User talk:Diliff/Archive5

Help

Hello Diliff. Please, I know you like church interiors, then could you fix the perspective distorcion and remove the blown out with magenta fringes in the windows of this picture for a QI status? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi ArionEstar. Sure, I can have a look, but which picture? You didn't link to anything! Diliff (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry! Hjdiwaodnaoxjakdkcjsk! This picture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • What do you think that? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Interior, Liverpool, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Interior, Liverpool, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Albert Bridge at night, London, UK - Diliff.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. --DXR 17:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Hello Diliff. I am from Persian Wikipedia; so sorry if I have an awful language. I just wanna to appreciate your work for Wikipedia especially photos. Nearly all of your photos are wonderful and very beautiful. keep doing good job! :) Farshid . Talk 09:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Annika Beck 2, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Annika Beck 2, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Multirow panorama

Hi Diliff, as recommended by you I bought myself the Nodal Ninja 3 Mk II and now I'm planning my first high res church interior. The only picture we actually have of this church is this one and I believe this church definitely deserves a better one. Do you have some kind of howto on how to take a multirow panorama of a church interior? What do I especially have to pay attention to? Which lens and which focal length would you recommend? Actually I only have the EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM and the EF 50mm f/1.8 on my EOS 6D. How do I focus correctly? How many rows/columns should I chose? So many questions. I hope you can help me a little bit. Thank you very much in advance. --Code (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• For a 6D, I'd recommend using about 50mm, the same as I do. The 50mm f/1.8 should be fine really, that's my 'sweet spot' focal length for most of my interior panoramas. In portrait format, I use 5 columns by 3 rows with about 20% overlap between images. That is about the widest you can get without extreme perspective distortion and you end up with a roughly square image (but compositionally, there's usually more ceiling than floor). For focusing, don't focus on the background. It will work but you won't maximise depth of field by doing that because with a stopped down aperture like f/13, you actually focus beyond infinity if you focus near infinity. What you want to do is use the hyperfocal distance (google it, there's a lot of info about what it is, and calculators to find the ideal focus distance for your lens and camera). It's usually about 10 metres away for a 50mm lens at f/13 I think. It doesn't have to be focussed exactly at 10 metres. But the closer to the ideal hyperfocal distance, the better really. Hope that helps to get you started. Feel free to ask more questions if I haven't answered everything! Diliff (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for now, I will give it a try. I think I will have some more questions concerning the postprocessing (projection etc. - I don't have PTGui but only Hugin and Photoshop). --Code (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it should matter too much whether you use PTGui or Hugin, but I can't give you specific advice about how to use Hugin. It should work quite similarly though. Both have the same projection options. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Code, I use Hugin and Photoshop so can help if you have questions. I haven't, however, managed to get it to do HDR stitches like PtGui can. I think there are unresolved bugs in that area. -- Colin (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah I didn't realise it didn't work in Hugin. One other minor difference that I noticed between Hugin and PTGui is that PTGui can recognise the HDR brackets and assume they are aligned (or recognises them as sets in terms of how to generate the output, but still finds control points individually if they were taken hand-held). The benefit of this is that it allows you to shoot a bracket where the lowest exposure is so dark that it is black for almost everything except a few points of light here and there, like the highlights in stained glass or lightbulbs etc. Normally it would be impossible to find good control points in those scenes (not every segment has these highlights either), but PTGui intelligently looks at the control points for all of the bracketed exposures together so it can find the right control points. I don't know how Hugin treats HDR bracketed images, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't do that. If it doesn't, it wouldn't be possible to simply load all the images of the same exposure into Hugin and stitch the brackets separately because it probably wouldn't find the control points in the dark images for a scene like a dark church with stained glass (the stained glass is so much brighter than the interior, so to expose for the glass would mean the interior is basically black). Also, finding control points in Hugin takes soooo much longer than PTGui. I haven't used Hugin much but when I did, a panorama that took about 15-20 seconds to find control points in PTgui took about 5 minutes in Hugin. Hugin's algorithms seem very thorough but very slow. Anyway, the alternative for doing HDR stitching with Hugin is to pre-tonemap the images before importing them into Hugin. When I started doing HDR panoramas, I did this with some success, but had issues with consistency between images because each segment of the panorama was processed a bit differently and then it sometimes didn't blend well. But you might have to try that if you're not able to get Hugin to output a 32 bit TIFF image, or even a bracketed stitch (a separate stitched file for each exposure, which you can then import into HDR software like Lightroom or Photomatix). OK, hope this helps. It was a bit of a ramble but it's a complex subject. I guess not all software plays nicely with each other. My workflow does a good job but it relies on having PTGui and Lightroom. Diliff (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think someone on FP (can't remember who) managed to create an HDR using Hugin in a non-standard way. I think they saved the three exposures into separate folders so that one folder contained all the mid-exposures, another the low-exposures, and so on. Then use Hugin on the mid one and create a project and stitch. Then copy the project file into the other folders, fix up any path issues in the file (it is just text), and repeat. You then get three large images you can generate an HDR from using some other software such as Photoshop, Photomatix, or exposure blend using enfuse. I use Smartblend to do the final stitching with Hugin, and one thing I've noticed is that it will often stitch in a slightly different place from one use to another. Almost like there's a randomness to it. So I'm concerned that might lead to HDR artefacts when the seams aren't perfect. Do you still use Smartblend when doing HDR or just PTGui's built in algorithm? Perhaps I should look at HDR with Hugin again, it was a while since I last looked and it might be fixed now. Hugin is slower than PTGui and I find the stitching with Smartblend to be the slowest of all. But I'm also stitching 16-bit tiffs rather than JPGs cause I hate throwing away information too early, and I don't have sixteen panoramas taken each day! -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh yeah that could work using the control points from the well-exposed set, but I assume you'd have to rename the files from the other exposures to match the filenames that Hugin had used. A time consuming process but one that should work. Stitching with Smartblend is slow whether you're using PTGui or Hugin so I generaly use PTGui's blender by default and it works fine for 95% of my panoramas with minimal parallax problems. If there are issues, I export two copies - one blended with PTGui and one with Smartblend. Sometimes the Smartblend version is fine and I'll simply use that, other times it introduces different errors elsewhere in the image instead (parallax errors can't be eliminated, only minimised creatively or shifted to a less detailed area). If that's the case, I'll just use a feathered selection (using Photoshop) to copy the areas I want to keep and paste them into the other version. It's rare that I have to go that far but it happens sometimes. The image of Albert Bridge from the middle of the road is one that comes to mind. There were minor parallax errors because I actually had to get off the road half way through and go back again a minute later after the cars had passed. I still generally stitch JPGs rather than 16 bit TIFFs because there's minimal loss of detail. The exception seems to be areas of no detail like skies. The process of conversion into a 32 bit TIFF seems to exaggerate noise and jpeg artifacts in the sky so even if I can't see any jpeg artifacts in the original jpeg files, they tend to show up quite obviously. Another thing I've noticed recently is that PTGui doesn't seem to interpolate particularly well. If I output a lower resolution image (lets say 8000x6000 pixels), I get strange aliasing (larger than pixel-sized though) on certain sloping lines that I don't get with larger resolution outputs (20,000x15000ish). So outputting maximum size and then downsampling in Photoshop is much better (but takes much longer to stitch). I wonder if PTGui, rather than stitching at larger sizes and then downsampling at the last step, actually pre-downsamples and then warps and stitches the low resolution images. Not ideal if you want a lower res output but with maximum quality. An example is this image. It tends to rear its head mostly in areas of high contrast like the edges of the light shades. Re-stitching could fix it, but it's a pain to go back through all my images and re-stitch (and have to do all the adjustment brush work too).Diliff (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Etheldreda's Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Etheldreda's Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Sports

Hello, Diliff! You're welcome to join the Commons WikiProject Sports. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lourdes Domínguez Lino 2, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lourdes Domínguez Lino 2, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre Dame de France Church Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The north pole

It has no fragments of pollution that would reflect light as in most places on the globe. It is something that, as pilots we see rather clearly from the cockpit, yet most photos you see, of sunsets/sunrises from just about anywhere on earth, do not reflect the true color of the event due in whole to the particular distortion your camera and our eyes see when looking across a sky filled with human waste, something the photo I submitted does not contain. Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image St Patrick's Cathedral Lady Chapel, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Code (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

File:St Peter's Church Nave 2, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg

