User talk:BenAveling

Sawtooth Oak

I have a friend that thinks this one is better -- User:Ram-Man
It's less beautiful, but more useful. Is that better? I guess it depends what you want to do with it. Ben Aveling

(Copied from User talk:Ram-Man) Why nominate that one? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have dozens of images that could possibly be featured pictures, many of them are flowers (see my sandbox for some potentials). I try to treat the FP as a fun diversion, rather than something super serious where I have to get as many FPs as possible. It would be too stressful otherwise. I'm also trying to expand the reviewers perspectives about what makes a beautiful photo. But I really do love this one. I've taken so many boring macro shots of plants and animals, and this one has such beautiful colors and texture. Call me deluded, crazy, biased, or whatever you prefer, but I really do think this is more beautiful than many flowers I've taken. Flowers get old because after a while they become cliche. This image is new and fresh and there is nothing else like it in my entire collection and possibly the commons. -- Ram-Man 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is beautiful. But you're the one trying to make the point that beauty shouldn't be the only determinant for an FP!  :-) And, I now realize, you're also trying to make the point that the most beautiful photo is one that finds beauty where other people hadn't thought to look, yes? I shall have to have another look though my snaps. I've learned a lot since my first, abortive and misguided attempt at an FP. Thanks, Ben Aveling 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

When I submit a picture like this, I try to make it technically flawless. This is my third attempt of this type of picture, and it is has the most artistic beauty of the three, but the DoF is not perfect. Still, many other FPs have more technical flaws and still succeed (even ones that I've supported). But you are correct, I find beauty where others do not perhaps. -- Ram-Man 13:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture

I've nominated one of your pictures for featured picture status. The picture makes me smile. -- Ram-Man 17:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems to be making a lot of people smile, including me!  :-) I think I could have written better above, I didn't mean to say "find beauty that other people do not" so much as "see the beauty that other people overlook". And thanks again! Ben Aveling 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Going on discussions

== You might want to participate in the discussions going on here and here - Alvesgaspar 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Camera thoughts

And what do you suggest as a good optic solution for a Nikon D80 or a Canon 400D (I'm painfully discarding the Sony and its excellent anti-shake mechanism because the lens choice is small)? I would like to keep the macro possibility and have a decent telephoto (say, 300 mm in 24-36 format). Any chance of buying a single lens for all this for less than 400 euros? - Alvesgaspar 12:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not.  :-) But I think a single all-round lens is probably the right place to start. That doesn't seem quite enough budget to get a decent all-round lens and a decent macro lens as well. (I could be wrong.) Have a look at http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8089. It seems to offer some sound advice. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR DX (which I just got after a 2 month backorder!) is the best all-purpose lens for any camera, but only available for a Nikon (obviously) and it costs quite a bit (~750 dollars/550 euros). It's macro is not that close, only 1:4.5. I have a Sigma 70mm macro lens (~400 dollars / 300 euros) (it's new and wonderfully sharp and a great portrait lens) which is gets down to 1:1, if not 1:0.91, but I've seen others with the Sigma 150mm macro. Since I couldn't afford the 18-200 when I bought my camera, I got the 18-55 instead. It's real cheap and focuses closer (see this image), so it could be a good temporary alternative if you need some macro function and a useful lens. You have to get pretty close to your subject though. I've never used the Nikon D80, but I have the D50 (I think they are closely related). (The D40 or D40x only support internally focused lenses, so probably not a good choice). The Nikon D200 is the best SLR body ever made, but it costs as much as two of my D50s, but isn't much more than the D80. I've had the opportunity to use it, and it's amazing. Nothing else like it. Read the reviews if you don't believe me. I can't speak to the canons, as I have never used them. -- Ram-Man 01:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Thanks for the working man´s barnstar! --Simonizer 08:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well earned! Ben Aveling 09:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cross photo

I think one problem still persists. The cross is dark and the sorrounding sky is overexposed. That will make other's opinions negative I think. Anyway you should put it to QI discussion area so we'll see. † --Orlovic (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You were right that it wasn't well received, if not for the reasons you mentioned. I find it strange how differently different people react to the same image. But I think I give up on that one. I still think it would be a mistake to make it pretty, but I accept it has to somehow be beautiful without being pretty. Thanks again for your help. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline of QI nom

