If you don't mind doing me a few favours - I'd like a plant identifying if that's possible. I took the picture in the Pyrenees, and have no idea what it is. Here's the file on commons: Image:PurpleSpikyPlant.JPG
Hello Richard,
I create the following image : Image:Yug3.svg (png version here)to use as a macro technical background providing :
the scale ;
an 95% cleaned up background ;
I'm making some test on my side but I'm limited by my camera (a Canon S5IS) which -for macro- is correct but no more. It would be great if you can also make some tests or your side, to see if it's helpful, if it give good results, give more encyclopedic pic, etc. All comments on colors, size or anything are welcome !
Thanks Yug but IMO a white background should be just that: white. It hurts my sense of aesthetics to use page which is filled with lines. --Fir000208:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lines are light blue dots with a space of 1mm between each of them, providing everywhere on the page an useful scale, which then allow to understand the subject's size. This important point being often (everytime ?) missing from macro pictures.
for FPC (I am the author). It is an HDRed image, but there appears to be some sort of alignment artifact and chromatic aberrations throughout. Does this image have a chance at FPC? I could provide the original images as well, but obviously they lack the range. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Gran Dolina-Atapuerca-Panoramica crop1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Gran Dolina-Atapuerca-Panoramica crop2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi, I'm concerned about this image, I know it has the Ev and general quality to pass FPC, but I'm worried about those little spots. Are they artifacts or what? If possible, could you edit them? Cheers, —SundayNote00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Actually no I would disagree - this image has not got the general quality to pass FPC - at full res it has very poor detail and sharpness. Also the contrast seems to be extremely unrealistic. In fact it's not even used in an article! This image, although still quite poor in sharpness, would have a better chance. Sorry to be blunt but IMO it doesn't have much of a chance of passing FPC. --Fir000223:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it looks like CarolSpears has made it worse than it already was by upsampling it significantly and increasing contrast... I've never really talked to her before but she sounds like someone I would lock horns with regularly... A cominbation of bad decision making (this image as a prime example) and even worse logic and ability to communicate clearly in discussions. ;-) But yes, I concur, it is very poor quality at 100% with either version. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use picture Raspberries
Hello Fir0002, I've used your picture here - description of author and license see here. I brief you this way cause the "Email me"-Link at the license-box from the commons-picture-site doesn't work (403 Forbidden). Greetings, --MikePhobos (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Peter. Apparently your beautiful picture that you thought was a Skylark is an Australian endemic called the Rufous Songlark—see here. According to the article, it's often informally called a skylark. The two birds look very similar, even though they're in separate families, but the face pattern is a little different. I've commented it out of the skylark article. If you agree with the ID, do you want to change the name of the image? That's easier for you than for other people. Then if you don't want to recat it and add it to the Rufous Songlark article, I can take care of that. —JerryFriedman(Talk)03:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peter, looking through some of your wonderful pictures I noticed the missing EXIF and was wondering if you could upload your pictures with the information, as it really helps other photographers to know the settings if they want to photograph similar subjects. Regards Muhammad(talk)19:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that motion. I've always thought you should save as, not save for web. I don't find the compression is any different (although I suppose you have slightly less control over it). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)20:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main reasons I like save for web is that it "remembers" the location you last saved-for-web to whereas save-as goes to the directory which you opened up from (which isn't real close to my "to be uploaded" wiki folder). Also SFW makes sure I don't end up uploading to wikipedia in Adobe RGB colourspace. So yeah I'm pretty comfortable with my current work flow and don't really see the need to modify it to show EXIF. From my own perspective the only info I look for in EXIF is camera and lens which I already provide in the image description page. If you're interested in any specific photos I'd be happy to give you aperture/shutter/ISO. I use f/11, 1/250s, ISO400, fill flash, for almost all of my macro photos. For my 400mm it's f/5.6 or f/6.3 and ISO400 and whatever shutter I can get from that. For my 17-40mm it's generally f/8 ISO200 and the appropriate shutter. For my 70-200mm it's usually at f5/6 ISO400 and appropriate shutter. Hope that helps! --Fir000208:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume that would play its part, but also, you'd need a slower shutter speed at ISO 100 to maintain the same ratio of available light vs flash light, which may be a factor in Fir0002's photography, although it is less important when you have a proper macro flash as the light is well dispersed and not as directional. A higher ISO allows you to reduce the flash output as well as increase the shutter speed so it has dual benefits. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason, as Diliff touched on, is to minimize the required output of the flash and hence reduce the intensity of any shadows. --Fir000212:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist FP nomination for "Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg"
I have nominated "Tulip - floriade canberra.jpg" for delisting as an FP as I believe it does not meet all FP criteria and newer version of higher standard are available.
Magnification wise i still want moar though, most of the birds around here are pretty wild. (I'd estimate 800mm would be needed for a lot of stuff i've seen). I'd better hurry up and finish my degree so i can afford it :P. What are you studying anyway? Noodle snacks (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm studying engineering and science. The science will mostly be maths i think, the engineering course does not specialise until the start of second year (which I don't mind), but i am leaning towards electrical engineering at this stage. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much started swot vac today. I usually just take my camera with me when i go walking (most of the photos i have are within walking distance of my home) and am on wiki during the day for revision. I manage to contribute without actually devoting that much time, I got my HDs last semester though so maintain a good balance. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peter, I want to purchase a new macro lens and was hoping for some assistance from you. Apart for being a great performer at macro, how does the lens do with other fields such as landscape, portrait, animal pictures? Thanks, and sorry if I took some of your study time :) Muhammad(talk)12:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Muhammad, I can't speak from personal experience with this lens, but in case Fir0002 takes a while, I'll give you my general opinion as I have a somewhat similar lens - the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. Typically macro lenses (and indeed almost all prime lenses really) are also excellent and very sharp portrait lenses too. The focal length is probably not really long enough for animal photography, unless you are quite close. One thing that you might need to be aware of is the focus speed. Almost all macro lenses focus fairly slowly at macro distances to the subject because of the precision movements of the focusing elements needed. As a result they can be slightly slower than non-macro lenses at focusing with normal distances too, although the difference is not necessarily noticable. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I don't think I would mind the slow AF, though I am undecided which one of the two (Canon's or Sigma's) macro lenses to get. Would you chance to have any landscape images taken with your Canon macro lens?
