Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 02:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Changyuraptor.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Changyuraptor.png
*Conditional Oppose - There are spots in this image that need to be removed. I don't really love the glary white background, either, but it's a good illustration ("It's a bird!" was my first thought) and of obvious educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix the background--will make it transparent and take care of all spots, turning it into a PNG--when I get home tonight. And thanks everyone for the nomination and supports! -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question I need some sources for such a reconstruction of a prehistorical (?) bird. Is this picture duely usable in an encyclopedical article ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A relatively similar illustration of Changyuraptor yangi accompanies the entry for Feather in the Encyclopædia Britannica. An article in Scientific American described this specific illustration as "an excellent reconstruction" (albeit in passing). A reconstruction by the same artist of another four-winged dromaeosaurid in the same clade, Microraptor gui, was published in Science. Other works by the same artist were comissioned by eminent institutions (Chicago Field Museum, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Shanghai Natural History Museum) or published in leading journals like Nature and Evolution. --Ori Livneh (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ori Livneh: Thank you very much for this excellent and very documented answer. I find this very interesting. In my opinion, some of these elements should be mentioned in the file description page for a better understanding of non specialists.--Jebulon (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this PNG retouched by Ori Livneh or one that Ferahgo the Assassin links above? Because I suspect the latter but the file-description claims the former. I'm not really keen on the PNG with cut-out edges. Removing some of the stray dots is fine, but prefer something that looks hand-made even if it has rough edges. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 12:54:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question I paged through the other buildings in the FP category and saw nothing like this. Can you convince me why I should support this in spite of the unfortunate light conditions? -- Ram-Man17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No! It's not that kind of opposition. Some images don't speak to all people, and I was wondering why I didn't see it. Afterall, I love this very much because of the special subject matter. I think I just don't connect to the subject matter because it's not my thing. I thought maybe my opinion would change if I sat on it a few days. -- Ram-Man12:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Actually, I like the light conditions, which might make the difference for me on this being a deserving candidate for a feature, because aside from the picture's technical quality, I'm voting not only based on the architectural elements being depicted but also the atmosphere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it is not my single oppose which has led you to withdraw? I respect other find it promotable even if I don't.... -- Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: In part. I like to have a clear and enthusiastic consensus. The comment of Ram-Ram + not so many support votes in 4 days + your vote and comment = I'm not convinced anymore. That's all! Please do not hesitate to oppose, on the contrary, thank you! Christian Ferrer(talk)22:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should keep it, Christian, right now there is generaly not so much enthusiasm with FP and QI. I just want to say to the other guys here: Imagin a really hot summerday, then - the first shadows abroad with this wonderful, mysterious door. You enter the church and suddenly, it is a completely different world. A different smell, it´s cool, its quiet and you want to speak louder, just to here the echo. Anyway, you will hear every step you make. And all this, because you realized, that there is a beautiful, mysterious door... --Hubertl23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Because no vote count unless the nomination is not reopened by the nominator himself. Whatever happens. When Christian decides to close it ultimately, he has to move the nomination to the march-log-site manually. If nothing happens with this (withdrawn) nomination, someone else will move it. --Hubertl06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to take over the nomination, I have to withdraw one of mine that looks unsuccessful. Christian, would you reconsider? This picture is 1 vote from a feature. If you won't reconsider, I will withdraw one of my nominations and take over this photo's nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, that I kind of like Christians view of this. What's the fun of having a photo promoted, which is just barely FP? I can see there are still other nominations on the page, which rapidly gets very many supports. It is probably an indication that the nomination is not among our very finest photos, albeit still very good. Hubertl: Thanks for explaining why it is so good for you. I understand what you mean, but I do not entirely embrace the feeling. Maybe because I live at a slightly higher latitude and do not experience that many hot summer days. If it is warm here we just enjoy that it is finally warm :-) -- Slaunger (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan remember that a nomination can be closed by either nominator or image-creator, so we try to respect wishes of both and if the creator has doubts then it is unlikely to succeed. However, as the owner of several "barely FP" that I'm very proud of as images, I disagree a bit with Slaunger. Sometimes, the qualities of an image aren't obvious, and it requires a little work. And sometimes the oppose rationales are questionable. That's one reason I wish nominators on Commons had a habit of explaining why the image is special when they nominate it, and I think that's Ram-Man's point too. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christian, I think I owe you an apology. As the photographer, you have every right to withdraw the nomination, if that's what you want to do. I think it's fine to try to dissuade you, but I was obviously in the wrong for considering taking over the nomination, although I had forgotten that at the time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I striked the withdraw. My goal was not to annoy the supporters, I was just not sure anymore it should be FP. Excuse the inconvenience I caused you. Christian Ferrer(talk)07:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can't make up my mind. I like the dappled light on the door but not the dark shadow on the right. Is there any way that some time-of-day/year would avoid the solid shadow but still keep the dappled light? -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was the last hour of the sun in autumn, I think in summer the sun may be in the good direction, however the summer foliage of the big trees behind me will likely hide the sun...then not sure I can do better. Christian Ferrer(talk)19:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Hubertl's description sounds pretty, but when I look at the door and the way the shadows are covering it, I just can't see it. The picture doesn't seem able to impress me in the way intended. ~Mable (chat) 12:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 05:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cementerio de la salitrera Rica Aventura, María Elena, Chile, 2016-02-11, DD 128.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cementerio de la salitrera Rica Aventura, María Elena, Chile, 2016-02-11, DD 128.JPG
