User talk:Fir0002/Archive 2

This is an archive of my talk page --Fir0002 10:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting templates

Hi. Since you seem like a nice guy, take great photos and obviously know how to do it, I had to ask you this question, from one n00b to a 1337 - How do you make (or rather insert) the little voting graphics, like yours in [1]?

Great photos

Great pictures mate. I posted a few of them (with attribution) in Australian Hunting Net forum, hope you don't mind. Everyone was impressed!

Aurora Australis

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Aurora australis panorama.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

-- Enochlau 06:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

User:PiccoloNamek/Gallery

It isn't much, but I'm trying to add to it.

My real portfolio is here:

[2]

PiccoloNamek 09:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Chestnuts.jpg is up for Pic of the Day tomorrow. You can check the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 15, 2005. -- Solipsist 06:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:Pomegranate03 edit.jpg is up on the 18th. As this will be a weekend, it should also be on the MainPage too. The associated caption is at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 18, 2005. -- Solipsist 06:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wait for a Pic of the day for ages, then three come along at once. A golden oldy this time; your Emperor Gum Moth is due for a reappearance on the 19th Sep. Oddly there doesn't appear to have been much of a caption last time. Perhaps most of the article was written later. In any case a freshly minted caption can be checked and improved at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 19, 2005.

And you didn't tell me that you had managed to get a photo of some insect eggs. I've now updated the egg (biology) page to include it, so that article is a little less POV now. Actually the Emperor Gum Moth article is now rather well illustrated with all aspects of the moth's life cycle. Nice job. -- Solipsist 07:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Next one up is Image:MotoX racing03 edit.jpg next Tuesday, with the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 27, 2005. I've added it to Motocross as that seemed a more appropriate illustration than at motorcycle. -- Solipsist 07:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

Hi Fir,

In case you haven't seen it, you might be interested in this discussion on Commons. -- Solipsist 07:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't aware of the discussion, so thanx for pointing it out. --Fir0002 07:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely different issue, I know this may sound dumb, but I've noticed people refering to wikipedia chat on irc. What is that? I use ICQ but am not familiar with IRC channels. --Fir0002 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't help you with that one. I know the channels exist, but I don't use them. The starting point would seem to be Wikipedia:IRC channels.

There are also several mailing lists, with pointers at Wikipedia:Mailing lists. -- Solipsist 08:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

Hi, just wanted to say that I am always astounded by your talent in photography; I've actually mentioned you on my user page; I thought I was an alright photographer until I saw your work. It is always spectacular. Keep up the good work! Sputnikcccp 11:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Australian cart.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on the 2nd October. As usual, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 2, 2005. -- Solipsist 08:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted pic: Lavender

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Single lavender flower02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations on a unanimous verdict :-) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You have experience in this area, so I'm asking you. :)

Do you think this picture would be a viable featured picture:

File:P1010027.jpg

Carolina Anole

Note, that I am not asking how you would vote, but rather if you think that this picture would have a generally favorable response if listed. The only problem I can personally see is a small amount of blur a full-size, but it doesn't appear too distracting, IMO. :) PiccoloNamek 03:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Well, I went ahead and added it anyway. Here's hoping for the best. Feel free to remove this. Sorry to bother you.

PiccoloNamek 09:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I put up a resampled version on the photo's candidate page. I think that solved the blur problem fairly well. My camera just isn't good enough to use the images without reducing the size by half first.PiccoloNamek 12:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Misty morning02.jpg is up for Pic of the Day tomorrow — the caption can be edited at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 6, 2005.

I noticed a small irony in that the next FP in the line is Prokudin-Gorskii's Black Sea sunset, where the principle interest is that he was managing such good colour photography in 1915. There is some similarity with the composition of Misty Morning, but now a lot of the attraction is in the near monochrome tonal palette. I guess that's progress over 90 years ;-) -- Solipsist 07:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA vote

Fir, I wanted to drop you a line to ask if you'd be interested in voting on my admin candidacy. I've seen you a lot in voting on FP's and thought you might have a somewhat good or positive idea of me and what kind of work I do. I'm kind of having a personal tiff with a certain user right now and would appreciate your vote if you feel i'm qualified enough. I also answered the usual questions at the bottom of my nomination form you can read if interested. Just thoguht I'd see if you'd help me out with it. Thanks and I'l lsee you around the FP's I'm sure. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Photo

Hi Fir!

Just a quick note to say that your picture of the Melbourne skyline at night is fantastic! It shows what a nice city Mebourne is. (of course, being a Melburnian myself!) Keep up the photography!!

Skyscraper297 08:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Image_sleuthing#Image:FierceSnake_Olive.jpg

Would you be able to shoot a free replacement image of this snake? It would significantly add to a FA candidate. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support template

Thanks for the info. Halibu tt 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They deleted it again :( What do you think about creating a redirect? I can undelete them but I don't want to start a delete war. Redirect could be more useful... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the day

Hi Fir

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Large bonfire.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the Day on Monday. You can make any changes to the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 24, 2005. -- Solipsist 22:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Tour sister project

I've been thinking about proposing a sister project called something like "Wikitour" that would lend itself directly to Wikipedia. While Commons hosts individual images of places/things that have articles on Wikipedia, Wikitour would host "virtual tours" of these places/things.

The basic idea is as follows: a user submits numerous photos of a notable place, which are organized into pages/subpages to create a navigable environment similar to that in Myst, Riven, or the graphical Zork games; the navigation system would be on Wikitour, while the files themselves would be on Commons, with a link in the respective article on WP; examples include castles, museums, caverns, mountains, college campuses (!!!), typical mosques or churches, archaeological sites, etc. Basically, any topic that has an article on Wikipedia has the possibility of its own entry in Wikitour. Users could also submit photos of an object from various angles/distances, rather than a place. For art galleries, this could instead consist of previously uploaded images of paintings/sculptures, which are organized into a single page, representing the contents of a specific art gallery.

As you are the premier photographer on Wikipedia, I wanted to gauge your interest in this, and know whether or not you would help submit this proposal to meta:Proposals for new projects, either by working directly on it or by submitting an example tour of some place around you that already has an article on Wikipedia, or at least has the potential to have an article. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-21 18:47

Please see the Wikitour proposal page and leave your impressions/suggestions on the talk page. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-21 19:50

I'm thinking that I should have probably stuck to my original scope of this simply being a Wikipedia WikiProject, rather than a complete sister project. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 02:39

Piotrus

Yep, your mum was right. Piotruś (note the Polish letter 'ś') is a diminutive of Piotr, which is Polish for Peter. But FYI my nickname is not a diminuative but a latinization - adding the latin ending -us to my name (as a tribute to one of my favourite poems, Powrót Prokonsula by Zbigniew Herbert. Can you read Polish? If so, you can find this short poem linked on his wiki page. I am not a fan of poetry, but some of Herbert's pieces are awesome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

