Montanabw

Image:Horse360.png

hello. i have a question re your Image:Horse360.png. can you diagram in your illustration where the field of vision overlaps in front? --emerson7 | Talk 23:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean. The diagram shows where the "blind spots" of a horse's vision are. I probably could find a diagram somewhere showing the range of a horse's binocular vision, which, obviously, isn't as great as their range of monocular vision...I'd like to be helpful, but not sure what you are asking...if the binocular vision range, I'll see what I can do, but let me know. Montanabw (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Albinism

Dear Montay, raving palomino breeders aside, it's a commonly known fact that there are no true albino, completely unpigmented horses. However, I will have to ask you to tell me why horse dilution genes, especially the Cream factor (which resides in the same block as Charlie the flying unicorn everyone talks about but who has never been seen) are not forms of equine albinisim in its non-albino but albinistic forms. Pitke (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I threw a fit. But here's the scoop: "Albinism" is a word that has a specific meaning but is used loosely to encompass many types of non-pigmentation that actually have different causes. (Kersti actually was the first person to alert me to this, actually, I was as ignorant as anyone). NONE of the dilution genes have any genetic connection with any form of non-pigmentation genetics nor are they linked in any way to dominant white. It's apples and oranges. In the horse industry, particularly in the US and Canada, the word "albino" has EXTREMELY negative/perjorative connotations with both lethal white (frame) overo, and the possible lethal "homozygous dominant white" that seem to affect certain white horse breeds (exists in the Camarillo white horse, though studies to figure out why are inconclusive). For decades, cremello foals in parts of the USA were routinely shot because people were afraid they were "lethal white" and many registries would not (and many still do not) register them because of the fear that they were "albino" and hence somehow would pass on "bad" genes. People who bred for palomino knew they had a one in four chance of getting a cremello every time they bred two palominos, and while some of them did put down blue-eyed foals as sucklings, others just hid them in the back 80, unregistered, but KNEW they were perfectly healthy (some also were the foundation horses for the "American Paint Horse" registry, which was basically the catchall registry for all the blue-eyed and cropout-colored Quarter Horses that AQHA refused to register due to their "white rules." Truth is, the least Melanistic color in horses is actually chestnut ("red")! (And it is the same genetic mechanism that makes humans blonde or redheaded with blue eyes) Non-pigmentation in horses is somehow related mostly to things happening along the KIT locus (so your bit on roan being a white-related pattern is correct). And that form of depigmentation appears most often to be leucism, not albinism. But the dilutions are no way, no how related genetically to "albinism," and the palomino/cremello breeders in particular have been working for a couple of decades to educate people about this. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh and, check out this article: [1]

Just one thing. Cream is located in the same locus as the albino factors of other species. Johannma Viitanen references Furugren 2000 and Jones 1982 to say that being albino is to possess melanocytes in the skin, but no tyrocinace (I'm half guessing how this is spelled in English) that would fuel the formation of pigment. Pitke (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In the realm of genetic research, 2000 is the stone age. 1982 is the mezolithic era! (grin) The gene was mapped in 2001 and the specific mutation found in 2003. "The cream locus is on exon 2 of the MATP gene; a single nucleotide polymorphism results in an aspartic acid-to-asparagine substitution (N153D)" [2]. I also found this: [3] You know I have been a bit critical of Viitanen in the past, mostly because so much has changed in the last decade. But more to the point, albinism in humans and some other animals is associated with health problems, while cream in horses has no link to any particular health problems. Montanabw (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the book IS from 2007. You keep saying "albinism" and I'm not sure whether you're including albinistic colourations along with albino. Pitke (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Same difference. "Albinism" is a scientifically precise term that is used by laypeople to refer to a lot of things that are not albinism. Neither dominant white nor cream/champagne/silver dapple/dun dilutions have anything to do with real albinism, any more than people with blonde hair are "albinos." I found a web site that explains it in layperson's terms, the second link has all the various "mythbuster" stuff: [4] [5] Also, for a quick summary of all the dilution genes we now can test for, here's the basics at UC Davis Montanabw (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't want laypeople's terms, I want the cold steel science jargon with all the spiky bits :P The first link only talks about cremellos being not albino (while not discussing the albinistic possibility at all), which I have never argued with in the first place, and the second one is just a list of misconceptions I've recognised as such for a long time as well. Pitke (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I guess I don't get what distinction you are making between "albino" and "albinistic." Same concept in my mind. See [6] "Albinism is a defect of melanin production that results in little or no color (pigment) in the skin, hair, and eyes...Albinism occurs when one of several genetic defects makes the body unable to produce or distribute melanin, a natural substance that gives color to your hair, skin, and iris of the eye." White and pinto horses are generally considered Leucistic, while the dilution colors all have some sort of diluted pigmentation going on, not an absence of pigmentation. I think science that you are after may be in the footnotes of this section of the cream gene article: [7]: " The human MATP gene ... is best-known in humans as being the location of a mutation that results in human type IV oculocutaneous albinism (OCA4). Type IV oculocutaneous albinism, like other types of human albinism, results in hypopigmentation of the skin and eyes, with increased rates of skin cancer and reduced visual acuity.[32] None of these effects are associated with the equine cream gene. Other human MATP polymorphisms result in normal pigment variations, specifically fair skin, light eyes, and light hair in Caucasian populations.[8]" So my previous comment that cream horses are no more "albino" than are fair-skinned, light-haired people is still my position! There is also, for the most part, no health issues surrounding these colors, either, as far as I know: Cream, pearl and champagne appear to have no health issues, though I admit there is a connection between silver dapple and vision problems. But similarly, the KIT locus colors also have some harmless forms (Sabino, Tobiano, Roan) and some troublesome ones (Frame and maybe Splash) Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Yogo1ct.jpg