Hey, I can speak from personal experience. I bought the lens after seeing its performance in Peter's pictures. I take it along almost everywhere. Apart from Macros, where the lens performs very good, it has excellent image quality at long ranges. The focus can be slow (the lens has a focus limiting switch for near/far/both ranges which helps) which can be annoying with fast little bugs. I made a couple of high res panoramas with this lens, image:chicago.jpg for example and for me that use has become almost more important than the macro capabilities :-). --Dschwen14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Muhammad - just a brief response but yeah I'd definitely go with the Sigma 150. I spent quite a while researching before I settled on it but it's definitely the best macro option available IMO. The Tamron 90mm or the Canon 100mm might be slightly sharper at some apertures, but you'll thank yourself later that you got the extra 50mm of focal length. Even 150mm is a bit short for some insects. Other than that I second the comments of Diliff and Dschwen above. I highly recommend this lens --Fir000222:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing your macro photos and Dschwen's portraits and panoramas with the Sigma, I have decided to get this lens. Thanks for the help. Muhammad(talk)15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside to Fir0002's comments, the likely reason why he recommends the 150mm over 100mm or 90mm is not the magnification that you can get (the 100mm allows you to take 1:1 macro shots too, just the same as the Sigma 150mm) but the distance from the object at 1:1 is larger with the 150mm. This is better if you're dealing with insects which are scared away easily by you and your camera. This site is very useful at explaining the difference between common macro lenses. The important column to consider is the MWD which stands for minimum working distance - the distance between the end of your lens and the object you're photographing. It is 15cm for the Canon 100mm and 19.4cm for the Sigma 150mm. Also, the longer the focal length, the better the background blur is. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expanding the article on the Mornington Peninsula and noticed you'd taken a few images but hadn't mentioned where they were taken from. The images are... "Image:Mornington peninsula03.jpg", "Image:Mornington peninsula.jpg" and "Image:Mornington peninsula02.jpg". Can you remember where you took them from so I can situate them in the article better and add correct captions. Cheers. Nick carson (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WB.. and the 5D II
Just wondering if you were planning to buy the 5D MkII when it is released immediately. I did find it amusing (sorry) that you said on the Guild talk page "However, I'm quite annoyed with the Aussie dollar, which 3 months ago was at USD$0.94+ but now is down to USD$0.83 which is going to make the conversion hurt. Hopefully by November it will have recovered to around $0.90". Ouch, it's now at $0.69. Well, it will probably make the Aus pricing reach parity with the US price.. That is, unless Canon Australia decide to 'revise'. By the look of the charts, we may see it start to bounce back to $0.75-80, but that may take 3 months, and thats if it happens at all. The commodities boom that allowed the dollar to get to those lofty heights in the first place is over, and I don't think we'll see it around the 90c range again for a couple of years. Anyway, enough financial talk... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it has very personal meaning to me too. I've lost about $40k to the stock market in the last year and I was unemployed for 4 months earlier this year, costing me about $5k per month, so yes, I can't say I've been unscathed by it. :-/ Kinda makes the cost of a bloody camera a bit insignificant - not to belittle your situation. Oh well, money comes, money goes... Still, that was a deposit on a house right there! As for the camera, yeah, I don't think I could settle for a 50D or 5D MkI knowing what is out there. I still have a big wishlist, but the MkII hs a very good camera all the same. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is (did you get my email a couple of weeks ago? never got a reply from you) my earnings from iStock have dropped significantly the last couple of months. Where I would previously have been earning $200-250 a month (Was $200 but have added a couple of photos that have been good earners, so I would assume $250 if everything was the same), I'm now down at around $130-150. Only $44 so far this month. All my most popular images have all simultaneously dropped in downloads/popularity/availability in the search and I blame their replacement search engine that they introduced in late August. Grr. So yes, with the exchange rate the way it is, we'll earn more per sale in Aussie dollars, but the drop in sales has more than nullified that. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that the picture was by you. Can you clarify whether it's pneumatic or electric? I inserted pneumatic in the caption, but am not 100% sure... Greetings, --Janke | Talk13:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I should really get around to photographing some more of my tools and machinery, I can't really be bothered cleaning off all the sawdust/powdered metal though. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the commons satire. Here is the original nomination, NONE of the opposes had anything to do with the criteria. When I was submitting there I'd get random down sample votes every so often. I decided to submit this, but for a bit of a joke I made the image basically as small as possible whilst hitting the 2mpix requirement, the results are pretty classic, and Lycaon sort of made a point to oppose everything I ever submitted there as a result, though I probably had it coming . I find the downsampling votes particularly ironic since something like 8/10 of the commons photographs of the year last year were very small and heavily downsampled! Noodle snacks (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert's Whistler is a Flycatcher
Hi Richard, I've removed your taxobox image in the Gilbert's Whistler WP article as it is actually a female flycatcher, probably a Leaden or Satin, unfortunately I don't have a replacement so you might like to search for another, have also added some text to the image on the Commons to show that it needs renaming. Avicedatalk23:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture question
Hi. I've noticed that you've taken a lot of high-quality pictures of birds and insects, many of which you've nominated as featured pictures. Obviously it's important to know the species of the bird or insect, but I've been wondering if you ever take note of what the surrounding flora is. The reason I ask is because I think it would enhance the EV of your pictures (and everyone else's) if we identified in the caption, or at least the description, the species the animal is feeding on, nesting in, perched on, etc. Your recent nomination of the Australian painted lady, for example, may have garnered more support if we knew what it was feeding on and if that flower is part of the painted lady's typical diet. I realize this sort of thing probably isn't what most photographers are interested in; I just think that we can only improve the encyclopedia by thinking about these things. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question, but I actually did identify the plant in the Painted Lady nom (Cotoneaster glaucophyllus) when requested but it didn't make much difference to the outcome. Where it's relevant I'll try get a plant/shrub ID for an image. However its often very hard to tell with any precision what forms an insects "typical diet" - usually they're just a fairly unfussy predator or nectarivore --Fir000202:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some plants are also very difficult to accurately identify due to a wide variety of cultivars and so on available. In some cases what the animal is feeding on isn't part of a "typical diet" anyway, for example File:Silvereye.jpg wouldn't feed on a Cestrum "in the wild". Noodle snacks (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed where you identified Cotoneaster glaucophyllus. I didn't stop to think that insects don't have a typical diet, but it makes sense now. I'm with you on the difficulty in identifying cultivars. I took an ecology class where we had to identify some plants and it was tough! Even if an exact species is unavailable, a genus or at least some description of a plant would be nice. My aim is just to communicate as much information about the creature as possible to enhance the value of the picture to its article. Thanks for your responses, and keep up the good work! Makeemlighter (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am George from greek wiki,and i am greek(i'm 12).I'm so surpised with your contribution and your pages.Is it true that you are 12?If you want to reply to me go to [[1]].Sorry about my english,I'haven't taken my lower yet.