User talk:Colin

Archives –2013 2014 2015 2016

Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - March - Inside / Outside/Winners

	Photo Challenge – Second Place
	Congratulations! Your picture City Hall, London, Spiral Staircase - 1.jpg won the 2nd place in the Photo Challenge Inside / Outside, in March 2016. You can find the results of the challenge here.

Translation of above: I don't speak english

"it bother me much that you leave."

I share this.--Jebulon (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. It is already stated by many that what had happened is very unfortunate. So I wish if you can forget everything as a nightmare and comeback. I wish it without any pre-demands in your freewill as a noble act of forgiveness. The community need you, the new comers need you, and you will see my wife smiling at you from the heaven! Jee 11:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, We miss you, however, if you will comeback without a clarification about last careless and disproportionate block executed by the admin @Ellin Beltz: about Fae problem, you will lose any respect, respect that you have earned as to join in the small group of respectable users. If you go back and this problem is not solved, you must prepare to be the admin toy whore. --The Photographer (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@User:Colin: Strangely I didn't even notice the ongoing troubles until now - and I'm pretty sure I didn't read up on every detail. In any case it would be a pity if you decided to leave Commons for good. The community needs contributers like you that have strong opinions and don't hesitate to participate in controversial debates. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Time to come back, dude. We need you here Poco² 16:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. I've pretty much left Commons and I really don't care why this happened, but Commons needs guys like you. - Benh (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. It would be a terrible loss, if you don't come back. We need photographers and knowledge contributors much more than pen-pushers with admin rights. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 as others... --Hubertl 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. We need you here, Colin. --Code (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 I need you --The Photographer (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, there you are :)

Welcome back! A pleasure to see you around again :) Poco² 20:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Poco, and others. I've just supported one of your pictures but also opposed one ;-) -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

+1 :) - Benh (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

+1 Welcome Colin, I'm sorry for my question about Colin Jones. A hug --The Photographer 10:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

+1--Classiccardinal (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Projections

Hi Colin, may I ask for your opinion? I've made some stitched pictures in the district court of Berlin for WLM 2016 and I'm not sure which projection is the best. I've uploaded three versions (rectilinear, equirectangular, cylindrical) here. The equirectangular version is already on Commons because yesterday I thought it was the best but now I'm not really sure any more. What do you think? Maybe Diliff or Benh would like to share their opinions, too? Thank you in advance! Best regards --Code (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Code, I'll look tonight. Certainly the one on Commons is a very pleasing image. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Code: I do prefer the rectilinear, but the distortions are a bit extreme. In such cases, I go with Panini general, which allows me to fine tune the projection. It's a gorgeous picture which is worth taking the time to carefully decide about the projection IMO. - Benh (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think Panini might be useful as long as you don't mind the slight bending of the horizontal lines. My first reaction on seeing it though, is that it looks a bit too HDR'ish to me. I'm just looking at it with my (poor) work monitor though, so it could be that I'm wrong, but it was the main thing that stood out for me. Diliff (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Hm. PTGui doesn't offer a Panini general projection or do they call it different? I'm just trying Mercator which may work very well here. Diliff might be right regarding the HDRish look but on the other hand the building is very colourful in reality. I'm really not the postprcessing guy, it drives me crazy. I could spend my whole life trying to improve my pictures and I'm never really happy with the results. --Code (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
•  Info @Diliff:@Benh: I now put both a less-HDR-version of the equirectangular picture and a mercator-version of the picture into the OneDrive-Folder linked above. --Code (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• There is a panini projection in PTGui, it's just called Vedutismo. Same thing. I think the new 'less-HDR' version is much better, a big improvement. I'm sure it is quite colourful, but it wasn't the colours that were bothering me so much, it was the brightness of shadow detail. There was too much emphasis on the mid-tones I think, which is a typical HDR look, no deep shadows, no real highlights. A good HDR image should still contain the full range of luminosity, but carefully constrained so that nothing important is lost or unrealistic looking. I know what you mean though, some images can really drive you crazy with post-processing. Sometimes I revisit the same image many times on different days and decide on quite different colour balance/processing tonality. Sometimes the result is worth it, other times not so much. ;-)

