Hi. I came to your userpage after casually surfing the Hong Kong article. I know there must be some sort of wiki- gift I could award to you, but I'm not a seasoned editor. All I want to do is say I absolutely love your photos!! Fabulous!! And thanks for sharing on WP. Dionix (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that your docklands pano is being used in the foyer of the Engineering building of monash uni (blding 72) on a 6x21" LCD display thing. It cycles between your image, Image:Melbourne-1.jpg and some information. --Fir000209:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a go but it will probably be with my camera phone because no I don't take my cam to uni just in case! :) --Fir000200:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, quality is not great (phone camera) but gives you an idea: Image:Diliff pano bldg 72 monash clayton.jpg. It was actually a 5x32" display (they LCDs are Syncmaster 320Ps) - but as you can see it seems to have gone a bit out of sync. Anyway if I see it better at a later date I'll try get a photo of if using up all five (certainly did at one point). --Fir000212:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah true about the attribution, but I wouldn't really have expected them to - I mean it's only a small section in their foyer slideshow. But as you say it would only be the tip of the iceberg. --Fir000207:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe I had to head over to dictionary.com to find the definition of laissez-faire :) You're right I my reply was a bit unthinking - and I apologize, I guess I was taking a too much of a "face reality" perspective in it. Because for sure that kind of stuff is unbelievably irritating for a photographer (and yes I'm still very much an advocate of NC licensing on wiki). And actually thinking about it again it does strike me as pretty dodgy given the hard line Monash takes with plagiarism in assignments etc!! Anyway check out this photo - easily the most incredible shot I've ever seen! You can read about it here --Fir000213:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diliff, wanted to drop you a note so you don't think I'm just an FPC troll out to harass you. Although the technical quality of your images is excellent, I'm concerned that you're loosing a lot of realism due to overprocessing. You photos would be perfect for a travel magazine or PR website, but images for Wikipedia should be documentary, i.e. as realistic as possible. In fact one of the Featured Picture Criteria is that images should avoid "inappropriate digital manipulation". While most of your photos are not obviously overprocessed, some of them, such as your recent FPC nominations, are. While I'm obviously in the minority at supporting a more documentary photo style, I would like to suggest that you try to tone down the processing when editing images for use in Wikipedia. While creating "perfect" images is the norm in the photography world today, Wikipedia images need to be accurate and realistic, and able to withstand the test of time. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like to discuss this more. Keep in mind, I'm not a competent photographer myself, just a critic ;) Kaldari (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your desire to bring out details in the shadows, but you should not be willing to alter your images to the degree that they are unrealistic and obviously processed. Compare Image:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy 2 - May 2007.jpg with Image:Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy - May 2007.jpg for example. In the newer version, the building looks like it is lit with impossibly powerful floodlights. It's virtually glowing, despite the fact that the sky is very dark, even darker than in the original. To me, this looks like a ridiculously fake photograph. And yes, it definitely LOOKS like an HDR photo even if it's not, as that's exactly how HDRed photos look - dark skies, glowing buildings. Since you've probably spent an hour or two looking at the image already and modifying it, you probably aren't able to see it with fresh eyes, but if you did, I'm sure you would see that it looks unrealistic and looks like a poorly-processed HDR image (or well-processed depending on what you're after). Can you honestly say that anyone could think that it is a completely unmodified image? If you can't honestly say that, it is overprocessed, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David,
We are a small Danish business school who are offering a program in Oxford.
For that purpose we would like to make sure we are using your Oxford Skyline photo in accordance with your copyright rights. You have put them in the public Domain - only asked to credited.
We find your photos absolutely fantastic.
Currently, we are crediting you on the materials we have produced, but I really would like to be on the safe side - we do not want to violate any copyrights.
I have tried to find your email address, but did not succeed.