) I found an English version of it here. Raport z Oblężonego Miasta (Report from the Besieged City) is another one of my favourites. And Czterej Pancerni i Pies are great :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Seagull on sale pier.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on Thursday. As usual, you can review and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 27, 2005. -- Solipsist 20:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Image:Bee mid air.jpg is up for Pic of the Day on Sunday. As this is a weekend it should also appear on the Main Page. You can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/October 30, 2005. However, at the moment I'm not too happy with the caption as it is a bit too general. If I get a chance I might expand the bee article to discuss the aerodynamics of bee fligh — when I was at college, I recall hearing the adage that "aerodynamically, bees can't fly" and it seems to be one of those ideas that persists despite being completely untrue. There is a pretty good summary of the problem on Straight Dope. -- Solipsist 08:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

request for cc-by-sa licensing

Hi,

The picture of the bee is fantastic -- wow! I have a physics textbook at http://www.lightandmatter.com that is under the creative commons cc-by-sa license rather than the GFDL. The two licenses are similar in spirit (viral copyleft licenses), but differ in details. I was wondering if you'd be willing to offer the picture to me under cc-by-sa for use in the book. I would of course credit you properly in the photo credits (as required by the license). Currently, I have my own (not very good) photo of a butterfly as the chapter opener image for ch. 1 of the Newtonian Physics book, and I'd love to be able to replace it with your much nicer image. TIA for considering my request. --Bcrowell 20:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...actually, now that I think of it, maybe I should just offer my book under a dual license, CC or GFDL at the user's option. I think that would deal with the legal issue. BTW, I showed your photo collection to my wife, who has written a copylefted French textbook, http://www.lightandmatter.com/french/, and her immediate reaction was also "ooh ooh, can I use some of those in my book!" :-) --Bcrowell 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(from my talk page): "Hi! I'm thrilled to hear that you'd like to use my photos for a publication, and I'm more than happy to let you use it. What licensing do you want to use?" That's great! My books are under by-sa version 1.0. Is that OK? Thanks for making these wonderful photos available!--Bcrowell 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons adminship

I've requested adminship on Commons. Are you an admin there? (if not, you should be :)) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 13:40

I also noticed you have some messages for you on your talk page on Commons. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 13:43

Uploaded picture size

Hi Fir0002 - Brookie here; when you have a say an 8m pixel digital picture to upload - as mine are with my new camera, is there a way to limit the upload size ? On one of my recent uploads I had a size warning message flash up which I overode as I didn't know how to limit the file size. Hope you can help. :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 08:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Sheep eating grass edit02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

I hereby declare that you take very good photos. Raven4x4x 07:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the Day

Hi Fir002,

This time it is Image:Redback frontal view.jpg that is up for a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 14th Nov. I felt a need to rework the caption, so you can check the changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 14, 2005.

They always seem to come in clusters. Next up is Image:Aurora australis panorama.jpg for tomorrow. The caption can be checked at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 15, 2005. And I think you've got a pine cone coming up next weekend, although I haven't written up the caption yet. -- Solipsist 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, your Montery Pine cone is up for POTD tomorrow at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/November 19, 2005. I was surprised to find that none of your related photos were on the Monterey Pine page, so I've also added them there as a gallery. -- Solipsist 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EOS 20D

Hey. I've been in the market for a new camera for quite some time now, and I eventually settled on the Canon EOS 20D. It seems to be a good camera that takes clear, sharp pictures, and would be a good starting place for me to begin building my EOS lens collection. (My ultimate goal is to get the 180mm telephoto macro lens, only $1200 U.S.!) I rememberd that you have an EOS 20D, so I wanted to ask you, how is it? How does it handle? Is it fast? Are there any nagging problems? Is the sensor crop factor a problem? How is the depth of field control? That is very important to me. The reason I ask is because the smaller APS sized sensor will naturally have less DOF than a larger sensor. Anything I should know about before I purchase this camera? Any tips or advice are greatly appericiated!PiccoloNamek 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you may be interested in this nomination, especially as parts of it seem to be related to the voting templates issue.. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MIND

Hello. Round four of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Thursday, December 1. This round will be drastically different from round three; part one will consist of a creative project, and part two will be developed from there. The full details will be released when the round opens. Time and speed should not be major factors in this round; thus, there is no exact opening time for the round as speed will not factor into the scoring. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please add Wikipedia:Mind Benders/to do to your watchlist to receive further announcements; the NotificationBot is currently down and all notifications will be placed on that page. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy. If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. Special thanks to Fetofs for helping distribute this message.

Image additions

Hi, I am a bit concered about your recent addition of a lot of photos to many Canberra articles. In my oppinion many of the photos you have added don't help the articles especially if they are already heavily illustrated. Please see my post at the Canberra wikiproject. --Martyman-(talk) 01:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the Old Parliament House photo, I do disagree. The photo that you replaced focussed only on the building and did not include other aspects such as the War Memorial and Mt Ainslie. Your photo was also of the back of the building, not a common view for any building and not to my mind particularly justified as the main photo of the building. I was not responsible for the photo you replaced and have no ownership of it. I am happy to concur that a better photo of the front of the building could be taken and that there could be some judicious editing of the foreground grass and tarmac and the cars parked on the right; not to mention resolution and sharpness. Happy for you to put the issue to the vote on the article discussion page. Regards--A Y Arktos 10:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I find your aparent arogance very annoying. You seem to think that your photos are automatically an improvement to any article whether or not they already have suitable existing photos. You didn't comment when I posted the above comment either to me or the wikiproject, this says to me that you are not particularly concerned with the opinions of the group of people who have been developing the articles you are modifying. Maybe a better way to have gone about this would have been to co-ordinate with the Canberra wikiproject, they coul dhave given quite positive feedback on what topics in the ACT require more/better photos. I removed your photo from the parliamentary triangle article because there was already a photo there of the exact same model (and the article is not about the model). The triangle is visable by the street lights on the main roads and is clearly shown in the map below it. Also I might mention photos of things at night might be very pretty and all, but they are not the most encyclopedic way of illustrating an article, and you must be joking if you think the amount of text on the Mount Ainslie article justifies that many photos (Wikipedia is not a gallery). PS. I agree with AYArktos above. --Martyman-(talk) 11:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Mueck

Hi Fir,

Thanks for the new photo on Ron Mueck. I wrote the original article, so its nice to see it getting illustrated. -- Solipsist 09:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra pics

