Thanks Geni, I'm flattered, but I suspect my focus is a little too narrow to actually win. Thankfully, because I don't fancy a speech! ;-) I've been living in the UK for almost 9 years though. Ðiliff «» (Talk)00:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diliff, I've tried restitching using a cylindrical projection (available here). If you think it's better, I'll overwrite the other image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the distortion at the edges is improved in the cylindrical version, although there's still a distinct lack of detail on the pavement on the left side. Is it a lens issue do you think? Ðiliff «» (Talk)15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's DoF, because the foreground pavement is in focus in the middle of the frame. Lenses (particularly zooms) tend to be slightly softer in the corners, but this seems worse than normal, particularly since you stopped down to f/8 which minimises edge softness. Nevermind, it is what it is, but it's worth looking into so you can plan for it (perhaps taking an extra photo at the end so that you have a sharp central part of the photo to incorporate into the stitch). Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David, this isn't about "best images". This is about illustrating an article. The view looking west adds very little value to the article, except that it includes the organ. Otherwise, it is ust another view of the same floor, roof and stalls, as well as the messy end where the architecture is insignificant because it is the result of demolition, not design.
Nothing about the building is more important than the tracery of the East Window. It is the one part of Carlisle Cathedral that must be included as an illustration, whether the image is sharp or not. It is the quality of the design that is important, not the quality of the photo.
Ideally, an image of the window should show the glass with reasonable clarity as well. It is the upper glass, in the tracery, that is the most significant, but an overall balance needs to be achieved as the old glass and the modern glass don't always have similar refractive properties, and may photograph differently, within a single window. Regardless of the glass, the tracery is the subject matter of any illustration of this particular window.
If you can do a crop that shows the tracery well, that would be great. In the meantime, the pic needs to go back into the article, regardless of the quality of the image. Amandajm (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amandajm, I didn't say it was merely a better image, I said it illustrated the tracery better. I agree that the purpose of images is to illustrate the article, but I don't agree as a consequence of that that view looking west adds very little value. A view of the cathedral from both sides gives context to each individual view, and is the next best thing to an immersive 360 degree view. Just because it happens to have some of the same features in it (roof, floor, stalls), it doesn't mean it is redundant. Seeing the choir from within it and from a distance gives you a very different impression of how it all fits together within the cathedral. I know your personal focus is on the notable architectural features, but you have to understand that the article doesn't just exist as a vehicle for you wax lyrical. ;-) The purpose of images in the article is to describe the building; both the individual details and the overall interior views. Yes, it should include the notable features (I'm not disputing that), but not necessarily at the expense of an overall impression. I think there is a benefit to both of my images side by side, and to include an image of the tracery elsewhere within the architecture section. I'll upload a crop of my image that includes the tracery and you can see how it looks in the article. It will not be particularly high resolution (because it will be cropped significantly from a wide angle of view image), but it will at least show what the stained glass looks like within the tracery, which is something that the other image failed miserably to do, despite a resolution advantage. Ðiliff «» (Talk)08:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the image of the tracery cropped from my wide angle view. As I said above, while not of particularly high resolution, I think it shows both the tracery and the stained glass far better. Ðiliff «» (Talk)09:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you commented about finding a citation for the running costs of the Wheel being around £10 per day? Try this Scotsman piece - see the paragraph starting "Jim Harvey, who has been basin master at the Wheel for seven years ...". It does also seem to be included in ref #13, a pdf already used in the article. I would add it myself but would rather not do so for a couple of reasons ... SagaciousPhil - Chat11:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David,
Are you able to contact me regarding the use of one of your images please? I work for a marketing agency and I'd be really interested in licensing your Hammersmith Bridge image for one of my clients.
Could you please contact me at dawn@identity-design.co.uk or 0207 580 6545.
Hi Diliff-
I'm trying to come up with a permission for use clause for my images. May I model it after yours (not a direct copy, by some similarities)?-Godot13 (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just re-reading Diliff's text, I see that "any reproduction of this image, in any medium, must appear with a copy of, or full URL of the license" is contradicted by the suggested wording "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0" which has no link/url. In CC4, they have modified these terms to be more reasonably accommodating about how these things are done, appropriate to the medium. I think, to be honest, "CC BY-SA 3.0" is a clear enough specification and a URL is merely a convenience for online but actually a hindrance for paper. Oh, and I'm picky, there's no hyphen between "CC and BY". ;-) -- Colin°Talk18:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Godot13, no problem, pilfer it however you like. Colin, you're right, I actually spotted that inconsistency in my license requirements just a few days ago and had been meaning to correct it. I haven't had a chance to properly read the CC BY-SA 4.0 legal text either. Is it supposed to automatically supersede 3.0 or is it only valid if I specify 4.0? I had a quick look at the link you provided and it seems to be substantially different, particularly this bit:
If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
a copyright notice;
a notice that refers to this Public License;
a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
To me, this sounds like it actually requires a lot more of the re-user than before. If I 'supply' all of the above to my images on Commons, it would require quite a substantial amount of text associated with the image in any re-use, much more than just my name and the license name. Or am I misunderstanding? Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know I was a bit surprised it seemed more. But it does say "retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material". So if you don't add all that disclaimer of warranties guff then I guess nobody else has to. To be honest, I've lost any respect for CC with their licences as they just don't seem clued up. I've been using CC4 for my latest stuff as it seems to try to be a bit more practical, but it still isn't very clearly worded. I don't think your CC3 automatically becomes 4 and don't know if you can manually upgrade to 4 or if you have to make it an additional choice. They have a FAQ so you'd think that might be covered... -- Colin°Talk21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more from the perspective that people could use the license terms to make it more difficult to re-use, in which case they would choose to require it all. For example, those who have been using GDFL only might decide to use CC BY-SA 4.0 from now on as it might be prohibitive enough to restrict commercial use. Ðiliff «» (Talk)22:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS. If CC have managed to construct a licence that can be used to (a) appear free and yet (b) restrict free use, then the entire team involved need to be taken out and shot. They've already indicated their stupidity by (a) demonstrating how CC can be used to make inferior versions of a work free while retaining full commercial rights to the quality versions and (b) indicating in their FAQ how this is in fact not the case. *sigh* -- Colin°Talk23:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did in fact assume good faith, the first time I saw someone replace a picture that effectively reflected the subject. And then I did it again with the next time, and the next time, and the next time. Now, I see that you have not just added your picture to the Fountains Abbey article but removed the previous one. What was wrong with just adding it to the gallery? I assumed good faith, but after seeing that, I saw self-promotion.
Is opinion objective? I see no objectivity in your explanation for replacing a photo that effectively displayed the subject. Why not put it on the Fountains Abbey article and see if other people share your opinion and add it to other articles? Pjposullivan (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that you have assumed my intention and stated it as fact without having the slightest clue about my actual intentions. You guessed, and you guessed wrong. I removed the previous image because it was redundant. It's silly to add very similar images to galleries at the bottom of the page. Articles should include only images that add understanding to the article. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but high quality images on Wikipedia is what I do, and I think I have a good eye for what is or isn't a good image. Now I'm not going to pretend I'm infallible and never make mistakes. And yes ultimately this is subjective, but right now it's just one opinion vs another. I'm happy to bring it to a talk page for consensus, but I know from experience that article talk pages are very slow in responses, if you actually get a response at all. Yes, my image is slightly darker but it reflects darker lighting conditions. In any case, if the only complaint is brightness, it's trivial to brighten the image. The previous image has flaws that cannot be corrected in my opinion (poorer composition and sharpness). And your argument that the previous image is 'perfectly fine' and therefore doesn't need to be replaced is defeatist. If we don't strive to improve the photography on Wikipedia, we'll have an encyclopaedia that is, at best, merely 'fine'. I'm hoping we can do better than that. Ðiliff «» (Talk)20:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my reasons above for reverting, please do not make same mistake you're accusing me of - not assuming good faith.
Also, my point still stands, why didn't you just add your photo to the Fountains Abbey article's gallery? Why do your photos have to be at the top? Even if you added your photo to the top of the page, why not move the old photo the gallery? I tried, though I messed up the link, to move you photo to the gallery, I did not remove it entirely.
In respect to the list of former cathedrals article. The photo displayed is much smaller than a regular thumbnail. The small size means that lighting is more important. Your photo suits the Fountain Abbey article more than the list article. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At what point did I not assume good faith? As I said previously, I added my image at the top because it replaced the previous top image, functionally, as they both show a very similar view. As such, it would be redundant in the gallery. My images don't have' to be at the top, and if there is an existing photo that I believe is superior to mine, I won't replace it. I only add images as lead images when I think they are an improvement. As for the smaller thumbnails in the former cathedrals article, I've replaced the image in there with a crop which is also lightened, so it's more visible in the thumbnail view. Hopefully this improvement satisfies you. Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I just wrote this message:
I read on WP:THANKS not to always click on the 'thank' in case it arouses suspicion or seems patronising. So that I don't give the wrong impression, I just wanted to say thanks for adding the cropped image to the list article and moved the old picture to the gallery of Fountains Abbey. For me, what you did was the best solution. Sincerely thanks, Pjposullivan (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
No problem. I do try to find solutions that satisfy everyone (as best they can, anyway) and it's usually just a matter of actually figuring out what everyone wants from the situation. And generally speaking I wouldn't I wouldn't interpret a 'thanks' as patronising but I guess I can see how it might be in certain circumstances. Ðiliff «» (Talk)22:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to reply to your post that my reply had an edit conflict with, I wrote that because you said that I 'guessed and guessed wrong'. But, that's cool, all good now, thanks again, Pjposullivan (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am Dr. Gonzales, scientist and dentist working in Germany.