• Ok, thanks for the hint. I added a "Vedutismo"-Version as well (not so much HDR, too). I know what you mean with your HDR critizism but actually I like the HDRish version more, at least for the moment. Tomorrow I'll think completely different, I think. However, I know that the WLM juries hate HDR a lot so it would probably better to overwrite it with the "not-so-much-HDR"-version. I'll have to sleep on it for a night, I think. But what about the projection? Which one do you think is the best? --Code (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Code: If you care, I like the HDR version too, but maybe with a slight boost on contrast or clarity... but these are just niggles. In my view, the panini is great as it is, but I wonder if amplifying the perspective wouldn't be even better. Anyhow, that's up to you. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Also, make sure you play with every parameters. You can adjust how the perspective lines bend near the corners too (I guess you saw that) - Benh (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Benh: I hope it's not getting too complicated but now I added both an amplified vedutismo version and an equirectangular version with contrast and clarity increased. I'll better go to sleep now before I'm getting lost. Sorry Colin for spamming your talk page. --Code (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm afraid real life has got in the way tonight. I'll have another look tomorrow once you've settled on a favourite few perhaps. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Code: Don't hate me but it looks very similar to the rectilinear. Isn't it possible to half tone it down? Or haven't I looked properly? I'm getting lost too :D - Benh (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Benh: You're right, they look almost identical. Didn't notice that until now. Strange. --Code (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, guys, I started from the scratch. After looking (maybe too long) at all the pictures I think the best projections are either Mercator or Equirectangular. I re-developed both versions and put my favorites in the OneDriver folder. I moved the other versions in a subfolder called "All". Please tell me which version you do like best. Personally I still like the HDRish version most but I understand Diliffs critizism very well and believe that many other users may think similar, too. Just in case you're interested I also put some non-stitched pictures of the building into the subfolder "Details". The building certainly deserves a good picture but however, it's anything but easy to select the right one. --Code (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Code: I like the 2nd (contrast increased). But the projection lets me down a little bit. If u r curious, I offer to try to stitch it on Hugin with panini (or you could try, Hugin has gotten easier to use). I'd understand you stop here. I know what it is to spend hours (days!) on a single panorama :) Also [1] and [2] might be even better. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Benh: You're right. The more contrasted version is better. I uploaded it as a new version here. Might be true that the other views could be even more suitable for Commons and other Wikimedia projects, I uploaded them here: 1, 2 and 3. If I'll get one of the pictures printed I'd choose the HDR version, I guess it'll look great in 60x90cm under acrylic glass. However, less HDRish versions might of course be better for educational purposes. Anyways, it would be very nice if you could give it a try with Hugin/Panini. I uploaded a ZIP-File with the 140 single exposures here (although the size of each file was reduced to 12MPix the ZIP has round about 657MB, I hope you don't mind). Thank you very much in advance and have a nice weekend! --Code (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Code, I'm trying to catch up with this now. Is it still worth downloading your OneDrive images or have you settled on a projection? The latest version of your file here is very colourful, contrasty and wow in a Flickr way. However, if I compare with the other views you link 1/2/3 then they seem very different, which then raises questions about whether we are seeing something realistic enough? I think your 1 image in particular seems too blue colour temperature. I'm guessing your 2 is the same scene as the ground-level one but taken upstairs. If so, it looks quite different, processing-wise, to the ground level one. I'm a bit confused about which one you are calling "HDR". -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Code: Am looking at the source pictures now. It's OK that they are downscaled. It saves space and it should be more than enough to preview how the projection may look like. Thanks! - Benh (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Code:, here is what I get with Panini (little bug with my enblend, but to lazy to look at this in more details) : [3]. IMO the projection is much better this way : not so much distortion, and still "true" to the real shape of the room. What do you think? - Benh (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Benh: Wow, thanks a lot, that was quick. I guess you used only one exposure? What I like about your version is that the sides are not that stretched. On the other hand, the top part with the chandelier looks somewhat distorted. A difficult decision. I'll have to think about it for a day or so. --Code (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Code: I've voluntarily left room for you to decide on tighter crop or not. Browsed through your pics again and your "non amplified" Vedutismo is actually identical to the panini I stitched. Strange I haven't seen it before. Anyways, I think I've already interfered too much. You should decide alone :-) - Benh (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Colin: For now I think I prefer either the Mercator-Version or the Equirectangular version as both have a wide field of view and don't look distorted at all, although Benh's Panini version is nice as well. So basically you don't need to download all the files but it would be nice if you'd have a look at these three versions. Regarding the processing results you've spotted well that the versions taken at ground level look very different from those taken at the top level. It's a little bit strange because I set the WB only once (using a grey card at the ground level) and then didn't change it any more so I believe that the different look comes from the daylight which was much stronger at the top than at the ground level. Of course they're all HDR but what I called "HDR" ist this one which Diliff called "HDRish". Honestly, this is the version I still like the most but as I said above it also may be a little bit too artistic for educational use. --Code (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting that you used a grey card to set WB. I reckon most just adjust to taste or accept what the camera gives (or in a panorama, some average of the frames). I think not redoing it when shooting from other angles and heights is the mistake. The direction and quality of light will change as you say, and so will the WB. It's the same windows and scene, of course, but up high it is bouncing straight off the stone to the camera at a certain angle, and lower down it is bouncing at a different angle and is more mixed with light that has bounced off other walls and surfaces. And if you shoot from the opposite direction, say, then the quality of light could be really quite different. Also, depending on the weather, the WB could change if the sun is more or less in cloud, or is rising/setting. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you use a grey card often? I can see its purpose for product photography and other small-stage situations. But a complex interior like this is surely hard to calibrate at one small spot. If the quality of light changes from the floor to the walls and as one climbs up and to the ceiling, is it accurate to determine WB at one spot? Would the camera do a better job (or Lightroom Auto WB)? -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Colin: Yes, I do use it quite often. See here for the shooting we're talking about. But yes, you're right. I should have re-adjusted the WB. I'll rework the pictures which were taken at the top level. However, the sunlight itself didn't change as it was blue sky the whole day. --Code (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Josselin Château Evening Light Reflected 2016-08-15 WLM.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Josselin Château Evening Light Reflected 2016-08-15 WLM.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

★ Your image has been reviewed and promoted ★ Congratulations! Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.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. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:City from One Bishops Square.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)