Had a look at that image. Very nice as always, but placing yourself above the Pope and below Saint Peter is a bit cheeky in a catholic church :D. Also what lens did you use for this one? Looks awfully sharp, and the arch is great. Do you ever get your images printed? --DXR (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• It took me some time to understand what you meant, but I get it now. :-D I didn't realise that I'd caught my reflection in the organ mirror! And for the second image, I used my 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens at 135mm - the same lens I used for the portraits for the EU Parliament project. It's actually extremely sharp stopped down and as a bonus, has the same nodal point as my 50mm Sigma f/1.4 lens so if I want to switch for a detail view of an interior, I don't even have to adjust my panoramic head settings. Quite a handy lens. Diliff (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks. I thought that it looked longer than a 85mm. I hope it's not boring you to death by now, but what was the setup of that shot? I guess that you would have about 10°x4 up/down and 7°x5 to the sides? If that were the case, it would probably be either impossible or very bothersome on the smaller NNs, so with forced steps of 15° up/down I reckon that 100mm or so is the longest that would work. It is a bit odd how for this type of photography the sharpness of a lens at f/11 or f/16 is much more important than normally and good slower lenses such as 70-300s and 90-105mm Macros suddenly become really attractive. --DXR (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You guessed exactly right, it was 5 columns by 4 rows. But my old Nodal Ninja 3ii didn't have steps on the vertical arm, so you could set any degree increments you wanted (the only problem was that it required a lot of pressure on the knob to tighten it enough to stop the arm drooping slowly during a long exposure). Only the rotator base had steps, but you could choose to ignore them and select any horizontal rotation you wanted too. With my bigger Nodal Ninja M1-L, I have 7.5 degree steps on the vertical arm but it is still possible to lock it in between the 7.5 degree steps - it's not as secure and if it was bumped, it could slip down to the next step, but it is possible. So I've never really found it a problem to do panoramas with large focal lengths. You're right though, almost any decent lens will be quite capable of great results when stopped down to f/11 to f/16. And because there's less wide angle perspective induced distortion, with some downsampling it actually looks sharper than images taken with my Sigma 50mm f/1.4, which should be the sharpest lens I own. Diliff (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:John's Lane Church Interior 2, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:John's Lane Church Interior 2, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Dustin Brown 14, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dustin Brown 14, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Katie Swan 3, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg, which was nominated by Laitche at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katie Swan 3, 2015 Wimbledon Qualifying - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Laitche (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Patrick's Cathedral Lady Chapel, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Patrick's Cathedral Lady Chapel, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Code (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Mary's Church Altar, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary's Church Altar, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

New lens for panorama photography

Hi Diliff, I'm planning to buy myself a new lens for panorama photography and I would like to ask you for your opinion. The choice is either to buy a new 50mm prime lens (the same Sigma as yours or the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L) or the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro lens. I'm not sure what would be the better one. What do you think? As you might know I have a Canon EOS 6D and the NN3 Mk II pano head. Thank you very much in advance. --Code (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd ask you before I nominated this ...

My picture, 2014

Your very similar picture, 2009

Dave,

First, I just want to say that I appreciate your two oppose !votes on those images of mine that MMxx nominated for FP; you were absolutely right that they just didn't have that something extra (especially on the Kew Gardens vista; I had thought about it myself but basically realized that, cool though the perspective is, there's basically nothing at the center where you'd like to see something). I don't nominate my own images for FP unless I'd vote for them myself, and in those cases I wouldn't have (assuming they'd been taken by someone else, that is ... I was flattered so I voted for them in those nominations. And, as recent experience shows, sometimes that works (actually, I considered that one something I might nominate in the future).

Anyway, I have been planning to nominate this one. I have noticed, however, it's very similar to one that you took almost five years ago and has since been recognized as a featured picture. And I'm sure people will point that out (I can also see some other things potential opposers might find: the slight posterization on some of the flowers, and the (apparent) crop that cuts that little corner off (It's not a crop—I couldn't stand any further back without stepping in the flowers myself, and it wouldn't have been the same from the next pathway back. I think you understand this).

So, do you think both of them could be FPs? Or would someone suggest a delist and replace? I'd feel bad if that happened and you hadn't been consulted first (I mean, I could see that people might see mine as warmer overall and sunnier, but I certainly didn't take it with the intention of trying to show you up ... I only realized that your similar picture existed after I uploaded mine). Let me know if you have time.

Oh my God! I forgot to sign this ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Daniel,

Happy for you to nominate it. It's no problem, perhaps they can both be FPs anyway. They are very similar but it's not unheard of to have more than one of the same subject. I'm traveling at the moment and only have access to Wikipedia on my phone so I can't compare the two images in detail but I assume yours is better. ;-) Diliff (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope you being on the move means you're out in the field getting some more great pics ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Senlis Cathedral Sanctuary, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Senlis Cathedral Sanctuary, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Hello David. After all these years here, I would have to say that you are, unconditionally, the best photographer on the Wiki projects. Your "in depth" understanding of photography is truly admirable and I have learned much from that insight, over the years. Thank you & keep up the good work. Cheers! WPPilot . Talk 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi WPPilot. Thank you for the kind words. It does mean a lot, considering we haven't always agreed on some of the reviews. I'm a bit confused as your timestamp for the message says you posted it in July, but it was posted in September! Anyway, thank you again. I do appreciate that you've had the maturity to take constructive feedback on board - not every participant here could say the same!! :-) Diliff (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Hi, your welcome. Sorry about the date, my oversight its been fixed. If one pay's attention in the receipt of constructive insight from professionals then you learn and grow. Your on target and have paid a lot of attention to detail, I respect that regardless of singular nuances from time to time. Your a true pro and well, a wise man once said "not every participant here could say the same" that would apply here as well. Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Patrick's Church Nave 2, Dundalk, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Patrick's Church Nave 2, Dundalk, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Swaledale Sheep, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Swaledale Sheep, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

75px|center|

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Chapel Royal Interior, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Chapel Royal Interior has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Interior, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Interior, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Ceiling, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Ceiling, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Bath Abbey Nave Fan Vaulting, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bath Abbey Nave Fan Vaulting, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

How you do?

Hey David, I was undermining, who you do your shots, did you do something like that: [1], or other processes are included? -- RTA 03:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

David-- RTA 18:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

AhH! Sorry Rodrigo, I forgot to reply. Well, I don't use exactly that technique. I use HDR which involves different exposure lengths. That gives me more dynamic range of exposure than a single exposure averaged. It also has a similar effect of reducing the noise though, because it uses only the best part of the exposure and noise usually only occurs in the underexposed areas. I do obviously use stitching to get better resolution though. Diliff (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

heheheh I wrote the answer and forgot to save...

Humm, HDR is not working for me to de-noisy (see this), and that's why I was asking, this stack process takes a ridiculous amount of time, and data.

And some situations I don't know what do, this I don't know what to do with those stained glasses, I have a perfect exposure photo for them, but it's ridiculous dark.

Tks Diliff. -- RTA

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Chester Cathedral Rood Screen, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chester Cathedral Rood Screen, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Stairwell 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Stairwell 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Westminster Cathedral at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

File:Westminster Cathedral at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

K100rs (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Court 1 Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Court 1 Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Eilean Donan Castle, Scotland - Jan 2011 crop.jpg

This image, which is the one currently used by the WP article, is a cropped version of your image. Although the crop is mentioned on the page, the attribution/etc is all wrong. I don't think Soerfm should get any attribution credit for merely cropping, which isn't sufficient to generate a new "work of copyright". Btw, my own meagre effort is uploaded at File:Eilean Donan Panorama 2015-08-15.jpg. It was taken en route, rather than carefully planned to get great light. -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. I can see some benefit in the tighter crop although it really doesn't make a huge difference and I prefer the original wider one, compositionally. I'm tempted to simply revert that change in the article, but you're right, the attribution credit on the derivative version should be changed too. Anyway, my photo of Eilean Donan was actually just taken en route too - completely by coincidence I managed to get that dawn light. It was midwinter, so the sunrise was pretty late as it was, and I just happened to be there at the right place at the right time. Diliff (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Court 1 Interior, London, UK - Diliff.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. --Martin Falbisoner 07:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Ely Cathedral Nave Ceiling, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ely Cathedral Nave Ceiling, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Help (2)

Hi Diliff. Help me: Could you remove the noise and chroma noise here? It's FP for you? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Chester Cathedral Cloister, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chester Cathedral Cloister, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Mary's Pro-Cathedral Interior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary's Pro-Cathedral Interior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Laon Cathedral Nave 2, Picardie, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral Nave 2, Picardie, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Amiens Cathedral Organ and Rose Window, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amiens Cathedral Organ and Rose Window, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Canterbury Cathedral Choir 1, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canterbury Cathedral Choir 1, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Exeter Cathedral Lady Chapel, Exeter, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Exeter Cathedral Lady Chapel, Exeter, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Augustine's Church, Kilburn Interior 4, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Augustine's Church, Kilburn Interior 4, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Newman University Church Interior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Newman University Church Interior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ANU

Hi, I see your open question on ANU, however I feel too much has been written there and the most relevant points have been made more than once. To continue just feels like feeding trolling.