I would like to use your picture of the Frauenkirche in Munich View from Peterskirche Tower, CC BY 2.5 in my own homepage for showing the patients the location of my clinic directly at the rear side of the church. I would put the picture in powerpoint and put an arrow in the picture showing the building behind the church.
Can you allow me this without problems with the copyright?
Thank you very much for your gently collaboration,
You know, I think only one person in three years has requested permission to use an image I've taken. Everyone else just reuses it; those I've seen usually provide attribution as necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us have yet to actually take a picture good enough for someone outside of WP to want to reuse, legitimately or otherwise. :-) -- Colin°Talk08:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, definitely not you though Colin. I think my favourite reuser so far has been National Geographic Indonesia (link). At least, it's the only one my parents would recognize. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I get quite a few requests... The ones you see on my talk page are the tip of the iceberg. The rest stream through as private messages or they find me on Facebook, which is problematic as messages from people not on your contact list get put in an 'other' folder and you get no notification of them). I didn't even realise this was happening until about 6 months ago, when I noticed that I had about 20 re-use requests dating back to 2007! Ooops! Someone contacted me a few weeks ago to say that my panorama of the Houses of Parliament was being sold at a market in East London without attribution. That kind of thing does bother me a little and I've been meaning to visit and ask who was supplying it. Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They track you down on Facebook? But wait... (checks image)... you don't even link to your Facebook page from your images like JJ or Muhammad. So how... scary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well exactly. My name is published though, so they search for my name and there aren't many David Iliffs out there. Happens a lot. Actually it happened before I used my real name on Wiki too (Diliff does suggest my full name though, so they did some sleuthing I suppose! Sometimes people just want to tell me they like my photos. Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Mine is not a very common name either, and I've probably got the best internet presence of anyone with my name, so my profile shows up pretty easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird, I just googled your name and your Wiki user page was the second link... And yet you have no reference to your real name in your user page? Google is pretty clever. Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with your photos of cathedral interiors. How do you avoid including the other visitors in the pictures? Aa77zz (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! With a lot of difficulty usually. I take the photos as a montage though, which helps. Basically I take separate photos of different parts of the cathedral separately and then digitally combine them to create a single image. As long as nobody is in each part when i take the photo, it doesn't matter if they are somewhere else. Each segment takes about 30 seconds or more to photograph (long exposure) so even if I press the shutter and nobody is there, someone might walk in front which will spoil the photo, and I have to take it again. It's difficult and frustrating though, and I usually just have to wait, sometimes 15 minutes or more to complete the shot. Hope that explains it! Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed and clear reply. I now realize that there is an advantage of combining several shots that I hadn't considered. In some of your pictures I wonder why you go to the trouble of stitching photos together rather than simply using a wide angle lens. For example, couldn't you have taken this picture with a short focal length lens? Is it because you want a final picture with more pixels? Or is it because the stitching software allows you to manipulate the perspective? Aa77zz (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could take most of my images with wider angle lenses, except that sometimes the angle of view is actually slightly wider than the widest lenses that exist. ;-) Also, yes, I stitch images for both resolution/detail and better perspective control. It's like asking why a professional photographer doesn't use an iPhone instead of a medium format camera worth $50,000. The quality just doesn't compare. Ðiliff «» (Talk)19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a producer at an in Amsterdam based production company. Right now we are working on a tv commercial for the Ukrainian local market.
We are looking into the possibilities to use elements of one of your photographs, CC-BY-SA 3.0, for a background.
We can't attribute the image in the commercial, so I was wondering what the next steps are for us to use this image in our commercial.
I hope to hear from you soon.
You can reach me on my e-mailaddress: marloes@minivegas.net.
Please let me know if you need any additional information or have any questions.
I'm a producer at an in Amsterdam based production company. Right now we are working on a tv commercial for the Ukrainian local market. We are looking into the possibilities to use elements of one of your photographs, CC-BY-SA 3.0, for a background.
We can't attribute the image in the commercial, so I was wondering what the next steps are for us to use this image in our commercial.
I hope to hear from you soon.
You can reach me on my e-mailaddress: marloes@minivegas.net.
Please let me know if you need any additional information or have any questions.
we found your image of the cathedral of Strasbourg on Wikipedia. since we are organizing an non profit international conference on Hepatitis C in Strasbourg next year, we would like to use your phot for the promotion of our town. What are your conditions?
Hi Catherine, that would be fine. The only conditions are that you should credit me as the photographer and also mention the license name. It should say something like "Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0" or the equivalent in French if you prefer. Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We would like to use your Montreal Twilight Panorama image in a game project we are making, are you happy to let us credit you in our credit roll? If yes then could you provide an appropriate legal line? If not then would you be able to email me so we can discuss further? You can get me at mr DOT cool9dragons AT gmail DOT com
Just uploaded my first portrait using the 60D. What do you think? Blown highlights on the side of his face and the neckband make me think FP is out of reach, but QI might work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a pretty good portrait actually. I didn't know you had a 60D, did you upgrade or have you always been shooting with it? I thought it was a 3xxD of some kind. I don't think there are any significant blown areas in the image really and I wouldn't think they would be a deal-breaker for FP. I don't think I would have had him turn his body quite as much as that (but I'm no expert on portraiture) as I find it tends to make their neck look elongated slightly, but I can't really fault it otherwise. The lighting is quite good considering you didn't use a flash. Did you use a reflector of some kind? Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My first DSLR was this 60D; I've used it for all my FPs so far bar one. Actually, this was in ambient lighting during the International Indonesia Forum a couple of days ago. I asked him to stand in the corridor outside the conference room, in a shadow under an overhang. The brighter area is from the sun, though I think it was filtered through some clouds so not as harsh as it could have been. Glad you like it! If I have a chance with Dr. Carey, or another individual, I'll make sure to remember to pose them at less of an angle... perhaps 20 or 25 degrees would be enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David! Just for information: Currently some of your outstanding church interior work is nominated on the German FPC site. On one of your photo, namely:
I haven't... One of my recent interior nominations failed due to insufficient votes, so I assumed it was either voter fatigue given the number of recent nominations of mine, or because of the summer holidays... either way, there was very little participation, so I decided to wait a while. Ðiliff «» (Talk)15:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've wondered if we've had rather too many church FPs recently (not to mention too many Asian birds), but I'd vote for the Ely choir pic. To my inexpert eye, the colors seem a bit more muted than in the Hereford pix. And Ely is such an interesting historic edifice. Sca (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sca, I've already been there, done that. :-) Although it was a bit overcast when I was in Vilnius so from memory, the lighting wasn't as nice as it could have been. I'm in Kaunas at the moment but will be back in Vilnius on Tuesday so if I get the chance I'll revisit with the hope that the sky will be a bit nicer. Out of interest, do you have any particular reason for the suggestion of St Anne's? It's a beautiful little church, but it's one of many as you say. Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's quite famous. First, it's probably the only brick Gothic church in Vilnius; most of the others are baroque, due to the city's long (Polish-influenced) R.C. history. Second, it is, so I've read, a rare of example of the "flamboyant" brick Gothic style — which one can see from those sweeping scisssors-style forms in the facade. (An architectural historian would have better words for them.) Third, local lore has it that Napoleon, on his way to Moscow in 1812, was so enamored of St. Anne's that he talked about dismantling it and carting it back to Paris. However, he soon had other things on his mind....
I know a bit about this because I lived in Vilnius for a time in the mid-'90s, when things were still quite Soviet-ish and rather grim. Have you learned the all-purpose Lithuanian word iki yet? Hi, good bye, see ya, etc. And ačiū is not a sneeze, it's "thank you." Standard response: Praŝom, which can mean "you're welcome" or "please."
I learned that iki is a supermarket brand before I learned that it was hi/bye! And I'm impressed that you lived there. Lithuania is definitely not grim anymore. There are still some remnants of its past (a few of the churches are so run down that they might as well be construction sites) and outside of the old town, it isn't as prosperous looking as many Western European cities, but I'm quite shocked that almost everyone in Lithuania seems to be driving brand new Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi, Range Rover etc. That's something I've noticed in a number of old Soviet capitals, like Prague. Not sure if they're genuinely quite well off, or if they're just trying to project wealth, but it was a surprise to see. I wasn't expecting them all to be driving 1980s Ladas, but it seems comparable to the cars in the wealthier suburbs of London. Ðiliff «» (Talk)18:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting thing about that Iki supermarket chain is, it was founded by two brothers from Belgium, of all places. (I interviewed one of them in my short-lived capacity as a "media advisor").
In the mid-'90s they were driving second-hand Audis from Germany, not new ones, along with leftover Ladas, Volgas, etc. There were beggars, including children, on the (snowy) streets, and tumbledown, stinking Soviet-built apartment blocks, but already restaurants, pizza places, bars and nightclubs. And street crime. (I was mugged in Antakalnis, a district of Vilnius.)
Interesting, do you remember which street that is? I can't quite read the street name. Well I've never felt even remotely in danger so far, and I've been carrying around $5000+ worth of camera equipment the entire time. A couple of beggars have approached me in Lithanian but when it's clear I don't understand them, they just say "Ahh English!" and then smile and continue on their way. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to figure out what street it was that I photographed (film) back in '96 but I don't know.