Support - Once again, a photo showing Poco a poco's unique artistic sensibility. This is a high-quality photo with a lot of objects (mostly wooden gravestones) which richly reward the viewer who moves his/her eyes around the picture frame, it's an unusual setting, and I find the picture moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Ikan for nominating this picture. I also like it very much. The place was quite unique, a cemetery where I had the feeling that nobody had visited for decades Poco216:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear what other reviewers think, I don't share the "too noisy" comment. Please, bear in mind also the resolution of the image. I could ofcourse apply some denoising and downsample it, but not sure that it is required. Poco218:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the dark jots on the wood and the wall particularly right and left. --Hockei (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Additionally, down-sampling the picture is the worst way to get the FP-status. --Hockei (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very, very much better. Noise and posterization reduced, the bit increased contrast gives it more pep, also the increased crop on the sky looks better. Good work IMO. --Hockei (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're welcome, Poco. Happy to nominate it. Thanks for your remarks, Hockei, as they resulted in a clear improvement in the picture. What did you do, Poco, up the contrast? Thanks for your votes also, Hockei and INeverCry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just darkened the darker areas or, in other words, I increased the contrast but without touching the brigther areas. --Poco221:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the Latin. I studied Latin for only one year, so the expressions I learned were more along the lines of "Ars longa, vita brevis", though as a musician, I know the words of the traditional Catholic Mass Ordinary. Thanks for the votes, everyone. I'm glad that you, too, find this picture special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan, works better in full view. I really like how the open plain behind it brings out the starkness of the perspective. Tangled, chaotic shapes shouldn't work, but somehow here they do. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 20:15:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of Santa Maria in Vallicella (Rome).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of Santa Maria in Vallicella (Rome).jpg
Comment - Very unusual contrast of light and dark. Technically, this photo is remarkable for capturing that. I need to live with it a little but expect to support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 20:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of the room of the Niobids.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of the room of the Niobids.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 21:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glasgow City Chambers - Banqueting Hall - 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glasgow City Chambers - Banqueting Hall - 3.jpg
Info One of the three electroliers, installed in 1885, lighting the banqueting hall in Glasgow City Chambers. Each need about 50 light bulbs. The hall is 16 metres in height, 27 metres in length, 14 metres wide, and covered in gold leaf. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo was taken from the balcony while on a guided tour of the building. So no tripod and a challenging dynamic range for a single shot. What makes it special for me, is that it captures a member of staff who was arranging the tables for a banquet, and who provides some scale and personality. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support. I am more intellectually than emotionally wowed by this photo, but that's OK. Inevitably, the light bulbs, and therefore the electroliers, dominate the photo. However, it's hard for me to imagine that someone could have done a better job than you in capturing the rest of the photo at a good level of brightness and resolution. It takes the viewer some effort to look at the rest of the picture, perhaps, but it's a very good composition and though my knowledge and experience of photographic techniques is not at a very advanced level, I think this is a technical tour de force. And it's certainly an interesting and pretty view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technical: for me the photo has a significant yellow-greenish tint which I do not find very attractive. I would suggest a color balance correction (e.g. Photoshop color balance: Mid Tones: 0 / -16 / +16; Lightrooms WB does not work for this adjustment, because it does not selectively target the mid-tones). Rftblr (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try to do what you suggest later tonight. There is a mix of lighting from the bulbs and daylight and reflected light from all that gold leaf on the walls. The shades on the electrolier are green, which might be causing the offending tint. I tried using WB and colour saturation adjustments but they didn't help. Other photos I took in the room (see Category:Glasgow City Chambers interior) weren't as problematic. In order to capture the dynamic range, I had to significantly under-expose the rest of the room, and it is possible that raising the exposure back in post has resulted in an unwanted colour shift. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a new version based on suggestion from Rftblr. You may need to Ctrl-F5 (or Ctrl-Shift-R) on your browser to load the new one if you've got the current one in cache. @Ikan Kekek and Ram-Man: . -- Colin (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the difference. But which version do you suppose more accurately depicts the way the room looked? (And keep in mind that I support a feature, regardless of whether it's of this new version or the previous one, providing that the picture is actually accurate to the best of your ability.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly didn't notice a green tinge when I was there. And my other photographs don't display it. However, the eye accommodates colour-balance changes without you noticing. So white paper looks white to you whether lit by the white-hot sun, by the blue sky (in shade), by yellow tungsten, or by dreadful phosphors in fluorescent tubes. To some extent, we have to make the colours look correct rather than be correct, as there's no absolute point of reference outside of a laboratory. As an aside, Google for "orange and teal" to see people complain about the heavy colour grading that happens in films these days. The Matrix films were very green, for example, but you probably didn't notice at the time, since the whole film is processed that way. -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In general I consider it OK to have blown-out lights (since it's difficult to avoid), but here, where they're the center of the composition, the bright glow they cast makes the entire photo seem washed out (alternatively it may be an editing issue - I see that there are no real black parts, which could be causing the washed-out feel). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts, somehow the blacks crept up with processing. I've brought those back down with another version uploaded, so should now be richer and not "washed-out". The image was exposed for the highlights to keep details in the shades and gold framework. The pearl bulbs, as a diffuse source of light, don't really have any meaningful surface detail to capture and I think it important to render them bright (as an 8-bit JPG can manage) -- I really don't like when the highlights are reduced so much that light-sources look no brighter than paper. There is some glow near to the bulbs, but that's fairly natural effect. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different take on a photogenic interior, successfully executed. I like the way we can see the separate pieces of silver in every setting. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 16:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Head Lighthouse Ocean Horizontal.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portland Head Lighthouse Ocean Horizontal.JPG
SupportOppose after checking the quality issues pointed out by Pine, I have to revise my judgement. Its a well composed photo, but for me a FP has to have the technical quality as well. -- Rftblr (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if you like, but do you really want the technical requirements for a FP to be "DSLR" + "High End Lens"? I do have much higher quality lenses in my bag, but nothing at 22mm. I'm all for demanding high quality images, but this goes beyond photographer skill. Obviously I could crop out the foreground, but you'd lose some compositional wow in favor of a minor technical fault that is hardly noticeable unless you are really looking for it or viewing at very large magnifications. -- Ram-Man00:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not about requiring a DSLR + High End Lens. Even with the lens you had, you could have shot multiple images without tripod, turning around the lens (and not the head) and stitched a high-quality wide angle-equivalent. Especially in landscape photography I like to zoom in and look around the photo: I emulate what I would be doing if I were at the place, to get a feel for the scenery. Landscape photographers have always used very high resolution and high quality cameras to achieve this feeling of being there. Nowadays we are lucky since we can use the computer to stitch a high-quality landscape image from multiple lower resoultion shots. For me this quality difference distinguishes landscape photography from snap-shot/travel photography, coinciding with the criterion for FP. -- Rftblr (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corner softness is a well known issue with the lens. See here. Also the glass isn't really capable of 16MP work of sharpness across the frame, but I think it turned out extremely well given the limitations. Even the ducks in the water are reasonably clear. -- Ram-Man11:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I took many different angles and positions and this was my favorite because it highlighted the lighthouse(s) and the ocean together. -- Ram-Man11:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the composition and it's an interesting subject but the quality is not at FP level. It's a little bit too dark and vey soft overall. An oppose would seem too harsh to me but I can't really support it, either. --Code (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak regretful oppose It's a great composition. But in addition to the issues pointed out by Pine and Code, I feel its WB is a bit too cool. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2016 at 16:53:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trees along the Hald Sø Viborg Commune Danemark.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trees along the Hald Sø Viborg Commune Danemark.jpg
@Slaunger: Nice place, many thanks again ! The hail shower came just after taking this pic... That's why the light is so special. But don't vote indeed, it is our agreement !--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It took me a while, but this picture grew on me and I like it. It's not a simple composition, and I hope that doesn't end up being its downfall on this board. It deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I can´t share the enthusiasm. It´s a nice shot, but a rather trivial motiv and in no way outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Please add:"...for me" (because it can be outstanding for some others, like me, for instance)... Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 03:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Comercio en la plaza del 9 de abril de 1947, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 78.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Comercio en la plaza del 9 de abril de 1947, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 78.JPG
Support - I like it. A shop and its proprietor. Challenging light conditions. Someone might object to the resolution of the man, but in context, it's good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice atmosphere. I like how all the items are nicely arranged, the symphony of colors, and the pose of the man. Seems like it has been dificult to denoise (ISO 800) without leading to bleeding of colors. A reasonable compromise has been applied in the processing IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is the potential for an excellent image in this scene, but imho this one is not it. Maybe more zoom to get rid of the ceiling and that blue stool … --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In that case I'd lose a lot of perspective, and my intention was actually to have as much as possible with lines guiding to the seller. Poco210:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Slaunger. I struggled over this one, but it came down to two things: I don't agree with requiring blind technical precision and if this were my photo, it would be one of my favorites. -- Ram-Man03:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So often I have seen small shops like this, usually abroad but sometimes here in the U.S., and wondered if one of them might make an FP-quality image one day. I wonder no longer. I don't mind a thing about this—the perspective lines are great, we see enough of this shop but just enough, and it's fun at high-res to look over everything on the shelves. I also give Paco credit for a proper white balance ... was there any work required on that afterwards? Because if you had a fluorescent setting available, you didn't need it or chose not to use it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2016 at 02:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodile bank chennai MZ7 0618.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodile bank chennai MZ7 0618.jpg
Oppose I find it is overprocessed with too high saturation, contrast and perhaps sharpness. I tried to improve the very general categories. Work still needed on the very general Chennai category. Maybe it can actually be removed. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Side point here, but removing a category for a city is an extremely bad idea. [Edit: Hold it. Do you mean removing the category of Chennai from the photo? That's different. What would you propose to substitute?] As an admin on Wikivoyage, I very often look for city categories to link in our sidebars and trawl through such categories for Featured, Quality, Valued and otherwise useful pictures. I always find it unfortunate when there is no Commons category for a city, town, park, island or what have you (and I sometimes create missing categories) but removing a category for a huge city like Chennai would be just unforgivable, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek. Originally the photo was categorized to Crocodilia and Chennai. These are very general categories, which have many sub-categories. Categories used on file pages should be as specific as possible to avoid overpopulating the very general categories, that were originally selected. On Commons, categories do not work as keywords as in many other photo storage sites. So I changed Crocodilia to the much more specific Madras Crocodile Bank Trust on the file page. That category is again a sub-category to, e.g., Animals of Chennai, which is again a sub-category to Nature of Chennai, which is again a sub-category to Chennai. So actually that one specific category covers it all, as you can navigate to there from both of the very general categories Crocodilia and Chennai. Of course, I do not think the category Chennai should be deleted from Commons, but only from the file page as it is over-categorization (In fact I have done that now, that I have investigated the current categorization tree). -- Slaunger (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I still would like to see Mano8in's argument for why this photo should be featured, but to me, a photo that is fairly clear on part of a crocodile's face but is otherwise a bunch of ugly, unsharp green water and very blurred bokeh is not a great photo. Better than a snapshot? Yes. But that's not the standard I think we should be judging by. This just isn't close to being one of the very best pictures on this site, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 16:29:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schuur tussen hoog opgaande bomen. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schuur tussen hoog opgaande bomen. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 02.jpg
Neutral - I see all of what Ram-Man sees, and I respect it, so I'm not feeling inclined to oppose this picture, but for whatever reason, it doesn't wow me and I feel like this is really a good Quality Image. Maybe I'll change my mind later, as I live with this photo for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, I do not like the facade in shadow, the crop on the foreground trees, the fence wire in front, the light is not particularly good. Composition is good, but not exceptional. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 07:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Without review of the whole picture, the crop below is too close to the ship. There must be more room IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 11:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Very small (much smaller than JJ Harrison's bird), dark, noisy sky, feathers not sharp. It doesn't appear downsized (too noisy/unsharp) but more likely a small crop of a distant bird that didn't fill the frame. The FP standard is higher than this. -- Colin (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree that it's small, but I don't see how being small in this way hurts the image too much. If we want larger images we should just up the size requirement. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 12:29:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gallium drops.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gallium drops.ogv