Just keep in mind that it is not my ANU thread and I was not the one setting out to play poke the bear. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

See [2] and [3]. The venue as VP instead of ANU doesn't make much difference. Jee 12:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You proved my point by griefing me here. Find something else to do to entertain yourself, rather than following around and poking the gay guy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This page is in my watch-list since years as he is the #1 photo contributor here. Don't hope I follow you even in your wildest dreams. :) Jee 13:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Putting a smiley on it, does not stop it from being trolling to provoke a response. Deeply unpleasant behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Shutter speed

Hi David. Not sure about your Photoshop export settings. The program does not seem to be including shutter speed in the EXIF information. See for example File:Newman University Church Interior, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg and many others. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Michael. That's because they're HDR tone mapped images which are created from 5 different exposures. The shutter speeds of each individual exposure vary enormously - anything from 1/1000th of a second to about 20 seconds. The shutter speed is removed from the EXIF data automatically when doing the HDR processing, but it wouldn't make sense to include just one value anyway. I used to sometimes include a template that listed all of the relevant settings as they applied to the HDR image, but it was time consuming to do for each upload and I stopped including it. Diliff (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Church of Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois Ambulatory, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Saint-Germain l'Auxerrois Ambulatory, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Window - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Window - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Bathwick Hill, Bath, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bathwick Hill, Bath, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hallaca, bollo and hallacon

	A gift of Christmas
	During these Christmas holidays, I wanted to let you take advantage of this delight, I hope you can enjoy them with love. --The Photographer (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

360° Panorama

Hi Diliff, I hope you're fine. It's long ago since I last saw you at FPC. However, I'd like to ask you another question. I want to learn how to create 360° panoramas. Your picture here was very inspiring. Is there any tutorial on how to create such a picture? I'm especially interested in learning how you avoided the tripod to appear. How many rows/columns do you need for such a panorama and which lens did you use? Is there anything else one should observe? Thank you in advance! --Code (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Brompton Oratory 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Code (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Soissons Cathedral Organ, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Soissons Cathedral Organ, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gare Du Nord Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.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. --Rolf H. 06:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

*** Feliz año! *** 2016! ***

		* * * Feliz Año 2016 ! * * *
		* Feliz Año Nuevor! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! Deseo que este nuevo año venga cargado de bienaventuranza para ti y para los tuyos. Un año nuevo lleno de muchos nuevos retos que yo estoy seguro conseguirás superar. Te he dejado este video, con un mensaje positivo, lleno de esperanza y amor. De mi, un Venezolano que te aprecia. Saludos --The Photographer (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Have a great 2016. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Classical, but still... thank you for your work on Commons! Yann (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Laon Cathedral Interior 360x180, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Code (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

QI Tunisia training

As part of the project Quality images training in Tunisia, the Wikimedia TN user group is looking for a Wikimedia commons User able to organize a training about Quality images, featured pictures, Valued images and Graphic Lab/Photography in Tunisia from February 18th to 22th, 2016. To participate please fill this form --Touzrimounir (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

360 pano guide

Hi Dillif, I am very interested in make a pano 360, however, I don't know the best choice to do with my equipment.

• A cheaper version chinese of this tripod
• Nikon D300
• Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
• Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD

Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• The main thing you need is a panoramic head such as this. It attaches to the top of the tripod and lets you rotate the camera so that the perspective doesn't change. If you rotate the camera around on your tripod head without a panoramic head, the perspective changes a bit and that makes it difficult to stitch, especially for close-up objects. Diliff (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I could do the "same" with my tripod?, it has a rotative head too. --The Photographer (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I know it can rotate, but it can't rotate in a way that avoids parallax. To avoid parallax, you need a special panoramic head like the one I linked above. The reason for this is because you need to rotate around the 'no-parallax point' (NPP) - this is a location in space where the image enters the lens and becomes inverted - this point is somewhere inside the lens. However, when you rotate the camera on a normal tripod, you are rotating around the camera sensor, not the lens. This introduces parallax. Parallax means that near objects and far objects change position in relation to each other and this causes problems for stitching. Here's a long but informative guide to panoramic stitching, including why you need to find the no parallax point. Diliff (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent answer quite complete, you could do a nice work in Quora. Now I really understand what you says, I had many problems with my panoramic, now I understand why. I managed to gather $ 20, what could you recommend?. Thanks again --The Photographer (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Diliff, but what about the L bracket, this also avoid parallax, and don't cost one eye, and it's easier to transport, no? -- RTA 03:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton, an L bracket can only avoid horizontal parallax though as it is fixed on the vertical axis (cannot point up or down). I assumed The Photographer wanted to do 360x180 panoramas, which at least requires a nadir and zenith photo, even if you use an ultrawide fisheye lens. Diliff (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Diliff a ball head would not provide a up and down movement? -- RTA 06:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo.Argenton, yes but it wouldn't avoid vertical parallax so you would have stitching errors. That's why only a real panoramic head is the solution, because it avoids both horizontal and vertical parallax. Diliff (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Humm I think I got it, thanks David; but why this is so expansive? Just because it's a equipment for a very specific niche? Or it's a precision equipment? -- RTA 11:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's expensive for a few reasons I guess.

1. It's a specialised tool for a specialised purpose so yes, a niche (although in the last few years, panoramic photography has become a lot more common).
2. It needs to be very stable and well built. It has to hold the weight of the camera with two 'rails' that are not balanced, so if they are not well built, they will cause vibration and blur in the photos.
3. It has to have high precision, and the ability to move the camera along the rails so that the parallax can be avoided (the exact position varies depending on what camera and lens you use).

All these factors make it an expensive tool, but it is not usually possible to do panoramics without it - unless everything in the frame is a long distance from the camera, because then there is almost no parallax to worry about. Interiors absolutely do need a panoramic head because there are objects much closer to the camera, and the parallax is much larger. Diliff (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Brompton Oratory 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your Tobias Kamke and James McGee photos seem to be reversed.

Please see discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_McGee_.28tennis.29 - it looks like you took the pictures at an event when they played each other, and got the names confused. --GRuban (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Laon Cathedral Interior 360x180, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral Interior 360x180, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If you

have no problems with transportations (and even money), would you use an automatic panoramic head like GigaPan Epic Pro? --Hubertl 10:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I tried the HDR-processing from the same picture series with LR now, it was really better. But I will not change this one now. But I have another 12 images from this church interiors which are not processed yet. --Hubertl 10:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• • I have considered an auto panoramic head before, but it wouldn't really solve many of the challenges of panoramic photography for me. To make a really professional looking panorama, you need to be intelligent about when you press the shutter, so that you don't have bad blending issues between the frames. For example if people are walking around in the scene, you will want to avoid them completely if possible, or at least make sure they are not duplicated in multiple frames. I don't think an auto pano head could solve this. They simply move in a regular pattern and won't stop if the scene isn't right at the time. They are probably easier and faster, sure, but not much faster. Most of the time that a good panorama takes to complete is waiting for the shutter to close after a long exposure, or waiting for the scene to be ready to photograph. A Gigapan cannot solve that. :-) For really complex super high res gigapixel scenes using telephoto lenses, yes I would definitely choose Gigapan or similar, because the adjustments need to be very precise and mathematically calculated so that you have enough overlap, but not too much wasted overlap. Diliff (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, what I´m trying to get this year, is a privileged attempt to churches in Vienna, because most of them are closed. That means, that - if we get this - we will be mostly alone for a long time without disturbing people. Because I do have a manualy Manfrotto head , we will start with this one. --Hubertl 10:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a great project. Many of London's churches are closed but they are mostly suburban churches. I've shot almost all of the main central Churches now but not full photospheres. I assume you plan to shoot full 360x180 photospheres inside then? Well, a Gigapan will make the shooting process easier but you will still use wide angle lenses (maybe 35-50mm at the most) because otherwise it will take too many individual photos to complete and you will not have enough depth of field to get infinity to 2 metres in good focus beyond 85mm focal length. As I said, the main benefit of a Gigapan for me is super high res gigapixel images but you can't easily do that with interiors because of the depth of field limitation. It's much easier to shoot gigapixel images when you are shooting a landscape that doesn't need such wide DOF. Diliff (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

