximum of 16 images horizontal / 8 vertical, which although you can get around it by stitching multiple panoramas together, is a bit annoying. However, I think it's great for getting easy, good-quality results and it's so, so much better at that than Photoshop...

As far as that image goes, I don't really have any ambitions for it in an FP direction (although obviously I wouldn't complain...), I just wanted a second opinion on whether there was any point it being on en.wiki. You've provided that, so I'm grateful.

On a totally unrelated note, I saw you were quite put out about that FSM nomination - I couldn't help wondering what it was that wound you up so much? I've abstained from discussion on that image, as I can see both sides of the argument and I'm not sure the image itself, regardless of POV issues or whatever else, is of particularly spectacular quality. It's not as though someone has actually defaced the original, priceless canvas though, so I was surprised that it really seemed to strike a nerve with you. Were you just having a bad day? If so, hope you're feeling better :)

Thanks again, --Yummifruitbat 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fir0002, while emptying backlogged image categories, I noticed this image uploaded by you. I have removed the no source tag, and hopefully you can provide info as to whether it was self-taken or where you got it from. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 19:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK done --Fir0002 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this image from the Astronomy page because it suffers from a few problems:

• It is unreadable as a thumbnail - it shows a black square with a tripod and a floating gold oval. Even the image on the image page is barely readable.
• It does not depict "Amateur Astronomy" specifically. It is more of a "what you get with a time exposure" image.
• Offering to "license" your image in you GNU box could constitute a Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements masquerading as articles violation. Licensing can be a commercial transaction.

Problem #1 and #3 could be fixed with image manipulation and editing respectively. Problem #2 may require a different photograph... one depicting the "activity" (have a look at [Image:Astronomy Amateur 3 V2.jpg] for an example). Sorry to get all "photo editor" on your case... with a little work it can be a good illustration. Halfblue 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through your other images (very good by the way) I noticed they all seem to have a variation of the following tag:

• If you are a (commercial) publisher and you want me to write you an email or paper mail giving you an authorization to use my works in your products or a license with the terms of your choice, please email me to negotiate terms.

I don't know if this has been brought up before (by someone other than me) but offering to license you images on a commercial basis could be Wikipedia violation (Advertisements masquerading as an article). You may want to read Wikipedia policies regarding advertising WP:ADS and consider modifying you tag. Halfblue 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree and this is a discussion I've already had. For a start it's not an article, and not an advertisement either. It was just several people contacted me on my userpage asking permission to use my image in an publication but they were not happy with it's current GFDL licensing. This was the best way show them how they can notify me.

Secondly, this was not my idea, I actually copied and modified it off Gmaxwell's userpage on the commons. Gmaxwell is a respected photographer and I believe quite an expert in image licensing.

Futhermore I have seen other wiki photographers imatating mine. Significantly Aka probably the best photographer Wikipedia has, is using a variation. Also User:Darkone

Finally, I don't believe that it is unacceptable. --Fir0002 22:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several valid reasons to do something on Wikipedia but "other people do it" is not one of them (well--- at least not until its agreed upon in a consensus decision). And Image pages are part of Wikipedia and therefore have to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. That is not to say what you are doing is wrong. It could be 100% legit, above board, and acceptable re: Wikipedia guidelines.

I think I should clarify.

• Offering to "negotiate" with another party to use your image commercially via a "license with the terms of your choice" and giving them an email to follow could mean you wish to sell them the rights to use your image. That would be using Wikipedia to advertising your commercial business "photography". That seems (to me) be a violation of “no advertising” and seems to contradict the GFDL tag you used.

• If what you really mean is that you wish to simply give the commercial party in question a more usable free license (one they think they need that is more valid then a GFDL) for an image that you have already released to the public domain under your use of the GFDL tag, then yes, the modification to the tag that you added is "acceptable".

The problem that caught my attention is that the wording on your tag can be taken both ways. It may need to be clarified. Halfblue 18:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - if this has been duscussed before (and I am re-inventing the wheel here ;^)) can you link me to that discussion? Was a consensus reached? Halfblue 18:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - I'm on holidays and don't have regular access. If you are still interested you can look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/85mm prime under "comment" there is a little discussion. Personally I don't find a problem with the wording on the template. --Fir0002 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with that at all, Wikipedia allows attribution licenses and that message is in line with that. We always try to link to the source of an image, an e-mail address is no different. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Tambo vallery races 2006 edit.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on October 5, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thin i wanted to say to your work: great Pictures, simply great. :) Go on. 217.228.2.153 12:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Fir0002 05:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MG 0053.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, delete away! ♠ SG →Talk 11:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi,May you please put your image on commons as we may be able to use it on other wikipedia.Regards,

Do it myself, many thanks for your nice pictures--Leridant 12:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with the Nishi Tribal FP. The original was also a FP on the Indian Portal. I prefer the new edit a lot - what should be done with the old image? It would be better if that were deleted and the new one goes in place.