Support - Fun, indeed. If I may suggest adding a description in plain view stating that it's the "behavior of gallium droplets in water". I had to hunt for it and then realized the description was part of the file name. Atsme📞15:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose nice gimmick ..., but I'm missing correct informations: what like to show us this video? What is this for a liquid? Why are the Gallium drops are first so small, why are the gallium drops like to be one large drop? I have more questions than I get answers! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I know it's short, but I really think some TimedText subtitles should be added to explain what;s going on, which would address Alchemist's oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 17:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese maple at Shitennō-ji Honbō Garden in Osaka, November 2015 - Stacking - ProPhotoRGB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese maple at Shitennō-ji Honbō Garden in Osaka, November 2015 - Stacking - ProPhotoRGB.jpg
Oppose Very nice artistic composition and idea, but first of all the red leaves lack any kind of structure. It is weird. They look blown in the red channel for the eye, but in the histogram there is no clipping. Moreover, the jpg file uses an embedded ProPhotoRGB color profile. Now, this may be an adequate choise in some professional physical print applications, as it is a wider color space, but for web use, it should be sRGB, as many browsers cannot interprete the ProPhotoRGB color profile correctly, even with a color calibrated monitor, see User:Colin/BrowserTest for an example. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Long time no see and thanks Slaunger, yes I know color space matter and red channel thing, I don't know why but when use sRGB color space (see other versions) the red color had faded so I uploaded this one. Thanks again Pine, I like this red but I think this one is not FP, a bit too drak so please withdraw this :) --Laitche (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was another instance in which it was pointed out that the photographer has the option of withdrawing a nomination of his/her photo by someone else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image and nice attempt of composition with the light coming from the other direction however the red color is a bit too much clipped for my tastes. Christian Ferrer(talk)09:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger's critiques of the composition (it is just too random and cluttered for me ... perhaps cropping in on part of it might have gotten us somewhere) and Christian's point about the red color being too overdone. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 11:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Stairwell 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Stairwell 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Oppose The white balance is just way too yellow/green. Compare the colour of the walls and carpet with his earlier FP of this stair case (much further up). You can compare also with a photo I took earlier that morning of the same section of stairs as this, but looking down. I think the balance is much more natural in my photo. Look at the metal treads, and also in the circular pattern there is a beige-grey portion, but in this photo the colours are very strange. I don't find the composition of this photo as good as the previous FP, with the top part fairly arbitrarily cropped. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can also compare the carpet with BBC News and an art auction. The carpet is by Sir Peter Blake, and quite notable/controversial, so worth getting right. -- Colin (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My shot is hardly "white" which would be result of a full tungsten white balance: there's still plenty yellow light. It is always a compromise for images like this that are partly lit naturally through the windows and partly through bulbs (which are often low-energy these days). I think here Dillif had the setting towards daylight and the stairs/carpet is mostly lit by the bulbs. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry I'm late to respond. I'm not convinced that the WB is really wrong. There's no right and wrong way to present a scene like this. Yes, perhaps the carpet looks different in other images. But this is normal - every interior looks differently in different light. The carpet extends throughout the building both in areas that are lit mostly by incandescent light, and in areas that are lit mostly by light through windows. The way the carpet looks will naturally vary and I suspect that the BBC photos of the carpet were lit mainly by sunlight, judging by the way they look. I'm not sure that Colin's WB is any better anyway. It looks a bit too orange IMO. Ultimately, choice of WB is a compromise and subjective. As long as it looks reasonably normal (there are arguments in favour of full correction, partial correction and very little correction), I don't think it's worth worrying too much about. Diliff (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the fact that there are different choices one can make doesn't imply "there's no right and wrong way". That's a fallacious argument. Like exposure or choice of aperture, there are some generally acceptable choices and some generally unacceptable choices. Or choices that usually work and choices that usually don't work. Using a daylight colour balance for a photograph that is mostly carpet+walls lit by tungsten is probably not a great choice. I accept that for an image lit by different kinds of light sources, then improving one area may weaken another area, but here the majority is simply too yellow. And if we focus on one item, such as the carpet, then there is a right colour balance, which is why professionals use ColorChecker cards when shooting products, clothes and artwork. -- Colin (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant within the bounds of normal, as I qualified at the end of the reply. Obviously there are completely wrong ways to present it in terms of WB. I just think this image is within the bounds of normal and acceptable and I recall the interior being particularly warmly lit. In such instances, I don't think you have a choice but to let it remain warm. I also don't think you can focus on a single thing in this scene. Different parts of the scene are lit differently. If you focus on the carpet, the walls become too orange and the windows too blue. If you focus on the windows, everything else is wrong. If this image was really about the carpet, I'd take your point, but it's not. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The nomination is unlikely to succeed and it's not as good as the other FP. Diliff (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there will be one. It's a subjective thing, Colin and I disagree but I don't think it really changes the nomination. It's unlikely to pass and I don't feel the need to support it. I think it's compositionally a little weak if anything. :-) Diliff (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2016 at 03:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
@Ikan Kekek: Funny you should say that. Same issue was brought up when I nominated it for English Wikipedia Featured Picture. However my response was, and still is, "the picture is from one of the side of World Showcase Lagoon, which is basically a giant circle. This may affect your view of the horizon. Personally, the horizon looks pretty straight to me." Tremonist then said that "Even the buildings don't look as if built on even ground what, of course, should be assumed they are. What's wrong with the perspective here?" I responded that "The perspective is partly messed up thanks to the use of forced perspective for the buildings. The American Adventure, the building on the far right that's lit up, is actually five stories tall (not including the top part), but made to look like it's two and a half. Most of the other buildings are made to look larger than they are. I don't remember exact sizes for the rest of them, but if my memory serves me right, most of them are two to three stories." Hope that's good enough for you. Elisfkc (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, that's a good explanation. I feel like this is good enough to be featured in Category:Fireworks, considering the 8 currently featured pictures in that category, including one this one of IllumiNations, which I do think is more spectacular, I'll give this mild Support. I'm not that wowed by it, though. The Featured Pictures in that category that really wow me are this one, this one and this one, then this one (the aforementioned Featured IllumiNations pic), and this one comes pretty close. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective corrected version.