One other disadvantage for Gigapan is that it will still leave a large 'nadir hole' where the pano head and tripod is. The only way to fix this is to manually shoot a nadir patch. This would be much easier with a normal pano head, but I suppose it could be done with the Gigapan head too. Actually, getting a very high quality nadir is quite difficult and often needs some clever editing to make it perfectly clean. For this reason, many people don't even bother with fixing the nadir, and just accept that there is a hole at the bottom of their photosphere. Diliff (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I will start it slowly. My hope is, that we could get attempt to areas which are usually closed (inside churches) and attempt to some bell towers. That means, that we not just doing some pictures, we would try to get in contact with the parish community too - to improve the articles of the churches for example. Almost every parish church does have one or more youth groups. You know, that making pictures is secondarly for me, mainly I´m Wikpedian. --Hubertl 12:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. I tried to do that with some of the churches I photographed but it is a big job to research and update many of these church articles, and I don't have enough time for both photography and article writing these days. I am a Wikimedian first too, but a photographer on Wikipedia. My photography is mostly aimed for encyclopaedic use, not just 'pretty pictures', but it's of course nice to have both! I have one question about your panoramic head. It looks like it is only possible to correct for the horizontal parallax, but not vertical? Is there a way of adjusting the position of the camera on upper rail (the one that connects to the camera)? It seems not, because the rail seems to be on the same axis as the tripod mount of the camera which means that if it rotates, it rotates around the tripod mount and not around the 'no parallax point' which is usually inside the lens. If not, you won't be able to rotate the camera on the vertical axis without creating parallax problems. Diliff (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:All Saints Church Carshalton Interior 2, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints Church Carshalton Interior 2, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Bristol Cathedral Lady Chapel, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Code (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Rare Look Inside the Secret Passageway to London’s Lost

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X83Y3IZayfc should be a nice place to grab some pics, :) -- RTA 16:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Hi Rodrigo, looks interesting! A lot of these sites are not easy to visit unless you have a special reason (like being National Geographic!) or as part of an organised tour, which doesn't let you stay and take some time for nice pictures. I'll look into it though. Diliff (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Act as a important thing Diliff :P, you can use the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons to open some doors, at least here it works. -- RTA 03:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lincoln Cathedral Rood Screen 3, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lincoln Cathedral Rood Screen 3, Lincolnshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Bristol Cathedral Lady Chapel, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bristol Cathedral Lady Chapel, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/--Code (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Ely Cathedral High Altar, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Code (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Christ Church Cathedral Interior 3, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Christ Church Cathedral Interior 3, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Etheldreda's Church Interior 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Etheldreda's Church Interior 360x180, London, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Ely Cathedral High Altar, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ely Cathedral High Altar, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Code (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Patrick's Cathedral Choir 360x180, Dublin, Ireland.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Patrick's Cathedral Choir 360x180, Dublin, Ireland.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Peter's Church Nave 2, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter's Church Nave 2, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Diliff. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Patrick's Cathedral Nave 3, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Patrick's Cathedral Nave 3, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Diliff, may I ask for your advice once more? I'm planning to buy myself a new telephoto lens. It's not that I'm doing this kind of photos very often (you know I'm more interested in architecture and landscape photography) but sometimes you need a telephoto lens, too. I don't really know which one to buy for my EOS 6D. I was thinking about the Canon EF 70-300mm 1:4-5,6 L IS USM but this is a quite expensive one (around € 1.300 at the moment). After looking around a little bit I found out that Tamron has quite a good one (Tamron AF 70-300mm 4-5.6 Di SP VC USD) which is really cheap at the moment (you can get it for € 290 at Amazon). This would give me the opportunity to additionally buy myself the Sigma 35mm or 50mm (Art) lens. I had a discussion with Julian Herzog and Martin Kraft about it on Julian's talk page. Martin said I should consider buying the faster Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD lens, so I looked around a little more and learned that Ken Rockwell was very enthusiastic about the Canon EF 70-200mm 1:4,0L IS USM lens which can easily be combined with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter and which would cost around € 1.000 at the moment. Now I'm totally confused. What do you think? Thank you in advance once more! --Code (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(I'm not Diliff, and don't shoot Canon). I haven't read good things about teleconverters. I think if you need the reach you are probably better off buying a lens that reaches it. The loss of light and image quality is significant. And a 2x teleconverter on an f/4 lens would become f/8 which won't autofocus and would be quite limited in its use without a tripod. I don't know what you intend using the lens for, and this would influence what you get (whether you need the larger aperture). The classic 70-200 f/2.8 is perhaps more for portraits and big-studio shots than for walking about with. 200mm isn't a whole lot of reach on a full frame camera. I've just got a 1.5x crop camera and I debated whether to get the Tamron 70-300 USD you mention or the Sony 55-300. The few amateur reviews that compared them reckoned there wasn't much in it (you don't get VC on a Sony A-mount Tamron, as it is in the camera). The Tamron had quieter internal focus but not any faster, and was full-frame. But it was also larger and much heavier so I decided to go for the Sony and haven't regretted it. It means I pop it in my bag just in case. For my camera the 300m becomes equivalent to 450mm in full frame and this is wonderful reach. For example, this view of St Pauls becomes this view of the ball and cross on top (or this view if I stitch a few frames together). Another example, this view of Westminster becomes this view of Westminster Abbey Clock. Or you can stitch 57 frames together to create a 200 megapixel image (and that was hand-held, leaning on the balcony on top of a dome with the wind blowing - so would probably be sharper if held steadier). It is also a good range to take zoo photos such as this album and this photo, which were taken with my old camera.

I don't know the other lenses (but caution that Ken Rockwell should be have a Google "right to be forgotten" ring thrown around his website -- his views have as much authority as the Daily Mail's views on what causes/cures cancer, and I'm not alone in that opinion). My guess is if you aren't totally sure what you will use it for then > €1000 is a lot to spend on a lens that may sit on your shelf. If you buy the Tamron and treat it well, and decide later you want to upgrade, then you can sell it or part-exchange it and the net cost will be very small. Perhaps, like me, you might end up taking stitched images with it, and then the absolute sharpness becomes less of an issue as you have scope to downsize a little. The VC should be very useful, and I'd be reluctant to buy such a telephoto zoom without it. -- Colin (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin. You're probably right. I tend to buy me the cheaper (Tamron) lens. However, WMDE has it here in Berlin and I'll try to borrow it from them to try it out first. I'll give you a follow-up. --Code (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Colin about the teleconverter. I've got a cheap 1.4x teleconverter and I rarely use it because it degrades the image quality a bit and I no longer have a lens that it is useful and can AF on. The Canon one might be slightly better but based on reviews I've read, it's not significantly better. The image sharpness loss is about as much as just upsampling the image 1.4x to the equivalent size. And of course it also decreases the effective aperture and unless you get an f/2.8 lens, you won't be able to effectively autofocus with a 2x teleconverter. Personally, having had the 70-200mm f/2.8L lens and the 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6L lens (but not the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens), I would really recommend the 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6L. It's lighter, it's got a better telephoto range and it's basically just as sharp. A good Canon 1.4x teleconverter might be effective with either 70-200mm lens but I don't think it's worth bothering with. With the f/2.8L lens+ teleconverter, it's quite heavy and you only get a 1 stop shutter speed advantage. With the f/4L lens + teleconverter, it's about the same weight as the 70-300mm, but with the disadvantage of being at f/5.6 for the entire zoom range rather than just at the telephoto end. Unless you actually think you will have many situations where you will not want more than 200mm focal length and you would benefit from f/4 rather than f/5.6, then I would probably go for the 70-300mm. But really it comes down to what uses you would have for it. If you think you would frequently use the 300mm end more (which I usually do), don't bother with a 200mm + teleconverter. Just get the 300mm lens! Diliff (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Diliff. What do you think about the differences between the (quite) expensive Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM lens and the really cheap Tamron SP 70-300 mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD? As far as I can read on the internet the difference regarding image quality seems to be quite small. It seems that the main difference between the two is the better mechanical quality of the Canon lens. Do you know anything about that? The thing is that if I'd buy the Tamron, I could spend the money saved for another one or two lenses (e.g. the Samyang 14mm F2.8 and/or the Canon EF 35mm 1:2 IS USM / the Sigma 35 mm f/1,4 DG HSM). I don't really know what to do. Sorry to bother you, I know you probably cannot really help me with that decision... However, I just wanted to ask. --Code (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Code, sorry I didn't respond earlier. My only advice is that it really depends what your priorities are. If you think that getting the more lenses is going to be more useful than one really high quality one, then I'd suggest doing that. I'm guessing the Tamron 70-300mm isn't quite as good as the Canon, but maybe also getting the Sigma 35mm would be more useful than just one great telephoto zoom. Either way, you're going to have great lenses. The question that remains is simply your priorities. ;-) It's impossible for me to know what they are or even what you intend to photograph with the lenses. Diliff (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Divinity School Interior 3, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Divinity School Interior 3, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats

for the baby :) Don't how long (s)he's been around. Hope you enjoy :) - Benh (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Benh. :-) She's been around for 5 weeks tomorrow. I never expected to be so busy, although it is getting better now that she's a bit older. Being a dad is quite an amazing experience though, I can only say that! If you're interested, I'll send you a private msg with some photos. Diliff (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to see the little cute thing :) BTW did you take this opportunity for a lens purchase? Like "come on darling, it would be great for baby shots!". Most of my friends convinced their wives like that. But you don't seem to be on gear shortage. - Benh (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Haha yeah, I've already got plenty of lenses that would be suitable for baby portraits. But actually I haven't had many chances to shoot with my DSLR, most of the photos are just quick and dirty camera phone shots in low light so the quality isn't great. Maybe I'll set up a baby portrait studio sometime soon though ;-) Diliff (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