I understand completely why you didn't promote my Image:Whiteflower-closeup.JPG image, but I have a question. I am very very new to the world of photography, so this may sound absurd, but what's an ISO? I don't know how to get rid of noise or slower the exposure time. I'm only thirteen, so your advice could be very useful to me. --Ṣ₡ЯՄՊՏɧѱᎦ ^☎/ _∑ 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at en:Film speed. The summary is lower speeds give you more quality, if enough light can get into the camera. Higher speeds allow you to take a photo with less light, but the result will be blotchier. The amount of light getting into the camera depends on on the time the lens is open (the exposure time), how far the lens is open (the aperture - smaller f number means wider opening), if you zoom (more zoom = less light) and on how bright it is when and where you are taking the photo. There are tradeoffs in all of these things. A longer exposure will mean more blur, though you can minimise that by using a tripod, if your subject is one that doesn't move. Occasionally you want blur, but usually it's bad. A larger aperture reduces the depth of field (the nearest and furthest point that is in focus). That can be good or bad, depending on what you want the viewer to focus on. Check the camera manual and get back to me if you still have questions. Good luck, Ben Aveling 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

DSLR

(Copied) Hi Derek. You know I've been planning the move to DSLR. Gorgeous as the D200 is, the body alone ($2200 AUD) would cost about 80% of what I originally thought I might spend ($2-3K AUD). Would I be totally mad if I went for a D40X ($1100 AUD) and then added a Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm ($1150 AUD)? I figure a lens will hold its value better than a body. Heck, maybe even the D40? Not because it's $200 cheaper, but because it has a faster shutter sync (1/500 vs 1/200) and I gather it has a higher-speed sensor than the D40X[1]. Extra pixels are nice, not least because they allow more margin for rotating and cropping. But are they worth the slower shutter-sync and sensor? How important would you rate them as being? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I own the D50, which is very similar to the D40. If you think my pictures are of sufficient quality, then you probably don't need the D40x or the D200 (for quality reasons). If you use a fill flash frequently, then getting the D40 over the D40x is a no-brainer for the faster sync-speed. The most serious problem with the D40/D40x is the lack of an in-camera focusing motor. That means that you can only use internally focused lenses. That means you can't really use almost all of the third party lenses (Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina) and you can't use a handful of Nikons. The 18-200 is one of the best lenses ever made. You will not go wrong getting it, although it only gets to 1:4 macro, but it does almost everything else. You'll be very happy with it. It works with every body.

If you are interested in a macro lens, Sigma makes a family of good lenses. The 50mm version is very cheap. I own the 70mm, which is one of the sharpest lenses that I've ever seen. Luc Viatour (and I think a few others) use the Sigma 150mm. There is also a 105mm and 180mm. Price increases with each step up. Beware that I don't think any of these lenses are internally focused, so they don't work with the D40/D40x. For the D40, the more expensive Nikon 105mm Macro VR is internally focused.

If you don't care about expanding with more lenses, the D40 is a good, cheap choice. Otherwise, I'd try to buy a D50 if you can still find them, or go with another Nikon body. Obviously the D200 is a dream come true and I wish I owned it, but owning it wouldn't dramatically change the quality of my pictures. The D40 + 18-200mm VR is an excellent choice with lens expansion being its main weakness. -- Ram-Man 15:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That means you can't really use almost all of the third party lenses (Tamron, Sigma, or Tokina) and you can't use a handful of Nikons.

Unless I'm prepared to always focus manually, yes. That rules out a lot of old lenses, which isn't an issue for me. That also seems to eliminate a lot of the current crop of primes, which is a pity, I had thought I might get a 50mm prime, just to play with. I didn't realise it cut into the 3rd party lenses so much. (My inner cynic suspects that was a major reason behind the decision to go that road.) But at the moment it seems that any digital camera will be obsoleted within months of being released. (There's a rumor on flickr that the D3 (or something) will be released within the fortnight[2].) So I think it makes sense to worry more about making sure that the lens I buy now works with the camera I buy next rather than the other way around.

If you are interested in a macro lens

At this stage, I haven't caught that bug yet. If I do, I'll find a lens to suit, or get another body.

If you use a fill flash frequently...