I have joined in the discussion on your Canberra pics on the Canberra project page, and am 100% on your side. Thank goodness I've not met such a lack of understanding of the function of pics in any of my work! I find Martymans comments particularly offensive because I know what a whole heap of work image taking, processing, uploading, caption-writing etc is. Please do not be put off WP by the remarks in the Project Discussion. Pics are highly valued on WP (how else do we know what things look like!) but the text people can't understand this. You are outnumbered so I see only two solutions: either make separate image articles or simply take all the troublesome articles off your Watchlist and forget they ever existed. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 10:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter - I'd agree with Adrian above and will add some notes, though I think one does have to be careful over layout with the way some browsers can leave big white spaces when paragraphs are 'forced apart' by pics (maybe that's the reason behind their complaint?). Maybe a solution is to use the <gallery> </gallery> format? - MPF 12:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed to see the comments from your friends above, as they seem to be missing the point as to why people are angry with your contributions to Canberra articles. No one wants you to stop taking pictures, as you're clearly not a bad photographer; the sheer amount of featured pictures you've had is testament to that. Furthermore, there's a lot of places that really do need pictures; most of the suburb articles are completely devoid of them, for instance. Yet the problem people have with your edits is that you're sticking all your images into articles without any consideration for whether they are actually needed to illustrate the point, whether there is already enough images in the article (remember not everyone has broadband) and/or whether the image is actually better than those already there. No one wants you to stop contributing, but if you've got excess images on a topic, please add them to Wikimedia Commons (where they'll be really helpful), instead of cramming them all into any relevant articles. That way, the best images can go in articles (whether yours or others), and no one is likely to have much of an issue with your contributions. Ambi 22:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've come a little late to this dispute, but hopefully the dust has started to settle by now. From a cursory look over the large number of comments, it kind of looks like both sides have made some good points but have also sometimes been a little disingenuous. I'm not sure whether the quidelines are still there, but somewhere in the help pages for contributing pictures there is some advice about taking care not to trample on other editor's feelings when replacing or removing images from articles - it used to be recommended to move replaced images to the talk page, but these days shifting them over to Commons is probably better (although that is often too much work).

You asked me to look at the addition and removal of pictures from Lake Burley Griffin. I would hazard a guess that Ambi's revert was largely a reaction to some of the discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canberra#Image additions at the time. However I would have to agree that the additional images did tend to overload the article and several of them weren't particularly necessary. Without knowing the area, I would have to say that it looks like it is quite difficult to make this lake look really interesting (I hope that doesn't offend people too much). The new Image:Captain cook memorial fountain and national library.jpg is probably the best image of an item on the lake and could make a good lead image. The current lead image of the lake at sunset is fine, but I'm not convinced it shows the lake in the best light. Ideally a lead image on an article like this should be a good photo of a view that sums up the place or the thing people most remember about the place - I would imagine that the fountain is what makes the biggest impression on most visitors to Lake Burley Griffin. I like Image:Bridge over lake burley griffin by night04.jpg, but I don't think it illustrates the article on the lake terribly well - its excellent on Commonwealth Avenue, Canberra however. The new panoramas at the bottom are a little disappointing, on the whole I prefer the existing two by John Conway even though they show a few imperfections.

Assuming that the general argument has died down, it might be a good idea to ask Ambi to reevaluate the general revert and consider reinserting some of the new photos. Image:Lake burley griffin04.jpg looks like another good one to consider. It really needs someone with local knowledge to know which views are the most appropriate to illustrate the article. No doubt the same would go for many of the related Canberra articles and it would seem best to work with the folks at WikiProject_Canberra to help decide what the best combination of illustrations would be for each article.

I would also echo some of the comments below that Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg is really rather nice and could be FP material. On the other hand, in the full view it looks uncomfortably high contrast - could it be oversharpened or is this just the general headache with extreme light and shade at that location that User:Martyman was mentioning ? -- Solipsist 17:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added a couple of your photos mentioned above to the Lake Burley Griffin article. I removed the existing sunset photo which I never felt was overly encyclopedia anyway. --Martyman-(talk) 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm happy then. It did seem a little unlikely that all of my photos were not suitable. --Fir0002 05:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dogwood

Hi again - I'm afraid your pic Image:Dogwood tree.jpg isn't a Dogwood in the sense of that page (i.e., not in the genus Cornus); I've moved it to Dogwood (disambiguation) where there is a list of trees that are called 'Dogwood' in OZ, and will see if I can work out which of them it is (so far, I'm sure it isn't Jacksonia scoparia, but haven't checked the others yet) - MPF 12:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Acacia coriacea, but I'm not certain on that - MPF 12:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Construction sign

First off, I replied on that Canberra project. I'm not sure I know what to do in that situation, though.

I'm looking for a photograph of a light-up construction sign, of the sort pictured here, but which is displaying placeholder text, such as "Buckle up, it's the law" or "No warnings today", ie: there are currently no warnings for the sign to display, but they still want to show that the sign is in working condition. Do you know what I mean? Do you know of any around you? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 14:34

Your unidentified moth images

Hi Fir0002, your unidentified moth images were identified: :-) Please have a look at this discussion. I uploaded your images again with their scientific names. The old ones will be deleted. I fixed all links in the above mentioned discussion. Greetings, de:Benutzer:olei --84.179.4.111 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Peter, just a note to congratulate you on your wonderful photography, a great contribution to Wikipedia. It's good to see young people and people in the country contributing. Do you live anywhere near Dargo, Victoria? I used to spend a lot of time there and have fond memories of the area. Also Metung, Victoria and Paynesville, Victoria. Adam 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Griffin article is about to undergo a major expansion - images in the article are organised according to the relevant time period of his career. We are getting relevant images for the sections not illustrared from other Wikiprojects, his work was not confined to Canberra, and the plan is already illustrated by the drawing.--nixie 10:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it may seem I am writing to pay you a complement. I appreciate your photographic additions to the Australian National Botanic Gardens article. The fact that you showed restraint in not overloading the article with photos even though you have more at commons is great. Also I am impressed with how well you managed to capture the rainforest gully. When I have tried to photograph it before (for the article) the dappled sunlight washed out and the shade was too dark. Needless to say the resultant photo was not worth uploading. --Martyman-(talk) 10:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martyman --Fir0002 05:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert it if you want to go ahead and change the photo on the Parliamentary Triangle article over to your one, not that I think there is much difference between them. My main problem with your change to that article (and in fact almost all of your Canberra additions) was the over loading of the articles with images, not the images themselves. If you are convinced that your photo is the better one and that you have support behind you then go ahead and replace the one that is there. --Martyman-(talk) 05:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I am sorry how the whole thing blew a bit out of proportion. I guess I am just a bit protective of the articles that I (and others) have spent a lot a work on. Anyway many of your photos are appreciated and more may well find homes as articles get expanded and need further illustration. --Martyman-(talk) 05:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Hey, I just saw your gallery, and I must say, it's way good stuff. I have just begun using Terragen, and I would like to ask you how you got that low mist/fog effect on the Terragen page. I'm a new user to Wikipedia, hope to hear from you!The Scurvy Eye 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PM paintings

Great job on the pictures of the paintings at New Parliament House! I've added a couple pictures to Clifton Pugh, Ivor Hele and Archibald Prize. Do you happen to know which artists did the others as I cant make out some of the small signatures. They may be listed in Category:Australian painters -- Cfitzart 10:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to think about is copyright. I am not too sure on the rules for photographs of paintings but I am pretty sure they are covered by the original painting copyright. This would mean unless the artist died more than 70 years ago then they should be listed as fair use and the articles they can be used in is severly limited. --Martyman-(talk) 11:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, I may be wrong and the copyright issue may not be a problem, but I suspect that you need to use fair use for photos of artworks that are still under copyright. I think fairuse is only valid for adding images to the artist's or painting's article. Might be worth lookign if there are any featured articles with photos of recent artwork and checking what license they use. --Martyman-(talk) 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though if the artwork is "publicly displayed" then you are free to photograph it. Not sure what this translates to though. Is the inside of a buildign counted as public? I don't know... I would suggest just leaving your existing licenses. --Martyman-(talk) 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These 2D workds can't be licenced as the GFDL since the artist owns the copyright on the original image, somone who takes a photo of that image cannot then apply some other kind of licence to it since the artist owns the rights for reproduction and so on. These need to by moved off the commons which is for free images only, and uploded to Wikipedia and have a fair use rationale provided for their use.--nixie 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image removal