Will you be so kind and write me back on: thiesgaard@avt-people.com
Kind regards
Per —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.191.37 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Hong Kong Skyline - Dec 2007.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for dsitructing but just wanted to congrate you mate. You do a fantastic job with your skills! Just seen them accidentally... I hope you can visit Turkey again to take some awesome pics, so we can use for Wikipedia =)
Hi there. I recently did a crop of your excellent photo of the Albert Memorial. Your photo is Image:Hyde Park Albert Memorial Jan 2006.jpg. The crop is at Image:Frieze (Albert Memorial).jpg. I've also done crops to cut the memorial into three sections from bottom to top, but wanted to check with you first as I see you stitched your photo together from four other pics. I'm also unsure if I got the licensing and attribution correct for the cropped picture. Could you check? I've also been working on the Albert Memorial article if you would be interested in helping out there or taking more pics? One thing I want to do is get some pics of the undercroft (see here - may be difficult as it is not open to the public), and pics of the whole frieze. Some of the sculptures on the frieze are listed here. But mainly I wanted to get the licensing and attributions for the crops sorted out. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Yes, the licensing looks fine. I've actually gone ahead and uploaded another version (taken from the original) over the top of your crop though. It is quite a bit higher resolution, albeit not that much more detailed. Next time I'm in the area I can take a better photo of the freise itself if you'd like. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. When I get round to uploading the other three crops I did, I'll let you know and let you decide whether to replace them as you did with this one. As well as the frieze, what would be useful is details of the upper parts of the canopy. See Albert Memorial#Canopy. It might be overkill, but there are possibilities for sequences of four pictures each for: (a) the triangular mosaics (preferably including the inscriptions below them); (b) the eight bronze statues on the corner pillars and niches; (c) a sequence of the eight gold statues of the virtues (not the angels at the top, but the figures about halfway up the tower). And maybe some close-up shots of the general ornate decoration (anything on the upper half of the memorial). Even if these don't make it into the article, they would make a nice gallery on Commons. I tried to get close-up shots but it was an overcast day (today would have been perfect, though!) and my camera isn't really good enough to get detail in the close-up shots, even with a zoom. Anyway, anything you can do would be great. Possibly close-ups of all 169 sculptures on the frieze would be too much... :-) (they charge you to go beyond the railings, anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to head over to Albert Memorial yesterday as I had some time to kill. :-) I took a panoramic image of all four friese sides that should be vastly better than the existing one. Perhaps if we were to really nail it, I could also add a silhouette image below each one detailing who is depicted in it. The images themselves are detailed enough to read the names of each person though. What do you think? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as you said, you tried to take a photo of them on an overcast day.. Well yesterday was lovely and sunny but there was one drawback that I didn't consider til I got there. When the sun is shining, only half of the set of four frieses is sunlit and the other two are in shadow. As such, the four frieses are not evenly lit. Not much that you can do about it unfortunately. You either have four of them in shadow or you have two of them in shadow, depending on weather you encounter. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)13:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not if you hang around for about half a day... (or pick a time of year when the sun in in the right place) :-) Thanks awfully for doing this. Can't wait to see the photos! Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have them up within the next half hour or so.. but as for hanging around or having the right time of year... It will never shine directly on about one quarter of the monument. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It swings south during the day. So the northern face will never get any direct sunlight no matter what time of day or year. ;-) Unless we moved it to the southern hemisphere... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I know why the southern side was the "more prestigious" side! It was partly because that side faced the Royal Albert Hall, but the Sun might have been part of the considerations. Will need to research that. As far as shadow-free photography goes, I guess the only option is to cover the frieze in a large tent and use flash photography or very bright studio lights... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it was the more prestigious side simply because it faced the outside of the park where more people would see it, too. OK, I've uploaded the four frieses now. I've linked them all to each other so you can find it through this one. Hope they came out to your satisfaction. As I said, I know they're a bit unevenly lit, but the detail should still be quite visible as they are quite high resolution. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I also just noticed that Michelangelo is actually in the centre of both the east and west facing frieses! I've never paid them enough attention obviously.. Is this the only duplicate? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a massive picture! Pity the rear right corner is in shadow. Will be good to get a crop for the front mosaic, and I think ultimately, a set of four pictures of the memorial from all four sides might work well, at least for a Commons gallery, if not the Wikipedia article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michelangelo is also in one of the mosaics (he was "skied to the mosiacs" as they called it then, along with David and Solomon, who don't appear in the frieze). Phidias is up in the mosiacs as well, along with Ictinus, Raphael and Homer. Funnily enough, Apelles is only in the mosaics, despite not being a legendary biblical figure like David and Solomon (the reason they were left out of the 'secular' frieze). In the frieze, I think the duplicates were Rhoecus (sculptor and architect), Giotto (painter and architect) and Michelangelo (painter and sculptor), and maybe some others I missed. Must look and see what the differences are, and how the two sculptors varied in how they depicted the same person. Thanks again, and I'll let you know how the article goes. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, David. Just recently, I did a cropped version of your photo of the Midtown Manhattan skyline. I've done crops to get a wider thumbnail image of it. However, I'm unsure if I got the licensing and attribution correct for the cropped picture, so maybe that's why it has been deleted. I've been working on the New York City article ever since. I recognize your photos very much, and I would highly appreciate if you would be interested in taking more photos related with New York City. Thanks. User:Ian Fortuno | (Talk)16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I loved your hong kong picture and made it my background on the desktop. yes, thats how much i like it.