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Male mallard flight - natures pics.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Fir0002 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose I'd better congratulate myself ;-) --Fir0002 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats as usual :P Viridae^Talk 12:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Male mallard flight - natures pics.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on December 11, 2006, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fir0002 - I would prefer to support the original. My first indication of support was for that one, and while almost all the edits helped in various ways, it is frankly a bit hard for me to distinguish some of them on my laptop screen. Thanks for helping to bring the nomination to consensus. Debivort 02:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fir0002, I'd think the last edit (can't remember the number, was it 5)? | AndonicO 10:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed my vote for edit 4, but I noticed edit 2, a slightly inferior edit, has already been promoted. | AndonicO 12:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fir. Well, I personally couldn't decide between edits 2 and 4, so my vote is useless. I thought it was time to just do a tally and close the nom. While #4 does have a majority, I took into account oppose votes -- even though they're not usually counted the way I did. No one actually opposed edit 2, but several people opposed edit 4; that's why I gave edit 2 the lead. You do make a good point about how you didn't vote against edits 1-3, so, by all means, reopen the vote. I'm thinking the only way this will end is with a good ol' fashion round of Rock, Paper, Scissors. ♠ SG →Talk 14:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can promote edit 4 instead if you like, but it doesn't really matter to me -- I like both. Either way, more disagreement with the image promotion will probably follow. I would suggest that you take the image back out into the FPC page instead of demoting one and promoting another "in the dark," so to speak. ♠ SG →Talk 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter, would you please spend a minute or two and help me touch up this image of myself: Image:Crzrussian 2001.jpg. It's got some weird stuff going on in the lower left-hand corner, and some weird pixels in my left armpit. I am sure there are other magical ways you can make it look better. Hope it's not too much to ask for. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fir, you're a sweetie. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching Insight today, and saw your pomegranate photo on it. It was on the desktop of one of the speaker's computer. --liquidGhoul 05:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Awesome! Thanks for sharing that with me! --Fir0002 09:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check your Gmail, if you haven't already. --jjron 08:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir! Just thought I would pop by and wish you good luck for your exams. Maybe this will make you smile while you are *very* busy studying (wink :P). --Ali K 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Enjoy! - Jam01 07:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you enjoyed it; you deserved it; and I wish you the best of luck with your exams! - Jam01 07:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just been admiring some of your wonderful work on Commons (both your own shots and those by others you've uploaded). Since the pics you're putting up are so obviously of value, and will probably continue to be used for years, could I beg you to include better descriptions with them?

I know you're busy right now (Good Luck!), but before your next upload session, take a look at Tips & tricks: A perfect upload. Give as much information as you can, including stuff that to you is obvious, like country/location of pic. I used to work in a museum archive, and we had all these amazing images from some of the pioneers of photography in the UK - with frustrating one-word descriptions on the back!

All best wishes, and hope the exams go well. JackyR | Talk 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great image addition! -AED 07:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pennant coralfish melb aquarium edit2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Pennant coralfish melb aquarium edit2.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on January 15, 2007, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an article for Heniochus acuminatus with your picture in it. Nice picture. Maybe you could take a look. I just nominated it for the DYK so maybe it will get on the front page before it does in the featured picture box. Dark jedi requiem 21:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm stuck in the green box...Dark jedi requiem 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easily fixed :P --Ali K 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least someone knows what they're doing.Dark jedi requiem 00:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Sparrow on ledge.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know the Featured Picture you uploaded and/or nominated Image:Sparrow on ledge.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the day on January 21, 2007, when it will be featured on the Main Page. Congratulations! howcheng {chat} 00:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm -Gphoto and I noticed that you are involved with the WikiProject Photography and are a photographer and I was wondering if you would please vote for Photography to be improved at the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Thanks, -Gphoto 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! -Gphoto 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You posted that you had promoted this image on October 8th after the FPC passed but the image itself seems to have not been promoted from what I can see. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wondering if when you get time you can have a quick look at Cowra, New South Wales and the photos on Commons of Cowra (the first 7 there are mine) to see if you reckon any would stand a chance on FP. Some are OK, but perhaps not quite there - I can put them up at a bit higher res if they look to be worth a shot. Thanks --jjron 09:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fir - I've indicated support for either version of the dragonfly FPC. Cheers! Debivort 08:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going? I've indicated my support for either version of the dragonfly photograph. Did you actually take that photo? If so, great work! Ackatsis 09:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've added a comment to the discussion where I specify that I prefer the uncropped one. Regards.--Húsönd 12:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nautica,
This is probably none of my business, but although I'm sure Mdf appreciates your efforts in making him a gallery of his FP images, I personally feel it wasn't the best etiquette to add the "created by Nauticashades" on the end of it. It is not necessary (it's not like it was a difficult task) and that kind of self promotion on someone elses userpage I don't feel is appropriate. Now you may well say leave it up to Mdf to remove, but I get the impression that he's a diffident kind of guy (based on his comment here - which would also explain why we don't see any self noms by him!) and although he may not like it, but won't do anything about it coz he's not sure wether that adding the "created by xxxxx" is the accepted thing to do. --Fir0002 09:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I removed it. Just so you are aware, I wasn't trying to credit myself, purely the opposite. My goal was in fact to show that he himself had not created it in an attempt to brag, but that I had done it for him (though I suppose all of this "hidden meaning" was hard to discern and I can easily see how it was miscontrued). I appreciate you pointed this out to me, because I definitely do not want it interpreted in this way. NauticaShades 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Dragonfly compound eyes02.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! NauticaShades 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the above image uploaded by you to en.wikipedia (later moved to Commons) has been deleted (from Commons) for having a unknown source. if you are the photographer of this image then please specify this on commons:Image talk:Aquarium-Melbourne.jpg and the image might be recreated. /Lokal_Profil 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that, have reuploaded: Image:Aquarium-melbourne.jpg --Fir0002 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