So much to learn. I don't think I've used a fill flash in my life. I'll have to try it out. I only heard the term for the first time yesterday, when reading up on the D40 and D40X and the SB400. I find it odd that I can't recall seeing other photographers doing flash fills, excluding the model style shoots. Maybe I just haven't noticed.

Thanks, Ben Aveling 00:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm not a talented enough photographer to be good at flash. I take most things without a flash, but occasionally use a fill flash on the flowers to try to balance out the hard shadows. I'm not good at it, but it's critical for certain types of photography, such as indoors where you get a lot of outside light flooding in. I don't usually shoot in those environments, but it's nice to know that I can, when I get around to learning that part of photography. It may not be a big deal for you.

Another issue is that if the new D3x that comes out is a full frame camera (or even a 1.1x camera), then the "digital only" lenses (such as the 18-200) won't work on that anyway. The really, really cheap 70-300mm (from Nikon or Sigma/Quantaray) with its 1:2 macro is not internally focused, but it's another cheap way to get some macro and a long zoom, although the quality isn't the best (at 300) and its a bit cumbersome and slow. It also works on full-frame cameras, as do most of the prime lenses that are not internally focused.

I'm not sure I agree about being obsolete though. My D50, while technically "obsolete" is going to produce the same high quality shots regardless of how digital cameras improve. My "aging" Nikon Coolpix 8700 point-and-shoot still gets a decent amount of productive use. The full-frame cameras are more expensive to make and are large, so they will only stay in the high-end cameras. I think there will always be a D200 style body that can use every lens. Smaller sensors mean smaller cameras and smaller lenses. -- Ram-Man 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you ended up deciding, but chances are the 10MP D40x has more noise than the D40, because of the more densly packed sensor. The D40 should produce the same technical quality that my D50 does, since they share the same sensor. (That's why I said get the D50, because its so similar except you get the in-camera focusing motor). The only reason I'd get 10MP is because I like to print large poster prints on occasion of my best work, and I really wish I had higher resolution, although no one ever sees the 2 foot x 3 foot print and says "wow, the quality looks like it came from a 6MP camera". As has been said elsewhere, the glass is more important than the body. You'll replace the body in a couple years (more or less), but if all goes well the lenses will stay with you for many, many years to come. I'd get the D40 and save the money to one day buy the D200 or its successor. -- Ram-Man 12:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to take a hand in this discussion. You only talked about D40 and D200. But why not a D80? --Simonizer 12:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say if you need a 10MP sensor, get the D40x and save the extra cash. The D40 is a smaller camera than the D80, so it has that advantage. If you need more camera features than what the D40/D40x provides, go with the much, much superior D200. This is one of those cases where I wouldn't go the middle ground. I'd hate to spend all that money on the D80 knowing that just a little more would have gotten me the D200. (I speak very highly of the D200. IMO, it's the best SLR body out there from any manufacturer. It's a pleasure to use.) The D80 does have the focusing motor. -- Ram-Man 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read far too many reviews lately, and yes, almost everyone agrees. D40 is small, cheap, fun, and reasonably good quality. The D40X is just as small, not as cheap, and it has the same sensor as the D80, and maybe better software. If you want something more serious, go the D200, bigger, heavier, and much better quality. (Or wait a week, and see if the rumour above has any substance) The D80 isn't a lot better than the D40x, and the D200 isn't much more expensive than the D80. Things will undoubtably change, but at the moment, the extremes seem to be the place to be. (Unless, you have a lot of lenses you want to keep using, then the D40/D40X becomes less attractive. Although if you are prepared to manually focus, I gather there are some lenses that work on the D40/D40X that can't be used on the D80. Go figure.) Regards, Ben Aveling 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The other nice thing about the D200 (I don't know about the D80) is that if you use an old manual focus AI or AI-S lens (which are very cheap!), you can use center-weighted and spot metering. The D40, D40x, and D50 do not have metering capabilities with these lenses. Manual focusing is fine, but manual metering is a pain. -- Ram-Man 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine. As you know, I've had enough trouble getting my point and shoot to pick the right amount of light.  :-) Histograms are a large part of the answer, I'm told. They're on my reading list... Sigh. All good fun. Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I understand. I will watch the development of the Nikons. At the moment iam totally satisfied with my D50. --Simonizer 15:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And so you should be, it sounds like a very nice camera.  :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Drohnenpuppen_79b_edit.jpg