However, since im a photographer and digital retoucher myself, i couldnt help to twitch the image around a little bit, so if you dont mind it, id like to offer "my version" to you, just in case you like it.
I cant find a way to pass it to you, so if wish to see it, contact me at valdo@valdopeixoto.com
Keep up the great work
Some really great pics on your user page, but one of them is duplicated. You have the Champs de Mars picture up there twice. Carcharoth (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David,
This seems a bit informal, but here goes. I'm a T.V. production student and I would like to ask your permission to use one of your exquisite photographs in one of my projects. The project is a 26 minute long documentary about a famous greyhound called Master McGrath, who, born the runt of his litter in 1866, went on to be the first greyhound to win the Waterloo cup no less than 3 times. His achievements caught the eye of Queen Victoria, who invited the greyhound to meet her in Windsor Castle. The greyhound died in 1871, but he is still remembered today in various forms.
The photograph that I would like to use is Windsor Castle Upper Ward Quadrangle Corrected 2- Nov 2006.jpg. I understand that under the GNU licence agreement, I am free to use the image in the programme provided I give yourself a credit. But I felt I needed to contact you in person to verify its use. Unfortunatly, despite the fact that the programme will be aired on TG4 (Irish language television) we recieved no funding for the project , hence I'm afraid I won't be able to pay you for use of you photograph, if indeed you let me! The most I will be able to do is provide the aforementioned credit. The photo would be used for at most 5 seconds.
The broadcaster needs verificaton of permission in writing. An email to the following address will do fine. (letmethinkagain@hotmail.com). Here are the terms of use:
(i)Unlimited Broadcasting (ii) in Ireland (iii) through crosscountry transmission and satellite, free to air for a period of at least (iv) 5 years from the original date of broadcasting on TG4.
Please let me know also if you wish to be credited as David Iliff or a company name.
My name is Marc and I'm starting up a new business. I recently needed to print some International calling cards and was in need of a nice picture of home (i live in Melbourne). I did a quick search on google and some how ended up looking at your photographs. My god. Breathtaking mate. Now, I like the pictures you have taken of Melbourne City and was wondering if i can acquire some sort of license or permission to use the Melbourne City pictures for Print on my cards. The pictures i like are as follows:
== Melbourne Yarra River Night Panorama. ==
Melbourne Yarra River Twilight Panorama
The Melbourne skyline as viewed from the Docklands precinct of Yarra's Edge
Sydney Harbour Panorama '
I will be using each picture for a different theme to each of my cards. i.e. the $5 card == Melbourne Yarra River Night Panorama. == The $10 card == Melbourne Yarra River Twilight Panorama ==
and so on.
My direct email address is marckhodr@gmail.com.au If you can please email me rights or permission or some sort of procedure on how to get a license or if i even need any of that at all, i would greatly appreciate that.
I like your photo style and i think your photos are wonderful. I'm a native speaker of Turkish and your many photos are featured in Turkish Wikipedia. I saw this photo. Did you take any photo (like the others, wonderful ^_^ ) in Turkey? If you took, i (and a lot of Wikipedians ^_^ ) want to see.