My apologies for this. It has all got rather out of hand, and I don't wish to give the impression that your photographs are unappreciated. I appreciate now that this was rather a "photo of opportunity", with the only camera you had to hand. From that basis, then why not upload it? It would certainly have had value at the time, even if better images become available later.

The article generally is very good and it deserves images that do it justice. I hope that these can be produced, possibly of this same stone. I have made some suggestions, based on my own experience of doing this sort of work with reasonable cost and techniques (The jeweller's loupe and a couple of dime-store LED book-reading lights with flexible necks can indeed achieve a lot). They have however gone down less well than I'd have hoped, so I won't push the issue further.

Once again, my apologies for any annoyance caused to you. That was never my intention. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that AD has withdrawn and made the DR moot, I hope you will delete this image as a user request Montanabw, per the reasoning on it I gave there. Keeping it here simply annoys/confuses/dissappoints users who click on the thumb in a category expecting a usable image, and not getting one. Ultra7 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My intention is to get a better image and keep this as a placeholder until I do. I need to talk the nice people at the jewelry store into letting me take another, better image; this is about a $5000 gem and I don't want to bug them too much, as I clearly have no intention of purchasing it. I have tested my camera's macro settings on some costume jewelry, and the image posted here is probably the best I can get (I'll bring a tripod to the store and they have brighter lights, but this is what the point and shoot can accomplish in terms of a close up. If this is good enough, Ultra, I shall continue in my attempts to get another shot at the gem, literally. I believe that the camera's settings can be accessed at the file's page, so any additional suggestions are welcome. I do not believe the camera will allow me to manually jigger f-stops and shutter speed, though I used to own a film SLR so I DO know how all that used to work in the days we used that ancient substance called "film." Montanabw (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can make the lighting brighter, then the camera will adjust the exposure automatically and close the aperture, thus improving the depth of field.

You can also adjust the "film speed" on most digital compacts. 800 ASA is reasonable: too low is like having it too dark, too high can introduce false colour problems as the camera sensor becomes non linear.

It's a good idea to "bracket" exposures, by taking three or four shots instead of one, with a doubling or halving of whatever settings you can access.

Tiny pocket tripods, like a Gorillapod, are always worth having for tabletop work. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good tips. I have a tiny tripod, though to shoot down on the gem, my old-fashioned tripod from the days of "film" photography might also work (Oh! How I wish there was a digital SLR that took 49mm lenses! I have a zoom telephoto and a macro! I had so much nice equipment that is now collecting dust!) Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your old "good" lenses can now be surpassed in quality by something half the weight and a tenth of the cost. Lenses are now often moulded plastic, not ground glass, which means that they can be made as aspheric surfaces (at a reasonable cost), thus offering far more freedom in optical design. I too have a huge past investment in 35mm optics, but I almost never use it now - the modern stuff just works better. If you do have a strange old lens (I have a 600mm mirror lens) then you may be able to adapt it for use on some modern DSLRs (this seems to be most practical for Canon to Canon). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking (and drooling) at digital SLRs. Seems that people discourage buying the ones under $500, but I have been curious as to how much of that is due to fewer bells and whistles and how much is actual quality problems -- the old 35mm SLRs seemed to have price tied directly to bells and whistles once you settled on a brand. Seems the Canon Rebel line is where the most digital SLR controversy is -- looks like it's a decent camera line even if low-end and the reviews seem to mostly criticize the plastic body and the lack of geegaws, but curious... Montanabw (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Gibson Park and Giant Springs

These and the others from Great Falls are FANTASTIC! - Tim1965 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy! Montanabw (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 21:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Montanabw (talk)