I've been to st Peter and St Paul's this morning actually but it was absolutely heaving with tourists. I could barely get in the door, let alone photograph it properly. I'm now in Kaunas and will be back in Vilnius on Tuesday so I'll make another trip to the church again then and hopefully it will be more sedate. I've been to the cathedral and many of the other churches in central Vilnius though. St Theresa's, St Anne's/Bernadine Church, St John's at the university, The Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit (the monastery near the Gates of Dawn, The Gates of Dawn shrine (very hard to get a clear shot without people praying in front of it, it's another that I want to revisit), Divine Mercy Sanctuary (also need to revisit, very hard to find it without lots of people praying although it's open 24/7 so if I get my timing right....), The Dominican Holy Spirit church on Dominikony Gatve and the Orthodox Church of Revelation of the Holy Mother of God. Some of these churches don't actually have an article on the English wikipedia, but do on the Lithuanian wiki, so I may end up having to create them. How is your Lithuanian? ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Gates of Dawn is a spectacle, rather astounding to the modern eye.
The last time I was in Vilnius, in '06, St. Anne's was very quiet, almost deserted. I spent some time inside just thinking.
As you've probably heard, the Old Town of Vilnius is reputedly the largest such original old town in Europe. It wasn't wrecked in the war, except predictably for the old Jewish Quarter, which was centered on Vokieciu Gatve — ironically, German Street. Old Vilnius / Wilno had a huge Jewish population, nearly all murdered by the Nazis. Sca (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are in Kaunas try to find the Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis museum, it should be there somewhere. And check out those ruins at the University, we could do with better pics on them. The pedestrian zone main street has a caffé with wonderful ice-cream, and a very nice old books shop - (Antiqvariat??) with lovely cheap English books too. If you want real good food try the Russian Restaurant - and DO TRY an appetizer. Those are not appetizers - they are giant plates of gorgious foods. Try also the Wild Boar, main square. Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew my talk page was stalked by experts on Lithuania... :-) Hafspajen, what ruins at the university? I'm only in Kaunas until tomorrow afternoon so will have limited time to see/do things. The museum sounds interesting but of course I probably won't be able to take photos of the artwork. ;-) It really needs to be done properly in a controlled studio environment anyway. Ðiliff «» (Talk)22:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is one more thing one can do in Kaunas, travel upphill on the little lift, and see this - Panorama of Kaunas, Lithuania. Äsh, Steve you are American, aren't you? What is that for a distance. Have seen American drive all day long.... Hafspajen (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was already asleep by the time you were discussing my nocturnal sleeping arrangements. :-) Right, well the problem is that it's Sunday today and all the churches in Kaunas will be busy for services, so I may have some trouble photographing them. I best be off. Next stop, Palanga. Ðiliff «» (Talk)07:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice too. Check out the Castle. And the pier. Was there too in June. I liked best Tartu - which I do recommend - it is really close, those countries are so small. But if you are still there you should do try to take the elevator up on the hill to the Panorama point. It starts somewhere beside the bridge depicted in the picture, cheep and fun. Hafspajen (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I arrived back in Vilnius today and spent most of it catching up on the leftover things that I couldn't do properly last week. St Peter and St Paul church first thing in the morning. And wow, it is busy even on a Tuesday morning. I arrived at about 9am and it was already flooding with package tourist groups. It's obviously a major stop on the tourist trail. I ended up waiting about 45 minutes for a lull in group arrivals to be able to shoot the interior properly. Thesetwo photos give you an example of what I had to work with! Anyway, finally got that done (you'd never believe how busy it was when you see an empty church in the final photo). Also managed to finally get a good shot of the altar of The Gates of Dawn. I had to wait 45 minutes there too. Just as I arrived and set up, a service began. I assumed it would be fairly quick, but no... 45 minutes of which I understood virtually nothing. But eventually managed to squeeze out an empty shot of the altar there. Also revisited St Anne's as the afternoon light was lovely, deep deep blue skies and wispy clouds. It's really very difficult to get a good photo of it though. The Bernadine Monastery behind it is all scaffolded up which ruins many angles, and there's a pedestrian crossing right in front of St Anne's which puts poles and signs right in the way of the ideal frontal shot, so I had to take a photo from a slightly oblique angle. Hopefully I've done it justice though. My last job for the evening is the Divine Mercy Sanctuary, a little chapel on Dominikonu Gatve. It's quite modern inside, but I've been told it's of some significance (and seems to be based on the fact that it is continuously full of worshipers at all times of the day, unlike many of the larger churches) because of the painting at the altar. So I'll revisit that one for the 5th or 6th time at some point later tonight since it's open 24/7 and hopefully it will be quiet. If not, I'll pass. I'm moving onwards to Riga tomorrow morning for 2 days then back to London. Any suggestions there? I've got myself a small list but Lithuania was the main focus of the trip so I've not spent as much time researching it. Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. (The man behind the camera in the first Sts. P&P pic looks like my ex-father-in-law.)
Personally, I've never been all that enamored of Baroque architecture, though of course some baroque churches (thinking of Bavaria) do put on quite a show.
Alas, never been to Riga, but I believe there are some very old Backsteingotik churches and other bldgs. there. (Hafs could no doubt tell you more, but he seems to be absenting himself from WP today.)
Must get to Riga and Tallin (known for centuries as Reval) someday — have read much about Baltic history, the Northern Crusades, etc. Will be very interested in the results of your trip. Viso gero....Sca (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am producing a book about migration in London for the London School of Economics and would like to use your picture of the Notting Hill Carnival in 2006. We obviously want to credit it correctly to you - so please can you confirm what you require. Thank you. Ben Kochan Please could you reply to my email address ben_kochan@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.122.41 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I would like to use the image you took of the Melbourne skyline for a poster at a jobs fair. I am happy to put this attribution by the image: Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0
Is that OK?
I did indeed eat it. ;-) The one I photographed was actually not that nice (and was from one of the more expensive restaurants on the tourist strip), I had a much better one from a local tavern type restaurant outside of the old town, but I was with some others from the hotel I was staying at and didn't really feel like taking out the camera to photograph it! Ðiliff «» (Talk)15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I take it you weren't a fan... I didn't mind it (the better one), to be honest. But perhaps it was better because I had a (very nice wheat) beer or two beforehand. Ðiliff «» (Talk)23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like permission to use part of the photo. Specifically, I would like to clip approximately one-half to one-third of the photo from the right side, in a mild collage: I would juxtapose your picture with a small-town scene with clean-air. I would have words and numbers in the foreground, covering over parts of the pictures; your photo would be in the background, behind the text. I can send you a draft version if that would be helpful.
My purpose for doing so is for Table of Contents (TOC) art, which is something required by the scientific journal, Environmental Science & Technology, and which would appear with the abstract. For an example, see http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1016735; here, there is a photo included with the abstract. That photo is now required for all authors submitting to that journal. The journal does not provide the option of including attribution. (This is really frustrating, believe me, but it is not up to me.)
May I have your permission to use this photo for the purpose above (as part of a collage for TOC art)? It's a great photo! Thank you for adding it to the creative commons.
Here is my contact information: E-mail: julian@umn.edu. Phone: 612-625-2397. Please contact me directly with your reply.
I am Mari-Liis, the Shop Manager at No. 1 Royal Crescent and with my colleague Janey we have found this fantastic panorama of the Royal Crescent and our Museum. I wonder if it might be possible to produce bespoke merchandise for our gift shop with this image? It would look perfect on a bookmark, and therefore I am requesting your permission to use the image. As we are a charity organisation, we do not have a budget for licence fees, but I would be perfectly happy to offer you a quantity of the merchandise after it has been produced.
Hi David , need some help here. I want to photograph buildings in a correct way. no falling buildings etc.. But cannot afford a tilt shift lens because i would need a full frame camera also. I shoot a Nikon D7100 for the moment. If I would use a Pano head and PTgui software what lens would you recommend for a crop camera ? I only have zoom lenses. Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 17-55mm.
Hi Patrick. There are no specific requirements for architectural photography. Any camera and wide angle lens combination can work. Also, you don't need a full frame camera to use a tilt shift lens (although you would not get the same effective focal length of course). Really, it depends mostly what kind of architectural photography you want to do. Interior or exterior? Very high resolution or regular resolution but with corrected perspective? If very high resolution isn't needed, you don't even need to stitch photos at all. The perspective of a single image can be corrected using software like Photoshop. For panoramic stitching, I generally prefer fixed focal length lenses because they tend to be sharper in the corners than zoom lenses (but not always). This is important when stitching images because if the edges are softer than the centre, you can see a difference where the two images are stitched. One other thing is that a panoramic head isn't even absolutely necessary for many exterior photographs. You can take many panoramas on a regular tripod or even hand held if the building is far enough away. A panoramic head is only necessary when something is very close to you, because the effect of parallax is much larger. That's about all I can say for now - it's hard for me to tell you more unless you can tell me more about what kind of results you are hoping to achieve. Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David , thx for the fast reply. I love to shoot the inside of churches , old buildings etc. Yes i could shoot with a wide lens and use ptgui to correct it but loose resolution because i have to crop the foreground. Most of the buildings i visit here in belgium there is not much space to take photo's. Your photo's of the churches inside and those high buildings are the thing i like to shoot. If i would buy a 24mm prime lens (36mm crop) and a decent pano head would this be oke for this kind of shooting ? Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:A09A:6500:6969:ACB6:65A1:1AB7 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Yes, a 24mm prime lens would be pretty useful on a crop sensor camera. I used a 35mm prime lens with my full frame camera for quite a while before upgrading to a 50mm lens. With a 24mm prime lens on your camera, I would guess that 3 columns x 2 rows (with some overlap of course) would be a useful field of view for church/building interiors (with the camera in portrait format on a panoramic head). 3 columns is about as wide as you would want to go. With my 50mm lens, I use 5 columns but that is about the same field of view as 3 columns with my 35mm lens. Hope that helps. Good luck and feel free to ask more questions. Ðiliff «» (Talk)13:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am building a website for a Christian heritage organisation in London and they have pinpointed your shot of the altar at St Barts as one
they would very much like to feature in a revolving gallery that will appear at the top of three pages.