splendid! --Jinxs 10:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Fir0002 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:House sparrow04.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, as ever... the first submission listed in each set of finalists was the winner. Let me know if any of them haven't been properly recognized. +sj + 12:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I work in a primary school in Birmingham, in England. I change the desktop background from time to time to keep from being boring, and at the moment I'm using Commons:Image:Reflected sunset.jpg. Could you add a little more information about where it is, please, so that I can tell the kids? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all congratulations for your great pictures. Since you are so good in taking pictures, why don't you help writing the wikibook about Digital Photography?? about now it's very basic, but you could write some sections about how to take pictures in particular conditions, providing examples such as some of your great pictures. I like photography, but I'm very bad at it and I still have no time to improve it: if you add some of your experience on wikibook (or anywhere else!), it could be very useful for me and for anybody else who wants to help wikipedia with pictures. Thanks anyway for your help here Alessio Damato 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to schedule this image for another POTD when I noticed that according to the article in which it lives (Exopterygota), dragonflies don't belong in this superorder, so I removed it from here. The reason I'm writing to you, however, is now this image lacks an article, which means it could be delisted from FP status, so I thought you might want to find a new home for it. Dragonfly (where it used to appear, I'm guessing, based on its initial POTD blurb is kind of full of pictures, and I can't figure out what species the Australian Blue Dragonfly is, although my Google search did turn up [10]. If this is the same species, you could stub out an article for this picture. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for cleaning up this image, it looks alot better. I need to build a light tent and get some proper backgrounds. This may not be a FP, but your cleanup it far better suited to the Habanero chile article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey soooo your FPC is actually multiple photos taken at different exposures? That's wicked crazy fun. How do you join them..?? Did you have to get a plugin for photoshop, and if so, did it cost $$$? I found one for photoshop.. and uh, it cost $$$. I like free stuff ;). drumguy8800 C T 10:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir, How are you? Nice to see some signs of life from you, it means you must have survived your exams :P. Now, if you dont see me after the 29th of November, you will know that I did not survive. Talk to you soon, --Ali K 10:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm in year 10. Did I have you fooled? :P --Ali K 08:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to smile and think it cute, but isn't VCE Victorian Certificate of Education?? What grade were you actually thinking I was in.... sorry if I disappointed! ;) Anyway, next year for me will be working towards a TER (Teritary Entrance Rank) that you get at the end of year 12 after you sit your TEE (T....E... Exam). Anyway, why bother, school is school, eh? Email me or something if you want to :P --Ali K 12:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that often your third-party edits have "edit" in the file name. On your original works, do you somehow indicate whether or not the photo has been edited(like on the talk page, or in the file name)? --DonES 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've noticed many problems with filenames containing an ampersand since somebody changed the system software about three weeks ago. I just noticed that Image:Wolf spider&egg sac02.jpg won't show up anymore.

I've asked for the software to be fixed, but it seems that nobody is in charge of doing anything about such complaints. The other solution is to re-download with a new filename. I can do that with my own images, but I don't know how to copy over the permissions, etc., and I thought that in any event it would be better if you would take care of the matter.

Thanks.

P0M 23:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up, it looks like Image:Wolf spider&egg sac02.jpg loads up but Image:Wolf spider&egg sac03.jpg doesn't. I'll try get round to reuploading some time soon --Fir0002 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir - just wanted to leave a note saying I appreciate your FPC contributions and don't want you to leave. I think people's response to your recent nominations may reveal a bit of jealousy. Keep em coming! Debivort 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir - I hope you're not feeling too got-at; Dschwen was well out of order with his comment at your echidna nom. Just thought I'd reassure you that, although sometimes it doesn't seem to get expressed very well, your contributions are massively appreciated here. I've given the matter quite a bit of thought over time, and come to the conclusion that self-nominations should be just as welcome as any others at FPC - to me, FP's most important role is in encouraging the contribution of high-quality photos by everyday users; NASA don't need us to tell them that they're taking cool pictures.

Although I don't think the echidna shot is one of your best, I can't see how you did any harm in nominating it - in fact, I think you show admirable resilience in continuing to nominate your photos despite some pretty rude remarks directed at you from various quarters. It saddens me that FPC has become quite a rough ride for the uninitiated; in some ways it's even worse that people who regularly contribute superb work get subjected to bad-faith insinuations and sometimes excruciating nit-picking, but I guess that's human nature for you. People like you, Diliff and Aka have raised the bar at FPC and Wikipedia is much the richer for your work.