Comment Needs perspective correction IMO. The leaning buildings on the sides are distracting, giant circle or not. Horizon can be fine even is perspective correction is needed. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Elisfkc. The first photo, where the camera is pointing towards the horizon, the buildings do not lean. If you have a wide field of view and point upwards as is done in the second photo you get the 'leaning effect' for the buildings. I just find it distrating that the shadow lights are not parallel. I send you an email last evening, as I have made a perspective-corrected version that I would like you to review and consider. If you reply, I can send it. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But I do not want to nominate it or put it up as an alternative. It is too late in the nomination phase for it to have a realistic chance. I just wanted to inform about how it looks like when perspective corrected. If someone wants to nominate the edit in a fresh nomination page, they are welcome. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has only 1 vote so far. Maybe your best move is to withdraw this nomination and nominate the perspective-corrected version separately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Elisfkc what I'm suggesting is for you to put this template - {{withdraw}} ~~~~ - at the end of this thread, and then start a new nomination of User:Slaunger's perspective-corrected version at the beginning of the nominations list. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 19:10:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cataratas do Iguaçu - Parque Nacional do Iguaçu 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cataratas do Iguaçu - Parque Nacional do Iguaçu 3.jpg
Support - Incredibly, there are no Featured Pictures in Category:Iguazu Falls, and only 3 Quality Images. This is a beautiful and impressive picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's weird how bad it is in full-screen, shutter speed should be lower, he froze the water in a very harsh way. Impressive subject, the image.. eh, the colours, and all the rest are boring... -- RTA20:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It has wow, nice light and composition. I think the processing is quite bad though. It seems like a too big radius has been applied in a sharpening step, as can be seen on the fringing on the central vegetation at the top of the water fall, and then I think a too aggressive noise reduction has been applied, especially in the misty areas in the upper right section of the photo, which looks somewhat posterized/articifial painting-like. I would prefer more pixel noise instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2016 at 01:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - It's an interesting photograph for sure, but I'm not feeling this as a FP. I do like the texture of the paint and the step-forms, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting and creative. The picture makes me curious to understand what I am seeing. Logically, I cannot understand why the composition works for me, but it does! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Additionally there are technical problems: red CA in the top right corner, green CA in the bottom left corner, and the bottom left corner is out of focus. -- Rftblr (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The CA is to a large extend correctable, and I would propose to get that fixed. I can live with the focus issue. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the leaf springs, but they don't stand out enough against the dark background. Not enough of a wow factor for me overall. INeverCry18:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback. I'll look for a different copy of the image with more depth of field and try to fix the CA issues and then I'll renominate some other time. -- Ram-Man23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 12:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I actually think the photo should be cropped even more on the viewer's left, but I love the bird and this photo is good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is nice, but the lighting is bad. There is an overall unsharpness, the background is grainy, and the resolution is on the low side. -- Ram-Man16:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although the composition is good and the harsh light could be ameliorated with careful processing, the overall unsharpness cannot be fixed. -- Rftblr (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 13:05:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guthega Power Station generating house, NSW.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guthega Power Station generating house, NSW.jpg
Mild Support - The sky is a little noisy at full resolution, and the way the drum structure (sorry I don't know the technical name for it) sticks up on the upper right somewhat bugs me, but in all other ways, it's a very good composition and photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Ikan. I only applied chroma denoising to this image, to avoid information loss; hence the sky. I can apply a little luma denoising if need be and that would fix the sky. -- Thennicke (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious to see what that looks like, but if you think the loss of information would be worse on balance than the decrease in noise, I'd respect that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure I see any difference on my monitor between the current version and the "revert" version. If there's a difference, it's apparently tiny. Anyway, I do think this picture is good enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks entirely unnatural to me, clouds too dark-gray for a sunny day, colours leaning to the green side and looking a bit too much desaturated. Composition not appealing to me, the antenna on the top cut off as well as the tree to the left and the basin in the foreground. Excellent level of detail though, but looks overprocessed (maybe tonemapped). --Kreuzschnabel21:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Kreuzschnabel: the sky is too saturated, while the rest of the image is too desaturated. It looks a bit like HDR processing gone wrong. -- Rftblr (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This looks like the definition of "snapshot". I can't point to anything about this picture that makes it special except for the high level of sharpness. The lighting is very harsh. This in addition to problems already mentioned. -- Ram-Man23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2016 at 12:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Diana and Cupid, Pompeo Batoni, Metropolitan Museum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diana and Cupid, Pompeo Batoni, Metropolitan Museum.jpg
Question - I don't remember this painting; I'll have to pay more attention to it the next time I'm in the room where it's displayed. This reproduction looks good, but please tell us, what was the photograph's original size? Was this scanned from a page ripped from a book? It looks like an irregular sheet of paper, photographed on a black background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 17:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great blue heron (Ardea herodias occidentalis) white form.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great blue heron (Ardea herodias occidentalis) white form.JPG
Oppose Excellent light, timing and overall quality, but sorry, I think landscape is the wrong format for such an elongated subject - it should have more air to breathe at the top, and I would have liked to see more of the reflection at the bottom. The position of the main subject in the frame also seems unbalanced to me. It is neither centered or according to the rule of thirds. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. This is a QI, but nothing extraordinary for being a FP. Also, the line dividing the too shades of blue at the top... it's kind of diagonal, which IMO does not make for a pleasant composition. --Xicotencatl (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 11:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 16-00-44 paris.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 16-00-44 paris.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of all the reasons given above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 11:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 16-01-09 paris.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016-02-23 16-01-09 paris.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of all the reasons given above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 11:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anthocharis-cardamines-mâle.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthocharis-cardamines-mâle.jpg
Oppose I agree with Xicotencatl. In particular, the very blue unsharp area directly to the right of the butterfly looks strange, almost as if there were some pollution in that bit of air. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the color is off, and other things mentioned above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 07:58:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg
Comment - This is certainly an interesting photo, and I would support it for its historical significance, interest and good composition, but before I actually decide on how to vote: The original looks sepia-toned. Do you think that could have been an artistic choice, and if so, one we should respect? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my question. Campaigning like a politician instead of addressing questions you're asked is not likely to be effective on this page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to elaborate: If a decision is made that the sepia tone was an artistic choice, it would be very possible to do a restoration that eliminates damage without also getting rid of the sepia. But the desirability and respectfulness toward the photographer of converting this into a brighter black & white picture is what I'd like you to please address. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that compared to the original photo, which is in sepia tones, your "restoration" goes beyond the steps stated in "Other versions": "Cropped. Dirt, creases, and stains removed. Damaged sleeve reconstructed. Colors balanced, including selective color adjustments and partial desaturation." You also changed from sepia toning to black & white and brightened the photo, overall. And what I'm asking is, why is that good, and how sure are you that sepia toning wasn't an artistic choice by the unknown photographer? Do you understand what I'm asking you? I'm sorry that I don't know Arabic, and I'm also sorry I didn't realize you weren't evading my question but didn't understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - So, everyone, since the restorer won't address the question: What do you think about the sepia tones? Was it a good decision to get rid of them in the "restoration", or should we withhold support for this photo on the basis of that decision? I feel like I've been given the runaround, and that makes me emotionally inclined to oppose this nomination, but I don't want to base my vote on the way my question has been treated so far. Please give your opinions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I guess in the end it's a matter of taste and/or what you're using the image for. According to the file description, this is a scan of an en:Albumen print. According to this, it is completely normal for albumen prints to develop a yellow-brownish colour cast quickly after fixation, unless they are "toned" with gold, which made it purplish-brown. Ageing may or may not have had an additional effect on colour, but this print likely never was completely pure black and white. From a scan of the (probably glass-) negative I'd expect B&W, but for a scan from a print the colour cast makes sense to me - at least if you treat it as a historical document on its own (in which case cropping the borders probably wasn't a good idea as well). On the other hand, if you are more interested in the content of the image, it totally makes sense to remove the colour cast. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, El Grafo. I think I'm more interested in this as a historical photo than purely the content - or, rather, I'm interested in both. I think I'd rather compare a more conservative restoration to this one than vote to support this one without a comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify, I will Oppose a feature for this restoration, pending any effort to do and nominate a more conservative restoration. However, I certainly think this should be a Valued Image, despite my reservations about this form of "restoration" of sepia-toned photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 18:48:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Moderate Support - The bird is pretty, and clear except for the tail feathers; the vegetation is pretty and bokeh is acceptable to me. Overall, a fitting candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. I can't support an image when the photographer himself doesn't consider it to be amongst his best work. INeverCry17:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 20:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maroon Bells–Snowmass Wilderness from Burnt Mountain.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maroon Bells–Snowmass Wilderness from Burnt Mountain.jpg
seen from Burnt Mountain 3452 m.a.s.l. in the Snowmass (ski area) in Colorado.]]