I'm no pro at WP or SVG (but I'm learning), so your comment on the tank at FPC from someone with as good an eye as yours was a great encouragement. Dhatfield (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! beautiful pictures!
excellent work and so jealous about it, you travel around the world and i found it fascinating!
just writing to tell you that you should travel to Venezuela, South America... BEAUTIFUL sites, most of them NATURAL, you should investigate: LOS ROQUES, MARGARITA, LOS MEDANOS DE CORO, LA GRAN SABANA, CANAIMA, EL SALTO ANGEL, DELTA DEL ORINOCO, LA REPRESA DEL GURI...
best of luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.208.186 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to express my regards for the great job you've done on the uploaded photographs. They really inspire me to travel the world myself in the future.
I don't have any completed panoramas with people in it, sorry. It looks just like the other picture, except with blurry, ghosty people walking around! ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)06:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Ben Emmel, and I am a correspondent for the weekly newspaper Catholic Herald. I wanted to let you know that we used your photograph Sydney Harbour Bridge on our web site for the upcoming World Youth Day Event. We used it as the background for a blog image header. Attribution was given, and I licensed the image under the appropriate Creative Commons license. You can take a look here. Thank you for providing high-quality freely licensed images! If you have any questions, please email me at info@madisoncatholicherald.org. Sincerely, Ben Emmel: 75.100.126.230 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note you left on my talk page back in March, it surprises me that anybody noted my absence ;) As you can guess, I log into wikipedia very rarely now. I've been quite busy with real life and got a bit fed up with wikipedia. I have occasionally visited to see if you had any new featured images, and thankfully you've not disappointed with some stunning pics :) I've been trying to get some of my favourite photos onto my web site but I've not finished working on that yet. I do quite a lot of airshow photography and I'm quite pleased with a few of the pictures, so I should probably try to get around to uploading some of those photos to wikipedia. Cheers :) chowells (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's pretty awesome - thanks a lot for the link!! It'd be interesting (or perhaps depressing) to see what it turns up! --Fir000201:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Diliff,
Being a photographer myself, I was wondering how you get that great amount of sharpness in your pictures.
Is it just that great camera of yours, is it photoshop (sharpening), do you shoot your pictures in RAW or is it something else? I hope that you would like to share this with me. Kind regards. Massimo Catarinella (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Diliff,
I'm an Italian boy (sorry for the language) and I think that your photos are really extraordinary.
At beginning I found your photo of colosseo with google. I wanted to use it to create a poster with my name and other effects (by photoshop) to hang on the wall in my room.
So I have discovered that the image to be printed (at 2 metres x 1 metres) should have a higher resolution than 72 dpi. So I have done a new search to find the same picture with a higher risolution; I'm arrived on your page of wikipedia and I've discovered another beautiful picture: "Sydney_Harbour_Bridge_night". It's wonderful. So I would be grateful if you could send me the photo of colosseum and the photo of Bridge in a higher risolution: 200dpi perhaps 300 dpi. Only you can have it because you are their photographer. Please, if you can, help me ! This is my msn adress: antoniocasillo@live.it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.36.20 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that you don't seem to understand is that wikipedia isn't supposed to help you find somewhere to live, or point you in the direction of property rental sites.
Can you point me, where rules of Wikipedia says, that it is forbidden to put information on Wikipedia, which can influence decision about selecting living place? As I noticed, Wikipedia HELPS to find information... my information is RELATED to London and, I think, this information is pretty IMPORTANT for KNOWING this city and living in it. Of course, if city is just nice buildings on photos – I am wrong. As for links to some companies: Wikipedia is FULL of links ...useful and not... to some commercial companies too. I tried to put useful links near crime information. When you putting your name near photos, you are not very altruistic too... looking for fame, don’t you? :). There was white space on image... I though... it is better ...something than nothing. If to put useful information is against Wikipedia laws, policy - I am sorry. Of course, I can understand if you are native Londoner and have intention TO HIDE NEGATIVE INFORMATION about London. Maybe I don't realize yet that Wikipedia is just about positive information and negative information is forbidden.
It is there to provide information directly related to the article and nothing else, especially commercial links.
Of course, crime in London have nothing to do with London :). Yes, some of these London companies links are commercial – but I didn’t get any cent for that. As you are so against commercial links, did you delete all links to Microsoft too? I do many things for free... and I don’t bother if someone ELSE will get something from that. I am not very mercenary, envious or sensitive as some other people, if someone else will get some profit from my work.
Also, where exactly did you get the original map from? If it is not freely available, then you may also have misused it.