On the other hand - and although he has a bloody odd way of expressing himself - I can't help but agree with just a little of Arad's sentiment. You won't do yourself any good by letting the naysayers wind you up, so when you feel yourself getting hot under the collar, might I (delicately) suggest you take a deep breath, look back at your veritable array of barnstars, and just let it go over your head? There are some people for whom nothing is ever good enough, but for every one of them there's several others who're 100% impressed by your skill and dedication. Feel good about what you've achieved at Wikipedia, keep on striving for the excellence we all know you're capable of, and don't let the bastards grind you down. :-)

--YFB ¿ 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pep talk YFB! I'll take it onboard --Fir0002 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Queen elizabeth the second portrait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Borisblue 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just saw your Echidna shot on the FPC. I'm not sure where you're at exactly, but if you can get to Kangaroo Island, you'll see heaps of Echidnas out and about near the roads. You can get much closer and get a better shot. I've taken three trips there and have always seen at least one, whereas in and around Adelaide, I've never seen any. Keep up the good work and that image of the flies mating is awesome! --Cody.Pope 04:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again! One of you edits of the P-51 Mustang nomination, Image:P-51 Mustang edit1.jpg, was promoted. Congratulations once more. Raven4x4x 08:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphoto^talk 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir0002, Welcome Back from Melbourne! Hope your trip was a good one and that your award is well worth bragging about :P --Ali K 12:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was great! --Fir0002 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. --Ali K 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a picture I want to add to the Wikipedia, and was curious if you could rotate and crop it. Any chance you could do that? Dark jedi requiem 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pelican lakes entrance02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations again! Raven4x4x 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at your [commons user page]. --gildemax 17:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fir - I was wondering how confident you are of the species identification of your fly. I've tried keying it and it comes out in the family Anthomyiidae largely because the calypters appear to be of similar size. See Question 6 on this page. Do you have any other images of it? Such as a downward shot of the wings? or a closer view of the thorax? Debivort 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fir, stay safe over the weekend, I know the fires are going to be at their worst then. Hope to see you soon, and thinking of you, --Ali K 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realise they were near you. Good luck, stay safe. You will be fine. Viridae^Talk 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you guys! Not that near yet but the weekend will be pretty nasty. The schools are shutting down and the Great Alpine Road which connects us with Bairnsdale will probably be shut soon which would mean town would be cut off! But oh well see how it goes --Fir0002 08:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Fir, I do hope you're fine. Take care of your camera too; it holds the future of Wikipedia... as long as it's in your hands. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to notify you that I fixed a wikilink on your User:Fir0002/1yr on Wiki page. Excellent user page! s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 14:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whoops. it must have slipped my mind. thank you. Ilikefood 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name listed on Wikiproject Illustration or the list of graphic artists, and I thought I'd let you know that a Graphics Lab has been created on EN. Based on the highly successful French and German graphics labs, it seeks to better organise and coordinate our graphic design and photo-editing efforts. Up until now, there has been no common space on EN where users could ask for maps, charts and other SVG files to be created. What's more, the Graphics Lab has discussion boards, tips, tools and links; in sum, a good common workspace. Come help us out! The infrastucture is already in place, and now we need participants. :) --Zantastik talk 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali K: *wolf whistle* "Peter made The Age, Peter made The Age!"... and about time too, huh? :P --Ali K 07:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks, but in all fairness it is in the reader submitted photos of the bushfires and I don't suppose they are overly picky. But still, it was a bit of a thrill! --Fir0002 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In vaguely related news, I noticed that Swifts Creek Secondary College was ranked 4th in the state [11] in median study scores. Since it is such a small school, your year 12 subjects no doubt contributed to that, particularly since MM and Chem are scaled up! So, congrats on that. My old high school scored higher though ;). And in even less related news, I made it onto The Age last year too! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebraties! Yes I'm so proud of our school for doing so well, it really is amazing. And what's even more amazing is that The Age ran a story on it, and somehow they new me and asked me to take the photo! Have a look at the article which made it on page 3 with the pic nearly A4 size! Quite an experience. However it's a real shame that after the school did so well this year we probably wont have a presentation night because of the fires! I dare say that my yr 12 subjects did help out a bit, since both had a raw score over 40! Damn Carey Baptist Grammar School! ;-) --Fir0002 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. On both accounts. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article Photo. Image is tilted, part of the subject is cut out of the frame. ;-) Just kidding, congrats on the results and the published photo. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plead innocent to the cropping! The original (and the print in The Age) had ample space - they just cropped it a bit more severly on the online page. --Fir0002 10:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! YFB ¿ 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on this and the above! --YFB ¿ 15:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Calliphora augur whitebackground.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a loveable creature... Raven4x4x 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to clean up the DoF article so that every image clearly illustrates a concept relevant to that article. Although your wolf spider image is interesting and well executed, it's not necessarily obvious what is being shown, especially to a person not familiar with the very shallow DoF in macro photography. The image would be far more instructional if one of the individual images (perhaps the one with the best focus on one set of eyes) were included for comparison. Would you consider adding such an image? I'd be glad to handle captioning and integration with the article. Mentioning the magnification also might be helpful. JeffConrad 18:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I've came across the picture and found it to be way over sharpened and the colour balance was off (unless, of course, the plants are blue in real life). I've nominated it for delisting as I found it not up to today's standard. If you can fix these problems I am happy to withdraw the nomination. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Darwinek - and Merry Christmas to you too! --Fir0002 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not will the photos, but with the placement of them in the article. The article is already cluttered with images. There is a link for people find your images on Commons. Thank you. Ansett 10:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to see a good comparison too, but I think that unless you know the correct technique for shooting and processing RAW (it can be a little different to JPG) and you're shooting a scene with high dynamic range AND you pay close attention to the histogram (more on that later) then you might not make the most of RAW and conclude that it has no benefits. I don't know the exact details of how you shoot JPG so I can't tell you specifically how it could be improved, but you consistently demonstrate that you don't really understand RAW or its benefits. As you mentioned, the guys over at Fred Miranda shoot in RAW, do tweaks in PS (and I bet they use 16bit images to do the tweaks, because of the extra latitude that 16bit gives you for tweaking - if they don't, they're silly) and then save as a JPG. The important thing to note is that they shoot RAW in the first place. Obviously they do it for a reason. RAW allows far better tweaking than JPG does. It contains far finer values for intensity of RGB so if you make adjustments, you are far more able to avoid posterisation. FACT. This alone is reason to shoot RAW but there are other benefits too. When you mention that a monitor contains more information than the printer, you're missing the point. The reason for working with RAW/16bit images is NOT for better output to either a monitor or printer. It is for post production work with the highest possible quality image so that, as I mentioned above, you don't encounter posterisation among other things. Perhaps I should shoot a challenging scene in both RAW and JPG and show you what I mean. The problem is that we're talking about the benefits of each format for doing post-processing work, not simple shoot-and-display-on-the-web with no tweaking, so it isn't as simple as it sounds. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to shoot a demanding scene with messed up colour balance (yes, that does happen with JPG, the camera doesn't always get it right in AWB and the WB presets are not always right for every scene), bright highlights and deep dark shadows. I'll hand you the JPG as-is and you can attempt to 'rescue' it to try to match the output I got from the RAW after post processing it. It won't have to match my RAW output exactly, just attempt to rescue the image in a similar way. That will at least illustrate whether it is possible to do everything in JPG that it is in RAW and whether there are any practical advantages. I will try not to engineer faults in the JPG. I'll try to make it a clean, fair fight (but it is hard to do when JPG is clearly inferior for this sort of tweaking work). ;-) Are you up for the challenge? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giddyup! :-) But shoot it in AWB - messing up the WB on purpose isn't fair! Posterization? Hmm... I've never occurred it in my pictures but I guess it's a possible advantage. --Fir0002 02:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andonic! --Fir0002 02:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Wolf 2 FP promotion