Would you consider granting permission for its use in their gallery?
Hi there. Yes, you could use the image in this way, as long as you credit me as the photographer and also include the licence name (CC-BY-SA 3.0). Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Bruna and I work for a brasilian company (DJ Móveis) and we are working on our product catalog and we'd like to use a image of yours on the cover.
I send to you the cover of our catalog on Facebook. Please, take a look.
How should I proceed with the image rights? Can I use your image like the license describes, by putting your name on the cover or in this case the license don't aplay ?
I await your reply.
Thanks,
Bruna de Carvalho
Code River (no, no article yet) passing through central Yogyakarta
Hi Diliff, I was playing around with HDR again and was wondering if you think this is too "HDR-y". I think the colours are alright, but you've got a better eye for that (others here and here). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it looks pretty good for HDR actually. The clouds look ever so slightly watercolourish, but clouds are particularly difficult to render accurately. I would also bring down the highlights a little bit and increase contrast a little bit, but that's more my personal tastes than an actual flaw in the image. Ðiliff «» (Talk)09:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St Mary's, Bourne Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Early English. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
One simply opens up the image at full size,and looks at the branches of the potted shrub on the bench, which is just to the left of the right-hand pillar in the foreground. If you still can't read the messages, I'm not sure how I can help you further. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)15:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just 'discovered' that if I click on the image to make it full screen & then click again it opens way up — and I can read the notes.
What? Really? You only just discovered how to view the images at full size? You've been missing out on the details all this time! That's one of the best things about my images that sets them apart from regular single-photo images (IMO)... the high resolution details visible. Yes, I still have some more photos from Lithuania to upload. I've already uploaded the photos of Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit though. The problem is that at present, no article exists for that church! So I have no article to add the images to. It exists in Lithuanian Wikipedia I believe, but my Lithuanian isn't good enough to translate it. ;-) Neither is Google Translate's, to be honest. Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I'm technologically backward, an analog guy in a digital world, etc. At least now I know.
Computerized translation sites are fine for individual words and phrases, and even for the occasional sentence. But they're not up to translating text, particularly from grammatically more complicated languages such as German (which I work with on WP). And in Lithuanian nouns decline through no less than seven cases. Yikes! Sca (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there's a short article (& 2 pix) about the Church of the Holy Spirit on German Wiki, which I could translate. However, as is all too often the case with German WP, the article contains no references — which based on my experience probably would make it unsuitable for a FPN. Sca (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure that references are a requirement. A FP is about the image rather than about the article as an image cannot (so easily) lie, even if the article is full of misinformation, but it would certainly be ideal if the article could be properly sourced too, just to create a well-rounded combination since the image will eventually make it to POTD on the main page, and it would be embarrassing for it to link to a poor article. Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The German totals 233 words. It wouldn't take much to translate it. In English it probably would be a bit shorter. I can do it if you like, but again it's not an ideal subject for translation. (Among my longer translations is Hans Baluschek.) Sca (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have thought the English translation would be slightly longer, given that the Germans love to combine multiple words into one hulking Tiger tank-sized überword. ;-) Well, we could always try to gleam a few extra facts from the Lithuanian Wiki via Google Translate (the ones that we can fairly conclusively understand, that is) after the German translation? Ðiliff «» (Talk)22:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those long German words rarely turn up in everyday communication, and I don't see any in the article, unless you count neobyzantische (adj. = Byzantine Revival). You want a complicated language? Try Lithuanian, in which the word for "entrance" is įvažiavimas (six syllables). Anyhow, I'll give Heilig-Geist-Kirche a shot, maybe later today. Sca (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
my name is Jörg Rüsewald and i write to you from the German Museum of Technology in Berlin. Right now we are planning a new exhibition about "The Net", about communication and information networks.
In this context we would like to present your beautiful picture of the British Museum Reading Room in our exibition as a print on the wall.
Is it possible to use that picture for a presentation in the exhibition? If yes, could you provide us with a high resolution version tiff, 300 dpi?
Our context: The German Museum of Technology is a museum of the State of Berlin and has an educational mandate. We are part of the public foundation "Stiftung Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin". Main groups of visitors to the museum are families and school classes.The museum is not a private entity and would have no commercial objectives with the presentation of picture, no commercial use would be associated.
With best regards,
Jörg Rüsewald
Ausstellungsprojekt "DAS NETZ"
Stiftung Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin
_______________________
Thanks! Much appreciated. Actually I only have two images, and they are too similar to include both. The one I think is slightly better is the one I just added to the article, but the other is the same view but from further back. It shows more of the entrance, but less of the main body of the church. Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Just realized I misnamed the article. Should be Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit, Vilnius, there's an RC church by the same name. I'll see if an admin can fix it. Sca (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm actually slightly unsure what it is you're unsure of! I'm not sure that I'll be able to add much though. I didn't visit the crypt and actually the staff in the church were a bit cold and distrusting of me with my camera on the tripod, so I didn't stay any longer than needed to take in the atmosphere and then get the couple of photos. It was something that I noticed throughout Lithuania and Latvia - the Russian Orthodox churches were not particularly welcoming to visitors. Most absolutely forbid photography entirely. I sympathise, as I know they don't exist for church fetishists to photograph them, but I did find it frustrating as I wasn't just a bumbling tourist, I was trying to document the interiors professionally and I suspect no free, quality images of the interiors exist anywhere on the internet. I tried to ask why I was forbidden to take any photos but of course with the language barrier, all I could get was a repeated and insistent "NO PHOTO!". Ðiliff «» (Talk)22:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can imagine. Very different cultures — and churches were long suppressed or disparaged in those countries, during Soviet times. Thanks for doing what you did. Sca (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, let me add one comment: the difference is that the Melk picture is a single shot in a church where it is not allowed to use tripods. So no wonder that there are some technical issues. But I am very honoured to see my picture compared to Diliff's. Regards, --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Ah I see, then for a handheld shot, it's pretty good. Very annoying though, tripods really do make the images so much better. Better depth of field, better sharpness, and the ability to use HDR if you need. Ðiliff «» (Talk)20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about "featured", it's about what belongs in the infobox. This is about the bridge, not about its surroundings. I think the two previous images beat this all to heck, as they show the main arch to the exclusion of distracting elements. For an infobox image, that's what we need. The image you put there doesn't belong in the infobox, as it makes the main part of the bridge too hard to see, given the space we have to work with. I realize its your image, but you need to be more critical of your own work if this is the best you have for that space. Note that I replaced my own image with someone else's for just the reasons I've listed. Your image might make more sense later in the article as a larger image. - Denimadept (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Denimadept, it's still just your opinion about what belongs in the infobox. I don't think it's patently clear that you're right, but you're writing as if it is. I'm not going to claim that I'm the supreme arbiter of images, but I disagree that the images that you've replaced it with are better. Of course it is about the bridge, but it is also about the bridge as it exists in its environment, because the environment is the reason why the bridge exists, as opposed to the road simply following the natural contours of the landscape. Also, your chosen images are absolutely not better when viewed in detail. Obviously an image in an article is not always going to be clicked on, but I think my image is large enough in the infobox that you can see it fairly clearly. I think you also need to consider the detail that is visible when viewed at 100%, and it's clearly a better image in that respect. Also, it isn't strictly about the image being 'featured', but it does suggest that the image has been vetted by the community in some respect, and it's a bit rude to remove it without any consultation or explanation. Your edit summary gave no indication of your reasoning. Anyway, I suspect I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. I'd suggest we bring the discussion to the talk page of the article but it's not a well-trafficked page so I don't know how quickly we'll get a response. Anyone else lurking on the page is welcome to add their thoughts. Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can bring it to the article's Talk page if you wish. I'm not going to fight about this, but I feel that the shallow angle of your image doesn't show off the bridge well. If you'd gone further down the embankment, you might have gotten a better angle. As it is, this is not showing the bridge much at all. The article is about the bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually visit it this summer as part of my English Cathedrals project, but it was being used to set up for a corporate dinner party that evening and many views and sections of the cathedral were off-limits to visitors. It's one of the more annoying aspects of Anglican cathedrals, they seem to be for rent to anyone with a lot of money so you never know what you're going to find when you visit!. Many times, I have traveled some distance to visit one and found that it is not in the right state to be photographed. For example, Birmingham Cathedral. When I arrived, it was set up for some sort of video conference, with cables and equipment everywhere, a big white projector screen covering the whole view of the eastern end, obscuring the only really interesting part of the cathedral - this view. I was so discouraged by the state of the cathedral that I just spoke to the priest in charge for a few minutes and left again without taking any photos at all! I did take a few images that avoided the view of the dinner party at Liverpool Cathedral though, like this one of the West Window which is better than the one in the stained glass article (I didn't know there was a separate article for the stained glass), but it's more of a view of the whole wall than just the stained glass. It could be cropped fairly easily to show the glass better though. Ðiliff «» (Talk)09:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Diliff, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing, The Herald : here I am
Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Any specific methods to ensure proper monitor calibration? I seem to be having the hardest time with the clear "blue" sky. I'm open to any suggestions...--Godot13 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I've never had a problem with such strange blues before. I wonder if it's a peculiarity to the Leaf or if it's your monitor at fault. Do you see the purple tint on your screen at all or does it look normal to you? Have you tried a second screen to see if it looks the same on both? The strange thing is that all the other colours look completely normal, which is why I wonder if its actually not your monitor but the camera. Maybe you don't have the correct Lightroom profile for the Leaf, or something like that. Do you use Lightroom to process the images? I guess if you can start with your workflow and PC set up, that might help me to get to the bottom of it with you. Ðiliff «» (Talk)00:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back so quickly. I'm a little swamped for the next day or so, but will put all the info together for your diagnostic opinion. Many thanks in advance!--Godot13 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diliff- The camera (which I rent and do not have in front of me) is a PhaseOne/Mamiya 645 body with a Leaf Aptus II 12 medium format back. I used a Leaf conversion program to turn the raw files into .MOS files which I open in Adobe Camera Raw (Photoshop CS6), ultimately save as TIF files and then convert to JPG for uploading to Wikipedia. Once the MOS files is saved as a TIF, it is labeled (seemingly automatically) as "Adobe RGB". Although I have Lightroom installed, I've only used on a few occasions for CA that won't resolve with Camera Raw... Is there a specific CS6 setting based on camera type/manufacturer?-Godot13 (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Diliff! As we gather to celebrate the changing of years and reflect on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, I would like to wish you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Attached is a small snack which I hope will give you the energy to continue being an amazing person and editor in the coming year.