Mild Oppose - When I vote to support a nomination of a panorama, that's for one of two reasons: (1) Even if the composition of the panorama isn't interesting in itself, the resolution is so clear that it's a pleasure to explore the terrain at full resolution; (2) Even if the sky is slightly noisy, etc., the composition is great. I'm not bowled over by the composition of this photo, and at full resolution, the sky is fairly noisy in places and a lot of the trees in the middleground are an undifferentiated mass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 19:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support This is part of a series of photos of the former Lager Herbstwald by XRay. This photo originally attracted me with its beauty, but it's also of a historically significant place. See the de.wikipedia article for more information. Quite apart from the qualities of this photo's composition, I find that there's a poetry in seeing how nature has reclaimed a relic of a brutal war. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting history, but I prefer if an image tells its story by itself, and this is not the case here. For me this is a documentary shot of good technical quality, but it does not stand out in any way for me as special. Light is uninteresting as well. It looks very much like basically anywhere in a forest close to my home. Sorry. I appreciate your explanation though of why you find it special, I just cannot tune into that. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I appreciate your explanation of your views, too, though I don't share them. If every view of the forest close to your home would be this good, I think you are living in a very beautiful place - but in that case, I could easily understand why you would have trouble finding forest pics special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good depiction of the subject, nice colors and details, in summary a nice image. However even if better than a qi that stay below a FP. It lacks something in the guide lines of the composition or in the atmosphere to make it visually outstanding. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Though I guess it won't matter, I want to go on record that I do find it a visually striking image and I think the shot would be on FP level. I think the color of the dead leaves has come out very well. It's eye-catching and I enjoy looking at it. ~Mable (chat) 11:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Ikan Kekek for nominating. Yes, IMO it's a remarkable picture. There are a lot of remarkable pictures. But there is no opportunity to nominate remarkable picture. And, sorry, I think this image isn't excellent. May be in future a fourth category for remarkable images will be created, but yet it isn't. --XRaytalk06:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - This is becoming depressing, but thanks for your reviews, everyone. I think from now on, I will at least contact the photogropher whenever possible to get his/her view before nominating any more pictures. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. It's just an experience, don't become depressing. I think it's a good way to try to nominate another kind of image. --XRaytalk07:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 08:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ноќен пејзаж во Мариово (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ноќен пејзаж во Мариово (1).jpg
Oppose - This photo just doesn't look right to me, and I think the main problem is posterization, although there is also noise in the sky. An example of posterization is that the bright rocks in the foreground don't seem to have enough tonal variation. The picture also just seems unnatural, maybe overprocessed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 08:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erwachende Germania.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erwachende Germania.jpg
Info created by Christian Köhler - uploaded by Ws-Kula - nominated by Owain Knight
Comment - Actually, the correct question is: What publication is this from? In full size, we can see the telltale pixellation of pages of a book or magazine. Unless the publication is historically important in itself, I don't see this as a FP. Instead, a great photo of the painting should be nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 08:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GolemoEzero planinarskidom.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GolemoEzero planinarskidom.JPG
I think the motif is quite interesting and the perspective is unique, as the only way to take this picture is from the peak ascending near the lake.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 05:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van Narcissus jonquilla subsp. Fernandesii. Locatie. Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemknoppen van Narcissus jonquilla subsp. Fernandesii. Locatie. Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 04.jpg
Oppose Underexposed; small (6MP); I can't see much detail on the flower bud. Such an everyday and common flower (daffodil) requires an extraordinary photo. Focusing on just the bud is too simple a subject to create an interesting composition. -- Colin (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I vote on every flower photo and I have many flower FPs myself. This is very nice, but unfortunately Colin is dead on. The resolution is too small and there is simply no justification for it. It's not even the best composition in the series. That is this one. That said, if this were a 12MP closeup of the bud with a better exposure, I'd probably ignore the composition issues. Or if it were a less common flower. -- Ram-Man03:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150427002640 - Edifícios Terraço Itália e Copan - Cropped.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150427002640 - Edifícios Terraço Itália e Copan - Cropped.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2016 at 14:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Certainly nice but lacks lots of wow. Colours rather cool, uninteresting perspective, distracting background. I fail to see why this is supposed to be one of the very best images on Commons. --Kreuzschnabel15:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a zombie poking his hand out of the dirt, posing for the camera. It's nature being whimsical. Cypress knees are fascinating biologically, and this one is a great example. -- Ram-Man23:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand why you like this photo. The cypress does have an interesting shape, and its bark is interesting, too. However, the photo as a whole doesn't wow me, somewhat along the lines of what Kreuz said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – for similar reasons as mentioned before. It's an unusual and interesting shape, and the photograph is of good quality, but that's it really. ~Mable (chat) 11:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 10:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It's a pretty picture, but rather mundane. The photograph doesn't pop out much and I could easily scroll past it without even really looking at it. Quality image, but that's it. Maplestrip (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 11:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black-crowned night heron at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black-crowned night heron at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016.jpg
Strong Support In addition to good composition, I expect a FP to have excellent technical quality. This photo has both in spades. -- Rftblr (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already support the photo, but I still have a suggestion: a tighter crop on the top would make the photo perfect for me. I put the suggested crop into an annotation on the nomination page. -- Rftblr (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. The lighting is dark, but it is light at exactly the right place. Nice to see a high resolution bird shot too. -- Ram-Man23:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 22:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Looking up at the spiral staircase in City Hall, London. One day a year, for Open House London, City Hall is open to the public. The view from the balcony on the top, and this spiral staircase on the long walk back down, are worth the queues. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This odd building is asymmetrical and so is its staircase, which reminds me of the spiral you get if you manage to peel an apple in one go, around and around. -- Colin (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support People reflex is cut, shadow noise and maybe overexposed ( B&W is a good choice to hide chromatic problems like OE), maybe I'm wrong, Why B&W?. --The Photographer (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you hold down Alt while dragging the noise or sharpening sliders in Lightroom, it shows a B&W version of your photo. It does this because B&W can sometimes help you see what you need to see and not be distracted by what you don't. There are of course more times when colour is wonderful and necessary. The original colour version doesn't suffer from any chromatic issues due to lens or processing. I'm not trying to hide any flaws; it just doesn't have the same pop. The staircase, from below, is grey and white. What colour there is, takes the eye away from the spiral, and isn't IMO adding anything. Compare this photo on Britannica or this photo in The Guardian. My photo was taken with my Samyang 8mm lens, which gives a much wider view that most people have managed of this scene (e.g. this similar image on Flickr). -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer and now I want ask you something. Reviewing your picture again, i can see a hard noise in shadow in comparison with this one and I thought that it was stairs texture, however, it is not and you can see a better picture quality on that photo, however, your composition is better IMHO. --The Photographer (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Otto Berkeley (the photographer of the Flickr photo we refer to) makes some great photos and is worth following on Flickr. He didn't describe his processing for that shot but many other images explain that he often takes several exposures (up to seven) and blends them with luminosity masks in Photoshop. That's not a technique I'm familiar with but he gets great results. When I've used PtGui to create HDR from multiple-exposures, it is great at eliminating noise. So I suspect that he is benefiting from the exposure blending, his full-frame D800, darker shadows, and perhaps more noise-reduction. I'll have another look tonight to see if I can increase the NR or do so selectively. Otto took a great photo looking down which is a hand-blend of five exposures. Looking down, there is more colour with the green glass barrier following he stairs. I'll upload some more photos later, but I think this one is my best. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a new version with sharpening mask and selective noise-reduction which results in a clearer file. -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, however, when I mentioned "selective noise shadow reduction" I was talking about a manual process. Spiral bottom has a texture of small diagonal stripes (see note) and in the way you rise the spiral, you lose details and more noise apears (noise that could be denoised) --The Photographer (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your comment. There is some moire on some of the segments of the spiral, causing some stripes or whorls. I've just uploaded a new version that uses Lightroom's moire-reduction-tool to remove it from one segment but strangely the tool made the moire worse on another segment so I could only fix one. The "diagonal stripes" might simply be how the dot-pattern on the spiral gets rendered on my sensor as the dots become so small as to be similar size to pixels. I think I've fiddled enough already at the pixel level. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – this picture completely blew me away when I saw it. It easily beats the other pictures of City Hall in the wow-factor. Beautiful Maplestrip (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 14:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Donau City Vienna from Donauinsel on 2014-08-28 crop.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Donau City Vienna from Donauinsel on 2014-08-28 crop.png
Moderate Support. The crop helped much more than I would have expected. The result is a straightforward, clear composition that somehow is satisfying to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JPEG is not free of patent issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Patent_issues They are minor, and will be resolved but PNG does not have those. Additionally PNG is a lossless format, and for large JPG images (>10MB) there is an issue (which I reported) that prevents me from using the Upload Wizard. This issue does not appear with PNG images. I therefore always upload a full-size PNG version, and a (possibly but not always downsized) JPG version that fits in 10MB. The JPG and PNG versions are marked as archival and compressed versions, which links the two images. I always submit the PNG version for QI and FP. Robert F. Tobler (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, preserving EXIF metadata is more important than the tiny amount of quality differences between max JPEG and lossless, but to each their own. The only true lossless format on both fronts is TIFF (I always do my editing in 16-bit TIFF and keep a local copy in that format), but it is too large to upload. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PNG is also truly lossless, and actually preserves EXIF information (this image is just stitched, so there is only Photoshop Metadata left; here is an PNG example with full EXIF information: ). I also use a 16-bit TIFF/ProPhoto RGB workflow. -- Robert F. Tobler (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: it seems that PNG does not support EXIF natively. However, various tools (e.g. Photoshop) mirror EXIF into XMP, which can be embedded in PNG. This is the way PNG Metadata is handled in Wikimedia. -- Robert F. Tobler (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 21:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Floatplane at Bathala (Maldives).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Floatplane at Bathala (Maldives).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 11:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gasoducto junto a la B-145, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 32.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gasoducto junto a la B-145, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 32.JPG
Comment This is a great photo, but I am bothered by a small tilt of the horizon. I think the photo should be rotated counter-clockwise by about 0.35 degrees. -- Rftblr (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rftblr: tilted. How did you know with that accuracy that it needed a 0,35 degree tilt? In this kind of pictures it's hard to find a realiable reference. Poco217:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2016 at 20:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, España, 2015-12-07, DD 105-107 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, España, 2015-12-07, DD 105-107 HDR.JPG
InfoCrossing of the Church of San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain. The church is composed of 3 naves, where the central nave is higher than the lateral ones, with pillars decorated with gothic motifs and very diverse baldachins. The construction of the church began in 1484 due to a visit of the Catholic Monarchs to Jerez de la Frontera, but it took several centuries to complete, resulting in a harmonious mixture of elements from the late Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque. All by me, Poco220:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail. Some blown areas in windows, unavoidable with long exposure and they're not the subject of the image anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2016 at 13:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Little egret at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Little egret at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016.jpg
Support - I love the detail on the egret's left leg, the fact that it's looking at the camera, and the sharpness of the fallen log it's standing on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this were not a bright white bird, it would be underexposed. But I love the detail and the expression. It is better than the other two FP of Egretta garzetta. -- Ram-Man16:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bird alone is so well done, especially given the situation, that it doesn't matter what's behind it. This is a picture I think I will one day be able to say I learned something from. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 13:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlos de la Barra Fort, Isla de San Carlos, Estado Zulia, Venezuela.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Carlos de la Barra Fort, Isla de San Carlos, Estado Zulia, Venezuela.jpg
InfoSan Carlos de la Barra Fortress is a seventeenth century star for protecting Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. The fort is one of a number of coastal fortifications which the Spanish built in Venezuela in colonial times. In the nineteenth century Venezuela achieved independence and the fort continued to be maintained as part of the country's defences. It saw action in the Bombardment of Fort San Carlos when it was attacked by the Imperial German Navy during the Venezuelan crisis of 1902–03, all by -- The Photographer (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a great panorama and composition, but there are a number of stitching artefacts in the unsharp region in the foreground that need to be fixed in my opinion (I marked a few of them in annotations on the nomination page). -- Rftblr (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's now mostly fixed however in the indicated region (annotation) the transition between the unsharp and sharp region is artifically harsh, and in some places (bottom right corner of the region), the clone stamp tool that was used is visible (as you seem to be using Photoshop, I suggest to use the tool with a feathered border) -- Rftblr (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unusual composition. It doesn't really hit (wow) me emotionally, but I certainly appreciate it as striking, interesting and good, apart from the historical significance of the motif, which you helpfully explained above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