[edit]

Merry Christmas Fir0002!

Looking over the recently promoted FP, I reckon no edit of Mexican Wolf should have been promoted. My tally is:

• Original
  • Support 3.5 (NoClip (1), PharoahHound (1), Froth (0.5), YFB (0.5), Why1991 (0.5))
  • Oppose 4 (NightGyr (0.5), antilived (1), Tewy (0.5), Nautica Shades (1), TerriG (1))
• Edit 1
  • Support 4 (YFB (1), KFP (1), TeriG (1), Why1991 (1))
  • Oppose 2.5 (antilived (1), Tewy (1), Nautica Shades (0.5))
• Edit 2
  • Support 3.5 (YFB (1), KFP (1), froth (1), TerriG (0.5))
  • Oppose 3 (antilived (1), Tewy (0.5), Nautica Shades (0.5), Why1991 (1))

Edit 1 misses the 2/3 majority.
I know it's not a democracy, but this didn't appear to me to be consensus for edit 1.

Thanks for taking a look! Pstuart84 Talk 19:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I close noms with multiple edits, first I determine whether people want one version to be promoted. So for a vote like TerriG's (Support Edit 1, weak support edit 2, oppose original) I'd just count that as a support because he wants one version of the pic to get promoted. Then after determining if there is support for it I'd find out which version most people liked. However you could argue to add up each of TerriG's three votes (within his one vote) - but then you'd have to say NoClip's vote would be a support for all of the versions because otherwise he would get less of a "say" into it (only having one vote vs TerriG's three).

I may be wrong in the way I closed it but I feel this is the best way to close a nom with multiple edits without harming the nom. I mean think about it, if there were three version (as in this case) but everyone voted Support Original, Oppose Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2, the original, even though it had unanimous support, wouldn't get promoted because of all the "oppose" votes for edits 1 and 2. If you still think this wasn't correctly closed, perhaps it'd be best to bring it up on WP:FPC for a broader input.

Thanks for bringing it up though, and feel free to contact me any time you have any queries like this! --Fir0002 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

84 does indeed refer to 1984, my year of birth.

Just on the FP thing, your example of Support Original, Oppose Edit 1, Oppose Edit 2 would, by the same method as my counting above, mean the original was promoted (unanimous support) and the two edits not (unanimous opposition). It's not massively important, but I thought it worth raising.