--Γιώργος (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually saying that I'm in Year 12 which is the last year of secondary school in Australia. But that information is out of date too (I'll have to get round to updating soon) - I've actually just finished a first year at uni --Fir000205:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm I don't think I really have a typical time of day - basically whenever I've free time and the light looks OK. Perhaps a slight preference for the morning at around 10 - 11 am but not much. --Fir000205:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 150mm is good but the very small DOF is quite a headache. I guess I need more practice but I have my exams in Jan so don't have much time. I have my gallery of images taken with the lens at commons. If you get the time, do you think you could review some of the macro images there? Muhammad(talk)08:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know what you mean - I was half thinking I'd need to send my 150mm back after the first time I used it because it was all so shallow! I don't know how others find it, but it typically takes me at least 200 photos with a lens before I feel I can use it properly. So yeah give yourself time - macro is definitely a whole different ball game. But yeah good luck with your exams - if you don't mind me asking what are you doing? As for your shots on commons I really like the light/background on this, but possibly too shallow DOF (probably f/8 would have done the trick) to be ideal for enc purposes - that said it's a darn sight better than the current lead image on Cat! The other macros are a good start, but I'd recommend an aperture of f/11 for any further macro work - but do yourself a favour and avoid apertures smaller than f/13 or you'll be disappointed with the output [2]. --Fir000223:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the DOF test. I'll remember to stick by with f/11. One thing I noticed, with smaller apertures the background tends to darken and the bokeh is lost. Is there any way to maintain the bokeh? BTW, I'm in my final year of secondary school, equivalent to year 12. I have taken Physics, Chem and Bio and hope to do software engineering, probably joining uni next year in May. Regards -Muhammad(talk)07:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember if I mentioned it when you were asking about the lens, but one of the down sides to a longer focal length macro lens is that DOF is even smaller than 50mm or 100mm, which is both a blessing and a curse. It isolates subjects easier, but also means DOF is more shallow and you can only stop down so far. I'm happy with my 100mm macro lens (although since moving to the UK I don't think I've used it once due to lack of subject matter, except for with panoramas, ironically). Fir, have you compared your 150mm Sigma to the 100mm Canon that Jjron has, out of interest? I'd imagine they're both very similar (apart from focal length obviously). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's always a compromise in lens choice isn't it! Because another very relevant consideration is working distance - I find 150mm is even too short for some skittish insects! No I haven't done a comparison with jjron yet, but that's a good idea and something we might try do at some stage. --Fir000223:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was using F11 for quite a while, I discovered that the peak sharpness regardless of lens is around F9-10 with my 400D. The table in this review mentions the diffraction limited aperture for a 400D is f/9.3, so this makes sense. According to the same review the 20D has a DLA of around 10.3, so fir's empirical choice of F11 makes sense. The 50D's DLA is f7.6!. Have you tried extension tubes (good for butterflies and dragonflies apparently) or a 500D on your 400mm for the skittish insects? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its handy having a 5D, then eh? :-) The camera's sensor might be best off with those apertures but lenses do indeed get sharper/softer at different apertures. Most lenses tend to be sharpest about (from memory) 3 stops from wide open, so ultrafast lenses (f/2 and below) will actually start to get softer by the time the 'ideal' aperture for the camera comes along. There probably isn't much in it though, and anyway, sometimes for the sake of DOF it's still worth pushing towards or even beyond that f/9-f/11 point, but it is still beneficial to be aware of what the limit of diffraction is for your camera, to be sure. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)02:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I'm beginning to wonder who's talkpage this actually is! :P That aside I'm a fairly staunch supporter of canon and would recommend you get a 400D or a 450D. But recommendations are just talk - head to dpreview.com and check out the sample images and comparison there and make your own judgment. --Fir000201:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha well I did warn about the decentralisation of discussion if we stopped using the guild's talk page. ;-) In the past I would have recommended Canon's without reservation as Nikon's cameras were a bit rubbish and more expensive, as were the equivalent lenses, but the balance has shifted and most cameras are pretty competitive within a given price bracket. Canon's lenses are generally still a bit cheaper though, but from what I've seen, getting a Canon mount for a sigma/tamron/etc lens is ever so slightly more expensive than Nikons. Really, with a DSLR, the lens selection is often more important than the body. Particularly as the resolution of the cameras increase, so too does the minimum quality lens you should consider getting for it. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is apparently a camera recommendation forum, I'll happily offer an opinion. ;-) If I were you, I'd get whatever Nikon or Canon DSLR I could afford and not look back. Any other brand and your lens and accessory selection will be severely limited. That and the knowledge base for brands other than Nikon or Canon is very small indeed. The problem with the D60 is that its due to be replaced in probably the spring of this year and it lacks a built-in autofocus motor. A better choice would be to get the D90 if its within your budget (and then body only and get some cheap sigma/tamron/etc. lens until you can afford better). Basically all my photos are with a Nikon D40 and honestly, while there are plenty of things that I sometimes wish for, the times that I wish I had done something differently with the capture or time of day I took a photo are many more. I can't really offer a recommendation to the canon system since I have limited experience with it. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're only looking to spend that much I wouldn't recommend a DSLR at all because you'll only be able to buy an el cheapo lens and end up disappointed and disillusioned with DSLRs. Instead get a high end point and shoot - the new Canon SX10 IS for versatility (20x optical IS zoom!) or the Canon G10 for quality. --Fir000201:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget his budget is in $USD I think. I wouldn't go for Nikon with your budget, since the cheapest I'd buy is a D80 as previously mentioned. You can get a refurbished 400D (Digital Rebel Xti) and a good Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 for around $720 from adorama. You would just need a bit extra for a flash card, bag and whatever else you desire. My own camera was a second hand model and I have a refurbished lens which works without any issues. If you are going to be mostly shooting landscapes or the tamron is a stretch budget wise then the Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is pretty good, but avoid the non-IS version at all costs (the optics are horrible - my sister has one). Noodle snacks (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Muhammad, yeah it's not a bad shot but it seems a little OOF - what lens were you using? The other minor criticism I'd have is that it's a bit generic - there's nothing in the shot to say that it was taken in Tanzania. --Fir000210:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OOF stands for out of focus, right? I shot using the 18-55mm kit lens. Thanks for the review, maybe next year when I get a better zoom lens :) Muhammad(talk)16:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say it, but doesn't sound promising on the HDD problem. If you do manage to get it to be recognized though, let me know and I'll be happy to help with the recovery if I can. Hopefully you have the info (your photos and html work especially) backed up. If there are some really important things you need to recover, there are companies that specialize in that - but they get quite expensive (over a thousand bucks (US)). I also looked at the software that the other person mentioned, it's not free, so if you do find yourself with a drive that might be readable, let me know and I'll try to point you to less expensive options. Did want to say too ... love your artistic work, both photo and html. I shoot with a Nikon D80 myself, but not quite at the level you do. My work tends to be much more of an amateur slant, but I admire your work. Guess that's all, only reason I brought the topic to your talk page was cause I wanted to mention how great your photos and html were, and it was off topic. Best of luck Ched (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern Ched. Fortunately (I'm being selfish here) the HDD isn't from my computer -it's from an (ageing) family computer. I've tried putting it into my computer and checking to see if it gets detected in BIOS but unfortunately it's not. It was only an 80gig HDD so there wasn't too much data on it but unfortunately our backups weren't that up to date and it looks like a fair bit of data was lost (fortunately none was very important).
Is it making a ticking noise on boot-up? If so the HDD had failed and the only way to get it working (Doesn't always work) is to put it in a zip lock bad in the freezer for 24 hours minimum but no more then 32 hours and put it in a USB HDD Dock which cost about $40 at you local computer store but you have a limited time to transfer the files and normally will only work once (Freezing the HDD). (I've had this major problem which I lost 160GB of data even though I backed-up the files the DVD's failed in just 6 months pluse I lost 2 months of unback-up files and I'm yet to try this idea.) Bidgee (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah agreed. It sounds like the controller on it is buggered if the BIOS doesn't even see it. The freezer trick works on mechanical faults only. Really the only solution is to find an identical drive and transplant the platters onto it - not something that the average person is prepared to do, or even capable of doing really, as you need an ultra sterile environment and specialised tools. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - it doesn't make any noise at all so it's unlikely to be a mechanical thing. But on the other hand I guess there's nothing to loose in trying is there...? :) I'll let you guys know the outcome when I do it (I'll have to get an enclosure first). --Fir000212:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on the new camera. Did you end up buying it in the US or Australia? I would have thought that with the exchange rates the way they are at the moment, it might not have been much more expensive to buy locally, but then again I haven't looked at the prices lately. You probably won't have many excuses left not to upload photos higher than 1600px wide anymore. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)08:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Yeah I'm very excited about it - should be arriving tomorrow :) I did end up buying locally in a shop in Melbourne for a not too bad price. Unfortunately there's not that much left of the holidays to play around with it but I'm looking forward to this year's air show! Hehe no promises because I still want to keep high res for profits - should be able to join some better stock sites with the extra MP too. Incidentally sales on istock have surged for me this month - how about you? --Fir000209:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, surged is comparative! They've up on December, but October to December was bloody awful. I made $57 in December, and I'm at $67 this month so far, but that is still well below what I used to get. At 2/3 of the way through the month and I should be at $120-150 or so. And that was when I had less than half the number of images available on iStock that I have on there now. So I wouldn't really call it a surge in sales. Still down more than 50% on the best month which was July. Thing is about your images, a lot of the photos you size-limit are not typical stock photography. I can't imagine the market for insects and birds is that big, unless they're exceptional in some way. That said, there are some profitable photos amongst them! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see - my month really has been a surge with sales up by 400% from last month! You're right that they're not typical stock, but I have had a few book sales from insects etc and there's always the "you never know" factor. But I have to say that's a pretty impressive sized hyperlink! --Fir000210:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you guys are talking stock, I have a few questions. I have uploaded a few of my pictures to istock and the picture have received a few views and good ratings (5/5) and have also been reviewed. Nobody however, wants to download the pictures. What kind of pictures of yours sell? Muhammad(talk)18:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My best sellers have been abstract computer renderings - the photos which sell on istock are people photos; particularly business people. Check this page for an idea. Unfortunately I wouldn't put much value on the reviews - I'm yet to get anything other than a 5/5 rating and I suspect that's all people ever vote with! --Fir000210:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By computer renderings do you man those fractals and designs? Also, if you don't mind could you share the link to your portfolio? Thanks for the help, and belated congrats for the new camera. You can now capture the butterfly's flight patter :) --Muhammad(talk)11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you go for the 5D2 over a 1D3 or 50D? Whilst a 5D2 is obviously going to be the ducks nuts for studio shots or landscapes, I would have thought the slower speed and lower reach (due to crop factor) wouldn't really suit your shooting preferences, which seem to be mostly birds and insects. I guess you could argue the pixel density is the same as your 20D and the excellent high ISO would be useful for many birds. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were many factors (obviously). The main ones were: suited my price bracket; high MP (meant I could branch into some better stock sites); great ISO performance; video looked interesting. Less reach was a bit of a concern, but I figured I'd still get the equivalent of a 13MP camera after applying a 1.6x crop. Also I've been thinking of expanding my interests to some more photogenic ($$) landscape work and the Mk II, as you mentioned, will be perfect for that --Fir000212:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be interested to know what the 5D MKII is like even though I'll need to win lotto or save as hard as I can for 3 years to buy one. My Pentax K100D is ok (for my starting DSLR photography) but it's now got 5 dead pixels and dust spots (No matter what I try I still get dust on the sensor :( ) plus I need a high res camera that isn't grainy with high res images (Also like the HD recording which can come in handy for breaking news ;) ). Bidgee (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you ended up with around 8MP cropping to 1.6x, the pixel density is the same as your 20D, that still pretty reasonable with the very good high ISO though. I would have thought medium-large format was the ultimate for landscapes, but with the ability to stitch panoramas these days and the instant feedback digital gives plus the reinvestment in lenses that'd be required the advantage isn't big imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But given that a 5D mk2 is more expensive, the 50D also suited your price bracket! And I think you would find that the 50D would give more than enough res for just about any stock site, although admittedly the ability to crop and still retain good detail is handy. And yeah, medium/large format is obviously the top end of photography for quality, and sometimes I wish I had the ability to capture that sort of detail in a single shot (any time that there is significant movement between frames, you simply cannot stitch it seamlessly), although I wouldn't want to sacrifice the portability, cost, speed and cutting edge sensor of the current gen DSLRs to get it. And for that matter, I've thought about getting a 1D series camera from time to time but have been turned off by the size and weight. Better weather sealing doesn't really impress me much.. I've never had any problems with rain on my 5D - the water messes up photos by spraying onto the lens long before I'm ever worried about drowning the camera! I'm thinking perhaps in 6 months time I might consider the 5D MK2. And hopefully with some discounting too, the way the economy is headed... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)12:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't want you to be alarmed by my weak oppose to your run of fruit noms, but once Ihad opposed one for the reasons that applied to all, it only made sense to put the same vote on all of them. They are nicely photographed and i hope it doesn't look like some kind of anti-Fir or anti-fruit'n'veggies campaign :) Mfield (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message Mfield. I had expected something along those lines - please see my comments on cantaloupe (which also apply to all of them :) --Fir000205:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that in the paper a day or two ago, Its pretty much at the other end of the state unfortunately (probably 5-6 hours drive), though I suppose I could go visit my boo who lives up north outside the University year. A lot of them seem to get beached up there on sandbars every summer. There was a whale in the Derwent a while ago (see http://tassiebirds.blogspot.com/2008/09/right-whale-and-more.html), but I didn't find out about it until the opportunity was over. Once upon a time there used to be many whales on the Derwent where I live, but they were hunted out unfortunately, I have some huge whale bones in the garden though. I used to see dolphins a fair bit outside my home too, but haven't seen any for a while now. Hanging around Bruny Island at the right times of year (June-July, November-December) is pretty likely to net some migrating whale sightings apparently. I did brave the great southern ocean in a dinghy to see the seals (see File:Arctocephalus pusillus Colony Friar Island.jpg), but next time I think I'll pay for the tour; The swell was much larger than our boat and we didn't stay for long in fear of getting smashed up in the breaking waves on the rocks. The tour boat is semi-inflatable and goes right up to them, I'd say a 70-200 would probably work fine. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - that's a pretty long drive just for one shot. Shame about the dolphins too - I think you can get rides in the bay where you can see dolphins which I might go on one of these days. But yeah I'd definitely be using a tour boat!! You're certainly a lot braver with your camera than I am :) --Fir000212:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kind wish I'd photographed the Green protester camp in the Florentine Valley before they dismantled it. I saw it on the bus to the Gordon Dam and think a good photograph could have been gained. Long time to drive for a single photo though. I was using one of these on the seal trip, worked very well to keep all the salt spray off everything. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art - it showed up on my watchlist (above the items). I'm guessing it's the same for everyone, but just in case, I figured it would be a topic you would be interested in. Happy clicking (hmmm guess that could mean either links or cameras) ... Ched (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award you the first Food and Drink Barnstar for you amazing photographs of food. Congratulations on your recent Featured Picture images! Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Because I don't do the identification of my images myself - this shot was identified by a Naturalist from the Australian Museum whom I assume knows his stuff. --Fir000209:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I think your Naturalist friend needs to try harder. I think this is the third or fourth image that you've uploaded with the wrong ID now....was he responsible for all those too? Take a look at these two pages on my database [[3]] and [[4]] (admittedly there are no juveniles on either but which do you think your image resembles?) Why not put it on the WP:Birds Project discussion page and get a second opinion? Avicedatalk10:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well look I'm no expert on birds myself and so have to rely on people with more knowledge. So I can't really judge, but I do know that the naturalist is the author of quite a few books on Australian wildlife (eg this) so I feel relatively confident in his identifications. But we all make mistakes and this might be one of them. If you could find me an image of a juvenile grey fantail and a juvenile rufous fantail I could be in a better position to judge (i couldn't find one myself after a quick search). --Fir000211:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must be in the hotzone. Aren't you going to uni in Melbourne? And I just saw a fire 20mi W of swifts creek on GoogleMaps. Hope you and your folks are alright. Anyway, best of luck. --Dschwen16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern Dschwen; fortunately this time we're not under threat at the moment. There is a fire not too far from Swifts Creek and it has been fairly smokey but it's burning away from us and not really posing a significant threat (and certainly nothing to complain about given what other people in the state are facing and have faced :( ). Apparently the area it's burning in was burnt already in the 06/07 fires so hopefully there isn't enough fuel left for it to become a threat. I am studying in Melbourne but have spent most of the holidays (don't get back to uni till march 2) at home in Swifts. All the best, --Fir000200:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buff-rumped Thornbill is a Yellow-rumped Thornbill
Looks like you've received more bad advice.....the Buff-rumed Thornbill taxobox image that you just edited is a Yellow-rumped Thornbill (note the eyestripe and white on black spotting on the crown. Avicedatalk10:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol there I was thinking I could actually take a risk and identify something myself! Sorry about that - it looked similar to my previous shot so I just assumed they were the same. So previous ID was correct yeah? --Fir000210:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They look fairly different.....do you use a field-guide? Might be worth checking it first, or have a look at this site [[5]] might even recognize the calls (...if there's sound :)) . Avicedatalk10:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably UBCD for Windows is the short single answer for what you're looking for. Download the ISO file and burn it to disk. Then Boot the problem computer from that CD. Without going into a long-winded RAMDRIVE explination, you'll want to have the thumb/flash drive you're recovering your data to plugged in before you boot. (or USB drive it that's what you're using).
