User talk:SkywalkerPL

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, SkywalkerPL!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

QI Support for Photo - (Mickiewicz Monument.jpg)

Thank you for your comments.

I have added a response as follows: "Understand your comment but think this impression mainly comes from the fact that the 1956 Monument has distinctly sloping sides (actually two vertical sections joined by one horizontal section) with one side masked by a tree - the tapered flag poles may add to this impression but perhaps these are not all truly vertical (refer building in background)."

Perhaps with this explanation you can now add your 'Support' for QI status for this photo or let me know if you think the photo needs editing first?

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Planar lenses 7050.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The right one is a bit out of focus, but the quality is enough for QI I think. - A.Savin 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony A77.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Taxiarchos228 19:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Other version

On QI you suggest to use "other version". But according to Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description#Good_file_descriptions other version is for different crops or colors but not for completely different perspectives. Or did you mean a different "other version"? BTW: Your product photos are really good, but I have not such a studio / background equipment. Probably your standards are very high. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I just use my Sony camera, tripod, light from the window, and ceiling light. And a background of course (usually just A4 paper from the printer. Previously I got a big calendar that I used reversed as a white background, but left it once on a rain and had to throw it out). As for other_versions - I don't know about this guideline, but as far as product photography goes - I seen it used simply to link together shots of a one product from a single session under different angles (or configurations).

I will think about it. I have not enough room for a home studio or a light cube. The problem with window light is that it cannout be directed well. I don't think that this photo is done only with window light :) Did you use a focus stack? How do you get a white background if you do not photograph from 45° top, but straight as I've done it here (without Photoshop, I only use LR and with a simple setup?). --Tuxyso (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That photo was made when I still had my calendar. So I could bend it getting a perfect background (you can see an edge of it reflected in the lens). I also used paper from my printer to bounce the light from above the camera (thank god for IR remote - otherwise I'd break my bones trying to press the release). As for depth of field: F/16 and precise manual focusing (no idea how I managed to hit the spot with a small viewfinder on entry-level camera though). At home I don't use focus stacking, besides: It's damn difficult unless you have FF with huge viewfinder (like Canon 1Ds or Sony A900) or an SLT camera. So I doubt I'd be able to do that with the A200 anyway. Getting perfectly white background though requires tiny bit of photoshop - I usually use dodge tool set to midtones range. Works wonders if you got slightly overexposed images. I used to shoot product photography in my previous job, so I know the workshop (although I never did final correction, there were dedicated graphic artists for that), but at home I do not have any studio (don't need it for anything) so that's why I try to use what's available for my wikipedia shots :) SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-detail description. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kodak Portra 160.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony ECM-CG50.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments CAs (see note) Easily to fix. --Tuxyso 10:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)  Done Done. Fixed also some dust spots by the way in a same area. SkywalkerPL 10:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ariane 62 and 64.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Matt Taylor (scientist).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Good but the scope should point to a category that contains the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Liquid Fly-back Booster.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Good but the scope should point to a category that contains the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dual XLR TRS connectors on Zoom H5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zoom H5 capsule connector.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zoom H5 XYH-5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cccefalon 11:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Samotnia lato2013 od strony Strzechy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 13:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ADM-Aeolus model.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Quick Shift Bounce.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ariane 62 and 64.svg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Hubertl 16:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Category:BepiColombo (mission).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leap Motion Orion Controller Plugged.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear SkywalkerPL,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ariane 5, Aestus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sony HVL-F58AM.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)