All the best for 2007, Pstuart84 Talk 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was worth raising, but as mentioned above, after determining if people wanted a version promoted I would tally the votes as you did initially, with Edit 1 being the favourite. --Fir0002 06:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for more discussion in this case. _→AzaToth 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture

[edit]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fir0002,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 18, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-18. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Red capsicum and cross section.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 15:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Red capsicum and cross section.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 22, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-22. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Rock dove - natures pics.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 01:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Rock dove - natures pics.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 22, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-22. howcheng {chat} 16:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

warnings

[edit]

Hi. Yes, warnings are usually subst'ed, but other than that it looked fine (I did that for you). If you add {{subst:test4-n|Articlename}}, you can add the article's name to the warning. For example,

{{subst:test4-n|User talk:Joyous!}}

would produce

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:Joyous!, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

All of the bracket business you asked about is part of getting the article's name in the correct spot in the template. If you don't add the article name, then the brackets just sit there twiddling their thumbs.

Welcome to adminship, by the way. I'll be happy to help if you have any other questions. Joyous! | Talk 05:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting consistency

[edit]

Hello Fir, since you had questions about the consistency of my voting at FPC (which is perfectly acceptable) I have to return that favour today. How comes you support , and yet you opposed a couple of months ago. The unedited (!) version of which was POTD at commons two weeks ago. Genuine interest, please take no offense. --Dschwen 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, and you are quite free to ask. But I fail to see a parallel between the two images - they are very different from each other and can't see why you are questioning the consistency of my voting through these two examples. But I'll try to take a comparison between the two and explain why one I would weak support and the other I would oppose. Your image is too dark and has a unevenly polarized sky (lowering the enc) and personally doesn't appeal to me (question of aesthetics). The other image has pleasing brightness and good coloration. True it is marred by the blown out sky on the LHS, but you have to ask yourself what you're missing out on (some clouds and blue sky) and is it possible to take such an image w/o the blown sky. Because of this detraction it only gets a "weak" support. I hope that satisfies your curiosity? --Fir0002 02:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to the sky. And I was asking myself what I was missing out on (nothing on my pic either). The unevenness in my pic is minimal and the color of the sky is not uniform in real life either. So I still don't quite see how that would lower enc. But you are of course entitled to you opinion on aesthetics. --Dschwen 07:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons image needs deleting

[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre dame basillica delist, the image commons:Image:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg is ready for deletion. I'm not a commons admin but I see you are, so I guess you can do what needs to be done... Raven4x4x 11:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup done it --Fir0002 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

orb weaver

[edit]

hi,

i just found your (as usual, top quality) pics of orb weavers while sorting the spider pictures. could you provide some additional information about this animal, so i could try to determine it? eg, size, where exactly the picture was taken, time of year (May?) many thanks :)

i suppose these two are the same:

• Orb weaver black bckgrnd02.jpg
• Orb weaver spider day web03.jpg

could you add the Category:Unknown spiders to spider pics that are not determined to species level? i just found some while browsing your history. if they are determined to species level, they are much more useful for the spider pages (and also maybe link different versions of the same spider to each other). btw, i almost had to cry when i saw the all-in-focus picture of the wolf spider (because that's exactly the kind of pictures i'd like to do, but i can't afford a better camera). --Sarefo 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the notice, I'll do that in future. Little hard to go and find the time of year of all previous spider photos, but for the two you mentioned, the black bg one was taken in Jan 2006, and the daylight one was taken in Feb 2006. I think all the orb weaver spiders I've uploaded are of the same species. Thanks for the comment on the wolf spider pic! :) --Fir0002 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think i determined the species, and put the pictures into Eriophora transmarina. although it is a bit strange, E. transmarina normally only sits in its web at night, the first three pics look like it's broad daylight. cheers :) --15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg

[edit]

Aloha! As a courtesy, I thought I'd notify you that the Featured Picture status of Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg, which you created a/or contributed to, is currently being reconsidered. Feel free to weigh in at the discussion here, or correct any faults listed therein. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramas

[edit]

Hello, Fir0002! I am using two panoramas you took on my user page. If you would like that I'd not use them, please notify me. Thanks and happy editing! —sd31415 (sign here) 13:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sd31415!

Not only would I not mind I would consider it an honor - go right ahead! Thanks for writing, --Fir0002 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Happy editing and hope you take more great photographs for Wikipedia! —sd31415 (sign here) 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars for you!

[edit]

I seriously almost started to drool from admiring your user page. My page looks like road kill compared to your page. For the record, I award you with infinite "Excellent User Page Award". Oh, and have a "Lots of Barnstars Award" for the heck of it. =D Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved stars to userpage --Fir0002 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the archives, very professional and clean looking. I finally stumbled across your user page when I clicked on your signature in FPC. Yeah...flash would be much better, but that would get a little to extreme! =) Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramas

[edit]

Hey Fir. I am in awe of your panoramas and am wondering what your trick is to patching the images together. Do you use a program to do it (which one)? Are there any specific methods you use to actually take them? I don't have an SLR-type camera like yours, so I am unable to lock an exposure, etc. I figured I'd ask you your techniques because your pictures come out so well! Thanks. → JARED ^(t)  21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture

[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats again. Raven4x4x 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hola again (that's the second one today),

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Whistling duck flight02 - natures pics-edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 25, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-25. howcheng {chat} 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome

[edit]

Well, I guess now you have a new row. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: ff

[edit]