Costumes vs. clothing

Why not costumes? This was actually the one that triggered me to ask at the Village pump because when I went to call these "costumes" I noticed that category contained a lot of actual Native Americans. But this image (File:Dedication of Chief Seattle statue, 1912.jpg) is a group of Seattle newspapermen and businessmen dressed up as Indians. As I wrote there, "Despite appearances, these are not Native Americans, as can be seen from the identifications written onto the photo. They were members of the Tilikums of Elttaes, a civic booster group who used pseudo-Chinook titles." More realistic costumes than most, admittedly, but still, I'd call these "costumes," not "clothing." - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I went ahead and changed that image back to "costumes," since they are essentially dressing up. Let me know if you don't want it there. The masks are definitely not legit, and the "Chilkat robes" look a little thin to really be actually wool robes. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ah! I see that those were white people dressing up as Natives. I get it for that one. See the longer discussion on Penyulap's page too (sigh) Montanabw (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think images like these are very educational; that cultural misappropriation has a strange and longstanding history, that is even weirder than we can possibly imagine :) -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

True that. Curious your take on that one site I found that made the argument that white (or black, for that matter) people dressing up like indians is as offensive as white people dressing up with Blackface. I can see the argument; akin in a way to the Native sports mascots issue. Montanabw (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Was looking for and found the 1491s video comparing dressing up like an Indian for Halloween as being comparable to black face. Seems like that ticked off a lot of people, but it drove the point home. Between the 1491s, Adrienne Keene at Native Appropriations, and Jessica Metcalfe at Beyond Buckskin, it seems like the cultural tide is turning. I know the argument is always that there's more pressure matters to focus energy on (poverty, health issues, etc.), but this seems like a solvable problem. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I've never really understood why people don't "get it" about Native folks, even people who are PC about everything else seem to think that it's perfectly OK to engage in blatant stereotyping. (The sports mascot stuff is particularly notable) I once referred to the Columbus encounter and subsequent events as a "holocaust", in reference to the impact that it had on Native population and culture, and someone who was Jewish just ripped me a new one for it; (Hmmm. 40 million people dead, even if many from foreign diseases as well as warfare and other forms of genocide, isn't a holocaust?) Puzzling. Montanabw (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

When you look at the racially motivated black vs white murders in the US and notice that it kills more people than the Ireland republican Vs monarchist thing (think IRA think bombings) and they don't want to call it a 'civil war' it's pause for thought when someone on TV suggests the white owners of the media and so on don't want to acknowledge the blacks have intelligence enough to know what they are fighting or organise themselves. They like to 'own' certain words. Not much has changed in the US in the centuries, the grinding poverty of the slaves, and the destruction of everything that opposes, half of all children born in Fallujah now have serious birth defects, Hiroshima taught them nothing. Penyulap ☏ 17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Very sad. Depleted uranium munitions or something else? Empires do have certain characteristics in common; just bigger and more damaging weaponry now. (sigh) Montanabw (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There are better sources out there than wiki, you know that :) and there are a LOT of people paid to sanitise the truth. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out what all that radioactive dust would do to a human embryo, any scientist would do. It is sad. Heartbreaking. Penyulap ☏ 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, though wiki can also be a great source for scuttlebutt too! Depends on the article. (Great fun to spat with drones of the Chinese government on Tibet articles, for example!). Yeah. In Vietnam it was Agent Orange and other herbicides, in a lot of places it's unexploded landmines, now in the desert it's radiation. War makes no sense at all. Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

...and yet there is so much of it. Penyulap ☏ 22:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cfd

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Native Americans in art by country. You've dealt with this discussion a million times already, right? :) -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh gawd... Montanabw (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

argh ! Penyulap ☏ 10:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Shuisky Michael

Hi, would you please check my article. Thank you.Шуйская (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I was hoping you can direct this newbie to some nice helpful editors ? The 'article' is sandboxed on the editor's userpage here on commons. I hope I haven't bothered you by recommending the editor ask you for assistance, I thought 'who do I know who is active on commons, is into editing (I'm not ;) )and won't bite?' Penyulap ☏ 02:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not over here a lot, maybe ask User:Pitke or User:PumpkinSky. Montanabw (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

will do ! thank you. Penyulap ☏ 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ratcheting down the "drama"