---

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder. Ben Aveling 21:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New Camera

I saw that you had uploaded your first D40 pictures. Congratulations on your new camera! I wish you a lot of good pictures with it. --Simonizer 11:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:-) Yes I have. It's a fun camera. Thanks, Ben Aveling 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Sibelius Monument photos

Hi Ben! It saddens me to inform you that your marvellous photographs of the Sibelius Monument should be removed from Commons in accordance to Finnish law. Sculptures in Finland cannot be depicted as the main subject in commercially used photographs until 70 years of the artist's death. In the past, unauthorised commercial use of a photo of the very same monument has resulted in law sues and fines worth thousands of euros. Your photos can be uploaded into eg. the English Wikipedia where it can be used under fair use, in which case you should tag the photo appropriately with {{fair use}}. Thanks! –Dilaudid 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. That's a pity. OK. Ben Aveling 22:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WW I images

Hi,

do you still remember the talk at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Passchendaele_aerial_view.jpg?

There I talk about a mosaic of the area between Passendale and Zonnebeke. I went trough a lot of trouble to get these, but finally I managed to get the digital source files. Unfortunately they are copyrighted, so I cannot upload them to wikipedia. But I believe that you might be as moved as I am by those images if you know what happened there and that we should never forget this.

I want to send them to you. If you're interested, could you contact me by mail? (wikifeature E-mail this user on my user page). I believe your intentions are sincere and that you will keep the files for yourself.

I have printed them in poster format and they are now hanging on the walls of my office.

Regards, Tbc 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (Belgium)

Category:Barefoot

Thanks a lot for the explanation which help me to improve my English. Romary 10:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. English is a very difficult language to speak well. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Amboise

Hi - noticed your recategorisation of the Da Vinci tank pictures. They were in fact taken in the grounds of the Chateau there. I think they were correctly categorised as part of the Chateau. Regards --Golden Wattle 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

When I took the picture of the Da Vinci tank reproductions in 2003 the object was in the Chateau d'Amboise. I did not visit the Chateau Clos Luce although I was aware of its existence and its connection with da Vinci. I am not confused! I also took Image:AmboiseChateau.jpg and one of the carving of the Chapel on the same date. I did not however take one of the tank and the chateau in the same view but there is some background visible in Image:DaVinciTankAtAmboise.jpeg which may be recognisable as the grounds of the chateau to somebody who has been there.--Golden Wattle 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think you are correct in But if I remember correctly, the white windows in the background belong to the shops 1/2 way up the entrance ramp. If so, then it would have been more or less between the chateau proper and the small chapel? I think the shops were pretty much at the top of the entrance ramp and the open space was being occupied by some seating as well as these models. There is of course no reason why they should not have been moved and the models would seem to have more connection with Clos Luce if one was putting together an exhibition. Spinning the tank sounds a bit bizarre :-) Regards --Golden Wattle 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the description to clarify where the photo was taken but to add your info about location at present. I suggest leaving Amboise as category rather than confusing with then and now locations ... Regards --Golden Wattle 10:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

swan image

Hello, Ben. I've changed your swan image, but I do not want to upload it to Wikipedia myself. Maybe you could go to one of my images, hit my name and e-mail me your e-mail address and I will e-mail you the image. If you do not care about this, so it be. Thanks.--Mbz1 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bastille day flyover.4264.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

What is FP?

Sorry to ask you this question. By reviewing my photography in the QI candidates you've written "And rarity is not an issue here, this is QI. It would count in your favour at FP." What does "FP" mean? Thanks in advance. Fabelfroh 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Danke, thanks

One Beer for you

Die commons und die Anleitungen werde ich nie verstehen. Dann warte ich mal das Ergebnis ab. Vielen Dank von mir für deine richtige Einordnung. Gruss, Greetings --Nightflyer 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obtaining geodata without GPS

Concerning your question on how to obtain geodata without GPS, I have written some hints in this discussion, which you may find usefull. --Slaunger 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

What is your reason for deleting your own work? Can it not be used as fair use on the English Wikipedia? -Vcelloho 00:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be moved to en.wikipedia, not hosted on wikicommons. Personally, I'd like to see that policy changed, so that we had a single server for all free images and fair-use images, and put the responsibility for complying on the user. However, that's not the current policy. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Page extracted