	Dad photographer Award
	I wish the best for you and your daughter in this new phase of your life. I'm sure you'll be a good father. Best wishes to both The Photographer (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.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. --Johann Jaritz 04:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

wow! the good LUANSI (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Email

Hi Diliff, I've sent you an email! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! South Bay Beach, Hong Kong - Diliff.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 A bit dark overall but still good to me --Poco a poco 11:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I have some little problem to straighten this photo [4], if i straighten the columns the altar becomes wrong .... can you help me? Thank you--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 17:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• I had a look at the photo. It's hard to know what you mean though, what exactly do you think is wrong with the altar? I can see that the altar is not aligned with the nave of the church. It's very clear from the ceiling that it's not symmetrical or along the same plane. What I can say is that the altar is also not symmetrical in your original image either, so straightening the columns is not the cause of the problem. I can't really suggest a solution to the 'problem' though if I don't know what you think the actual problem is. If the building is not symmetrical, it isn't supposed to look symmetrical in the photo either. Diliff (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

How you are going?

Hey David, how the things are going? Amazed by the parenthood?

Did you know if it's better invest in Nodal Ninja Ultimate M2 Panoramic Head With RD8-II Rotator or the GigaPan EPIC Pro, because the difference is not that great, and the robotic could be great thing in a extensive GLAM programme, but I don't know (and Google didn't helped me) if there is some limitation in the GigaPan.

Thank you. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 22:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Rodrigo. Things are great, I'm really enjoying parenthood, although it does mean that photography has taken a back seat for now. Well, I think the Gigapan is good, but the stability would probably be better for the Nodal Ninja. Also, it really depends on the photography you want to do. I prefer to have manual control for exactly when the photo is taken (for church interiors, I wait patiently until the view is empty of people). With a Gigapan, it is on autopilot and you will probably end up with a lot of ghosts or duplicate people because the photos were not 'intelligently' taken. But in many situations, the Gigapan would be easier to use. It does all the calculations for you and can take very high resolution panoramas quicker than most humans can do it, especially with long focal lengths. So really, one is not better than the other, they are just different tools. They do a similar job, but in different ways. I'm happy to answer further questions from you if you like, but I hope that helps to explain. Diliff (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, now you have a vivid and very interesting subject for your photography that will be there for the rest of your life. :)

Less technical, but with all your hearth.

It helped, I was trying to see all the problems that I could have investing in the gigapan option, because this should be a "all purpose" equipment, photos of paintings, interiors/exterior of buildings, landscapes... the celerity brought by the Gigapan going to be useful in paintings, and in a very static places, however it could be very time consuming in a city environment, for example.

Thank you David. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image St Peter's Church Nave 1, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Code (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! -- Code (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:St Peter's Church Nave 1, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter's Church Nave 1, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/Code (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Because all photographers in FPC section loves your work The Photographer (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Love your passion towards photography Jeansophiya (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Poo 2014 hi-res-download 1.jpg

File:Poo 2014 hi-res-download 1.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Amiens cathedral transept

Hi David,

Long time no see. Hope u r doing fine. I'm going through a few (lots) panoramas I've left aside all those past years and I revisited This view of the north rosace of Amiens cathedral. It's remarkably similar to yours from the other end of the transept, so I've added reference to mine on yours (and the opposite of course) and this is only to let you know. Hope you don't mind. I even think this improves each picture from encyclopaedic perspective. I was very surprised you didn't take it from the other side (which would have rendered mine useless given the technical gap between them ;) ). Cheers. - Benh (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Benh, sorry for the very slow reply. I've been really busy recently. Mostly because we've moved back to Melbourne just before Christmas, so my days of photographing European cathedrals are over. ;-) Well, probably not completely, but access will be a lot more limited. Ever since we had a baby, life as I know it has changed anyway, and I don't have much free time for photography anymore. Maybe the Australian historic buildings will give me some challenges but it's a bit more limited than the European opportunities. Anyway, you're right, the two images are extremely similar and there is great encyclopaedic benefit to reference each other. I have no idea why I didn't photograph both sides. Maybe there was a temporary obstruction, maybe the light wasn't good, maybe I just ran out of time. I usually just walk around and wait until a view speaks to me - I'm not very methodical about it, except of course for the required view down the middle of the nave from the entrance. :-) I don't think there's much of a technical gap between our images, honestly. Crop factor sensors are actually pretty good for mosaic stitched images because of the slightly better depth of field (and therefore less diffraction from needing to stop down to f/13 or more). Diliff (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about all that. Many congratulations on the move and especially on the new family addition! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diliff. Glad to see you've reconnected to the Internet. Thought you'd gone walkabout. Btw, I don't think crop sensor provides any advantage wrt DoF and diffraction. See this article. Diffraction softness sets in earlier on a crop sensor of same megapixel rating as FF. Assuming one is creating an image from the same sized stitched portions... A FF 24MP camera starts to become theoretically diffraction limited around f/11, according to the calculators on that site. The equivalent of a FF with 35mm lens at f/11 is a crop sensor camera with 22mm lens at f/7.2 (same DoF) which coincidentally is also when the crop sensor starts to become theoretically diffraction limited. One advantage would be that for the same lens, it uses the sharper central portion, with less vignetting. For these kinds of shot, the poorer ISO-noise rating of a crop sensor camera is less of a handicap since we can use base ISO and HDR also helps reduce noise. The poorer dynamic range (assuming both Sony or both Canon here) can also be compensated for with sufficient brackets.

You both might want to have a word with User:The Photographer about his thoughts on an upgraded camera for his aging D300. I recommended another crop Nikon (probably D7xxx) because he can retain his lenses and buy cheaper new ones such as the Samyang 8mm fisheye. He's got his heart set on the D750 and then just a couple of primes. If he does go FF, what would you recommend?