I see you got dragged into a spat about images of Akhal-Teke horses (above). I suggest that the upset person cool down for a bit and I recommend against any changes. As one of the most active members over at WikiProject Equine on en.wiki, where we have dealt with this sort of thing frequently, I think you should know that the Akhal-Teke article over there is "blowing up" too, but not as bad as here. Basically, this is what we like to call "breed politics." One "registry" gets into a fight with another "registry", claiming that "their" horses are the "real" ones and the other ones are "impure" or whatever. There are also nationalistic spats too (my favorite was when Slovenia threatened to sue Austria in the EU over whether any country other than Slovenia could call their Lipizzan horses "Lipizzans" Talk about lame!) As a rule, neither side has a real corner on the truth and it is wise for us wikimedian sorts to not take sides. There is no need to create a new category, if people want to create a category called "Akhal-Tekes registered by registry X" that's fine, but to take out all the others is to just get ourselves involved in a fight that we don't want to be in (next thing you know, the other side will come roaring in and what their horses "in" and the other ones "out") Also, the "Turkoman horse" is considered an extinct breed, with many claiming the modern Akhal-Teke to be its modern descendant. A category like "horses of Turkmenistan" would be OK, but it would still need to cross-link if the horses are also considered Akhal-Tekes. Just a heads up. Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As always, we can only work with what is sourced in situations like these. Mind that each image can be tagged with multiple categories. We can even have creative options such as Category:Akhal-Teke being the parent category with various "Akhal-Tekes registered by registry X" as subcats (a horse can be registered in two or more registries I presume). I know very little about horses and based on what I can read it is not possible to determine a breed by just looking at the photo. So, "horses of Turkmenistan" could indeed be a category for the horses which do not have a clear breed defined (until a source establishes that). Would this make sense to you? -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 00:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Luckily, I think there already is a Category:Horses of Turkmenistan. User:Pitke is probably the best horse expert at Commons and well worth consulting if stuff like this comes up. I agree with your analysis. And as a "horse person" myself, yes, a horse can have a strong resemblance to a particular breed but not have "pure" bloodlines. Because we have so many photos in commons taken by people who don't know what they are shooting (many "white horse" photos, for example, are actually of gray horses that have, like many humans, had their hair coat go completely from its dark color at birth to pure white...), sometimes we have to guess a bit when categorizing, or go by what the people who owned the horse tell us. Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of horses in Australia categorised to Wales

I draw your attention to a series of pictures uploaded by you on 14 December 2014 of Simeon Stud horses, for example this picture. You have categorised these to "Wales", which is in the UK. The pictures appear from the Simeon Stud website to have been taken in New South Wales, Australia. I would be grateful if you would amend the categories for these pictures. Lloffiwr (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Lloffiwr, what happened is that this was an upload via Flickr2commons, and the automation must have read "Wales" in the flickr categories (I remember seeing them as "Newsouthwales" on the upload) instead of "New South Wales." (Dang technology!) I'll see what I can do to fix. Thanks for the ping. Montanabw (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

racehorse

May you help me create the Category:Danedream? It is linked from the German article. --PigeonIP (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Category:Arravani misses some other categories as well (like type of horse). You are the expert ;) --PigeonIP (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you shoot me the links on de.wiki? I'll try to figure it out. Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

de:Danedream

de:Arravani

--PigeonIP (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes

http://pixabay.com has pd images

License review

Only image reviewers and administrators may review licenses (see COM:LR), and even then it is not allowed to review your own uploads. Do not add 'passed' license review templates as you did at Firing Line Preakness.jpg. Instead, merely add the blank template to request review. Thanks. Revent (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Innocent mistake, I was copying over the templates to try and fix the licensing stuff from a crop. Given that the original image was properly uploaded, reviewed and passed, this was just a crop of that one, have you got any advice on how to do these cropped image uploads better the next time? The wizard doesn't really have the right parameters, and it seems ridiculous to make reviewers go back to Flickr... if derived from an image already approved by Commons, what does one do? Montanabw (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to 'yell at you', though I did make what I said a bit pointed... I was actually looking at recent changes, and your edits popped up among several others (Abuse Filter #70 is for 'License review by non-Image-reviewers', which is what creates the tag in the edit history). I was using basically the same text on about half a dozen talk pages, including those of some other editors who have a history of copyright problems.

For cropped images, the best (IMO) thing to do is to attribute the uncropped image as the source, using {{Extracted from}} in the source field (and also using {{Extracted image}} in the 'other versions' of the source image). The reviewer can then just refer back to the previous review (which they would have to do if the original source was down anyhow) if needed, though files sourced to other images available on Commons don't really have to be reviewed anyhow.. it's just nice if they actually are, 'for the record'.

The wizard is convenient, but it's not really the best thing for experienced users.. you can use the 'old form' to have more control over what information you put in (if you fill out the 'permission' field with a license template, you don't have to pick a choice from the 'licensing' dropdown. Revent (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just as a further suggestion, if you want to upload a crop of an image from Flickr (that's not already on Commons), the 'best practice' is probably to just upload the whole image, let the bot review it (it's usually pretty fast, 5-10 minutes tops depending on load), and then overwrite it with the cropped version. Revent (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Never thought about the overwrite option. Interesting. Montanabw (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Double Arrow Lodge and Resort History 2.jpg