IE7 certainly wasn't a hassle to install for me, just clicked the next button a few times and I was away. And imitating Firefox's cool ideas? Surely Firefox was imitating Opera for tabbed browsing. And if, for some unknown reason, lightning did hit my house, i think losing my web pages that i was browsing would be the very least of my worries. As for RAM, i have photoshop up pretty much 24/7 and a game (it's just how i work) so every mb of ram counts. You mention 6 extensions earlier, so add that onto Firefox usuing more than IE already, the bulky add on themes and extensions and that all adds up. My downloads work fine anyway, I've used getright and some other download acceleration program and they do speed up my d/ls, after taking your advice and installing the extension into firefox (that was after having to restart after FF freezing up) I noticed little tp no difference. So you can run incompatible sites? Why not just use IE to browse with, then you have no sites like that, what a solution! And it's not a security gain, I've seen plenty of pro FF sites say it is, but many other sites conclude differently. I'm not trying to claim IE is BETTER than FF, it is however at least equal. The reason you didn't think I'd used it is because FF isn't as wonderful as every user thinks. It is just another browser that some people like and most people don't. I have friends who use firefox merely because 'everybody else is'. And surely FF is trying to get away from that 'blatent' IE mentality? I truthfully believe FF is just about equal to IE, and have done for a while, but I use IE purely because every single FF user, and I'm afraid to say even you, sir, has their head about 3 miles up their own backsides. I really don't care for boasters, and that's the users are. They're all biased to FF way beyond belief, so telling them IE is good gives them a conory. See www.spreadinternetexplorer.com/Neverender 899 14:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fires

[edit]

Fires again? Have I missed something? (on the news) Good luck, stay safe. Viridae^Talk 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Viridae! The Age has got it in their top stories today --Fir0002 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm I had a look at the DSE fire map after I left that. Its so cool in melbourne at the moment that I hadn't really considered the fires issue this weekend. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deletion

[edit]

Please put more information on the image description page about why the image is on Wikipedia if you don't want them inadvertantly deleted again. The files right now are not linked to anything and say "temp for discussion." I'd delete them again if I did not know better. You could also put the images on the Commons. They might be safer there as I do not have Admin rights on the Commons :-) -Regards Nv8200p talk 13:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Wombat-in-snow.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wombat-in-snow.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushfires

[edit]

Swifts Creek was mentioned on ABC news either last night or the night before - I hope things are alright! Leon 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In The Age too. I looked at the maps though and the fire isn't burning in the direction of Swifts Creek at the moment. Looks all burnt out in that direction and was mainly heading south, but that was just my amateur interpretation... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say things are bad, but they're not good either!

It was an absolute scorcher yesterday - probably around 45 degrees with a strong wind behind it. Morning it was beautiful skies, and then almost like a nuclear bomb this big plume of white smoke comes up (looked like a really violent cumulus) but it was smoke. Soon there was a massive cloud with amazing coloration behind our hill. Fortunately you couldn't see any flames but still was a frightening day. These photos were taken before the change came in, which although it sent the temperature rocketing down to about 25 it brought strongs winds blowing towards us! Anyway thats all over and it's pretty cool today without any wind, so see how we go. I'll post more photos if I get more time today --Fir0002 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice photo but scary at the same time! I guess thats one of the fires where all the smoke came from. MODIS AquaMODIS Terra -- Bidgee 01:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture promotion!

[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Wild shortbeak echidna.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 13:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Wild shortbeak echidna.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 3, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-03. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again!! Raven4x4x 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy again!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Austrolestes cingulatus03.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 4, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-04. howcheng {chat} 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Meat eater ant qeen excavating hole.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 12:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy³!

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Meat eater ant qeen excavating hole.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 7, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-07.

Also, you'll be interested to know I created a meat ant article from the link you gave me. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Pardalotus with nesting material.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thanks! KFP (talk | contribs) 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! (to be different this time)

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Pardalotus with nesting material.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 9, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-09.

When I first saw it, I thought it was an Mdf photo, so I was surprised to find it was yours. I suppose that's high praise. :) howcheng {chat} 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FP peer review

[edit]

I don't really want to wait 3 weeks for an answer, so as the big man on FPC can you give me your comments at Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Starlifter_Despeckle? --froth^T 10:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

[edit]

Image:Peacock portrait - melbourne zoo.jpg

[edit]

That is not a India Blue Peafowl Pavo cristatus. It clearly resembles a hybrid of it with the Green Peafowl. Frankyboy5 02:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Dragonfly compound eyes02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 11, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-02-11. howcheng {chat} 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikipedia Day!

[edit]

Happy Wikipedia Day!

On January 15, 2007, Wikipedia turned six-years-old. According to statistics, Wikipedia has around 1,500,000 articles and Wikipedians have made 104,000,000 edits. The millionth article was Jordanhill railway station, created on March 2, 2006.

Wikipedia has moved from an Alexa rank of 20 to a rank of 12 having already briefly visited rank 8 (current rank). Happy editing!

—S.D. ¿п? 23:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work

[edit]

If I may say so... wow. You've got some amazing stuff. Hell, it's all amazing. Rawling 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! --Fir0002 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

[edit]

Congrats on having the POTM. It is a really nice picture. Keep on uploading pictures like that. Have a nice week and god bless you and everyone you know. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 12:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for that! But what is POTM - I'm guessing Picture of the Month but I haven't seen anything like it on wiki --Fir0002 09:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is reffering to your pano of the month, thinking it is a wiki wide thing. Viridae^Talk 11:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fires?