I'm not sure, the whole city was flattened in WW2 and I'm not sure that there is anything authentically historic left. They did rebuild the city quite nicely from what I've seen in photos, but it's like seeing Castle Neuschwanstein at Disneyland instead of the real thing. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that history — I lived in Warsaw for half a year. Well, how about Cracow / Krakow (pronounced Kahk' oof)? That's one truly Polish city the Nazis didn't wreck, the ancient capital of Poland. Sca (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
St. Stanislaus
I've been to Krakow, and it is indeed a nice compact authentic old town (the less said about the rest of the city, the better, although I visited in 2004 and it's probably changed a bit). Whether it would be enough to keep me busy for more than a day or two, I'm not sure. I was just backpacking through Europe last time I was there, so my interests were a bit different then. I remember visiting one church in Krakow but I don't really have any recollection of what it was like inside. Ðiliff «» (Talk)10:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wawel Cathedral contains quite a few artistically stunning sarcophagi (right) of medieval and early modern Polish kings and religious figures, and much artwork. The pix accompanying our article seem to be of middling resolution. If photo permission were forthcoming, I could imagine you spending considerable time there. Just a thought. Sca (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an AwesomeHoliday and a HappyNewYear, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an AwesomeHoliday and a HappyNewYear, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!gazhiley10:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't seen it yet. Looks like it might just scrape through. Not one of my best cathedral images, but technically sound I suppose. Ðiliff «» (Talk)16:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of your best, perhaps, but still miles above what most people can do... (BTW, I got a ring flash and Nodal Ninja for Christmas... hopefully next year we'll have some good portraits and interior shots coming from Indonesia). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492:. Sorry for the delayed response, was in France and travelling a bit over the Xmas/NY break. Very nice, you're upgrading your equipment at a pretty brisk pace! Have you had a chance to do a panorama with the NN yet? I'll be interested to see what you can do with it. Ðiliff «» (Talk)09:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mentioned them to my Mom, and she said that she'd get me the NN... lo and behold, she got me both. Sadly, we're still waiting on the camera plate for that before I can experiment with it. The ring flash has been useful so far, but that's mostly been family stuff and so it's on Facebook and not Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Swiss Arca head is in, so I'll be asking a couple churches or other houses of worship around here for permission to take photographs inside (I've already emailed Our Lady of the Assumption). Any suggestions for technique, assuming I get permission? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! Looks like (from the outside anyway) an interesting church to shoot. My advice as a general rule is to shoot first and ask forgiveness later though. It sounds harsh but I often find that when I represent myself officially, instead of being appreciative that I'm doing it 'by the book', they actually get defensive and worry about my intentions and how the images may be used, no matter how clearly I state them. But if you'd prefer to wait for permission, no problem. Just wanted to tell you my experiences. As for technique, it's fairly straight-forward. I assume you will shoot HDR? I'd recommend 5 frame exposure bracketing but I'm not sure if your camera can do that? Maybe with Magic lantern. It also depends on what lens you plan on shooting the interior with. 35-50mm is a good focal length. As per the discussion with DXR on his recent nomination, if there are objects close to the camera like pews, you need a fairly small aperture. On an APS-C body, f/11 should be enough. Any further than that will result in too much diffraction. Also, if you are doing a HDR exposure bracket, don't be afraid to use a higher ISO than you might normally use. I often use ISO 640 or 800, mainly because if I don't, the longest exposure in the bracket is 30 seconds (inconveniently slow) or longer (a problem, since it won't go higher than that). If that brightest exposure is sufficiently exposed that the shadow detail is nice and bright, you won't get much noise anywhere in the image, even the shadows. Another suggestion is to put the camera on 2 second timer mode (unless you have a remote trigger). This gives the tripod and pano head enough time to dampen the vibration of pressing the shutter. You don't obviously want vibration. What else... Try to get the tripod/head as vertical as possible. It isn't absolutely essential because the frames will still stitch properly even if it isn't, but if you don't get it set up straight, the head will not rotate on a perfectly horizontal axis and you will get a slight bowing of the panorama. It can be corrected simply enough in PTGui so that there's no bowing in the final product, but it's just good practice. Try to capture a bit more than what you would expect to need. Because of the way the frames are contorted when converted to rectilinear projection, you lose some of the top and bottom corners. There are a lot of other little hints and tips to make the workflow nice and smooth, but you learn most of those from experience. Oh, have you found the no parallax points of your lens(es) yet? Better to do that before you set out to take photos with the head. There are some good demonstrations on youtube about how to do this. I can point you in the right direction if you need? Without knowing the details of your set up, it's hard for me to give you a lot of specific advice. Happy to discuss with you further if you have any specific questions though! Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spent most of this afternoon figuring out and testing the no-parallax point on the 18-55 mm lens; my result at 55 mm is going to be uploaded to Flickr later. The head was remarkably simple to use once I knew what I was doing, though I'm still having trouble getting it to have smaller increments (like, less than 5 degrees). I've used some post-its to mark where the 35 and 55 mm no-parallax point is, in the hopes that (once the camera is centered over the rotation point) it will continue to apply (and thus save me time). I must say, it appears well worth the money, and the wait. The panorama taking is much easier, the stitching is easier (and faster; my RAM couldn't be increased any further), and the test results are pretty darn nice. The only thing I miss now is my scooter; I've been out of town so long that I've forgotten the bus routes, and some of the places I want to go are pretty far away. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There it is. Assessment: The subject was a packed closet, which would be an absolute nightmare to panorama handheld; the belt hanging from the side introduced further potential parallel problems, but the head avoided those problems like a charm. As I mostly avoided using the unsharp edge space, no downsampling was necessary (though I did go down to 90% anyways). There was a bit of camera shake [likely my fault from either stepping or shooting while the dog was in the room] and ultimately PTGui missed two frames when automatically adding control points (too dark? If so, I'll go back to using 1 1/2 step increments); those were added manually, to fairly good effect. Camera was off-center, but the warp in the image appears to be present in the close itself. Overall, though this wouldn't be FP quality, it is certainly good enough for most purposes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty clean to me. Yeah, camera shake can be a problem, hence I recommended that you set the camera on a 2 second timer (my 5D has the option of 2 seconds or 10 seconds, I assume the same for you). I've occasionally had problems even with the timer set because as you say, walking around the tripod can be enough to cause movement or vibration. This is a particular problem in churches because it's often necessary to place the tripod on a ventilation/heating grate and they have a habit of being a bit wobbly. Even shifting your weight from one foot to the other is sometimes enough to cause the tripod to vibrate slightly. Grrr. As for PTGui missing control points, I need to know your workflow to understand what's going on. I assume from what you said already, that you're using HDR tone mapping with the exposure bracket (you mentioned 1 1/2 step increments). If so, when you load the images into PTGui, you will be given two options: "Enable HDR mode and link bracketed images" and "Enable HDR mode but do not link images". If you select the latter, it will look for control points on every image, and if some of the exposure bracketed images are very dark, it will fail to find control points. If you select the former, it will assume that each image in the bracket is aligned with pixel-perfect accuracy, so it will not need to find control points in the dark images. If you're using a tripod, you should be able to use this option because there will not be any movement in the bracket. If you were shooting handheld, obviously you would need to use the latter and you would have more trouble finding control points. Also, the problem finding control points may just have been because of the subject. I've tried a few interior panoramas of a simple square room with white walls and it fails to find control points because it cannot identify features on the wall to match. It becomes very difficult to even find matching control points manually in that case. I've heard of people placing stickers or checkered tape on the walls so control points can be found, and then cloned out in the final panorama. It's a good idea but I've never had to go to that much trouble. Church interiors are usually pretty 'busy' and PTGui has no trouble with them. :-) Can you explain how you're using the nodal ninja? Are you attaching it directly to the tripod base or are you attaching it to a ball head (as I do)? Ðiliff «» (Talk)11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Directly to the tripod base. I don't quite trust the ball head that came with my tripod (though I can give it a try). The two-second timer was on, so I'm thinking it was me shifting my weight during the longer exposures that got the blurriness in the mid-top right. I could try the one without linking next time, but I don't quite trust myself with that. As for the workflow...