Regarding File:Double Arrow Lodge and Resort History 2.jpg, this seems to be a copyright violation. Before I tag all of the files in that series, I'm checking with you to see if I'm missing something. The Cabin Fever book itself is clearly copyrighted 1989, with a 2nd edition copyright of 1999. I've found some other copies of the excerpt, for example, at http://www.doublearrowresort.com/Information/history1.asp (website CopyRight © 2000 Double Arrow Resort) and http://chaffincamp.com/. The latter isn't clear on the copyright for the snippets of the book, but that website has a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license, you've uploaded your image with a much less restrictive license. What am I missing? Generic1139 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think it's a problem, I won't contest speedy. In essence, WYSIWYG - the files in that series are the entire document, which was a stapled-together printout they left in the lobby on a coffee table for guests to read; no title, no cover, no copyright notice on it other than the acknowledgements to the book "Cabin Fever" which appear on the pages as you can see them. As to the pages at their web site, if they have a copyright on identical content, I guess we have to respect that. To the extent that any of the images are not attributed to Cabin Fever or on the web site, then we may have something published without copyright notice, and there was also no author... If any of them are NOT on the web site of attributed to the book, maybe alert me to those exceptions and perhaps we can find a reason to keep them?? Montanabw (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

On the text, the only argument would be that the handout was done before the book, and that the handout was also published before March 1, 1989 and therefore required a copyright notice. Otherwise, it would seem that the text (from the book, or the web page) is copyrighted. While the resort can get away with it, wikimedia commons can't. As to the photographs, on the resort website at least, even via direct download they are only thumbnails and not worth uploading to commons. I see that you got some good pics of your own uploaded. I'll make a stub article, at least, and point to the article on the resort site.

Also, you have tagged the handout and your photos with refnum 10000489, which is the Dude Rancher Lodge in Billings. I think we've been talking about the Double Arrow Lodge, refnum 14000958, near Seeley Lake. I think 14000958 is what was intended, agree? Generic1139 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

My screwup, sorry! Two road trips in one month, got confused. Montanabw (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And now I see that some of the pics are Dude Rancher and some are Double Arrow - I can probably make a good guess, but it would be best if you sorted them out. BTW, on the menu for Dude Rancher - items first published on or after after March 1, 1989, don't require a copyright notice to be copyrighted. Generic1139 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I wish these folks would publish their stuff in places where it is useful as a reliable source... I can just see the wikipedia article problem. Source: Restaurant Menu... sigh... but you are right. I appreciate your patience. Montanabw (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have it all sorted out. Only the lodge is on the NRHP, not the cabins and other outbuildings, so I made two categories, one for the resort, and a sub category for the lodge. I also found the nomination form, which does contain some of the history and some of the pics from the 30s. I'll do a multi-deletion request on the resort handout, which is problematic but no longer critical. Thanks for all the pics. Generic1139 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And to follow all the rules:

Inspiration

Have a look at Todd Klassy. Some great photos there, check out the galleries and his blog. Plenty variety including horse photos. We can't view the full-size photos, but they look sharp, colourful and great light and composition. Remember, though, this guy makes his living from photography and has been doing it for years, so he's got a head start on you :-). -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

There're great photos there! I like the cowgirls section. In the one with the three girls walking down a gravel road, their pants look like they're from the 1970s. PumpkinSky talk 12:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed! Many good ideas! Montanabw (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, so Colin and PumpkinSky on a more though look, it's clear Klassy has tech skills I lack, and I particularly like what he does with the sunset shots and some of the action shots -- ones like this. His eye for landscapes is quite good. That said, he's also got some real clunkers of photoshopping and there are a lot of shots where his color adjustments move them into the "not found in nature" category (like this -- it doesn't get that green there! (see a poor-quality-but WYSIWYG shot here I don't particularly like a lot of his horse photos; the "horses in landscape" ones are pretty good, but ones like this and this tell me he doesn't really understand horses (a horsephotographer would not take a photo of a horse with "big head" distortion unless it was deliberately intended to be comic). Or this, which shows bad horsemanship and an awkward horse... those would be in my cull pile. FWIW, I used to live about 30 miles south of Havre (where he works), so I know that country -- in fact,some photos I took in that general area (pre-DSLR) include: , File:Loma, Montana USA 01.JPG and File:Fort Benton on River.jpg (that's my mom sitting on the bench). So, this makes for a really good discussion of composition versus tech... clearly even the pros have clunkers... thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well he's making images to sell, not to be critically appraised for educational value or pixel peeped to death at QI. So he'll crank up the vivid colours to the edge of reality if folk want that. It's always been that way, even with colour film. Perhaps non-horse people are less sensitive to the proportions as you, and still buy/commission his work. I don't know your countryside, but here we can have dull grey light with boring muted colours, or we can have fantastic rich light with greens that pop and a blue sky so vivid. I remember watching a program on photography that included a photographer who revolutionised the postcard in the UK. He discovered people bought scenes with vivid sunny happy colours, so that's what he gave them. Who knew! -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