[edit]

Hey dude, heard there was a bushfire in Swifts Creek. Hope everything is ok? Stevage 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah everything is OK so far, fires are about 10km to the south of us currently --Fir0002 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another FP

[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Hoverfly07.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats again. Raven4x4x 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Hoverfly07.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 15, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-15. howcheng {chat} 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!

[edit]

I must say that I am impressed with all these featured pictures that you shot. You are an artist! Another thing, your user page is extraordinary.

--196.202.53.248 00:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Fir0002 06:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the bring stock photography is quite impressive THANKS FOR IMAGERY! !!!!

As if you don't have enough already...

[edit]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven4x4x 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Milk thistle flowerhead.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 16, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-16. howcheng {chat} 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus image added to Flower

[edit]

I moved your image from Flower to Cactus because I had earlier requested an image of this nature for the Cactus article, and because I did not think it showed a flower as well as parts of a flower (the stamens and stigma). Flowers are so diverse, that the page, imo, should include as much of this diversity as possible, without focusing on a particular area of the diversity (the bee close-up should go, too). If you have another image that is not a close-up of part of a flower, but rather a large image of a flower, from a family not covered for that particular area of the page, please add it. Thanks. KP Botany 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FPC edits

[edit]

Hey Fir, hope everything's OK with you and the fires are keeping away. Just thought I'd mention that I added another edit to the Trench Warfare nomination based on the original upload to the Commons. I've quite often noticed that Commons images have been edited (sometimes not all that well) and replaced since they were first uploaded, so I always check the image's history to avoid making one edit on top of another. In this case, the Commons version was originally uploaded at 1200x1607 and then overwritten by an edit which downsampled it to 800x1071, lost a lot of the midtone detail through lightening and introduced JPEG artifacts. I expect you're already aware of this sort of thing but hopefully a friendly reminder won't hurt. Keep up the good work, and congrats on your pretty awesome run of FPs over the last couple of weeks! --YFB ¿ 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! I wasn't aware of that! Thanks a lot for pointing it out! I knew of course that there may be more than on e version in the history but I've never bothered checking! Oh and thanks re: FP's this week! --Fir0002 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comet photos

[edit]

Hey Fir, have you had the chance to take any photos of the comet yet? The Age has an excellent shot] of it but I suspect given the right skyward conditions, anyone with a good camera/lens combo could match it. Would be good to see a similar photo on Wikipedia. The ones already on wikipedia aren't bad either though. I'm jealous of you southern hemispherites at the moment.. Its barely pushing above zero celcius here in London today. How close did the bushfires get to Swifts Creek by the way? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually managed to get some last night - I had no idea it was happening till I saw that article you linked to in The Age (I saw it yesterday too)! Which was a real shame as it wasn't as bright last night - I know because my older brother when he went out at around 10 to feed the dogs saw a strong light behind our hill. He thought it was only a flashlight or something to do with the firefighters! Oh well, there are a few I'd upload to wiki - but nothing that spectaular. It was quite an exprience though to see a comet like that - you see pictures and read about them but just looking at it for real is something extraordinary. Too bad about the weather - although we could do with some of London's wet weather! Bushfires got to 6km from Swifts Creek! Luckily we got 15mm of rain and better conditions and the firefighters reckon it's under control now - no smoke and looks like school will be opening on schedule next Wednesday! Great Alpine Road opened on Sunday which was fantastic - for about two weeks we'd been cut off. --Fir0002 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a shame. It was on the front page of Wikipedia for a couple of days prior! It snowed in London overnight last night which was nice to wake up to. First of the winter so far! Sunrise at 8am and sunset at 4pm along with the cold weather hasn't been conducive to much photography here though. :( You've been quite prolific on FPC lately - had more time up your sleeve over the summer? How've you found the 150mm Sigma macro lens? I have the 100mm Canon and am pretty happy with it but DOF has always been an issue and I can see it being even worse at 150mm! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really?! That'll teach me for not looking at the main page. Nice that it's snowing for you - I was hoping to go up to Hotham last year and do some shots in the snow, but it's wasn't a very good snow season. Is it really that short a day?! That's pretty weird, and as you say wouldn't be very good for photography - except maybe the snow. Yeah I've had a bit more time this summer for photos and wiki, but also I'm kind of cramming it in, as in one week I officially start Yr 12 and except to be occupied with that! The sigma is very good - for sharpness you can't really fault it. Focusing is pretty hard - at extreme macro the Auto-focus doesn't really work that well. This, however, I think is something most macro lenses struggle with so not sure if even the Canon 180L would do much better. Aside from really close up the autofocus is accurate, albeit a bit slow. Distant shots (landscapes etc) turn out reasonable but obviously that's not what this lens is designed for! Color balance can be slightly off sometimes, tending towards the yellows. DOF certainly is a challenge, I usually stick to f/11 or at most f/13 due to diffraction - but this sometimes isn't enough DOF. But overall I'm very happy with it - and it's a really good lens for me (can't travel around myself!) as there is a surprisingly diverse amount of subject matter available. --Fir0002 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]