If you're comfortable with torrents and P2P kind of stuff, you could look for the commercial program called ERD Commander 2005. There's also another one called SmartMAU (or something like that), but it's not a powerful (IMO). If all else fails, let me know to look for something in my email from you, and I'll burn you the ISO to disk, and drop it in the mail. Good Luck, and let me know if you have any questions or there's anything I can do to help. — Ched (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fir0002. I just wanted to talk about some stuff. 1) I noticed that you just changed the licence on Commons:User:Fir0002/200 without changing the licence for all old images. You changed the licence to 1.2-only on 2009-01-30 so File:Kangaroo and joey04.jpg is still licenced under 1.2+ even it isn't displayed on the image's descriptionpage, becuase it was uploaded long before you changed the licence. But I think you know that anyway. As an admin you should know that you can't retrive the GFDL 1.2+ licence even you may want to do so. I don't know how many images you have uploaded since the licencechange, but you may can move the new or the old uploaded files to another template. I know that it would be a lot of work, but I think we have a bot which is able to do so for you. However, If there is no responce at all I will do that for you and I won't care about what you may think or would like to suggest. 2) May you can move old contributions on your talk page on Commons to an archiv (~80kB is quite big). 3) What about using Commons:Template:information? It would be nice to have at least a description in english. 4) May you add a source to File:Fir0002.jpg before someone tags it with {{nsd}}. I have added nearly the same text to your uaser talkpage on Commons. --D-Kuru (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Png myth.png. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "List of image copyright tags" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
Hey Peter, thanks for the heads up on the (marathon!) discussion. I have to say, there was never going to be enough resistance from photographers to usurp the profoundly free-content ethos here. Finding out that NC licensing is "incompatible" with the project wasn't really a surprise, it simply confirmed what I suspected and actually cleared the air for me. I've been hanging back on uploading any more work until the licensing position became clearer, as it's always been too ambiguous for my liking. I'm now more convinced than ever that the back-door provisions of the new 1.3 license will basically force us to jump one way or the other. As within the wider arena of online image content, I think it's time to either embrace the provisions of CC-BY and make them work to our benefit (ie, accept that proper attribution may ultimately provide photographers more benefit and protection than NC licensing) or simply opt out.
If, as I suspect, the vast majority of extant contributors will simply capitulate, it's up to them to lobby for a better version of CC-BY licensing (and templates in particular) to provide simpler, more prominent explanation of re-use conditions. For all the good philosophical reasoning behind free licensing, the underlying problem is the widespread fundamental lack of understanding of that philosophy (such that CC is perceived as ≈PD) among those who would re-use our work. It's fairly crucial to the project that this is now addressed, if it's going to continue to attract quality contributions. --mikaultalk12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, I agree, it really is a question of whether we embrace the licensing or just stop contributing (at least in terms of our quality images). But I don't really see how attribution benefits the photographer more than NC licensing. Especially since they're not exclusive - you could have both if only it were allowed! One thing that, while it wasn't really something I was gunning for, gave me a bit of optimism that Wikipedia wasn't entirely heartless to the photographer-contributor: Erik Möller essentially gave his blessing for us to use Wikipedia as a platform for exposure as photographers. I don't intend to make much of this, as I don't advertise myself as selling my photos anyway, but I do make it clear on the image page (as I get enough requests on my talk page/via email as it is) that I can be contacted to discuss commercial licensing. Tactful enough for me. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. That's the whole issue right there. Erik was simply telling it like it is, I think. Like all WP contributors, I think we have a reciprocal arrangement with the project; contributing isn't pure altruism so much as enlightened self-interest, insofar as it feels good to give to and be a functioning part of what is probably the world's best online community and its greatest collaborative effort. The benefits are arguably greater still for photographers, as our contributions are high-profile, identifiable works. This benefit further increases the better quality the works are – vis. Featured/Quality Pictures – which not surprisingly remains the project's greatest allure for skilled contributors. I mention this because it strikes to the heart of the licensing issue. If licensing is supposed to protect your interests and identify your work with you, you want the most efficient means of doing that, whilst still providing you with the best exposure. NC, in its FU guise, fails at the latter due to low resolution requirements and, I would argue, is not serving either your interests or those of the project as well as a BY-SA license might, with the right version and template. In essence, whatever you release for use here will and should – for many of the same reasons of enlightened self interest – be re-used by anyone who is prepared to release it under the same terms and identify you prominently as the author. Even if your only concern here is exposure (and I'm quite sure it's not, as I mentioned above) the real hurdle to overcome here is your acceptance that others beyond the project may also benefit from re-use, as this will further benefit you in the same way. The simple reality of free content is that traditionally restricted content has less utility, and is therefore much less popular, reaches far fewer people and ultimately earns its creator much less, both in fame and fortune. It's hard not to empathise with the moral outrage you alluded to in the wider discussion, where an image donated to a worthy cause is later exploited for profit by an unscrupulous one. It does "suck", as Fir aptly put it, but it's entirely beside the point. The point is that a BY-SA image on WP will always benefit you AND the project more than one obscured by NC restrictions, and will not leave either party any worse off regardless of the uses others may make of it. Sorry I couldn't put it simpler than that :) --mikaultalk22:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, it is early autumn and lots of rain (should) mean lotsa fungi. I will keep my fingers crossed you see something good - we recently got Amanita muscaria promoted to Featured Status, but it still needs an image of it in 'button' stage (also a cross section which shows yellowish pigment under the skin). I am mentioning this as it is the equivalent of a weed and common under introduced pine and oak and more common in vic than elsewhere, so keep an eye out...Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll keep my eyes open but no promises as I have a long list of more important things I need to get done IRL :) --Fir000223:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fiddler beetle nov07.jpg is a fantastic pic - funny, I always thought fiddler beetles were green and black but I have looked up a few sources (I have a crappy photo which I will upload a bit later to show the colour variation). I will make an article soon if no-one beats me to it :)
Thanks and for my part I was surprised when I found out they came in green as well! So yeah would be good if you could upload a green one --Fir000223:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I have a Canon EOS 400D and a 17-85mm EFS lens, as well as a telephoto. Never had a macro but am keen now as I have alot of insects coming to my native plants...what do you reckon I should get? Casliber (talk·contribs)
I guess the key question is how much you are willing to spend. I haven't got time to give a detailed recommendation (I think there's one further up my page for Muhammad anyway) but basically head to photozone and look at their lens reviews (in particular the MTF charts). Canon 100mm is a good (cheaper) option, but for more reach I'd recommend the Sigma 150mm --Fir000223:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, and there I was thinking "sais" was spelt "says" and "tought" was spelt "thought" :) --Fir000200:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, I would be interested in knowing where this image was taken? In Australia? I can't seem to find the species on pages that list the species for Aussieland - do you know what species it is? - Pudding 21:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding4brains (talk • contribs)
Fair use rationale for File:Game of life board.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Game of life board.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah probably too high res for FU - might need to be deleted. If I get some spare time (unlikely) I'll try downsample and put together a full rationale. --Fir000212:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Fir :-)
I know you're back at Uni, but I'm hoping you might check in here once in a while! - I'm writing to let you know that I recently stumbled across some of your photography work, and found it wonderful! So much so, in fact, that I've used one of your images as the very first 'featured content' on the frontpage of the Wikimedia Australia Chapter Website. I hope you don't mind - and thanks heaps!