So, at first you act and just after that you are trying to justify your actions by imagining possibilities? I drew on top of the bitmap fragments with vector graphic program (you can see original-dim image under vector graphic - for better orientation where parks is). Later I added and corrected tube routes. All this took about one week - I did pretty big job... and was happy to make this available for free for others... but I didn’t realize that some people will be not happy about that... because “wikipedia isn't supposed to help you” :). Who are you that I MUST EXPLAIN to you how I made that map? It is I - not you, who will answer for misuse if someone will be unhappy with my drawing - I am not hiding.
I noticed that putting the map on wikipedia is one of the very first things you have done since registering this name.
I registered on 12 September 2007 and put map of London on 4 March 2008 ...and it was not first thing I have done. Is it a crime to put image on Wikipedia after you registering account? How many days or maybe years I must wait to have right to upload image and not to rise suspicion? :) I understand that I am freshly registered... so you can create your own rules, what new user can do or not on Wikipedia :). For example... you can claim that I can use “justify” text alignment just after six months :). Why do you think people register on Wikipedia? To READ? Sorry, but they can do that unregistered. They register to EDIT or put new information. Of course, you can chose to be very suspicious about people who try to modify Wikipedia right after registration :).
I suggest you have more of a look around and get to know how Wikipedia works and what is expected before adding content like that...
Yes, I must not interfere in Wikipedia as long as possible :), because there is much smarter guys like you who know better... that “wikipedia isn't supposed to help you” and it must stay that way :).
I love your picture of Hong Kong. Its absolutely stunning. You should one day visit Shanghai since it also has a great skyline. Wow I love your pictues.--EZ1234 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David,
Thanks for the heads up, but I also sell my pictures at Istockphoto just like you.
So there is no telling where they got it from.
As for the Prague picture...that's the result of getting up at 5 am..:).
Thanks again mate,
Massimo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimo Catarinella (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David sorry to bother again but I was reading that you use lightroom to process your raw images. I have tried using lightroom and CS3 to process images from my xti and I kept noticing that colors would become washed out(especially reds). I take it you convert the canon cr2 to tiff then use lightroom to process the RAW files? It really has been something that has made me go back to using the canon software for processing but it would be very nice to have the full function controls that are offered by adobe. Thanks. Victorrocha (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations David, you must be one of, if not the best photographers on Wikipedia. Hopefully you can make it back to Melbourne one day and take a few more. Bravo! Mvjs (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are interested in your photographs for artwork for our office
First of all can I just we really admire your photographs - the level of your work is really quite excellent.
We are a small IT company based in London and we are looking for photographic art work with a london theme for our office.
We would be interested to know if you were able to provide prints of your work and obviously at what cost?
If you were not able to provide prints - is there some other arrangement we could come to? ie you provide computer files for us to print off etc; for a fee?
Please let us know on this email address - rvonsembach@confluence.com
Hi david its me again Maki, just haven't received any reply from you would you mind telling me your number so I can speak to you in person, as it is a really good oppuntunity to have my work (so as well as your beautiful work)to be feature in a book. After showing your original picture to the publisher they would love to show it in its original shape along side with a picture of the dress that I made, like I said you'll be fully credited and I will send you a copy of the book for you to keep, please let me know asap as they will soon need to go ahead for the printing of this textile book project, thank you very mcuh. Just wanna let you know that I am serious about my works and am therefore would not do anything with your photo commercially without your permission I respect every right you reserve which is why I am trying serval times in attempt to invite you to have your work to be featured in this book, I hope you like this idea and it's really great all your photos you should really consider taking it professionally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maakiauyoung (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered your, and other questions about the image. Very few votes have been given, and it's time to close it soon. Would you care to re-visit and maybe cast a vote, either for or against? Thank you! --Janke | Talk22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you were right to remove the image. Yes, it is old (Taken in 1982!), and was taken by a cheap camera. Alas, we did not have digital cameras back then. I just came across the photo and uploaded it seeing as the article does need another image of the Liffey. Cheers. Your work is magnificent, by the way.