If we exclude stitched images (which are often downsized) I keep seeing images at FPC taken with FF cameras and new lenses and they are soft at 100% and my own little plastic £100 sony lenses are much sharper. An exception is Christian Ferrer's photos which are sharp and I assume this is a combination of good technique, expensive lenses, and careful post-processing. My concern therefore is that unless one has deep pockets to buy the best lenses, FF may disappoint. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My intention has always been photographs with the largest possible size, however, I understand the limitations and I would like to know the point that Colin has commented. I plan to sell everything, including the lenses to make this investment. It's something I've been waiting for a long time and I'd like to do my best. Thanks --The Photographer 11:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am sometimes disappointed when I see the lack of sharpness of some photos taken with FF camera (e.g. the D800), and I wonder if it is a lacks of good technique or a bad processing, maybe a bit both.... A D7200 in good hands is obviously better that a D800 in bad ones. I agree that good lens are very important, though the sharpest lens I have is also, and from far, the less expensive, it is the excelent Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM, which I give a 19/20 for the quality ratio price. Investing in equipment requires indeed a reflection on the potential evolution possible...therefore financial means at disposal now but also in the future. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There are severals reviews about the 800/ D800E asymmetric focusing issue, On a Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM, the center focus point needed a fine tune adjustment of -2, whereas the extreme left needed -20 and extreme right needed -18 and ins ome cases at least the degradation is nearly symmetric. It appears the Nikon D800 focusing problems are indicative of a major shift in camera manufacturing.more info --The Photographer 13:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to spam Diliff's talk. @Colin, The Photographer, and Christian Ferrer: as far as I understand, FF is not really better than APS-C (nor APS-C is better). APS-C must really be seen as a cropped FF. However, if we think about strict equivalence (same FOV and DOF, and not same FOV and aperture) I think we can safely assume than in wide angle cases, FF is the to go choice, while for tele, APS-C probably has the edge. For tele, at same pixel density, FF is also better because of the margin it gives for framing (and we can get the same FOV after a crop). At same pixel count, that's another story. I would go with APS-C because noise is then less of an issue IMO. This very interesting article explains very thoroughly the difference between APS-C and FF and will help you decide. It might be a bit hard to read but definitely worth it. - Benh (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Again correcting myself. But if one talks about strict equivalent camera (same FOV, same DOF and same pixel count), FF might be closer to APS-C then what one might think. Will have to read the article again, but the conclusion is that equivalent pictures from APS-C and FF can't be told appart. Only that FF allows for settings with shallower DOF at a given focal length (eg. a FF 50mm f/1.4 equivalent on APS-C would be a 35mm f/0.95 and these kind of lenses are probably more expensive to manufacture). - Benh (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Benh, my understanding is that for same 24MP sensor, and equivalent framing of subject, there is absolutely no difference between FF and APS-C in terms of DOF or diffraction softening. The only difference is a smaller area to capture light, and thus higher noise for a given ISO, though also one can use the sharp centre of a FF optic or choose a cheaper optic designed for APS-C. One option is also to buy FF lens for APS-C camera as future investment in case one upgrades the camera later. So one might afford D7200 + Sigma Art 35 and 50mm lenses, whereas buying a D750 and one might not even afford those lenses. My own personal preference is to have a good choice of lenses: two zooms (standard and telephoto), small macro, three primes (35, 50, 85), fisheye. This choice lets me take pictures that are not possible without that variety. If one only has two primes, one is forced to crop often (or forever take stitched photos, which is not practical in many situations). If one has no telephoto then the distance is always too far away. And my fisheye lets me take many wide vistas in one shot that are impossible otherwise, plus it can be used for 360 stitches if required. That is my personal preference: all my lenses are good enough that only my technique is limiting me (I have no cheapo kit zooms), but nor are they the best I could afford. I could have bought fewer better lenses. I don't think the camera is a huge factor, since all modern cameras are fantastic. For the kinds of shots most of us take, amazing autofocus facilities are not really required, nor is rapid frames-per-second shooting. I would, however, definitely make sure the camera had a good range of exposure bracketing settings. -- Colin (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Fully agree with Colin. Sorry, Diliff, for spamming your talk page, too. --Code (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Colin: That's not exactly true. Again, we have to think equivalence. If I compare two strict equivalent systems A and B, A being FF 50mm f/1.4 and B being APS-C 35mm f/0.95, then the exact same amount of light hits the sensor (because the absolute aperture is the same). Only that the amount of light is kinda "more concentrated" on the APS-C. So at equivalent FOV and DOF, you have no difference. Check section 3.1 I think we all can understand easily why perpective and field of view don't change. Now, consider the following question: How many photons are captured and make up the image, in total? Well, it is all photons flying (while the shutter is open) towards the camera from within the field of view, and hitting the lens' aperture. All of them eventually reach the sensor as it is how we define field of view here. And because we keep the lens' aperture diameter da constant, this number of photons is indeed a constant too. Which immediately yields that dynamic range and image noise is a constant too. Sensor size is no factor anymore!. But what makes FF having an edge is that it's more difficult making a 35mm f/0.95 than a 50mm f/1.4 (and there's no APS-C equivalent of a FF 50mm F/0.95 afaik). And other stuffs as highlighted in section 4. I didn't read the entire article back, but I don't think FF ISO 100 is the same as APS-C ISO 100. It's made up by manufacturers to give an equivalence. - Benh (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, I think I see where he's coming from and it is possible to get equivalent. I don't think, for the photography we are doing, the max aperture of the lens is relevant (there are f/0.95 lenses, and f/0.95 is f/0.95 whether made for FF or APS-C), so as above we can compare e.g. f/7.2 with f/11 as a more realistic example. Wrt ISO, no, ISO is ISO. They are the same. The only difference is that APS-C sensors tend to be smaller pixels so need greater amplification to achieve that. If one compared two sensors with the same pixel density, then the amplification required for ISO 100 would be the same, but then all the other factors like DoF/diffraction/sharpness would be completely different. Related is that my DSLT camera requires a little more amplification to achieve ISO 100 vs a mirrorless Sony with the same sensor, because of the semi-transparent mirror stuck in the way.

So, another way of looking at this is that crop cameras can be combined with "made for crop" lenses that are smaller, lighter and cheaper than FF lenses of idential focal length because they don't need to cover such a large image sensor. However, to get equivalence, you need a larger aperture, and if you are already using the largest aperture on the lens, then you'll need a larger, heavier and more expensive lens to achieve that. An example is Sigma's f/1.8 18-35 zoom, which achieves some equivalence with standard FF f/2.8 zooms, but with a more restricted zoom range.

But where you argue that FF has the edge with fast glass on a standard prime, APS-C has the edge with telephoto because a 70-300 lens on APS-C is much cheaper/lighter/smaller than one that goes to 450mm on FF. In the middle, we left with there being not much difference.

If one is concerned with low light photography with fast shutter speeds (handheld photography or moving people), then one needs plenty light. If f/1.4 is the fastest 50mm you can typically buy, then FF will get more light for the same shutter/ISO but the APS-C camera will have slightly more DoF -- so you trade off image noise with more of your image actually being in focus. And f/1.4 is impractically too narrow DoF for many uses -- fine for a studio/tripod photo of a model standing still, but little else. It's also not typically sharp except with the best lenses. Another factor is stabilisation, which gains you a longer exposure thus more light. If one can't use a tripod, then a lens or camera with stabilisation has an advantage. Here my Sony wins since many prime lenses do not have optical stabilisation but this is on my camera sensor. The excellent Sigma Art lenses are big, heavy and have no stabilisation. Tamron's competitor primes do have stabilisation but don't appear to be rated as quite so sharp. AFAIK, Canon and Nikon's primes also tend not to be stabilised.

I think we have convinced ourselves that for tripod HDR church/interior photography, there is not really any difference between FF and APS-C. User:The Photographer also mentions street photography in low light. I would think twice about the Sigma Art f/1.4 50mm lens then since that is huge and heavy and on a big FF camera will shout "Professional Photographer" and could give you problems. Perhaps a more compact model from Nikon would be better, even if not quite as sharp as the Sigma. Think also whether f/1.4 is really a practical focal length for that kind of photography. Perhaps the main advantage to a f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens here is that it sharpens up nicely by f/2.8. Perhaps Tamron's 45mm would be a better choice as it has stabilization and is a little smaller and lighter than the Sigma. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The smaller and lighter is not a problem for me, I'm a man of 2 meters tall and almost 100 kilograms in weight and I have taken heavy photographic equipment to places of very difficult access. Hide me has been a big problem in Venezuela since it is the most insecure country in the world, however, here I can walk with a large camera in my hand that will really look small because of my body (not camera body) human size. I am a bit confused because of all this talk, however, I rely a lot on your opinions and comments. --The Photographer 15:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: ISO is an arbitrary number. I stick to the fact that it's not really the same on FF and APS-C because as mentioned, light is more "concentrated" on APS-C at identical aperture. The article itself mentions the formula : ISO_FF = (1.5)^2 * ISO_APSC and I suspect it to be true. That said, there are a few points on which I'm begging to differ (but it really is open for discussion). I still would go with FF even for tele... if pixel density is the same. Because in that case, the FF is only a wider version of the APS-C and can only be seen as a same device with more room for framing. Same results are obtained in post after a crop. And again, I disagree when you say The only difference is that APS-C sensors tend to be smaller pixels so need greater amplification to achieve that. because if the pixels are smallers, more light per area hits the sensor (given equivalent lenses), so it needs less amplification (as per the formula above). For the low light decision, it depends on if there's an equivalent APS-C lens (35mm f/0.95 for a FF 50mm f/1.4) but price is a factor. On the second article I give, author mentions that physics are limiting factor in favor of FF. It's harder or impossible to make the fast lenses for APS-C, so I would go FF. For panorama... I believe you are right, because the aperture we typically use are not an issue (since we are constrained by DOF). As an example to illustrate how these factors help me to choose, I went with an APS-C (Fuji) combined with 12mm f/2.0 for star photos. An equivalent system on FF would require a 18mm f/3. The best wide angle lenses are more f/2.8 afaik, so APS-C doesn't fall so short behind in that case. and I gain considerable weight and size. - Benh (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the terminology is confusing things. If by "identical aperture" you mean f/4 on both, then no, the light isn't more "concentrated". The lens and the light going through it doesn't know what size of sensor it is hitting. In fact "concentrated" is not correct the word ever unless one uses a Metabones Speedbooster. The article was trying to create an equivalent image (including framing and DoF) and for that one needs to open the aperture on APS-C which simply lets in more light per mm2 hitting the sensor. That compensates for the smaller pixels but then one needs to alter one of the other exposure parameters (shutter speed or ISO) ISO is an international standard and is related to the brightness of the image (pixels or film) for a given exposure duration and f stop. It doesn't change with the size of the sensor, but the amplification necessary to achieve that value will change depending on technology and pixel size and whether there's an SLT mirror in the way. I'm afraid you can't discuss these variables if you keep the pixel density the same -- then we are talking apples and pears. If you keep pixel density the same then you aren't actually comparing with any real APS-C camera but are simply using crop mode on a FF camera -- and then of course cropping is bad for every reason and there are no advantages. The only meaningful comparison is to compare cameras with the same megapixel.