1. Install head and tripod
2. Take exposure-bracketed images with Magic Lantern (5 exposures, 2 stop separation), rotating the nodal ninja as necessary
3. Upload
4. Add to PTGui as raw CR2 files, using the "Enable HDR mode and link bracketed images"
5. Delete any outliers (control points), ensure that the central exposure is used as the basis of the optimization (using "Heavy+shift lens", which is default for v. 9.1.6); straighten using vertical control points
6. Set for optimum size (automatic), then stitch using the default PTGui blender but without fast transform; output is five panoramas with two steps difference.
7. Open all five panoramas in Photomatix; check for ghosts; format using the "my profile" settings that I previously used for the Code River image
Well if you don't trust the ball head, better to not use it. If it's not a particularly heavy duty head and tripod, it could introduce more vibration. The ball head does make correcting the tilt and centring the pano head a bit easier though. I'm not sure what you mean in point 5 actually. I've never seen an option of "heavy+shift lens", so I'm not sure how it would be used. Also, I don't usually need to create vertical or horizontal control points, I just move the centre point in 'panorama editor' around until I can see that the vertical lines in the image match the grid lines. That's how I ensure that it's vertically corrected. Not saying that what you're doing is incorrect, but it's probably more time consuming to mess with vertical control points. Also, regarding point 4, I don't import the raw files directly into PTGui. I know it's possible, but I'm unsure about how it deals with white balance - I assume it uses the in-camera white balance settings. The problem with that, if so, is that each image has the potential to have a different white balance, which can result in blending problems. I prefer to import the raw files into Lightroom, ensure that the images all have the same white balance and also apply lens profile adjustments. This is quite important also because it will reduce chromatic aberration and remove lens distortions (pincushion, barrel etc). Then export the images either as TIF or JPG (TIF is better but I often use JPG and don't have any problem) and then import them into PTGui. You probably won't need to use Photomatix for interior panoramas as long as there are no people moving around. There won't be any ghosts if you don't bump the tripod because the building won't move. ;-) Also, I've been finding recently that Photomatix has quite a negative effect on the image quality and tonality of the HDR image. It seems to do much more than just remove ghosts. The Photomatix HDR images tend to look worse with warmer and oversaturated colours. I compared PTGui -> Photomatix -> Lightroom with PTgui -> Lightroom and the former needed -30 vibrancy to reduce the saturation back down to look similar to the latter image. Removing ghosts in Photomatix also tends to introduce artifacts and blending problems, so I really don't recommend you use it unless you really need to remove a ghost. Better to just avoid the ghost in first place, by ensuring that nothing is in the frame when you take the image. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I spent this morning at Assumption (church proper was closed, but I went into the chapel and also took exterior shots) so I'll give that a try. I've been shooting with a fixed white balance, so hopefully that won't be too much of an issue... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Butting into this interesting exchange. I have a couple of naive questions:
How do you set the White Balance for the church interiors - given that you often have both tungsten and daylight light sources?
Why do you require so many images for the dynamic range - given that the output is a jpeg file (with 8 bits)? I appreciate that the light coming from the windows is much brighter than the interior of the church but how do you manipulate the response curve without losing all contrast? Many thanks. Aa77zz (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be going back to the church on Saturday (I got permission to enter the main building). I was thinking 24mm (on my 1.6x crop, it should be easily manageable; 35mm on a 1.6 crop factor needed too many images), with the bracketing as you suggested the other day. Here's hoping it turns out good! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would recommend 24mm on APS-C too, you will have a similar angle of view as 35mm for me. That would probably give you a 3 column by 2 row panorama, assuming a 20-30% overlap between images. 35mm on 1.6x crop would give you almost the equivalent of 50mm, which is what I use for most of my panoramas these days. If you were happy to use a narrower field of view, you could probably still do 3x2 panorama at 35mm. Anyway, it's your choice. For me, it's usually 5 columns by 3 rows (15 segments) with 5 bracketed exposures, which gives me 75 images in total. I wouldn'trecommend starting with that many images anyway, though. You'll figure out for yourself a comfort zone that gives you the right field of view with the right number of images. Hopefully they will be able to turn on some of the lights inside for ambience. Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You take very good, colorful and technically proficient photos. If I could make one tiny suggestion for improvement? I wish you would not strive for symmetry. Symmetrical images lack drama and when they are symmetrical images of symmetrical human buildings, 3D information is lost. Abductive (reasoning)17:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't always take symmetrical shots, but with wide angle views of interiors, particularly churches, it usually doesn't work off-centre. Here's some examples of similar images I've taken off-centre:
I think an off-centre composition works better where there symmetry doesn't already exist. If symmetry has been built into an interior by design, it doesn't make sense to me to willfully avoid showing it. Churches don't have an off-centre aisle for a reason, IMO. I disagree that 3D information is lost though. It's just different information, not more or less information. Ðiliff «» (Talk)19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy to demonstrate that information is lost. Picture an architectural detail that is obscured by a column when viewed from the center aisle. If the detail is present on both sides of the structure, it will be missing on both sides of the photograph. If one takes the shot from the side, it will be visible on the far side. Meanwhile, duplicated details from the side nearest the camera are compressed by perspective and lost. Abductive (reasoning)08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think Diliff tries a little too hard to capture all information in one shot :-) So I wouldn't worry about what might be behind a pillar when the options are also how wide and how tall to make the view. A side view will display the opposite wall but not the near one, and if the building is not symmetrical then that loses important information too. When correcting for vertical-perspective issues, a symmetrical face-on approach generally works best to minimize the distortions at the extremes of the view. Taken from an off-centre angle, the fact that the vertical perspective is "corrected" but the depth perspective is not, can make for unusual proportions (though that might be more apparent for the outside than the inside of buildings). Ultimately, a variety of viewpoints is best, though Wikipedia's disapproval of galleries makes it hard to present enough photos to do some buildings justice. One can create a subject page on Commons to display the best photos from various places.
I got London Hidden Interiors as a present recently. Not read much yet. The photographer uses techniques we are familiar with here: multiple frames for HDR and stitching for wide angle of view. But also, the selection of photos for each subject is designed to give a feel for having been there. This means some photos (especially the non-main one) aren't always special to look at in an artistic way, but useful for EV. We don't really have a way to value/reward that approach at FP -- of documenting a building/room thoroughly (or selectively) in order to give a full picture, even if many photos are thus unremarkable. -- Colin°Talk12:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book looks interesting. I'm jealous of the private access he no doubt had to these interiors. You're right though that it's difficult to replicate the way the photos were used in that book with the way articles are presented on Wikipedia. In the book, the images have pride of place on the page and the text is intended to complement them. The reverse is usually true in a Wiki article. I must say though, I'm not crazy about all of the photos. They seem technically competent but it does seem that he's used panini projection which has resulted in some awkward warping of straight lines. It may just be my preference for rectilinear, but I find panini quite awkward to view at times. And look at the severely leaning hammerbeam roof of Lambeth Palace's main image. Yuck. I'd definitely have taken a symmetrical view to avoid that. Ðiliff «» (Talk)17:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Diliff -- you can't look at a photo without thinking how you'd do it better :-). You are like the highly trained violinist or wine taster, who can no longer enjoy anything less than perfection!! Which photos have the warped lines? I can't say the "leaning" roof offended me in the book. My eye was drawn to the lower half and the roof is more of an impression. Perhaps we are too focused on finding flaws? I'm sure that some of the views in the book are too wide or too tall for rectilinear. I did noticed one stitching error in the ceiling of a staircase in the F&C building. Still the photos are good enough that I'm enjoying the book, and there is plenty to see. Yes I am jealous of his access, and to take photos when it isn't crawling with visitors or staff. I suppose though, once you've arranged access then you are fairly rushed and no second chances. Have you asked WMF UK if they might make such requests "official" for Wikipedia? I recommend the book, and the website links page gives an idea of what might be open. I have only read the first 60 pages. St James the Less, Pimlico looks like it needs the Diliff treatment. Not really my taste of church but plenty for the eye. -- Colin°Talk13:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. :-) I wouldn't say I'm too focused on finding flaws, they naturally just stand out for me, regardless of how trivial or difficult they are to avoid. Some faults I am more than happy to excuse because I know there was likely a good reason for them, and I suspect the projection was a 'necessary evil' to capture such a wide angle of view. I've had to do the same on many occasions as you know, but it doesn't mean I'm not wishing I could avoid it somehow. I've never made any such requests via WMUK, but judging by past experience, I'm not sure how interested they are in putting the work in. As I've mentioned before, if only WMUK had a larger group of interested and talented photographers, then there might be more of an incentive for them to arrange things, like WMDE does with passes to concerts, photographing parliaments etc. It would be great to do something similar in the Houses of Parliament, but we don't have the organisational willpower, enough photographers, or the studio lighting equipment to make it happen... Catch 22 situation. Perhaps more photographers would come out of the woodwork if a project were to be announced. Agreed though regarding access, if it is anything like my experience with St Paul's Cathedral, it wouldn't be ideal shooting conditions to work in and mistakes can be made. I had an hour, which sounds like a lot but really wasn't (there were many other shots that I would have liked to have made), but interior panoramas are often very slow-going, and being rushed often results in mistakes. I actually ruined two nice interiors from my recent trip to Paris: one by inadvertently bumping the tripod and not realising (actually, I think the rear leg of the tripod was over a heating vent and shifting my weight from one foot to the other while on the vent was enough to move the tripod), and the other, I somehow completely missed one of the 15 segments. I'm surprised the latter doesn't happen more often though, as I often shoot in an irregular order, trying to capture each segment while I have an opening with nobody there. Sometimes I'll the entire pano done except for, say, the bottom right corner and mid central segments. Browsing back through 70 odd images to find which one is slow and frustrating so I generally rely on memory. Oh well, such is the life of a panoramic photographer. It's far more labour intensive than simply shooting medium format, but comparing my images to Godot13's Leaf back, I think the effort is usually worth it. Ðiliff «» (Talk)14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All one would have to do is take one shot from the side and one shot from the center, or one shot from each side and one from the center, to capture all the available details. In fact, one could even take two shots very close together and create a 3D image. Posterity may thank you. Abductive (reasoning)23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...what possessed you to leave an incredibly beautiful "outback" with all the unlimited opportunities to shoot nature at her finest!! Australia is on my bucket list. I have a friend in New Zealand, but the photo ops aren't quite as fruitful as Australia. Thanks for the great tips at Crisco Talk. Atsme☯Consult04:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply Atsme. Well, I often wonder that myself! I never intended to stay so long, but Europe has its own benefits. Culturally, there's so much to see (and photograph) that Australia sadly lacks. But in terms of nature and quality of life, Australia does have a bit of an advantage. :-) I would say that there are plenty of photo ops in New Zealand though! Ðiliff «» (Talk)14:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If either of you make your way out here, we can go "hunting": architecture, plants, or animals. (Heck, Atsme, if you don't mind the living conditions Sulawesi has some very unique fauna). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're in Java though, right, not Sulawesi? I'd love to visit sometime. Are you planning to stay in Indonesia indefinitely or is a move back to Canada a possibility? Ðiliff «» (Talk)11:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm in Java. There are some unique fauna as well (the Javan slow loris, Javan rhinos, etc.) but since Atsme mentioned birds, and Sulawesi has oh so many rails and other unique species in the mangrove swamps... My wife and I are currently expecting to stay in Indonesia, though when I finish my doctorate I may end up hired somewhere else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492 I'd live in a tent or just a sleeping bag under the stars for opportunities like that, and actually have, as a matter-of-fact. The closest I've been to your neck of the woods is Micronesia (Chuuk and Yap), but I've heard the diving in Indonesia is incredible. As it turns out, my travels are limited right now as my significant other is the only caregiver for his Mom (96, bedridden and slowly leaving our world). Perhaps next year when we're free to travel? I very much appreciate the invitation, and extend one to you and your wife to come visit our beautiful island, Bonaire. BTW, I just received the 2x but haven't had a chance to really use it, yet. It's rainy season here on our little arid island (we get a sprinkle in the mornings, but lots of cloud cover) so the lighting hasn't been the greatest. I need lots of light in the mangos!! I can see now there will be substantial limits to this lens combo. Atsme☯Consult14:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. My wife has keener eyes then I do, so when we go out and look for insects, she usually spots them first. We're expecting our first in a few months, but hopefully next year there will be enough disposable income for a lens that would make a birding trip worthwhile (BTW, the rainy season here usually ends around April/May, so between then and November would be the best time to come here if a lot of light is necessary). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, that is interesting, I completely missed it... Maybe these church-goers were Nazi sympathisers. I was just doing some research / article expansion prior to nominating the set (it was a bit sparse for four images) and I discovered that actually, although it was built in 1903, much of the interior decoration was completed 'at some point' after this. By the 1930s, it may not have been a red herring anymore... ;-) Just kidding. I suppose if ISIS/ISIL/whatever they call themselves today keep up their bloody campaign, we might start to associate the shahada on their flag in the same the way we associate the swastika with Nazism today. I'm not actually equating Islam with Nazism by the way, just pointing out how things come to be negatively associated, despite a long history of being something else entirely. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)14:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tangled web. As you probably know, some Native Americans used the swastika, too. I'm not sure how it became a reactionary political symbol in Germany, but that process preceded its adoption by you-know-who by some decades. Sca (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Re the group you mention, see Authoritarian personality. In their case, an ideological psychosis in which anyone who differs with them is instantly dehumanized and demonized. Parallels with wartime psychology, Nazism, Soviet-style Marxism and other 'isms' – and indeed with medieval Christianity, in whose name the "heathen" of northeastern Europe were slaughtered with utter abandon. Sca (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Diliff, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
- T H (here I am) 12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to use your image of the parade gardens with the bandstand for the Bath Music Festival brochure. Would this be possible?
Unfortunately we do not have a budget for this but obviously would credit you where necessary.
Not ridiculously far (I'm in south-west London and it's in south-east London), I've had a look and it would take me about an hour and a half by car though, such is London traffic. I actually used to live not far from there a few years ago though. There are a few really interesting Victorian-era pumping stations in London on the east London side, including one that actually actually featured in the 2013 Wiki Loves Monuments finalists here. Most of them are not properly open to the public though, but it seems like Crossness may now be open as a museum, judging by what I'm guessing is an official guide. It does look worth a visit though. I've looked it up and they charge £6 entry which is a bit annoying. I've managed to negotiate my way around entry fees on the basis of being a Wikipedian volunteer photographer before though, so you never know. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)12:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be a change from the cathedral interiors! (Not that there's anything wrong with those; I love the ones you uploaded to Flickr). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wondering if you will one day consider coming to Ghana to take one of those wonderful pictures you have on your page. I am also a photography enthusiast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwameghana (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to visit Ghana. I'm sure there are a lot of fantastic photography opportunities there, but I haven't got any plans to visit at the moment, there are just so many destinations to visit in the world! Do you have any galleries on the internet where I can view your photography? Ðiliff «» (Talk)09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sadio, I'm not even an admin, myself. I can't help you become an admin. Your best chance is to contribute to your local Wikipedia (Portuguese?) and get to know the admins there and they can offer you more advice. Ðiliff «» (Talk)09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the ring flash indoors yesterday during a church group/dance ceremony, and in the "Oh, you have a DSLR? Take my picture!" session afterwards (expected for Indonesia) I noticed that the images I took were rather hazy and low contrast. I was using the 100mm lens (so, 160mm) and trying to get full body portraits of women averaging 150 cm tall, so I was probably some 10m away. I'd been using the ring flash for about 3 hours by then (sometimes with 5 flashes a minute, sometimes with none for 15 minutes). Do you think it was the distance (the flash is rated up to 14m), or could the flash have been too hot? Also, I've noticed that Lightroom seems to have been darkening what had been well exposed in the camera's view finder with flash exposure compensation set at -1... is this normal? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It depends on so many things. I don't know that it's possible for flashes to get too hot. I've never heard of that anyway. I'm not really an expert on how flash units behave, but from memory, some flashes will fire at the required power or not at all, such as studio lights that we used in Strasbourg for the EU Parliament photos. There, it becomes very obvious when you've taken too many photos too quickly, because suddenly the flash doesn't fire and you can see it clearly in the photo (extremely dark). However, I believe that my hotshoe flash may fire at less than the required power if you press the shutter while it's still charging the capacitor. I can't say for sure because I really hardly use it these days, but that's what my memory tells me. So it's possible that some of your photos are darker because it has fired at lets say 50% power instead of the 100% you needed. That wouldn't necessarily be the case if you still had the same problem even after waiting 15 minutes though. Lightroom doesn't usually make any changes to the image's exposure when you import it... Well, not normally anyway. You may have the default development settings set to auto exposure and auto WB or something like that? Another possibility for hazy and low contrast is... was there any incense or dust or some atmospheric haziness? Even a small amount can really be lit up by a flash, and what you see (or don't see) with your own eyes won't necessarily be what the flash lights up, in much the same way as a laser pointer's path is lit up by unseen dust in the air. These are all just guesses though. Seeing an example or two would help. If you don't want to upload them to Commons, you could email or Dropbox an example or two. Ðiliff «» (Talk)19:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroed; to get rid of that haze, I had to drop the blacks in Lightroom to -55/-60 (as I increased the exposure), which naturally led to a lot of noise. I don't think there was much smoke or whatnot in the air... I didn't see anyone smoking, and it had just rained so the dust outside shouldn't have been swirling around. (There are one or two images that will go to Commons, once I recall/ask the name of the instrument played and dance performed, though this example is not one of them.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, that photo you link to doesn't (to my eye) look like the flash went off at all, and very under exposed. I think some flashes have overheating problems if used on full power continuously (the Sony 60 flash gets a bad rep from wedding photographers) but I think they self-shut down/refuse. Perhaps next time raise the ISO if you think full power is being used all the time (recharge would be quicker and your subjects won't complain of being blinded so much). But I'm certainly no flash expert. As for your comment about Lightroom darkening the image -- is this compared to what you remember on the LCD or what you see when first imported? Depending on your import options, Lightroom can use the embedded JPG for the preview image until it then develops a preview/100% version itself, which can lead to the image shifting from what Canon produced to what Adobe produce. Setting your import-develop-settings to e.g. Camera Standard rather than Adobe Standard will help match Lightroom to what Canon JPGs look like (if you prefer that -- I know I prefer it for Sony). You don't have Lightroom set up to apply "Auto exposure" on import do you? I find that button to be a bit random -- sometimes clever often stupid. -- Colin°Talk10:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the flash went off alright (you can see the red-eye in her pupils). It cleaned up alright, but if this were for re-use in print media or for upload to Commons, I'd want much less noise. Web resolution, looks fine. Full size... not so much. I'll try and play with the ISO next time.