unenhanced vivid summer color

Good point about vivid colors... and you are right about commercial sales. (Ah... Kodachrome... I guess from my end -- and I suspect this is true of PumpkinSky as well -- we are looking at what makes a Quality Image on Commons -- and maybe someday a Featured image. Beyond the basics of eliminating user error, followed by cropping and basic color balancing, how would you address the questions of "enhanced reality" (think basic image correction, cropping, maybe focus stacking or cloning out the post growing from the model's head -- but all stuff that basically makes what is real look more "real") versus "not found in nature" unreality... for example, "enhanced reality" versus over the top unreality like this and this. Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Of the photos you linked, the cherry blossom image doesn't look enhanced. Such a tree can look amazing in good light. I would say that the image quality in that photo is simply poor, including colour accuracy. The moon photo is a fake photoshop composite and so unlikely to appeal on Commons due to limited educational merit. A montage could be permitted if the file description page clearly highlighted what was done and folk felt that it still had some value. For example, we had a at FP a photo of a monkey jumping from a tree (and another of a girl jumping from a cliff) where several frames were combined to show the trajectory. For the last set, the first and last pictures seem to have had their contrast pushed too far for Commons. The others look reasonable. The waterfall is an example of a long exposure, and the milky effect this has on water isn't to everyone's taste, but is currently popular photographically. For removing things from photos, it is best to document this unless it is a trivial thing like removing a little bit of litter from a pavement or grass. Best not to take a photo with a post sticking out of someone's head in the first place, as it is very hard to remove such major components without it being obvious at pixel level. Altering the subject itself is a no-o. Fixing up a portrait is ok for things like spots and stray hairs, but doing some "Portrait Pro" effect where they lady ends up looking like a waxwork may be rejected, though might be fine for portrait of a fashion model. You can push a black and white image much more than colour before it starts to become unacceptable. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it very hard to predict what will and won't pass at FP, even at QI. My QIs are at the bottom of my user page. Someone suggested I nominate the Wat Mae Chon photo at FPC, so I did. But it only got a vote of 3-2 so it didn't make it. I'm hesitant to nominate anymore though IMHO the Bridge on the River Kwai one is pretty decent. PumpkinSky talk 17:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)...I've put this up at Com:Photography critiques for input. PumpkinSky talk 02:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Had I taken this with a better camera, would it have had potential?

You folks are both very helpful with your input. I was going through some older images and uploaded a few, just for fun. What I've noticed from these discussions is that my eye is already seeing photos of mine that I used to think were pretty good, and now I go... "meh." I'm getting it. Let's take this next image. I'm almost certain that it is too low-resolution to pass QI, but had I taken it with a better camera, your comments? Montanabw (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

F/3.5 is very large for macro shots. You'll probably have more success with f/8 to f/11. PumpkinSky talk 02:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, I think both your images you mention suffer for lack of wow and harsh lighting. The bridge just looks like any iron bridge and the harsh sunlight isn't very photogenic. Compare some of our featured bridges taken during the blue hour, or lit up at night. The composition isn't very original vs File:The Bridge over the River Kwai (3186886629).jpg, which is terrible quality but quite eye catching with the repeated bridge structures and the busy stream of people. Another eye-catching photo is File:Railway bridge over the river kwai.JPG which gets the symmetry of the iron work. Statues are difficult at FP because they are fairly easy to take and so not very remarkable unless you get really great lighting. Think of it like taking a portrait photo of a person. Would it be a remarkable photo to take someone face-on at the top of some steps? Compare File:Sukhotai Wat Mae Chon.jpg which captures the statue's face and pose much better, and is much more detailed for being closer.

The flower photo isn't really f/3.5 in DSLR terms. That compact has a crop factor of 6 which means it is equivalent to f/21 and the 55mm focal length is equivalent to 335mm on a full frame camera. And for that compact zoom, at that focal length, f/3.5 is "wide open", which shows the limitations of compact cameras. Your DSLR cameras have crop factors of 1.5 (or 1.6 for Canon) compared to full frame. Most books on photography will give the values for full frame cameras, so worth remembering you have to scale back both the focal length and the aperture to get something equivalent. Flowers are naturally pretty and fairly easy to take, so again, FP will expect something special. It's generally advised not to take flowers in open sun because you will usually blow out your one or more colours (usually the red channel) as it is so bright and saturated. It might look great in thumbnail but the consequence is a lack of any petal detail in close up. If your camera has a histogram, then this can often indicate if you have hit the max because you see the chart showing a spike at the 255 end of the range. You can load your flower into an image editor/viewer that has a histogram feature (even IrfanView will do this) and see the red channel has a huge spike at 255. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, @Colin: . As for the lighting, it's very hot an sunny in Thailand and I had to take the photos when we were at those places ;-). I don't like the shot with the bridge with all the people, I find the people very distracting. I'll keep trying. PumpkinSky talk 09:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with taking photos on holiday (assuming that is what this was) is you have to take the photos when you are there with your family, etc. It is hard to go at more optimal times for photography like early morning or late evening. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. If you look at the bottom of my user page, you'll see my QIs. Note several are chickens; that's because it was early morning and a very short walk from where we stayed and I had time to put up my tripod and take my time. Would you mind giving me a feedback on this flower photo:

Thanks for all the kind help.PumpkinSky talk 15:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this flower is a little past it's prime. A big round flower like this looks quite simple when photographed straight on. It might work better with a square crop dead centre, but you are a bit tight top and bottom. I prefer File:Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 3.JPG assuming the bud in the background is the same flower. That has a bit more interest to it. It would be better if the rear bud wasn't cropped on top, and the near flower is also past its best. It seems both images might have been under exposed and you brightened them afterwards, raising the noise levels. The noise reduction is quite patchy in places and not really at FP level. GIMP is really not IMO good enough. For flowers, personally it takes a lot for me to be wowed, since they are so pretty I expect something quite special photographically. But others are more easily pleased. -- Colin (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The plant is still blooming. I'll take more shots in morning and evening light. What free photo editor do you recommend? I detest the modern pricing model where they want you to pay every month instead of one time. Many companies lost my business when that pricing model became in vogue.PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't used any photo development software other than Lightroom and Photoshop. The latter is only needed occasionally such as fixing up my stitched photos. I also used to use Hugin for stitched panoramas but it doesn't handle HDR panos (or is very buggy) so I moved to PtGui instead. Lightroom is available to buy outright, as well as on subscription for a low monthly cost that includes Photoshop. Imo the subscription is an absolute bargain, for the price of two posh coffees (I don't drink coffee, but you get the idea) I get access to software that normally cost $$$$. I have no problem with the concept of paying for software the same as I have no problem with having to pay for my camera and lenses. The rental model helps the developers pay their mortgages and lowered the overall cost of Photoshop. If you don't need Photoshop and don't plan to change cameras for many years, then buying Lightroom may make more sense. It will improve your photographs much the same as buying a prime lens may improve your photographs -- developing from raw is a key to unlocking more from your images. For free software, I know Dllu uses Darktable but it only runs on Linux. Jee uses free "Capture One Express (for Sony)" but I believe it is a special deal for Sony cameras. If you read the photo websites, there are several companies who produce raw software tools, and some are highly considered. The huge advantage of Lightroom, though, is that it is so popular that any question you may have about how best to use it has already been answered on the web. And you can buy books or take training courses, if that's your thing. Lightroom is by far the most common tool used for FP photos, and Photoshop in second place. Btw, if you are taking lots of photos, I thoroughly recommend getting your backup solutions sorted. I totally recommend CrashPlan. It is free to use to backup to a local drive (or a friend's PC over the internet) but it also provides unlimited cloud storage for a very low monthly charge. Their backup works very well and there are help pages on how to configure it to ignore temporary file folders, and things like Lightroom's cache (which you don't want to backup). -- Colin (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem I have with monthly forever plans is that you end up paying for the software many times over what you could buy it for. I will look at Lightroom I didn't know you could outright buy it. PumpkinSky talk 09:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(outdent). Photoshop used to cost $700 plus $150 for Lightroom. It would take seven years at $9.99 to spend more than that. Meanwhile you might want to upgrade them, which Adobe released roughly every 18 months, at a cost of $200 for Photoshop and $80 for Lightroom. You'd never catch up then. It only made sense to buy outright if you kept the software for many many years without upgrading, and that's only viable if you don't buy a new camera meantime, because you need the upgrades to get the camera/lens updates. Lightroom is still available for $150/80 full/upgrade but I have no idea if Adobe are going to issue the next version e.g., Lightroom 7 retail. With the retail offer, you get I think a year's worth of camera/lens updates but no feature updates. It makes sense to buy if you don't think you'll upgrade your camera for many years. The CC Lightroom also has integration with Lightroom mobile, if that interests you. Everything in photography is expensive, and $9.99 isn't a huge amount compared to other costs. Be grateful you don't have to buy film, as your film/developing costs would hugely exceed that. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info and help! In the Adobe Store it lists Lightroom at $20/month. I don't plan to get new lenses etc for a long time so I just downloaded the standalone version. And yes, there is lots of training material out there. PumpkinSky talk 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, it is definitely US $9.99 for Lightroom and Photoshop: Adobe, B&H. -- Colin (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I misread it. It's PS that is $20/month. PumpkinSky talk 12:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