--jeanne (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you were very polite in your evaluation of my photo. After seeing your excellent work, I'm embarrassed I uploaded it to the Dublin article. When you blended the three exposures, did you use special computer software? Another terrific shot is the one you took in Utah. It has a shimmering quality. It appears as if you took it from a helicopter. I was not in the least offended you removed my photo. Wikipedia is a community effort. One cannot get upset if one's edits or images are not up to standard or not needed for a particlar article. I've had two articles deleted for non-notability, and I took it in my stride. The best of luck to you. With your skills, I think you should become a photo journalist or else sell your work to National Geographic. You must go up to the Scottish Highlands and take some photos there. The scenery is breathtaking. I personally recommend the Eilean Donan Castle, near Kyle of Loch Alsh.It's like a castle from a fantasy film.--jeanne (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your pictures are incredible! I see in them the love for such works of the mans hand like Honkong and Melbourne - since I will apply for a job in your hometown, I came to find your photos. Hope, I can meet you there if i am sucessfull! --Bufi (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Which home town are you talking about, Melbourne or London? I've been living in London for the last 3 years, but one day I will end up back in Melbourne! Its a great city. Thanks for the compliment though. :-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)19:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:City of London skyline from London City Hall 2 - Oct 2008.jpg
No, they're not exact duplicates, that image is downsampled and therefore sharper for web viewing. The other image is what I would consider archival but not ideal for viewing on the web, so they serve slightly different purposes. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David, thanks for the help you provided on both Noddle's and Fir's page. You being an experienced panorama photographer, I was wondering if you could please review my image at PPR? Regards Muhammad(talk)16:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not speaking for the author, but the images are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, which means that the images can be redistributed freely as long as you credit the original author. MaximusBrood (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, indeed. Thanks, in that case I know enough. However, if you want any further information, feel free to contact me any time. Cheers, Tom (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am looking for consensus on the image to be used for Barack Obama. I see your name on the FPC page all the time and hope you can weigh in on which photo you think is better by visiting Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus on Image. Obviously this is no FP candidate, but I'd like to get people with some experience in that realm to comment (composition, quality, etc). Spare a minute and help out? Thanks! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hy
I am a 29years old artist and I work with different media, from light to images and videos.
Sometimes I work in digital (with photoshop) over some picture I made with my camera, and sometimes I use other pictures, like scans from newspapers ec..
What I do is add colors to the images, merge other images in one ecc..
Finally the work is different from the starting image and have my personal "cut".
I found your images on Wikimedia and I think that the panoramas are really beautiful and perfectly made.
Is possible to take some part of your pictures and work over it? What I need to do?
I ask this because (sometimes!!) I sell my works so I don't want to go over the author of the image.
pleas let me know
and congratulation again for you beuatiful pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.229.132 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
Yeah I know - the economic crisis has a very personal meaning to me!!! But on the bright side it does make istock that bit more profitable. I think I could probably just afford it even at the aussie RRP, but the thing is it's going to be extremely painful to fork that much in the knowledge that if canon had released it six months ago i could have saved a grand! And having a look at more sample pix etc (see this for example) I'm pretty well hooked. I couldn't bring myself to settling for a 50D for example, or even a 5D after waiting so long and seeing how good it is! :) --Fir000211:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that sucks majorly - yeah i guess i haven't got too much to complain about compared to a lot of people :S Another serious problem for me is the dying automotive industry in Australia - I'm beginning to feel I'm in the wrong branch of eng... Anyway as you say enough with the financial talk! Do you think you'll look into a Mk II once it's available or are you happy with the Mk I? Oh here's another nice example of low light video footage --Fir000211:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I work for a charity called Card Aid, we print and sell charity Christmas cards. We'd love to use your image "Regent Street Christmas Lights- Dec 2006" to print several hundreds of packs of cards to sell on.
Would this be ok?- obviously we would credit you on the back of the card!