The embedded JPG makes sense, as I noticed the changes when I scrolled over the images in Lightroom. (As for auto-exposure: no. Never. Don't trust it. Did try at the beginning, but I learned very quickly that it was a bad idea.). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Diliff. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback. Message added 05:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Was wondering; do you have any recommendations for a replacement for my kit lens (i.e. in the 18-50mm range)? Preferably something that will also work with a 6D if I manage to save up the money. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother, honestly. Even I'm not particularly looking forward to the 5Ds. Yes, it's very high resolution but I'm pretty sure it won't have very good high ISO performance, and because it's so high resolution, you'll start losing sharpness at a much lower aperture (as low as f/8). And only the best lenses will take full advantage of the resolution. I would much rather have seen a new Canon with lower resolution but other superior aspects like improved dynamic range, high ISO performance, etc. Later this year, I suspect we may see a true successor to the 5D Mk iii, a more rounded camera hopefully. But it will still probably be an incremental improvement, not ground-breaking, so if you're getting an itchy trigger finger on the 5D or 6D, I don't think you'll regret it too much. As for the lens, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I had the older 16-35mm way back when I had a 10D (about 8 years ago) and I didn't like it that much. It's not that sharp at the edges and I didn't use f/2.8 that much. I sold it and bought the 17-40mm which was slightly better but still not great at the edges. In fact poor wide angle lenses was one of the reasons why I started doing so many panoramas, because I get much better sharpness and more composition options. To be honest, it's hard to get a wide angle lens of any kind that comes close to the performance of the 100mm macro or 50mm lenses you already own, even if you spend a lot of money, but the 17-40mm is probably the best of a bad bunch. Faint praise, I know. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)17:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blasted shame... my test run with the 50mm was fairly pleasing (well, the noise was an issue, as usual for indoor shots with the 60D), but on a crop censor it's still a bit long for the situation. Anywho, thanks for the feedback... I'll have to think of a good investment, once we've put aside the money. (Though I am curious to see if Canon surpasses our expectations with the 5DS... I'm sure the reviews will be quick to come) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I was just up late, admiring some of your work. I'm hoping to do a bit more myself- my Nodal Ninja should arrive next week. Anyway, I had a look at how your images are placed within article space and I think they deserve more prominence, so I made this edit. I think the {{wide image}} template better conveys to the user that this is an extra-large image, worthy of further inspection. And it works great at differing screen sizes/resolutions. Check it out on an iPad. I'd like to know what you think, especially if it isn't really your thing (and I'll leave well enough alone). Well, keep up the good work, and Happy Easter!nagualdesign01:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diliff
My picture Huacachina_Dunes.jpg was nominated as a featured picture candidate and rejected (for good reasons).
You wrote you would like to have the original images.
I've uploaded them under Huacachina_Dunes_-_Original_Images.jpg.
As you have more experience with picture processing than me you can probably turn them into something better.
The motive certainly deserves a good picture.
--Imehling (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Imehling, I've uploaded a new version over the top of the existing image. If you'd prefer me to upload it as a new file, I'd be happy to do so and you can revert my upload. Hope you're happier with this version. The colour of the files you provided were a bit different to the panorama, so it looks a bit different. The stitching is improved though, I think. Ðiliff «» (Talk)14:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your version is a great improvement. I have uploaded another version based on your one with some highlight compression in order to remove overblown parts of the sky. I think now it's ok. --Imehling (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Just curious – in what language is that D with a line through it (Đ) used, and what sound does it represent? Sca (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, sorry I was a bit slow to comment. I had been away for a few weeks. Actually, I have absolutely no idea what language it is! I just stumbled across the character one day (I can't remember where, but probably just Windows character map or something) and thought it'd make a little flair in the signature! ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)13:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my name is Justin Eldracher and I work for Preserving Christian Publications. We would like to use the image you took overlooking St. Peter's Square on the front cover of a book we are going to publish, where including a reference to your work would not be appropriate. Please email me at jmefarm1@gmail.com for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.143.2 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there are quite a lot of them in Britain, some of which might offer texture, light & shadow, mood. Interiors of currently functioning churches can be fascinating in rich detail, but ruins would perhaps offer a more abstract, austere aesthetic — ??
I was wondering about doing WLM here in Brazil, but as I normally do activities, it's vital give some workshops before the main activity. I was considering to do some about WCommons, Wikimedia Movement, create some expeditions, and maybe about photos inside builds... What do you think about helping in the last point, and maybe do that in loco? (and the cost, we handle by Grant)
We could do a expedition to Ouro Preto, for example, partially funded by Grant (the other part, maybe companies, or attends paying the their on transportation), giving a workshop in a small chapel and the rest of the journey, they applied what they learned.
Just happened across this shot while poking around here – nice with all the golden tones – do you remember what the tapestry or mural on the wall is about? Sca (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in replying Sca, hvaen't had a chance to respond until now. I actually don't recall at all, there wasn't a lot of information in English and although it looks empty and serene here, as with quite a lot of the locations in Lithuania it was actually very busy with tour groups filtering in and out of the room. I managed to get a brief moment where it was empty and then seconds later, one of the staff members told me I wasn't allowed to use a tripod and asked me to pack it up and leave! So... I didn't manage to stay and ask questions. ;-) Funny you found it via the list though, have you not seen that I've got a gallery just for my Lithuania (and some from Latvia) photos? I guess it's tucked away on my user page. Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does look pretty interesting! Although I wonder how photography-friendly they'd be? From my limited experience, the further from the Western countries and the closer to totalitarian countries you get, the more suspicious and restrictive about photography they get. Not that we're free from suspicion in Western countries either, mind you. ;-) I wonder if the shimmery looking reflections of the interior are the result of the photographer using the flash, or whether they're naturally illuminated to give that effect. Ðiliff «» (Talk)21:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read (afterwards) that no photography is allowed, so I doubt that it was a flash. No easier way to give yourself away, har har. Sigh... there are some real beauties (such as Shah Cheragh) where they don't allow photography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be no easier way to give yourself away than a flash, but a tripod comes a close second. ;-) Yeah, it's frustrating how many places are off limits to photography. I can understand why in some cases, where you have hordes of package tourists pouring out of buses to go take blurry snapshots of everything they can point their camera at... It does kind of ruin the atmosphere a bit. But most cathedrals in the UK (and in France) are actually not very busy most of the time and a tripod really doesn't get in the way at all. With patience, I don't usually have major problems taking photos without anyone in the shot, although as always, looks can be deceiving. It's extremely rare that I'm truly on my own there, even if I manage to create that illusion. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk)23:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've been fortunate in that most of the temples I've visited are actually not all that common tourist destinations, and so I can sit there for however long I want with only the guards and/or maintenance people around. I keep meaning to get to Borobudur, but that's a whole different ball of wax. Tourists going up the stairs, around the temple, climbing onto the stupas (even though that's forbidden now)... even at 6 or 7 a.m. I don't doubt I'll be masking quite a bit when I do decide to make the trip. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As is probably pretty obvious, for the past month or so I've been going through our old FPs to see which ones haven't run yet. Since D&Rs are placed in the galleries in the same place the original was, this was skipped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Crisco 1492. Ah right, I was wondering why such an old photo was being made POTD. :-) It's a shame, I lost all my photo backups from 2001 to 2009 in a hard drive crash last year, but I think this photo would be a good candidate for reprocessing with better HDR tone mapping. It's really not too bad, but there are slight haloes in the sky and it's also a less than ideal shade of blue. Ðiliff «» (Talk)00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darned shame indeed. Say, I just got myself a light tent and some lights... can't wait to start photographing things that need good images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed with the Colosseum picture and other pictures you take at the "blue hour".
Could you give your take on how to take good pictures of subjects in the "blue hour"?
I couldn't find a website for you so I am contacting through Wikipedia.
Someone sent me a webpage with an image of Tower Bridge on it. It didn't have a name on it so I searched the internet on Google images to see who had taken the amazing image. It came up with a match to your name and a persian entry on Wikipedia. I noticed though that you have it copyrighted ("Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0"). I found it on lots of sites without any acknowledgement:
You should definitely file a DCMA with Google if your copyright is being infringed. Your images are too good for others just to use without permission.
Hi David, and thanks for contacting me. I do sell some of my images on stock photography sites but I don't believe this is one of them. Unfortunately Google isn't hosting the images so I don't think filing a DMCA takedown request with Google will have any success. The only way to combat this is to try to contact the site/blog/etc owner individually, and I just don't have the patience for that unless it's a really obvious and commercially-motivated theft. This is unfortunately the modern digital world we live in. It's trivially easy to steal someone's photography and reproduce it without permission, and very difficult to stop it from happening. Ðiliff «» (Talk)11:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diliff, the change you've made on King's College London page - the King's College Chapel - has some problems. No picture is showing! Will revert to previous in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.231.218 (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain (or maybe show a screenshot of what you're seeing)? Was it red-linked? Was there a caption but no image? etc I had a look at the page and it was displaying fine for me. I'll revert back to the new image for now because I can't see any problems. Perhaps there was a problem at your end? Either way I hope we get to the bottom of the problem. Ðiliff «» (Talk)14:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable by tennis project standards; No Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, no ITF tournament wins of $50K or higher, no notable junior career. There are also no claims at present that she meets general notability guidelines.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hoping to be able to make contact with you in regards to the File:Twickenham Stadium - May 2012.jpg and the potential use of it for an upcoming print ad we are creating.
The angle in your image might be exactly what we are looking for. If you could please get in contact with me regarding this, it would be greatly appreciated.
.jpg?lang=en)
Sca (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Sca (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Sca (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
,_Yosemite_NP_-_Diliff.jpg?lang=en)
Altar of Jesus, Assumption Church
apse, Assumption Church, Windsor
Organ, Assumption Church, Windsor
Altar of Mary, Assumption Church, Windsor
Interior from entrance, Assumption Church, Windsor
Interior from apse, Assumption Church, Windsor
_-_North.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
_-_South.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
(KIDDING!) Sca (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I had a look at how your images are placed within article space and I think they deserve more prominence, so I made this edit. I think the 