I noticed that you removed my image from the Platycerium page. You provided no explanation as to why you did this. Would you mind if I did the same to your images? I am not making a comparison between images and I have no problem with your photo. I just have a problem with you removing my image from an article without any good reason. Could you not do that again and begin to consider moving replaced images to somewhere else in the article, especially if there are not many images in the article already. - Shiftchange 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australia-related featured images

Hi Fir. Seeing as though you're quite involved with featured images on Wikipedia, would you be able to keep an eye out for high-quality or notable Australia-related images that may be used on the Australia Portal. If you have any in mind, you can make suggestions on its talk page. Thanks, --cj | talk 17:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that ;-)--cj | talk 09:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament House Images

Hi. I think that Image:ParlamentHouseACT.jpg should be replaced on the Parliament House, Canberra article. Your photo Image:Old and new parliament houses across lake.jpg would be suitable but I think it might look better if it was cropped in a bit and maybe the brightness brought up a bit. What do you think? --Martyman-(talk) 09:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Hi Fir,

Perhaps it is just because you've contributed a more than average number of photos, or maybe you are beginning to develop a characteristic style.

Following a semi-random edit earlier today, I was just reviewing the horse article when this picture caught my eye. OK, well the caption mentioned it was a horse in Australia, but even before that I was thinking "I bet that's a Fir photo" and of course after clicking on the image my suspicions were confirmed. Its not the first time either. I've done a similar thing on other unrelated articles, some three or four occaisions the past; so its not just chance. On the other hand you could just argue that bright 'Australian light' is somehow recognisable. Either way I thought you might like to know. -- Solipsist 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also had this same thought recently :) ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great photos, but...

Hi Fir, let me be the first to make a complaint about your exceedingly awesome contributions (you make me want to become a photographer). I do not like the way you format the photos you add to articles. Having all of them stacked in a column is not appropriate on Wikipedia for two reasons: they are hard to connect with sections of the article, and they are distracting. Per WP:Images,

"Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general. A map of a battle and an picture of its aftermath would provide more information to readers. Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text."

Of course, this is only a guideline, but please take it into account when you add images to a page. For example, I just reorganized Gamelan. I feel that the new format better represents the community's preference. What do you think? ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, didn't read your discussion page closely enough. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand what you mean by "disjointed text." In some instances, having the images alternate right and left definately looks crummy... image placement can be a delicate process. I will also try to think of some good captions for those pictures. And about the solar array, I actually got the idea from a science hobbyist website, and only after I did some more research did I find out about the MythBusters episode. In any case, it's just about done... it just needs to be programmed, but considering that it's winter in North America, it might be a while before it's completed. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for the gorgeous image you took for the lead section of the Lake Burley Griffin article. It's made the article much nicer to look at, and illustrates the article better than anything we had before. Ambi 15:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid composition! Could hardly do better on the sky conditions, too. But, if you have the opportunity, try to get another one with the very top of the fountain not cut off. Forgive me, if this is already on your "to do" list. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your compliments, but to address your issue Walter, I live a good 600k from Canberra and took these photos on a school camp. So I'm unlikely to get another chance at photographing Canberra for a while :-(. Image:Captain cook memorial fountain and national library02.jpg probably has more of the top of the fountain in view. --Fir0002 23:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tI agree with your choice, Fir0002. The superior placement of the fountain with respect to the National Library and the cloud background of Image:Captain_cook_memorial_fountain_and_national_library.jpg make that image better than Image:Captain cook memorial founain and national library02.jpg despite it being slightly cut off at the top. The higher wind of the former interacts with the fountain in a pleasing way. I like them both, despite the quibbles. You may get back to Canberra before me. I live 9000 km away. I liked it when I was there a couple of years ago. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Mueck

File:Pregnant woman scuplture.jpg
I would have liked to take photos of Ron Mueck's work in the Fondation Cartier exhibition. Unfortunately, it was not allowed. Is it authorized in the National Gallery of Australia ?
--Gloumouth1 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gloumouth,

I'm pretty sure that it was OK to take photos, as our tour lady didn't stop me or other people taking photos of the impressive sculpture. I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure if it is OK to license it the way I did, but I'm sure others will be able to find out. There was one sculpture we weren't allowed to photograph, but the tour lady made sure we knew. --Fir0002 05:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I really love the picture you took (the sculpture is amazing). Congratulation. --Gloumouth1 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is generally a good point. The licensing on this picture may be wrong, or it may be fine. It might be an idea to review the Copyright FAQ and its section on derivative works. As with the painting of Oz politians above, a lot of the issues will depend on the details of how and where the photographs were taken, as well as subtleties of Australian copyright law (of which I know little).

Ron Mueck's sculpture would certainly be in copyright. So the photo would be a derivative work. However under UK and Canadian law (but not US) there are specific exceptions from copyright infringement for photographs of sculptures in public places. You would need to check Australian law, but there is a good chance it would follow some Commonwealth precedent and be similar to the UK law. There is then the question of whether the national art gallery is a public space (or however it is phrase in the relevant law). A sculpture in the street nearly always is, but a lot of art galleries are private spaces that the public are allowed to visit - in particular if you have paid for admission you may well have tacitly subscribed to a set of terms and conditions issued by the art gallery that are likely to limit the publishing of photographs. Your guide may have been assuming that a school party would only be likely to be taking photographs for private use.

Similarly with the paintings of Australian politicians - your photographs are likely to be derivative works of copyrighted paintings. However, when a photograph or painting is commissioned, I think the copyright is often possessed by the commissioner (or that may be just US law and is why most of the US-Gov photos are PD). So if these portraits were commissioned by the Australian government, it is possible they are actually the equivalent of Crown Copyright in Australia (or some such - possibly even PD), in which case your photos would be derivate of those copyright terms.