Hey, I noticed your panorama in Grampians National Park. Are you back in Australia long term or just visiting for Christmas? I also redid that Wellington panorama as requested, receiving mixed reviews due to haze and some enc concerns however. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that panorama was taken 2 weeks ago actually, and I'm back in London again (unfortunately!). Was just a short break back home, 10 days in Vic, 10 in NSW. Got a few other nice photos still to upload in the Blue Mountains and Sydney, but who knows if they're FP worthy. I had actually intended to re-take the panorama of Sydney/Opera House/Bridge but higher res and exposure blended, as these days it could be improved, but frustratingly the bridge was all scaffolded up in preparation for the NYE fireworks, and didn't look particularly nice. I'll check that Mt Wellington panorama out. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I haven't bothered with the Tasman Bridge because the administrator of the bridge is too cheap to fix the lights (patches of no illumination)!. I noticed this which sucks too. Be interested to see the other pictures when you get around to upping them. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were in Watsons the same day as me 30/11/08. Did you notice the houses overlooking camp cove. They had some kind band playing, poss a wedding or something. Its actually in your picture :-Adam (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David,
Recently I took some pictures of a new ferry opened in Dar and when I stitch them, there seems to be some distortion. I have uploaded the individual images 1, 2 and 3. Do you think it is possible to stitch these images without the distortion? If possible, could you please stitch them for me? Muhammad(talk)18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of distortion do you mean? If you stitch with rectilinear on such a wide image, you will always get some distortion/softness on the sides where the image is stretched. The ferry has quite a strange shaped hull which makes the centre of it look more distorted than it really is, but you can tell that it is not because the roof is still straight... I tried stitching the images and I got exactly the same image that you did. Without knowing exactly what distortion you are referring to, I can't really comment any further. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)19:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I nominated it at FPC and the comments there made me think my stitching was wrong. There was some mention of distortion at the stern but I guess the ship was like that. For such an image, what would be the best method of stitching? Muhammad(talk)19:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, your stitching was fine. I think the main problem is that when you're photographing a wide object up close with very defined lines, it is difficult to find any projection that depicts it well. If you use cylindrical then straight lines become curved, and if you use rectilinear then the edges become stretched. The only good solution is to take the photo from further away, which will eliminate strong distortion, but I don't know if that was possible. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the moderators at Wikipedia so against including a link to www.bathintime.co.uk on the Bath page? The site has over 10,000 images from the city's collections on view. The site is free to access, and money from any sales of reproductions goes back to the collections to help conservation. The project is designed to increase accessibility to these collections, especially as some of the museums are closed over the winter period.
This is not a Getty style photo archive, it is an online gallery, run by a single enthusiastic individual. Without support from organizations such as yours, it can not be sustained. I would be most grateful if you would reconsider. Many thanks. Dan
Yeah, Turkey is quite secular. Being a predominantly Muslim country, I found it hard to believe when I first read, but Turkey is one of the countries that has banned the hijab in government workplaces. I guess the guys are desperate to join the European Union :) BTW do you have any panoramas of Turkey? Muhammad(talk)17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, Muslims believe in the old testament but not entirely. We believe through the course of time, it has undergone distortions and lost its originality, hence the necessity of God revealing another book, the Koran. Also, reading the article of original sin here on wiki, I see that the bible does not mention original sin but Paul who first advocates it. The Koranic version mention Eve and Adam eating from a forbidden tree and their consequent expulsion from that garden but as I mentioned on jjron's page, God being just can not hold us responsible for their actions. Muhammad(talk)20:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in response to your comment to me on Muhammad's talkpage (this is just getting too convoluted) the Original Sin article probably did answer that question, if hadn't been too lazy to actually read the article :-). But then I spose what does a statement like "both religions believe in the old testament" mean in practise? It's all in the interpretations really. To go back to the Catholic example, they 'believe' in the OT too, but not literally these days, for example official church doctrine no longer takes a literal interpretation of the creation myths in Genesis, but certainly other fundamentalist Christian sects do take these literally. So you couldn't just generalise and say 'Christians believe in Adam and Eve' for example. Various branches of Muslim and Jewish religions would also undoubtedly interpret them differently, some seeing them as literal, others as some type of allegory. However I believe most Christian groups would basically concur on the more figurative concept of original sin, which as Muhammad mentions above seems to have come through Paul, wherever he may have got it from, but I guess that's how it's maybe just a Christian concept. --jjron (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I can tell from the conversation on the FPC page, you oppose because it isn't encyclopedic enough. But, I was wondering if the quality of the image was FPC quality (picture quality, not encyclopedic quality). Cheers, ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you have taken some of the best pictures out there in the Internet, every one of them transports me to the place in question, and that is something not everyone can achieve. Thank You. It's all I can say. Thank you. PS: you have provided me with a few wallpapers too :D . --MakEshout!22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David,