In fact, while I'm on that subject, can I interest you in getting involved with the Australian Chapter? - It's basically just an enthusiastic subset of wikimedians down here in Oz, and would only be $20 for a year's membership - we're currently working with various external organisations to try and provide some exciting opportunities for members - and hey - it's just plain fun, right! I hold no positions in the Chapter, other than as a lowly member, who enjoys the regular meetups, projects, and all-things-wiki aspect of the group.... good luck in your studies regardless, and do drop me a line for any reason if you'd like to know more about all this! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Privatemusings - thanks for the compliments and letting me know about the Australian Chapter. At the moment however I can't commit the time to Wikipedia let alone another wiki! But good luck with it and thanks for the invite! :) --Fir000212:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no worries - maybe I can ask for a bit of advice on another matter while I'm here :-) - I have an interest in historical pictures - having had lots of fun uploading works from the Powerhouse Museum Collection to Wikimedia Commons. Many of them are of such high quality that I wonder if it's worth looking at the 'featured picture' process? I see below that it's not without controversy, and I also don't really buy into the whole cropping and restoring thing much, preferring the unaltered image (and sure, being a bit clueless and lazy!). I wonder if you think unrestored historical imagery is a good fit for 'featured picture'? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be honest with you, I don't really place much value on a historic image just because it was taken 50+ years ago so probably not the best person to ask. From a very brief look over your gallery only this one really caught my eye. That said it's probably too low res to be a FP. That said I think your best bet is just to have a go and nom a couple, as long as you don't take things too seriously you've nothing to lose :) --Fir000210:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FPC discussion
Please Fir, do not try to force your interpretations on Maedin's text, which is supposed to remain neutral. If you don't agree, make a comment below. To me, this looks very much like trying to boycott the whole discussion! Please! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar, what can I say? It's difficult to comprehend how enormously hypocritical and foolish your actions are. You are essentially accepting Maedin's interpretation of the status of FPC closing because it is inline with your own views. Never mind he's got nothing to back up those claims or that he's a relative newcomer to the project, you're quite happy to accept his version as gospel.
Fir, You could have bothered to get my gender right, :-) I make it obvious enough for a reason. And, it was not meant to be an "interpretation"—I am fully aware that I have only so much history with the project and only so much information & time available. I would appreciate it if you would do me the favour of not assuming that I intended for it to be anything other than a factual exposition. I invited changes precisely because I know I don't know everything. That said, I don't necessarily disagree with your addition. It's valid, possibly true, and is part of what we are discussing anyway. Maedin\talk16:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the most qualified person here to give a summary of the history of FPC closing and I can quite easily give evidence of my statement (eg Stevage's closing remark here). This is how it was and is. Your attitude is highly disruptive and you seem to be on a fast track to getting temporarily blocked for inappropriate reversion. If you're going to revert justify it --Fir000211:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to understand some time that FPC is not your farm and the closer is not your foreman. Your claims of being "one of the most qualified person here to give a summary of the history of FPC closing" and your threat of blocking me ("a relative newcomer to the project") are typical of your usual arrogant and peackocky attitude when someone disagrees with you. No more reverts, I'll let people decide. This time you won't be able to ruin the discussion and prevent the necessary changes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously you're going to have to get over your obsession with coming up with cabal theories. Also you seem to have misunderstood my statements: I said that Maedin was a newcomer and in not in a position to give a history of the FPC while as far as I know I've been participating in FPC for longer then anyone on this discussion (correct me if I'm wrong) and so in a much better position to lay out the history. I still can't believe you actually had the arrogance to completely remove all of my comments in what is meant to be an open forum on this issue. But at least you've the sense to refrain from further disruptions. And for the record, if you'd actually bothered to read my comment you'd see I wasn't threatening to block you but was merely making an observation of the likely result of your inappropriate actions... Please calm down a bit and have a think before you hit the edit button --Fir000212:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add my two cents here? Fir, as Maedin has said, I don't think she was trying to summarise the entire history of FPC, nor was she trying to slip in any bias or agenda. As a relative newcomer, she's able to see the problems from the outside better than you or I, who cannot help but see FPC through tinted glasses. Not to say your points aren't valid - many of them are, and have been honed through a number of previous discussions that we've had just like this. And Alvesgaspar, I don't think it was ever going to help when you reverted all of Fir's comments. Sure, he probably expressed them a bit forcefully when what we really need is calm and reasoned debate, but he had an equal right to an opinion and it only incited more frustration from him. What we really need is to find some middle ground through healthy debate, and I think we're slowly but surely doing that, but disrespect towards each other won't bridge any divides... :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and I'm sorry for over-reacting. We have an excellent oportunity now for improving things and should not spoil it -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two more
I know you have a lot of barnstars but I feel that I must show my recognition to you anyway:
Hi Ched - appreciate you saying hi, but I think i'll have to pass on that discussion as I've spent too long on wiki recently as it is and I've got exams in a week and a half :) I'll take a look at that thread after exams if you want - that will be post June 23 --Fir000212:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cool. And best of luck on the exams, I'll stop back at the end of the month and see how you did. Just curious about your major and all. School comes far ahead of the wiki in the grand scheme of life and all .. so again, I'll keep my fingers crossed for ya. Cheers! — Ched : ? 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ched, not sure if this is still time relevant but one suggestion I would add for the low light sports photography (other than the ones you've already mentioned which are quite correct) is to look seriously at an IS lens. I'm not sure what focal lengths are being used, but I'm thinking it would be in the 70-300mm range. If that's so, then probably your best bet is the 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS which is an excellent lens if a tad expensive. Failing that you could go for 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS which is a bit cheaper. One thing to remember with lenses though, you almost always get what you pay for.
