User talk:Wwcsig

Calculations

Dear Wwcsig, maybe that helps for your calculations. The lens was a Canon MP-E 65 which is a fast lens or bright. Maybe you can find some technical implementions about this lens which helps you for your calculations. There was a ring flash used and multi-field-meassurement. Maybe you can compare your calculations with this picture or this picture. Its closely the same scenario, but with no clouds. Do you think the cloud on the picture with the thistle could be the factor x in your calculation ? Best Regards, Richard --85.181.22.67 16:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Richard, I know the lens and envy you for it ;-) That being said, the first image picture (for which I also envy you) has ISO1250, F32 and was exposed for 1/400s. So it saw something like 1250/(32*32*400)=0.0030 light equivalents. Sunny16 (ISO100,F16,1/100s) sees 100/(16*16*100) = 0.0039 light equivalents, which would indicate that your image was underexposed (for the sky) by 1/3. Thus the sky appears in a beautiful dark saturated blue. For the second picture (btw, what's happened with that bar on the right?), things don't look as obviously right to me again. Here we have ISO100, F16 and 1/25s, thus we see 0.015 light equivalents, or an overexposure of 2 stops again. When you take this pictures, do you combine them from multiple shots to increase the DOF as is it frequently done with macro shots? Is it then possible that we don't have the correct exif data for the relevant image? Or - do you use polarizing filters on your lens to improve colors or the lower the brightness of the sky? This could explain me being off by 2 stops easily... Wwcsig 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just noticed that the whole EXIF data might be not too reliable after all. Your Thistle Image seems to have been exposed on 13:06, 21 September 2007, and this seems just a bit unlikely as of this writing. But given that your camera clock seems off the image could well have been taken not in bright daylight as the EXIF suggests but either early or late with less light available and then we wouldn't have any issue with a missing overexposed sky... Wwcsig 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When i bought it the salesman spent me a security lens (no deduction on this 65mm lens!, puuh) for the MP-E 65 to avoid it from beeing scratched, he also said i would have more contrast with this. There is nothing written on it so i cant say if its a polarisation filter or not. How can i identify a polarisation filter ? BTW. The picture was taken at 17:00 behind a woodpile Regards Richard --85.181.22.67 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what happen if its not a Polarisation filter ? Hopefully this other 2 pictures shows you that iam able to make macro pictures with a bright sky. --85.181.22.67 17:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And i took this picture a few minutes before. --85.181.22.67 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doublechecking and the amiable comment which made me laugh. Regards RIchard --Central Powers 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude on this discussion, but was about to leave Wwcsig a comment and so this and thought I'd wiegh in. Now again I'm going to look like a terrible skeptic but there it is. You claim that your camera's clock is out by a full 6 hours? Well unless you deliberately changed your time when you took this shot I very much doubt this. By the looks of the shadow on Image:Bos taurus taurus calf sideview 2 .jpg it was taken slightly either side of noon. Your EXIF time of 11:45 perfectly correlates this. Furthermore the EXIF time of Image:Munich Airport plane handling at sunset.jpg also indicates a pretty accurate time on your camera. In addition the shadow cast by the flower head also looks like it was taken during the middle of the day. The shadow too reveals that it wasn't taken in the shadow of a wood pile since with a macro flash ring value of 16 you wouldn't see any shadow unless a relatively strong shadow was being cast by the sun. Also highlights on the flower and bees suggest it wasn't taken in shadow.--Fir0002 12:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No wait - Richard doesn't have to claim this. The exif time shows noon on September 21st 2007! Somehow it is very obvious to me (at least today on 9/13/2007) that this camera clock is way off, isn't it? Wwcsig 11:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe yeah that is a bit of a problem. But the date doesn't really matter - what does is the time of day. And what I'm saying is that the by comparing with other images we can see that the clock is relatively correct (unless of course it has since changed). --Fir0002 12:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, Richard showed me some other photos taken at the same time and the exposure data on them matches this FP candidate perfectly. I don't have any doubts regarding the authenticity of the sky any longer. And seriously - it is a great picture ;-)

If you are referring to Image:Dolichomitus imperator 02 Richard Bartz.jpg - I hate to sound the skeptic and been accusing Richard of lying again but I'd just like to point out how easy it is to change the time in EXIF data - Image:Cirsium arvense with Bees Richard Bartz time edit.jpg. Seeing it was uploaded after this discussion started I'm afraid it's too subjective to be used IMO. We should compare it from previously uploaded photos. --Fir0002 22:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the picture was uploaded to prove that point, then again, sure everyone can modify anything, these are only bytes are are talking about. But Richard seems to be quite a capable and talented photographer. He's found his way to fame also outside of photography (he seems to be the same Richard Bartz de.wikipedia has an article about) and I doubt that he needs to fool us with exif-redating tricks. I really believe it's time to let this argument rest ... ;-)Wwcsig 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ich hab jetzt extra nochmal nachgeschaut, die Kamera ist auf die Minute exakt 3 Stunden voraus, hab sie bei der Gelegenheit gleich richtig eingestellt ;), ist ja schlimmer hier als bei Dopingverdacht bei den Olympischen Spielen. Nix für ungut. :) :) :) --Central Powers 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sensation Photography!

Hi Wwcsig!
I just had a look through your gallery and was naturally very impressed! However I was just wondering why you've only uploaded so few to Wiki when your Pbase account has so many superb images? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] If it's just a matter of time fair enough but I'm suspect it's because you're reluctant to release them yeah? In which case if Wikipedia were to introduce a NC license (hypothetically) would you upload more photos? I'm trying to get a bit of support for a proposition to add a NC license to be used by wikipedia. Btw I'm soooo jealous of your equipment!! Canon 500mm f/4L IS!! Canon EOS 1D Mark II N, 24-70 f/2.8L, 10-22 f/3.5, Tamron 180mm f/3.5... :) --Fir0002 12:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fir for your nice words. Originally I did release all my work under CC-BY-SA but as I explained on my Commons Userpage, this is a very bad idea. At least I see it so. N C is not the issue here, I like the GPL character of GFDL. Usually if Wiki needs a picture of my portfolio and I can legally release it under GFDL I will certainly do so, but we have such a vast amount of excellent photos for most subjects already, so there is little need to pile on... Wwcsig 12:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No problem you deserve them. But I must disagree with you - I think wiki would be extremely appreciative if you "piled it on" with more of your images - they really are very good. Too many is never a problem - that's what commons is for :) If you get time you really should upload them all to wiki as they'd make a valuable contribution. --Fir0002 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks - I will consider it. Some of them (like the most of the zoo pictures) cannot be GFDL-ed since the Bronx zoo doesn't allow commercial photography. Here (and only here) NC would be a useful tool. And BTW - thanks for the FP nominations, now I'm in line for the scrutiny we gave poor Richard ;-)

Various featured picture candidacies

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, Image:Eastern Screetch-Owl.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, Image:White-crowned-Sparrow.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Wwcsig,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Dendroica-aestiva-001.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 29, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-10-29. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The caption looks perfect to me. Wwcsig 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Wolfgang,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:White-crowned-Sparrow.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 9, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-01-09. howcheng {chat} 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wolfgang,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Eastern Screetch-Owl.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 16, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-01-16. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for putting all this work into the captions. They are awesome.Wwcsig (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hummingbird nest

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Calliope-nest edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Maedin\^talk 17:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Wolfgang,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Calliope-nest edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 15, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-02-15. —howcheng {chat} 08:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - thank you so much. That's exciting news. I read through the caption and it sounds just perfect to me. Thanks for all the work! 20:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	nice photo Tuaneng (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]