The question of whether there's an "equivalent lens" as you put it, is irrelevant unless one is required to use the lens wide open. Frankly, the concern about f/0.95 lens is pointless as is the fashion for f/1.4 lenses. The f/1.4 aperture is nearly useless in practice (other than for photographers to judge the accuracy of their autofocus systems, or for some portrait photography) and just as much marketing fancy words as boasting about megapixels. All that f/1.4 symbolises is that the lens is bigger, heavier and more expensive than you needed. Sigma are making the Art series in f/1.4 because people regard that as a "pro" aperture, and some reviews (particularly for their wide angle prime) have criticised them for this as the lens probably distorts more than if they'd gone for f/1.8 or f/2. My Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens is sharper than a Sigma Art 30mm f/1.4 lens at all apertures (according to DXOMark, both are made for APS-C). How many photos do you take at f/1.4? If none, then why worry about f/0.95 lenses. -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: I do take a lot of pictures wide open. I like to separate subjects from the background on social events. Almost all my photos from Xmas and new year's eve are wide open. I like them a lot. Yes I take other stuffs than sceneries ;) You are right that on most cases (encountered on FPC) that the maximum aperture is irrelevant. I was just speaking for more general situations. Maybe The photographer wants a shallow depth of field for artistic reasons. In that case, FF is a clear to go choice. I didn't dig into details for ISO. But yes it must be a standard. What I mean is that the amplification is not the same between APS-C and FF at constant ISO. The result is the same though, and this is what matters. My guess is that when pixel density changes, amplification change, but ISO remains the same for a given result of exposure. And btw, when shooting wide open, the quality doesn't really matter. Most often, only the central part of the frame will be in focus and the corners will be blurred. In short, for most cases, FF and APS-C are the same (contrary to many beliefs), but FF offers more possibilities IMO (APS-C is a subset of FF), and despite the fact I went for an APS-C ;) (size was a factor in my case, I'm too old to carry those huge gears) . - Benh (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: This might become fully off topic, but I own both the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (Art) and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (Art) lenses and I have to say that I actually take lots of pictures at f/1.4 with both lenses, but these are of course not the pictures I do upload here. If money wasn't relevant I'd certainly buy the Canon 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 lenses as well. It's really a great thing to work with wide apertures when photographing people IMO. And I have to say that the Sigma Art lenses do a great job at f/1.4 while, for example, Canon's 85mm f/1.8 USM is rather bad at full aperture and needs to be stopped down to f/2.8 to get results as good as you get it with Sigma's lenses at f/1.4. --Code (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both of you (Benh, Code) for your correction of me, that f/1.4 is actually useful more generally than I suggested/thought. Interesting that you think such photos are less likely to appear on Commons. Benh mentions social photos, which are often limited by low light and thus high ISO unless one goes wide-open. I suspect then at f/1.4 you don't pixel peep those social photos. When I've tried to balance social low light high ISO with wide aperture, I've avoided completely wide-open because I found the DoF too small to get more than one person in focus or get a good success rate with moving subjects. With flash, it could be different. Aside from personal social images, can I ask what sort of photos you took at f/1.4 and why you think Commons or FPC would not welcome them. There's "out of scope" issues, but are you concerned your artistic photos would not be appreciated at FPC?

@Colin: I've sent you some examples via e-mail. I use f/1.4 mainly in low light situations, for certain kinds of potraits and sometimes for artistical reasons. Nothing that would really fit here on Commons. I don't think that any of the pictures I've sent you would pass QI at all. --Code (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I like your photos very much. I saw the whisky one on Flickr and loved the bokeh lights. If it wasn't for copyright concerns over the label, that would be great for FP. The cat and human portraits are very good and I'm impressed at your skill and the sharpness (narrow though it is). The only one that doesn't work for me DoF-wise is the little cakes which I would prefer to see more in focus. Perhaps as Benh suggests, this could be a Photo Challenge. -- Colin (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin. Actually I don't think that there are any copyright issues with the whisky picture but in fact I didn't upload it because the label isn't fully in focus and I believe that it would fail QI for that reason. I still remember my pizza picture some months ago which badly failed in CR because "not everything in focus" which is really a stupid reason to oppose when the choice of a shallow DoF is clearly intentional. As I already said elsewhere I believe that QI (and maybe FP as well) has a problem with really good (in the sense of artistic) pictures. Any pixel-sharp landscape or architectural picture taken in midday light will pass easily. But if you try something new and different you will get lots of opposes. That's one of the reasons why I'm taking a break from both the QI and the FP project at the moment (besides the fact that I can't see the sub-standard church interiors of some users easily passing FP any more). A "wide aperture" or "bokeh" photo challenge is a nice idea IMO. I think I'd upload my whisky picture or something similar then. --Code (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Metabones Speedbooster, which is highly regarded wrt its optical performance, does suggest that it is entirely possible to convert an 50mm f/1.2 into a 35.5mm f/0.9 thus performing the magic of turning a crop camera into FF much more equivalently. There is no reason why such technology could not be integrated into any made-for-crop lens. I suspect that, with the exception of Sigma's sharp and excellent (though limited zoom range) f/1.8 18-35 zoom, there isn't a big market in making first-class fast optics for crop sensor cameras. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The metabone thing looks to be an interesting solution. It is implied that there's only a 5% loss of light, which appears to be pretty good. This would be for very specific use case because I bet some people who go for APS-C do so because of the size, so they probably aren't too keen on adding a bulky lens behind. As for why there's not more picture shots wide open... well I just don't think FPC is the audience for it, it has proven to be very conservative on artistic side, and very pixel peeping biased. I also wouldn't share any portrait because of privacy concern (and because I've mentioned numerous times that I don't like picture of anonymous people floating around like that). And people are sort of an ideal subject for fast shallow DOF lenses, even in bright conditions. And I agree with you, people shots are not pixel peeping material IMO. Who zooms to look at a portrait? And what person likes to have its imperfections highlighted by a super sharp lens? ;) But again, I bet many would come up with DOF and sharpness concern if such pictures were to be FP candidates. (And beside people and stars, I don't shoot a lot wide open. That could be an interesting topic for the photo challenge.). - Benh (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Benh, I think FPC is shifting a little towards accepting more artistic pictures. I takes perseverance to keep nominating and supporting such images and the culture will change. QI I don't participate in since if you subtract "wow" from the requirements, all you are left with is pixel peeping about dull images. We are hampered a bit also by the picture requirements for QI/FP which claim the whole subject must be in focus -- those various requirements are awful and I think should be mostly removed. It encourages people to think, for example, that product photography requires focus stacking. Now focus stacking can be fun and achieve wow but I really don't think it is necessary to meet FP for small objects. -- Colin (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• btw I pretty much agree with the rest of your comment. just wanted to clear things regarding noise. - Benh (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Benh for the link, complicated but interesting. If I well understood Colin, with my very little experience (I started photography in the same time that I started to contribuate here), I tend to agree with him on the fact that mid-camera+good lens is a likely a better choice than advenced-camera+ mid lens (or limited choice of lens because of prices). I mean the best of the camera with bad lens will be disappointing while the opposite can have satisfactory results. Look this image taken with a pentax K5, though it likely is a bit oversatured, the details have nothing to envy to the half of FF photos that goes to QI, and this is not a particular good lens!
  When I changed my camera I choose Nikon D600, because the most beautiful pictures I saw in the QIC page, or at least my favorites, was the ones taken JLPC, ArildV or Lifar, all taken with Nikon! With hindsight I now know that I like their images because they are good photographers and not because this is Nikon. Then I have broken my D600 that fell during a night, and I chose a Nikon D810 because I already had good lens for Nikon. I have the chance to earn my life properly (this is very relative :)) by working very hard , and since I am not a spender, I do not go out (restaurant, bar) and do not go on holiday, I easily save money and I was able to buy good material. But for the one who have not a lot of money, it is maybe better to think to a camera that is compatible with its former lenses, to avoid having to redeem everything. FWIW just look to Nikon upper-entry cameras in good hands: D5200 or D5100....Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Colin, The Photographer, Christian Ferrer, Diliff, and Code: Apparently FF is the best choice : [5]. - Benh (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I read this second article and think the guy is wrong in a few of his arguments: he has an agenda and not neutral. Wrt viewfinder, I have an electronic viewfinder so have enjoyed a 100%-view large image but am aware that crop DSLRs tend to have smaller darker viewfinders than FF. His argument that APS-C taking the centre sweet spot of a lens is a "myth" is absolutely wrong. He is too obsessed with equivalence and theoretical lenses that do not exist and his arguments sometimes only hold when one shoots wide-open. The APS-C absolutely does take the centre sweet spot of a lens. His comparison of what he calls "professional grade APSC lens" with "consumer grade full frame lens" demonstrates that he is not really living in the real world. There are essentially no professional grade APSC lenses and there are several awful consumer full frame lenses (particularly older models available second hand, or for kit lenses). He's also rather out-of-date. In reality, although some cheaper FF cameras have been launched (with crippled focus modules and other features disabled), the serious cameras are still very expensive (and for me in the UK 20% more expensive than they were before our stupid Brexit vote). The price of FF lenses has skyrocketed. Some examples of consumer grade yet good quality lenses:

• Sony 24-70 f/4 full frame £829
• Sony 16-50 f/2.8 APS-C £469
• Sony 50mm f/1.8 full frame £229
• Sony 35mm f/1.8 APS-C £145

I know the last two aren't "equivalent" in the max-aperture front, but they take similar pictures for most purposes and are both budget primes. The FF much more expensive. And that's not counting pro grade lenses, which for Sony FE are often > £1000.