I was wondering, is it possible to sue a website that is using pictures of mine without fulfilling the license conditions? If so, do you know the procedure? Muhammad(talk)18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible, I sent quite a nasty letter to a newspaper which Diliff informed me about (see User_talk:Noodle_snacks#Today_is_a_good_day_to_sue). I successfully negotiated for some monetary compensation. I doubt the website has anywhere the income that Associated Newspapers Ltd does or that anywhere near as many infringing copies have been viewed. You could try and get some payment out of them, demand that they take it down and/or get them to meet the licensing requirements. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a nice letter to a local motel company which used one of my photos of Wagga Wagga and didn't even have attribution and got a rather rude reply back from them after I gave them 48 hours to correctly attribute the image (or I would be taking the matter further), negotiate for a non-attribution license or remove the image. The reply I get was that I was rude, without first asking if they were aware that my photo needed to be recognised and the lack of dedication to Wagga Wagga. Just a shame that our hard work from time to time gets used in breach of the license conditions only to get rude reply's back, nothing at all and if you're lucky may get some compensation. To Muhammad Mahdi Karim: It is possible but the best thing to do first is get in contact with the site in question and request that they attribute the photograph/image ASAP (Give them more then 24 hours IMO), that they negotiate for a non-attribution license or remove the photograph/image. In doing that can make it easier (I didn't say it will since there are many other factors) to get some form of compensation since it proves that you have been or tried to get in contact/negotiate with the site. Diliff may have other advice however as I've got limited knowledge of the legal system. Bidgee (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, neither of these examples is actually suing. I agree that this is the best way to handle it. Any way of avoiding taking a case to court is a good thing, although if you're going to demand/threaten legal action, you may actually have to back it up if you get a response such as Bidgee's example... And whether you do all depends on how dedicated you are. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks everyone. I tried the threatening stance but it didn't work, they did not even acknowledge receiving my very rude letter :-) I have copied your (Diliff's) licensing for my own. I hope you don't mind. Maybe that will make them think first. An average Tanzanian makes around a dollar a day, so you could say I'm well off, but I bought the camera from my own income which I received by repairing computers during my school break. And yes, I studied English in school. I hope you guys understand me well :-)) --Muhammad(talk)09:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding using my license, no problem at all, as long as you attribute the license terms to me. Please email me or leave a message on my talk page if you would like to negotiate the terms of the license terms. ;-) Just kidding. You're welcome to use it. Anyone is welcome to, in fact. I borrowed some of it from Fir0002 and Fcb981 too from memory. As for understanding you, of course I do. There are very few times where I would suspect that you were not a native English speaker. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)12:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really love your panoramic picture of Melbourne which i found on Wikipedia. I'm from England, but that picture brings back a lot of happy memories. Do you by any chance have a version that could be used as a background wallpaper, as I've been looking for a good one of Melbourne for ages with no success.
Ideally 1440x900 but will take whatever :) my e-mail is kris_cafc@hotmail.com
We are preparing a school-book. We would like to reproduce your photo on Los Angeles inside our book. Could you please send it to us with your conditions?
Please reply to < bhammond@wanadoo.fr <.
Brigitte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.219.210 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to confirm that I have your permission to use your beautiful shot of the Colosseum for an article about attractions in Rome. The article is due to be published by Bangkok-based publication Beyond magazine. You will be credited as the owner of the photo if you agree to this.
My name is Jarrod McCann, and I am from the visual media department of GLOBIO.org, an online encyclopedia for kids across the world. Our goal is to provide a safe, fun, and free place for children to learn about their world. We are currently producing an article on Australia and would love to use your image.
I have read that it is licensed under Creative Commons, and that you require that your name appear near the image along with a full copy of the URL. We will be more than happy to make those accommodations, but I would like to ensure that I have the correct URL that you would like to be posted. I couldn't find one on Wikipedia, unless it is the Wikipedia URL that you would like the image to link to. Pleas let me know, I can be contacted at jarrodm@globio.org. Thank you, sincerely
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hong Kong Skyline. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dorftrottel (harass) 12:03, May 2, 2008 12:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
you like better? :) Mfield (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