It can get quite complicated to work out the details, but as you develop as a photographer it become important to know these things, along with other laws restricting the use of photos showing people (often mistakenly thought to be a copyright issue). If you haven't already read it, this shorthand guide (pdf) to UK photographer's rights is really quite interesting. I put another link on the Copyright FAQ for a similar guide for US photographers. Of course, what you really need is a similar summary of the Australian law — it would be worth looking around the internet to see whether someone has already written something (let me know if you find one). -- Solipsist 13:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll try investigate copyright laws, but atm, I'm a little busy. I do remember that the guide told us that the National Art Gallery was a gallery which belonged to all Australians, meaning that it is publicly owned I think. Also I'm pretty sure you don't have to pay anything to go in. --Fir0002 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kid.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Kid.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Bob Hawke portrait photo

Peter, that's a very fine photo of the Bob Hawke portrait at Parliament House. I'm intrigued to know how you took it since there is a ban on photography of the portraits and there is usually a security guard within a few feet of them all the time. I have been tempted to photograph them late at night many times but never had the nerve. Also I am a little dubious about the copyright status of a photo of a work by a living artist, but I will leave that to others. If you're ever in Parliament House in a sitting week, let me know. Adam 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Photos

Hi, and sorry for the delay of the feedback. I am rather busy recently, and can do only very few edits on Wikipedia. About the Pics: I think a Ratio of up to 2:1 of Text to Pictures on an article looks good for me, of course nicely mixed and not clustered. I checked only one Canberra related page, which had a lot of panoramas in the bottom, and in generally looked a bit image heavy. Hence I can understand that other users removed some pics. However, most of the time your images were IMHO superior to the other images (e.g. the canberra triangle pic). When I upload a larger number of pictures about one topic to Wikipedia, i put only a few in the article, and linked the rest to the commons. In any case, I am looking forward for many more pics from you, regarldess if they are in an article or "only" on the commons. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the Day - lavendar

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Single lavender flower02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day on the 18th December. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 18, 2005. As this will be a weekend, it should also appear on the Main Page. However given the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day there may not be an obvious credit line. -- Solipsist 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha & Client

Hello, Peter. My compliments to you on the high quality of your submitted photos. I want to thank you, also, for taking the time to comment on the image quality of the geisha picture recently submitted to Wikipedia featured pictures. I've responded to your concerns to the best of my ability by uploading a new version of the image with increased saturation. You have a keen eye and your technical expectations are right on target; nonetheless, I urge you to reconsider your position on this nomination. Please, understand that this sort of glimpse into the geisha's private world as she entertains a client is rarely captured on film. Many are discouraged to see this important visual contribution rejected for relatively minor aesthetic reasons. I would only ask that you consider joining the increasing number of Wikipedia users who, after reading the Geisha article, have come to appreciate the rare nature of this photograph and believe that, in light of its contribution, the image is of sufficiently high quality to support featured picture status beside other high quality contributions such as your own. I think this picture deserves a second look. Your thoughtful contribution to the debate is always appreciated. Thank you, and best of luck in your academic and athletic pursuits.ToddLara 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

You just keep giving us these wonderful photos, and I thank you for all of them. Raven4x4x 07:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

featured picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Traditional indonesian instrument being played at the indonesian embassy.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Image:Pleiades large.jpg is now an FP

Congratulations. I have uploaded your edit, Image:Pleiades half.jpg over Image:Pleiades large.jpg as your edit was the best liked version. As such Image:Pleiades half.jpg will be deleted. Thanks again for the wonderful work you do with images Raven4x4x 05:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, Janke did do the edit. I mustn't have been reading properly; I was promoting 3 pictures at once and getting confused as to who did what. :) I will thank Janke right away. Raven4x4x 10:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle and plant idents

Hi Peter - just done some of these at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Avanappy Crismus! - MPF 16:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peter thanks for the barnstar!! :-)) MPF 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FP

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

This one is truely breathtaking. Happy new year!! Raven4x4x 06:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Remebrance poppy ww2 section of Aust war memorial.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Raven4x4x 06:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (I've run out of congratulatory words!)[reply]

FP material?

File:Tree leaf, Matson Photograph Collection, ca 1925-1946.jpg

Do you think this is Featured material, and do you find anything wrong with it? The most similar FP I could find is Image:Pine cones, male and female.jpg. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 20:50

Notre Dame pic - tripod?

Hi Fir002. Well, its a gitzo 1227lvl tripod, with a ball head. Its pretty nice but the panorama I took could easily be done with any tripod if you make sure you overlap the images. Mastery of panoramas is with the technique mainly. Why do you ask? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Library

Just to let you know, I am removing your picture Image:National library and new parliament house.jpg from the National Library of Australia article. The vertical alignment is not good, the article has several pictures of the building and this image seems a bit redundant, notwithstanding the different perspective. Regards--A Y Arktos 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People's pictures

Hi ,I really liked your work ,and have noticed a general lackign in all of wikipedia. There are no people's pictures! I've uploaded some bizzareties(if you have alternative pic's..Midget),and am working on settling their copyright status user talk:Diza ,yet these problem coudl be easily avoided if an active photographer would simply choose to make this or that individual famous ,by inserting various pictures of humans of different kind doing different things. Note that even a simple feature such as greyish hair is absent. white hair Thanks. The Procrastinator 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background blurring

I've noticed some images of yours in which you've blurred the background. Is there any easy to do this, with an image such as this? I'd like to make the background less distracting, and possibly use some contrast/coloring to make the image more interesting. Thanks. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-12 05:35

Protecting voting Templates

Hi Solipsist!
Can you please protect these pages for me? User:Fir0002/Support, User:Fir0002/Oppose, User:Fir0002/Neutral. These are my voting templates, and someone brought up the fact on the talk of FPC that it would be easy to vandalize thises and substitute a rude picture for the icons.
And on a completely unrelated note, do you think there's any chance that the prizes of 2005 Wikimania will be given out?!
--Fir0002 04:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fir, I haven't got much time at the moment, but I will check them at the weekend. There are some issues with permanently many types of pages, and I am not sure where user sub-pages fall in that spectrum.

Also I'm afraid I know no more than you about the Wikimania prizes. I rather suspect it is one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but actually has fallen on fallow ground. -- Solipsist 18:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry for the delay, but I've now had a chance to look into this. Unfortunately, from the guidelines at Wikipedia:Protection policy, I don't think that permanent protection of a user's subpage is covered and there don't appear to be any prior examples. In general permanent page protections are highly discouraged, and since the pages haven't actually been vandalised yet (is that right?) it would probably be jumping the gun to protect them.

There are some examples of permanently protected pages in the Template: namespace. So one thing to consider would be to reopen the debate as to whether these pages should be moved back to the full Template space. I seem to recall the previous concern when the templates were deleted was due to potential overloading of the image server. There were some server upgrades a couple of months ago, so the overloading concern might be a non issue now. -- Solipsist 18:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of photos and help for Australian architectural styles

Hi Fir, can I please ask you to categorise your photos on commons? It would really help so that they can be used in other articles. At the moment I am trying to illustrate Australian architectural styles. Any images you can suggest that might help would be terrific. Thanks--A Y Arktos 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legume pic