More Coreopsis tinctoria photos, these in evening light

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

All currently unprocessed. This weekend I should be able to get some in morning light.PumpkinSky talk 23:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The one of the bud that's centered is kind of unusual and cool. For the ones in full bloom, based on what Colin has been saying, these look nice and bright but maybe a wee bit washed out on the petals, I feel like there's a little bit of detail lost on the light yellow. This is something where on an old film camera I'd bracket the exposures and that maybe stopping it down one more f-stop would have been a bit better -- not sure. Maybe in the shot, try to have the sun less direct so that it creates slightly deeper shadows. Or in processing, I'd take one of the brightness slider and move it a weeeeee bit down and try to bring out the lines on the petals a bit. But I don't know what I'm doing, I'm guessing. FWIW, I've been just using the software that's on my Mac; photos and sometimes Preview (they have different strengths and weaknesses). I am seriously thinking about taking a class on how to use Lightroom and then once I understand better what to look for, I can probably turbo-charge the less expensive software to maximize its capabilities. Montanabw (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Macro is one of the trickiest parts of photography because of distance, DOF, and trying to fill the frame. PumpkinSky talk 09:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Lightroom experiments

@Colin: @Montanabw: I REALLY LIKE Lightroom! Excellent recommendation! It's both easy and powerful. I found free Pixlr easy but not powerful and I found the GIMP interface clunky. See the file below and it's original. It's my first Lightroom experiment. I've only done a few tutorials so far.

• 

It's supposed to rain a lot tomorrow, Sat. Drats! I may not be able to take my morning photos. PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

So we a lull in the rain with overcast skies. Here's my best two from that photo session. @Colin: , congrats on POY and since you like flowers with other buds you may like these two, especially #12 which has 4 stages of inflorescence.

Hope you both like them. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

These are fun images and it's interesting to watch the development... so... Lightroom... hmm.... Montanabw (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Guess what this is

Without looking at the file name or description, what do you think this is (don't mouse over it, it'll show the file name):

?

I found the lines, textures, etc very fascinating. PumpkinSky talk 14:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rhino hide, mud flats...? OK will look now! Montanabw (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad you got a kick out of it. ;-) !! PumpkinSky talk 19:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Calf roping

As I understod the description of the sports, a person is riding on a horse, catches a calf with a lasso, jumps to earth and than binds the legs of the calf together. This means even if the person is not visible on the picture without a human it is no calf roping and therefore for the category the category people with calves is correct, even if the human is not visible on each photo. --Kersti (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that technically you are right. Montanabw (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Bay Horse

Hello, There are so many poorly categorised images here: it would take so long to do a lot of them at once. Over the past few months I have been reducing the Category:Cornwall but after that did a few of Category:England. Perhaps "Bay Horse" will be revisited.-- Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Johnsoniensis, I agree that there are a lot of miscategorized things. It's a life's work! Montanabw (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Patroller right

Hello, Montanabw! I saw your question & self-reversion at VPP, and thought I’d drop a line to refer you to the discussion higher up on that page where it was decided to include the patroller right in the licence-reviewer group, making it redundant for users belonging to the latter. I expect you should still see red exclamation marks beside unpatrolled edits in your watchlist (I assume, not being a reviewer myself).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pole bending Wyoming 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 11:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Teslow Elevator Livingston MT.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 11:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Algérie française

I know you know things about many four-legged beasts so please would you tell me what kind of animal is towing this carriage. Thanks and regards etc, Eddaido (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like mules to me Eddaido. Montanabw (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for wire gate image!

Apparently your image is one of few wire gate images on the internet (and if you start looking for openly licensed ones...). So thanks for uploading https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wire_gate.jpg !

• goes to try find wire gate image that is a square image or croppable into one*

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m glad it helped. Where I live there’s a lot of them. That one just happened to be one I could walk about a quarter-mile down the road to photograph Montanabw (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

File tagging File:Flag of the Blackfeet Nation.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the Blackfeet Nation.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Hi there! I was unable to find any source that confirms the Blackfeet have released this flag with a Creative Commons license. What I could find was that the flag was designed in 1980 [8] which is before Creative Commons was a thing. If you have a source that supports this flag being freely licensed please let me know. Thanks! Intervex (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Intervex. This is a flag of a sovereign Native nation. Are flags of nations copyrighted? I don’t see any that are? Please clarify the problem here… Montanabw (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you that official flags are indeed copyrightable. I was surprised myself when I found out! While the USA releases its federal and state flags as public domain this is turns out *not* to be the norm worldwide. *Many* sovereign nations retain copyright of their flags. I live in Canada, and our federal & provincial flags are under Crown copyright for 50 years. It's actually fairly common for First Nations to retain copyright of their flags, and many tribal governments in what is now the USA have even registered their flags with the US copyright office (e.g. Shawnee, Lumbee, Peoria, Nez Percé, Pamunkey). Hope that helps to clarify things :) Intervex (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we have a discussion going at the article page, the issue here is, I suppose, why we have hundreds of governmental flags in Commons (including dozens from Tribal Nations) and you're singling out this one? Montanabw (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)