Yeah school does come ahead :) I'm doing a double degree in Law and Mechanical Engineering, currently in 2nd year - thanks for the well wishes :) --Fir000210:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fir0002. Hope the test results are all positive. That is quite an ambitious undertaking with the double degree. I appreciate your taking the time to reply with detailed info. I agree, the 70-300 range can be ideal for the type of photography User:Royalbroil is doing. I also agree with the "Image Stabilization" factor. (I have the Nikon brand, so terms are a bit different, but similar results). I'll let him know about your suggestions, as well as you having a bit more free time now. Thank you again - both for the help, and for the great photography work you do for the community! Cheers. — Ched : ? 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, Fir, and for asking the question, Ched. I have bookmarked the lenses for now as both are more expensive that I planning to spend right now. I do enjoy my new Canon DSL - it's a HUGE step up over my point and shoot. Even the stock lens does MUCH better under every circumstance. Fir, your photography is extraordinary. You're simply the best! I have already looked at your settings and methods to figure out how to photograph some objects. Cheers! Royalbroil03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Royalbroil, sorry for being slow to reply - your message kinda got lost :). Anyway thanks a lot for your kind compliments and I'm glad you're enjoying your new DSLR, they are a huge step up from P&S! --Fir000208:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because the wings remain an important feature even if the species may be identified without it. I'd have preferred something more like this or even this. The only thing which you would sacrifice is part of the eye (hairs and body should be still in focus if you rotate about the plane of the body) which I don't think is as important. Also f/5.6 should really have been f/11 - as it is practically none of the wing is in focus --Fir000212:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to use the excellent picture referenced above for my website. Please email me at pauljlamont at ltadvisors dot net. Thanks. And great work.
Thank you. Lamont Trading Advisors, Inc. (ltadvisors dot net) I'm reworking the site with an agricultural theme. The financial markets behave in a herding manner so I'm hoping to symbolize that with your Herefords. Plus my grandfather used to raise them :). If you find that you would like to subscribe to my newsletter, just let me know. You can receive it for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljlamont (talk • contribs) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I am hoping to change the licensing on my photographs from GFDL-1.2 to multilicence GFDL-1.2 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 in the near future. As you made changes to this image, would you be happy for this to be licensed in the same way? — Tivedshambo (t/c) 11:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per feedback, the image you reviewed now illustrates the biography of the artist and a different image illustrates the History of Jamaica article. You may wish to change your review based upon these alterations. Durova27319:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Hi Peter, I just got your message and checked back on the nom. I can certainly see why people would defer to the rationale of white clouds on a sunny day; I did originally describe it as "nice" and still like it... but I'm heavily into shooting clouds & if I put aside my strong preference for polarised, low-key-lit cloud images, I confess I'm swayed more by people's reactions to the pano projection than anything else. So I'd probably end up neutral, which gives me no good reason to go spouting a load of crap that would just put more people off ;o) If I could just make a more general observation: I do find some of your images very high-key to the point of harshness – but not always, making me think it's a personal preference thing rather than the gamma settings of our monitors. As I say, it's also quite possibly just a lighting issue, something I'm maybe over-sensitive to. Still, it doesn't stop me enjoying your contributions & I wish you continued success with the noms. Cheers, mikaultalk08:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ID is dubious at best on this. Males are typically about 7mm in size (ie need 2:1ish to photograph one), whilst you said in the nomination this was closer to 4cm. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed some people about this. I've been told that it is either Araneus heroine or Araneus transmarinus, and on the basis of size it is most likely to be Araneus transmarinus. (Araneus is synonymous with Eriophora). Is there any reason it was identified as a male specifically? The females are usually larger. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - not the biologist - but it had quite large pedipalps (more visible in a different photo) which I think was the reason. When I got it identified I of course gave the size and I can only assume it is reasonable. --Fir000214:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
photos
The latest set of photos are great! I'm particularly pleased with the Crested Shrike-tit. Well done! By the way, I'm going to be in Melbourne and the surrounding area for a week or so in a month. If you need some wheels to hit Wilson's Prom, the Twelve Apostles (I wanna see a Rufous Brislebird and a platypus) and Grampions let me know. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk07:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I was really surprised by that Shrike-tit - it just suddenly appeared, perched for a few moments and then flew off again! Fortunately I've got my own wheels, so thanks but I won't need to take you up on that offer. I've also got other plans for my mid sem break... --Fir000201:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On August 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Psaltoda moerens, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You may have noticed that the "fanclub" carries a few pre-requisites to becoming a member. Once you have your 10 FPs then we'll talk --Fir000209:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little more respect for the Vice President please! --Dschwen 13:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC) P.S.: oh no, you deleted his profile page. Well I guess this makes it an "obscure reference" (tm) now :-) --Dschwen13:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Picture
Hi, Fir0002. You made an offer here to create a new scan of this picture. I have written an article - The Big Picture (painting) - about the painting and have listed it at T:TDYK. A better quality image for its appearance on the main page would be great, if possible and if you are still willing. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk10:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![03:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fir0002/Archive_7#c-Capital_photographer-2008-10-05T03:35:00.000Z-Delist_FP_nomination_for_"Tulip_-_floriade_canberra.jpg"){kind=link}