Hi Fir! I join in the universal admiration for your photos - they are superb. But I'm afraid I've had to pull one out of an article, because it was misidentified as "a legume" (which it almost certainly isn't). In being put into the article it was further misidentified as "a lupin", which it most definitely isn't. I've put a warning on the image page so other people won't use it in the wrong context (I hope). Is there any chance that you could identify it more accurately, and ideally re-upload it under a less-misleading name? Many thanks SiGarb 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be "Plectranthus ciliatus"? Sorry for taking so long in replying but I've been away and an electric storm cut out my internet for a week. Thanks for picking it up btw! --Fir0002 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't know that species myself. I've found a few pics of Plectranthus ciliatus on the web, but they mostly look like smaller plants with smaller, darker-coloured flowers and perhaps also greener, more succulent-looking leaves (though I can't really see the foliage well enough in your pic to judge, unfortunately; is it purple-tinged?) - except for one with large pale flowers on an Australian site [3] (right at the bottom of the page). Another possibility might be P. ecklonii? Again, I don't know it personally. From the spottiness of the flower, it could be P. oertendahlii, but the closest I have seen so far is P. bethrel: see [4] or a hybrid called 'Mona Lavender' [5]. We mostly grow the foliage sorts as greenhouse or summer-bedding here in Britain; their flowers are incidental. But if I could find out what this one was I'd love to try it here!!! SiGarb | Talk 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Picture edit

Your edited version of Image:Airplane vortex edit.jpg has just been promoted to FP. Congratulations and thank you for improving the image, even if you didn't support it yourself! Raven4x4x 08:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cows in green field - nullamunjie olive grove03.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Once again, thanks. Raven4x4x 06:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orchid Flower

Hey there. I like this image but i just dont think it is quite FP material. Sorry! I look forward to seeing more of your pictures up for nomination, its great to see an Australian making large contributions, keep it up!--Ali K 06:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said i looked forward to seeing more of your pictures, and you produce a fantasic Connors Hill Panorama! It is truly amazing, nice job! --Ali K 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Meadow Argus02.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Picture of the Day on the 23rd January. I've reused the same caption as last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 23, 2006. -- Solipsist 08:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Featured Pictures

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Rooster04 adjusted.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Your edited picture Image:Sitta-carolinensis-001.jpg has also been promoted. Curse you for been two years younger than me and so good! Raven4x4x 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Hazelnuts.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Picture of the Day on the 3rd February. I've reused the same caption as last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 3, 2006. -- Solipsist 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've seen the future... -- Solipsist 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solipsist!
It's still in early developement as you can see, but I got sick of waiting for the flash integration in wiki to get finisihed (I had originally planned to do something fancy in flash). Anyway what do you think of the general design? Only problem is that it doesn't look that good in IE (but who would use that!) --Fir0002 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you think FPC would be an appropriate place to put movie files such as this one? And do you think that movie is of good enough quality? --Fir0002 06:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm an old curmudgeon and tend to like simple designs, which is kind of the opposite direction to where you are headed, but it does look quite impressive. From discussions I've seen elsewhere, I thought the big problem with incorporating flash was that it would open up some significant vulnerabilities with malitious users trying to exploit actionscript. Allowing unsupervised uploading of scripts would be pretty risky. Plus, there's quite a few people who don't like anything that is not a free and open standard.

WRT the movie, I've always thought that FPC has always supposed to be for featured media, not just pictures. We have a few featured animated gifs, and there may have been a previous occaision when someone nominated a sound file - but I can't remember for sure. So in principle yes. In practice it might not get an easy ride since it often takes a bit of effort to see these things. I thought I had the ogg extension for my winamp, but it didn't manage to play this movie for me. -- Solipsist 07:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Sheep eating grass edit02.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on the 5th February. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 5, 2006. -- Solipsist 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture pictures etc

Hi - I hope you had a good holiday. I am happy to try to work out the issue of architectural styles etc if you let me know which pictures you have uploaded and where to and any details you have of the building, name, address etc. I suggest the commons category commons:Category:Buildings in Australia - and any of its sub cats, or create a new sub cat. For Melbourne buildings you should aslo probaby categorise as Melbourne though that is getting a bit big so just created a sub cat called commons:Category:Buildings in Melbourne Regards--A Y Arktos 07:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you buy any chance take a picture of the Mitchell Building on the corner of Lonsdale Street? It is an Art Deco building, about 6 storeys tall with Mitchell House emblazened near the roofline. I don't even know if it is still standing. But if it is and you captured it, I would be pleased to know. Thanks--A Y Arktos 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Cumulus clouds panorama.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

An FP for you? How unusual! Raven4x4x 05:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your User Page

Per your request for comment on your user page, I think it is fantastic. It also loaded very quickly.

May I copy some of it sometime?

Sarum blue 20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your pictures are too sexy

I was about to kill myself when I came upon your pictures. At that instant I wanted to shag the nearest woman and frollick naked on the streets of Edinburgh in joy. You saved me. Every time I look at one of your pictures, I cream my pants. Keep up the great work! --PistolPower 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Close up yellow rose.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Picture of the Day on the 8th February . I've reused the same caption as last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 8, 2006.. Unfortunately, it still doesn't mention the Yellow Rose of Texas. -- Solipsist 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!!!

Your pictures are all so beatiful! =)) <333333333 God, those sheeps, and Australia, damn, dude, YOU get the credit for making me want to visit Australia, and I'm going to make sure I won't miss it! God, soo, creamy, man, I just love you, you make me love things; so beatiful, everything, perfect, you can start making serious money with those pics (though, I still propose copyleft!)

I mean.. FUCKING GREAT JOB!

The English language or any aesthetic language simply doesn't have the words to describe it...

And I forgot to tell, I printed out "Dust Sunbeams" on an A4 photo paper and will hang it in a frame on my wall. --84.249.252.211 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic distortion

I have a question for you on the FPC page, "hay" section. Please answer there, thanks! Greetings, --Janke | Talk 08:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Funnel Web Spider

Hello Fir0002, I need a picture of a Sidney Funnel Web Spider. Wikipedia asked me to talk to you and see if we could work our something on this issue. I am writting a Children's Educational Book and I need a funnel web picture. Do you have one I could use? Daryl Worcester —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daryl Worcester (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 February 2006

web site: www.publishedauthors.net/darylworcester e-mail: [email protected]

Again with the FP

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:View from connors hill panorama.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Love the user page, by the way. Raven4x4x 05:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you take these pictures?

Do you take these pictures or do you find them online. If you take them, what kind of camera do you use. I myself prefer the Nikon D70s.--Holocron 18:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Holocron!

All my photos are taking by me (except those I adjust from the FPC page). If you look at a photo and scroll to the bottom it shows my camera details (Canon 20D, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for most - I recently got a 17-40 f/4 L and will soon be uploading pics taken by it). D70 is a pretty good camera, but I think you would be better off getting either a 20D like me, or if you want to save a bit - a 350D. Personally I'm a Canon man and don't think Nikon has got the edge :-). Thanks for your comment !

(RE) Canon is probably the second best brand out there. My friend has a Canon Digital Rebel, it's nice but you have to coddle it like a baby due to its frailness. Not that I don't take good care of my equipment anyway... I have upgraded my camera seen [here]. Nice to see another photographer on Wikipedia!--Holocron 15:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Day

Hi Fir,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Common blue damselfly02.jpg is due to make a reappearance as Picture of the Day on the 15th February. I've reused the same caption as last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 15, 2006. -- Solipsist 22:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Photo portal

Hello!

Your great panorama from Connors Hill now illustrates the french Photography portal. Thanks for having uploaded such a great picture. We wait for more pictures like that.