Sorry. I know I should have, but the situation was quite complicated with one delisting nested into another one. I was already happy to be able to solve it smoothly in the end ;-). Nothing got lost and everything is where it should be now. I understand that with the current 'attack' atmosphere, it may have looked a bit suspicious, but that was never my intention. Regards. Lycaon 08:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all good now - things like that are easy to check - I worked it out by looking in the contributions of the original nominator and it was suddenly obvious. You just could have saved me a few seconds. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Ben - Thank you for your comments and your comments about my comment! I did undestand the first round... I was trying to answer to two critics at once, thus the confussion. But thank you for appreciating the picture, or rather, the beauty of the grapes. For me photography is a window and we must look beyond the window, as in this case. Again, thank you! Regards, --Tomascastelazo 14:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What a wonderful analogy. We are given a window onto a view of beauty and we spend all our time arguing about the quality of the window. Cheers, Ben Aveling 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, funny, isn´t it? It is as if our view crashes against a barrier. Not that technique is not important, but I think that we lose a lot of talent here by disqualifying talent due to improper judging, nitpicking on trival and irrelevant issues that are far removed from the photograph itself. I admit that for me, and I presume that for most people, it is an ego boost to have one´s work promoted for FP, it is a motivator that compensates releasing the rights for the images. I know that my ways don´t help out, but you know how that hot latin temper works! I will, however, continue to contribute to this great effort. Regards, --Tomascastelazo 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult for me too. I've learnt enough that I've almost stopped nominating my own photos, almost. I am getting better at spotting problems before I nominate, so increasingly, I don't nominate. But I don't seem to be getting any better at taking photos without problems. And to be honest, this means that I don't upload as much as I used to, which isn't really good, because there are plenty of photos that aren't QI or FP that would be perfectly good for illustrating wikipedia, better in fact, than many FPs which are always visually beautiful and usually technically excellent but only occasionally are they actually useful. All the best, Ben Aveling 06:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you be offended if...

Put some work into this today.

I went ahead and did cleanup on one of the San Francisco earthquake photos. As a friendly adjunct to your nomination, what would you think? I don't want to appear to be acting against you. Best regards, Durova 22:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sfearthquake3a.jpg is great. May I nominate it? Ben Aveling 10:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's make it a joint nomination? Durova 02:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Drafts prepared for your review, etc. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a little more of a tweak to make. Will upload new version tomorrow. You pick which we use. Thanks, Durova 06:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Ben Aveling 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How's this?

Please take your pick, and thanks. :) Durova 01:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And thank you. Let's start with Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg. Ben Aveling 09:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) Durova 09:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Purdy fly

What is the meaning of purdy? I thought it meant male but am no longer sure. As for the hoverfly, the gender is not clear. Intersex specimens are not uncommon in this species. Regards and an execllent New Year of 2008! - Alvesgaspar 14:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You must preview, you must preview, ...

... could you preview this again? Thanks ;-). Lycaon 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• By "preview" I meant that I should use the "show preview" button. But I have re-reviewed the reichskarte. So recent, yet so distant. Grim times. Cheers, Ben Aveling 07:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FP promotions

I noticed the FPCs from as far back as December 19 haven't been closed yet. Left a message on AN last night and got a reply that the closures don't have to be done by an admin. Is this true? If so, I think I'll go and try my hand at the discussions where I haven't participated. Would like someone to double check my work and you seem to be experienced. Would you mind? Durova 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, urgently needs to be done - as is, we're going to have disallow some too-late votes. Yes, do as many as you like and I'll check them. If any mistakes happen, we'll fix them. If anyone complains, well, they're free to have done the work themselves. Thanks, Ben Aveling 04:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like somebody got there before me. I'll keep my eyes open and maybe try this next time. Thanks for offering to help. Durova 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That was me ;-). But feel free to close the FPCs whenever you see it has to be done. --Simonizer 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar, but I think I already gave you one. Thanks again, Ben Aveling 10:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:San Francisco in ruin edit2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 16:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sfearthquake3b.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

--Simonizer 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

Image:RussellLanodeSanJuan1.jpg ? Durova 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be confident of passing QI. Even though you didn't take the photo, you've done work on it, which is what QI would be asked to comment on. I think it might fall short of an FP, depending on who shows up to vote. Ben Aveling 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)