• Sony A77ii APS-C 24MP £899
• Sony A7ii FF 24MP £1239

And in many ways, the A77ii is a much better camera than the A7ii (the 42MP A7Rii is £2900!). I think one can build a high-quality APS-C system with several lenses, for much less than buying a FF camera with similar specification. For most photography, there is no contest that APS-C will get you there cheaper, smaller and lighter. If one is determined to shoot at f/1.4 then perhaps not, but at the opposite end, telephoto, APS-C wins every time hence the launch of the D500. Btw, Sony's recent A99ii full frame DSLT camera has essentially the same body as my A77ii, which shows that FF cameras do not have to be larger or make the ergonomic compromises made for the A7 series. The lenses for FF can't really get smaller though. -- Colin (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Colin: As a disclaimer, I didn't read the article again (last time was a few years ago and I even had forgotten about it). I think the point of the article is to say that for a given image quality, FF is the better (cheaper) choice. Now, I very much agree with your thinking and points. It's fact that FF is more expensive. Is it artificially made by manufacturer ? Donow. You are right that lenses prices seems to have gone upward. But which one would be more expensive : a 50mm f/1.8 or a 35mm f/1.2 ? a 16mm f/2.8 or a 11mm f/2. And maybe a 35mm f/1.2 designed for APS-C is less expensive than a 35mm f/1.2 designed for FF. If his arguments only hold for wide open shooting, it's also his point (it's his article that helped us coming to conclusion that unless shooting wide open, FF and APS-C is the same). WRT ;) the viewfinder I'm currently enjoying the one on the X-T2. They've made huge improvements since the x-pro1 and I'm not afraid to say it's as good as an optical one in many respects (even better in some). I've heard the Sony ones are even better. I would still favor optical when shooting fast action though, but I bet electronic will narrow/clear the gap very soon. And you are right, APS-C doesn't necessarily make camera bodies much smaller, but they might have impact on the lens design and the resulting overall size. I think what saves a lot of space is removing the mirror. Anyhow : I agree with you, APS-C is a very nice alternative to FF and seems to be cheaper today (and for a foreseeable future). - Benh (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Benh, my point about the A99ii wasn't that APS-C can't be smaller cameras, just that today's FF cameras are often unnecessarily large. My first DSLT was the A33 and that was tiny and one of the smallest DSLR cameras ever made. Compare the A33 with my A77ii. That website doesn't have the A99ii yet, but Compare the old A99 with the A77ii to see how much it has shrunk. And compare the A77ii with the D810 to show how needlessly bulky that camera is. Your X-T2 is small but not as small as my old A33. I agree that removing the mirror helps (and the pentaprism) but I think the Sony A7 series has gone too far to be small and slim, and many people are asking for a body closer to the A77ii that is curved and has a good grip. The fashion seems to be to make it look like a block of aluminium rather than moulded plastic, but the latter is ergonomic. As for price of lenses, the aperture and focal-length is of course only part of the equation:

• Sony 50mm f1.4 AF Lens £299
• Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM Art - Sony Fit £571
• Sony 50mm f1.4 ZA SSM Zeiss Planar Lens £1099
• Zeiss 55mm f1.4 T* Otus Lens - Nikon Fit £2699

What a shame the Otus is not available in Sony A-mount ;-). I have the Sony DT 50mm f1.8 SAM Lens at £129 (I paid about £75 as it was on sale + cashback promotion). It may be rather plasticy but is sharp and just won me second place in the WLM International competition, so it can't be that bad! -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting site :) And yes about everything, especially the sonys being too slim (not a good balance with most optics). And I'm pretty sure that second place was more due to you than the lens :D. For lens price, I sometimes wonder how Zeiss or Leica lenses can be so overpriced (probably because they are also overrated and some people just buy the brand to show off). If lenses were really priced to their real value, probably the article's conclusion would stand more true. - Benh (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Colin, Beh and Christian for the comments. I live in city where the light is a important factor, here the Weather almost everyday is darked in 90% cases. My style is street photography of people (where I need a fast camera and a lens to shoot in low light conditions and a FF 50mm f/1.4 could be excellent), also I'm a Architecture photographer of exteriors and interiors. I'm not a macro photographer (because the light factor). I'm sorry Diliff for spam your talk, maybe we need transfer it to another page. --The Photographer 11:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Random break

Benh, I just found this article which demonstrates the same thing that (approximately) when you compare cameras/lenses at their "equivalent" settings, their noise performance is similar. They note that not all the lenses have the same transmittance (T stop) as their f stop might imply, and there are differences between brands/technology for same sensor size. I also see metabones latest adaptors offer their Speedbooster combined with both contrast-detect and phase-detect autofocus for some Sony E-mount cameras. So one could buy a tiny A6500 and stick a huge f/1.2 85mm lens on it, and get pretty similar performance to buying an A7ii. But then one loses all the portability benefits of smaller lighter lenses for the APS-C format.

I've just bought a Sony 500mm f/8 reflex autofocus lens (second hand, as it was discontinued by Sony). You can see the results on my Flickr -- I haven't posted yet to Commons. Just random test shots so far. Interesting doughnut bokeh from the mirror, but also, with the shots of teasel, very very smooth background blur that I could not reproduce with a shorter focal length (50mm). My hope is this lens is a bit like my fisheye -- a bit unusual and capable of producing shots like nothing else I have. In terms of reach, it's equivalent to 750mm on a FF camera, which is pretty amazing for lens no longer than my hand. When's Diliff going to join this conversation? -- Colin (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Oxford High Street Facing West, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! --Code (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the image Salisbury Cathedral Lady Chapel 1, Wiltshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, which was created or uploaded by you, has been nominated for featured picture status; have a look at the nomination page. Thank you and good luck! --Code (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Picture request of London

Hey Diliff!. Ive seen you got plenty of quite good images on commons. Im wondering, in case you live near the area or got any other way to act, if you could take some particular pictures of London? This is just a random question, i just wanna ask anyway, since i came across your account and saw that there is plenty of content. i´d be happy for an answer, greetings--Joobo (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Joobo, thanks! Actually I've just recently moved back to Australia so I no longer live in London. Out of interest, what particular pictures did you want and why were you asking me? Diliff (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Diliff, sorry for stalking your talk page. Just for curiosity but where exactly did you move to? I always hoped we'd meet once in England but I really dont know if I'll ever get to Australia (although I'd really love to). --Code (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I am looking for nice street pictures that also capture the architecture of the houses of certain London areas. Though there are plenty of those on commons, most of them which were shot from a good angle, are fairly old and in bad quality. When i was looking through the uploads of images of London among others i also came across this account, and i thought i just ask. --Joobo (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok. If you'd asked a year or two ago, I probably would have been happy to help with that project, but it's not an option anymore, sorry. And Code, I'm sure I'll be back to Europe to visit at some point, but probably only on quick visits. Still, if I'm in Berlin, I'll be happy to get in touch and arrange something. :-) I've moved back to Melbourne, where I'm from originally. There are a few things to shoot on my to-do list here but it's not quite the architectural powerhouse that Europe is. Diliff (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:St_Mary's,_Bourne_Street

St Mary's, Bourne Street has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Natural History Museum Main Hall, London, UK - Diliff.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. --XRay 16:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! British Museum Great Court, London, UK - Diliff.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) 05:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St. Michael the Archangel Church 2, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.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. --Rbrechko 15:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Church of Saint Marie Interior 2, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.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. --Cvmontuy 16:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Telšiai Cathedral 2, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.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. --Ralf Roletschek 09:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dominican Church of the Holy Spirit, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.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. --Ralf Roletschek 09:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cepelinai 2, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.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 Very good. -- Ikan Kekek 10:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cepelinai 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.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. --Basotxerri 08:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)