User page award

Congratulations, Fir0002/Archive 2! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

Banez 15:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You have an excellent user page. Take this lit candle as my recognition of that!ε **γκυκλοπαίδεια*** 22:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

Ditto! And I'll be looking at the last two batches soon. Would love your input on the next Quarto design (and the Wikimania site design) over the coming week, btw... both need excellent images and layout aesthetic. Cheers, +sj + 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Eucalyptus

Hey Fir,

I am referring to these photos Image:Unknown eucalypt02.jpg and Image:Unknown eucalypt.jpg. I have looked at them closely, and it looks like the leaves are opposite, and not alternate. This would mean they are part of the genus Angophora. However, I cannot see it clear enough to make a definite distinction. If you have a photo of this tree which is closer and clearer, it may help to narrow down the species, as Angophora only has 10 species within the genus. --liquidGhoul 04:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote images

Would you please consider not using images in your votes? It's an unnecessary addition, makes it seem to others that you consider your vote more important than others, and wrongly encourages others to do the same. It is an unnecessary use of resources - images in particular cause headaches for the server admins who keep the site going. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae note that I have had to revert Netoholic's removal of your images before you had a chance to respond as he did not have policy to back him up nor did he have good cause or permission to remove content from your subpage. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A Huge Thank You

No problem. In the future please subst: those templates though since he does have a point that the templates shouldn't be used trandcluded. Thanks. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substing is easy. Normally you do {{User:Fir0002/Support}}. The way you subst a template is instead of doing that you do {{Subst:User:Fir0003/Support}}}. By adding subst in there it copies the code over to that page so when a page is pulled up it pulls it from there instead of having to pull it from your userspace. More info can be found at ikipedia:Template_namespace#Dynamic_or_subst Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually by normally I meant the way you've been doing it which uses transclusion. Using transclusion you don't use the subst:, using subst: you do it the way you just mentioned. If you ever want to see subst: at work go to the sandbox or somewhere and first put in {{welcome}} then go down a couple lines and put in {{subst:welcome}} then press save (not preview mind you, save) and then press edit again. On the top portion you'll see the template that you just put in but on the bottom one you will see the code from template:Welcome which was copied over. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chestnuts.jpg

Dear Peter,

I am writing you from England in the middle of the night and I guess it is now lunch in Australia?!? Sorry about my English but I am not originally from U.K. My family are from Germany and Italy.

However, I would like to inform you how we (me and my lovely husband) are impressed about your pictures. Really really well done! You have a talent ... of course everybody is telling you that ;-)

Well, I would like to ask you something personal because Wikipedia gave me the advise to get in touch with you. During my recherche about chestnuts in the internet, I become an attention to the following picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chestnuts.jpg I love it very much!!! Are there Chestnut trees in Australia???

.......................................

Email form Wikipedia: Dear Natalie Stenzel, Thank you for your mail. > I am honest with you, I do not understand the licensing conditions for reproductions and derived works!> I see the picture is under the GFDL license. I totally agree that it is obscure. :-) In this case, I rather advise you to ask for an authorization from the photographer. > However, I would like to get in touch still with the photographer and let him know how great this picture is! Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fir0002 then either:

Click on E-mail this user and fill the form.
Click on "discussion", then "+", then fill the form (title and contents of

your message). Yours sincerely, David Monniaux

...........................................

So now I would like to ask you for your permission to use it and want to be also fair. I am setting up a very small business in U.K. as a tour operator with the name Chestnut Travel :-) Your picture is perfect for my business and I would be more than happy if I can get your permission. I will be honest with you ... I can not pay you any single Penny but if you need something from England we could discuss about it. And if you agree I would mention your name on my website (but I need you fully name for that).

I hope you will be fine with my question.

By the way, there are two other pictures which I like very much.

I am looking forward to hear from you as soon as possible because it is very important and I have to continue with my procedure.

My email addresses are: natalie.stenzel at chestnuttravel dot com or nstenzel at toucansurf dot com

Take care and go ahead with photograph!!!

Thank you in advance for your understanding and hopefully for your support.

Take care and have a good time.

Natalie Stenzel"88.111.153.188 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Featured Picture removal

One of your old FPs, Image:Wolf spider attack position.jpg, has just been nominated for removal. If you have an improved version anywhere that would be great. Raven4x4x 04:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better say "delisting" - no-one will remove the picture... --Janke | Talk 08:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Fir0002-1yr.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fir0002-1yr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Goats in mountains

I've nominated your photo of Goats in mountains, but people want to know what mountains those are. Also, it would be good if the photo would be added to the mountain article. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 16:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

selling of prints

I see on your user page that you're trying to make some money by selling prints. Do you have a website where you'll be selling them from? Your photos are nice enough that I might want a few on my walls. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I also have a question that relates to that. I would like to know your business idea, because I have this digital image of Sekhmet, which is quite nice, and I figured that I could print it out and sell it. I'm not going to make much much; it's just for fun. Do you have any figures for the costs, etc? --Candide, or Optimism 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my successful request for adminship. I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsible use. If I do anything wrong you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 08:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goats and edits and stuff

Well, while I do certainly appreciate that generally the original photographer is more able to determine what was 'realistic' looking at the time, I do know when an image has blown highlights, and those goats are definitely blown. I'm not implying you blow goats regularly, of course. ;) There is a big difference between keeping the exposure between reasonable limits, and artificially brightening an image to make it arguably more pleasing to the eye.

RAW is really not overrated if you know what you're doing. It has rescued many a photo of mine. I don't know what you're referring to exactly regarding graininess in RAW. If you're experiencing those problems, I dare say it could be because you're unfamiliar with how to use it. Even when you shoot jpeg, you are in actual fact shooting RAW which is converted to jpeg in-camera. The only difference is that you have FAR more control over an image if you wait til you get home to your PC to make adjustments. It really is a fact to say you lose nothing (except space on your flash cards) but have the potential to gain a lot from shooting RAW. There is no reason why a RAW image should look worse when converted to a jpeg on your computer compared to doing it in-camera. If anything, the camera's images will be inferior since it has to do it very quickly using possibly inferior algorithms. As for panorama stitching, you obviously convert the images to jpeg BEFORE stitching. Its not a valid argument to say that shooting RAW makes it difficult to stitch panoramas. All of my panoramas have been shot in raw originally. ;) But look, if you're happy to shoot jpeg, I'm not telling you to stop. I'm just giving you the facts. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 21:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPA

Congratulations, Fir0002/Archive 2! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:

Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.

Beautiful

Beautiful, just beautiful photography. Your contributions to Wikipedia are very appriciated! --vex 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Australian road icon

Hi - would you like to help with an icon for the Australian Roads' stub tag? Please see the discussion at AWNB on the subject of a search for a suitable icon. Regards--A Y Arktos 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Moth.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Moth.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merit of image peer review

I recently created an image, and not only was it my first image for wikipedia, but by most standards the first image I've ever created. I was hoping for some feedback but there's not really a place for feedback on images aside from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates and my image is certainly not of that caliber, and never will be. Rather than tracking down some people to review my image I decided to create a new page for this purpose. It's far from finished and I'm happy to finish it myself, but before I put in the effort I want to be sure that the idea has merit. I've outlined enough of the page that you should have a clear idea of what it will be. I'd appriciate if you'd take a look at it here and then leave me a note on my talk page and let me know if you think it is worthwhile. Vicarious 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed that a page with this intent already exists (Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review), although frustratingly nothing points to it so I didn't spot it before. Anyway, please disregard. Vicarious 10:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Bale FP

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Round hay bale at dawn02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

I'm glad you finally got a hay bale FP! Congratulations again. Raven4x4x 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redback spider

FYI I couldn't believe your image wasn't already being used in this article when I came across the article, so I had to add it... SeanMack 16:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian Frog"

Hey Fir,

I would like to identify this frog. At the moment, I can not get it down to a specific species. Do you have any other photos from different angles? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 03:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reply please? --liquidGhoul 12:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, sorry if I was sounding a bit pushy. I am still having trouble identifying it, mainly because I need to see the inner thigh. Would you mind if I post it on a frog identification forum? --liquidGhoul 06:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you missed the last message. Can I post it on the forum?

Sorry this took so long, I have moved house, and it took ages to get the internet back. Anyway, they identified it as LeSeur's Frog (Litoria leseurii). It is basically identical to the Stoney Creek Frog (Litoria wilcoxi); the species was only split a few years ago. You probably can't see the resemblence, I didn't at first, but I agree with that identification now that I see it. I may create the article some time in the future, but it won't be for a while. If you would like a home for your photo, you could always create it :) --liquidGhoul 11:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FPs just keep coming!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Orb weaver black bckgrnd03 crop.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

I don't know how you do it. Raven4x4x 08:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

I was wondering if you might want to take a look at this. I see that you know a thing or two about pictures.[6] Are these pictures done for? Any knowledge you might share with me would be much appreciated. Thanks. SkeenaR 05:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you! And nice work by the way. SkeenaR 05:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Use

I have downloaded two of your fine images (pomegranate02_edit.jpg and [email protected]) for commercial use under the GNU license. These images will be published in the 23 March 2006 editions of our newspapers. I would like to credit you for the photos by name, so please contact me ASAP at [email protected] and let me know how you wish to be credited. Thanks! Bchan

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Warship diagram

For your edits, did you just increase the midtone contrast under Shadow/Highlight, or did you do something else? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-20 00:06

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Typeset_writing_examples

I have uploaded, and propose supporting the original, unmodified scan - historical significance. If you agree, please feel free to re-consider your vote. Greetings, --Janke | Talk 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are my idol

Hey man, you took this insanely awesome picture of "flies around a 60 watt light globe". It's a really cool photo. It's cool when wikipedians take pictures of things normal people wouldn't usually think about, because wikipedians are way cool! :) -- —This unsigned comment was added by NIRVANA2764 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 March 2006.

Wow, Cool. --

Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 09:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never realized that so many pictures that I've worked with on articles that I have admired were taken by you. Very nice. At least two of them are in the Fog article now. VERY beautiful. I'll have to upload another sunset picture, it is just like one of your red-clouded ones. I want to get into photography when have enough time and money to buy my own fancy camera. How many years have you been a photgrapher? I am a photoshop-head and flash-head too. :) --

Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 10:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to support your efforts

Hi Peter,

Would love to support your work by buying a print. But no link, and "E-mail this user" is disabled for you. Please give a hint!

Greeting from Canberra, Rusty

Thanks...

...for the nice comment on the Top of the Rock pano :-). I'm still haggeling with myself whether to shell out the big bucks for a 5D. The increase in image quality should be well worth it. --Dschwen 11:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About resources for photographers

Hello from Mexico.

I am starting to collaborate to Commons with my new little digital camera Kodak DX4530 (GNU/Linux compatible ;-)) I want to ask you about web resources to improve my photos, specially for COMMONS.

A special question is about made this kind of photos:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Female_Emperor_Gum_Moth.jpg

What technique have to be used? Only photoshop/gimp or the technique starts when the photo is taken?

Thanks and congratulation for your pretty photos.

--GengisKanhg (my talk) 19:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of your pictures

Hey, i copied and modified Image:Crimson_sunset02.jpg for use on my userpage, just thought i would let you know. --Ali K 09:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on changing my userpape as soon as I told you, but you know how things can be, i just got a little busy. Take a look [7]. --Ali K 02:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thats a lot better. --Ali K 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Fir0002,

My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Wikipedia for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Wikipedia "photographer." I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Wikipedia and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available for an email interview? Thanks, Fernanda.

Hi again, Fir0002. I have begun sending out the survey to participants and I would love it if you could participate too seeing how you are one of the most active image contributors in Wikipedia. If you'd like to get in touch with me via email, please use the "Email this user" feature on my page. Thanks! — Fernanda 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | Talk[reply]

Image:Fir0002.jpg

Hi - Unfortunately the restriction you have placed on this image ("ONLY FOR USE ON MY USERPAGE!") makes this image unacceptable for placement on Wikipedia. Please either remove this restriction or contact me to have the image deleted. Thanks! -SCEhard T 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tips about taking photos

I will aply them. --GengisKanhg (my talk) 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Thank you for contributing so many execellent photos to Wikipedia! --Xtreambar 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link fix

I guessed you meant the link to your photo site to actually, well, link there. If not, feel free to switch it right back. :-D See you! Cantara 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting templates

Great photos

Aurora Australis

Gallery

Pic of the Day

Wikimania

Pics

Pic of the day

Promoted pic: Lavender

Question

Reply

Pic of the Day

RfA vote

Melbourne Photo

Support template

Pic of the day

Virtual Tour sister project

Piotrus

Pic of the day

request for cc-by-sa licensing

Commons adminship

Uploaded picture size

Featured picture

Pic of the Day

Canon EOS 20D

Image additions

Canberra pics

Dogwood

Construction sign

Your unidentified moth images

Categories

Photos

Wow.

PM paintings

Image removal

Australia-related featured images

Parliament House Images

Style

Great photos, but...

Image:Kid.jpg has been listed for deletion

Bob Hawke portrait photo

Canberra Photos

Pic of the Day - lavendar

Geisha & Client

Another Featured Picture

featured picture

Your edit of Image:Pleiades large.jpg is now an FP

Cattle and plant idents

FP

FP material?

Notre Dame pic - tripod?

National Library

People's pictures

Background blurring

Protecting voting Templates

Categorisation of photos and help for Australian architectural styles

Legume pic

Featured Picture edit

Orchid Flower

Pic of the Day

2 Featured Pictures

Pic of the Day

Architecture pictures etc

Surprise!

Your User Page

Your pictures are too sexy

Picture of the Day

OMG!!!

Panoramic distortion

Sidney Funnel Web Spider

Again with the FP

Do you take these pictures?

Picture of the Day

French Photo portal

User page award

Hey

Unidentified Eucalyptus

vote images

Re:A Huge Thank You

Featured Picture removal