btw, the fort has been closed for several years. To do this shoot I had to swim with the camera in a plastic bag, you can not get there from the sides of the fort. --The Photographer (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 19:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info This is a picture of the eastern wing of Spøttrup Castle in Denmark. One of the few remaining medieval castles in Denmark (or one of the few, which have been restored faithfully to medieval times). It is the back side of the castle, showing it is a true water castle with a moat and a large embankment. Take a moment to study and enjoy all the details in the brick work, which is telling of the story of this castle, which has been turbulent. The shafts are connected to early toilets inside the castle leading the waste directly into the moat. This wing was originally built 1525-1530. At that time, the facade contained large arched windows. The remains are clearly seen in the wall. The castle was severely damaged in its north wing by a tidal wave in 1534, and the windows were thereafter replaced by narrow sighting slits. At this time tension was rising in Denmark, and a civil war (the Count's Feud) roared in 1534-36. During this period the castle was under attack by Skipper Clement and was damaged. Over the years the castle had many owners caring only little about the history of the castle and making many restructurings. In the beginning of the 20th centry it looked like this. But after a fire in 1937, the state acquired the castle and decided to restore the moat, embankment, and original red brick surface to bring it back to the form it had when originally constructed. Finally, in 1941, the castle was opened to the public as a museum. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also have images of comparable quality as seen from the south-east and southern wing. I have been a bit in doubt about which one to nominate, but ended up with the east wing (after asking a friend in private) as I find the brick work contains the most interesting details there. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: : I am sorry. I have had a long break from Commons, and I had just soo many words piled up and waiting to come out . I promise; it will not happen again (until the next long break)! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Most of this is a great photo, but what accounts for the distracting motion (?) blur of the trees on the right side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: : Thanks for your observation. It is due to four things.
The top vegetation to the right looked particularly ugly because I had a bad out of focus frame in the stitch, and a seam separating such that the top vegetation originated from that bad frame. I have good overlap between frames, such that I could mask it out in the stitch. The bad frame is now in a new upload only used to fill in some backgroud sky and clouds to the upper right and is not noticeable. So look again!
The stitch covers about 100 ° using an equilateral projection. This gives rise to a considerable geometric distortion of the vegetation at the edges.
It is a windy location and with a shutter speed of 1/250 s, there is some motion blur of the most protruding vegeation.
As focus is on the facade, the background vegeation is naturally a bit out of focus.
Neutral in fact, the other image - we were talking about - wow´s me more... But it´s a pretty good work, except the blurring on the right upper side (wich is repairable with PS because its a HDR, but therefor you have to start again from the very beginning of the postprocessing). --Hubertl10:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: Thanks for your very fair review! Unlike the southern facade, this is actually a single exposure panorama. I have frames from three exposures and have tried to make it HDR as well, but I have had too many problems with moving vegetation and parallax errors for give a useful result (handheld, no tripod). I think the light is better on the alternative, which also has a cleaner composition, but this ones gives a better impression of the construction, and the many restructurings making it more valuable IMO. Regarding the blurry vegetation to the right: Have a look again. I have uploaded a restitch, where it is masked out. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Doesn't seem like it would be so interesting. But it is. I wish there had been less distortion at the sides, but that's the price of perspective correction I guess. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2016 at 19:22:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tolbachik volcano 1975 cone pano Kamchatka on 2015-07-28.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tolbachik volcano 1975 cone pano Kamchatka on 2015-07-28.png
Info 360° panorama on top of the cinder cone of the 1975 eruption of the Tolbachik volcano in Kamchatka on July 28, 2015. In the center the lava flow of the 1975 eruption can be seen, and the peak of the Ostry Tolbachik is visible in the clouds on the right, when zoomed in on the full-resolution version.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 21:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The Photographer: I better continue pinging you then:-) Regarding the image note you added on the file page: Yes, the concrete structure in front of one of the fishing vessels may appear distracting, but it is actually used in towing fishing vessels onto the shore (beaching them). Thus, its presence in the photo has a point, although the composition would have been cleaner without it (also too large to clone out). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ping vote is only a joke. I love this composition, colors and balance and I am not sure if the composition could be better without this object because it represents a part important. Exposition time was a excelent choice because lets see the waves --The Photographer (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 10:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tykadlo.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tykadlo.jpg/2
Oppose Description is somewhat better now, but it still lacks essential information. I can see two distinct types of structure there: Five round ones and many wrinkled ones. What's the difference between them? What are they for? How are they called? It's not even clear whether the image depicts a section of the scapus, pedicellus or the flagellum section of the Antenna. I'd support this in a heartbeat if the information was complete, but at the moment it's like having File:Red White Blood cells.jpg with the description "human blood cells" instead of "From left to right: erythrocyte, thrombocyte, leukocyte". --El Grafo (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:*Comment - I agree with this. Once this is addressed, I'll be happy to support this fascinating photo, but I will provisionally Oppose, pending resolution of this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info It seems to me that the "wrinkled ones" are just the normal scaly surface. The round ones are probably some kind of sensilla, but there are so many different types that also can look different among different species … I guess we need an expert here. --El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 09:05:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling and cupola of Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling and cupola of Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.jpg
Info Ceiling and cupola of Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna. Nominee as single shot (some didnt like 3 in 1.). All by me. --Mile (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 18:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I understand that there are people who like to use ring (or direct) flash when taking macro photos, especially to darken the background for separation. I've always found the effect unnatural. If done right, you can repeat this with natural lighting, like this, this, or more similarly this. -- Ram-Man11:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 20:50:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crucifixion of Christ by Pietro Perugino.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crucifixion of Christ by Pietro Perugino.jpg
Support - There's a bit of glare on the tree in the upper left corner, but this is far and away the best image of this painting on the site (which means it should be a Valued Image, but in this case, I also find it good enough to feature). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 22:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cuban green woodpecker (Xiphidiopicus percussus percussus) female.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cuban green woodpecker (Xiphidiopicus percussus percussus) female.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 17:19:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Moderate Oppose - The file is rather small, though not too small. However, the bird is positioned strangely (for my taste) in the left corner, with lots of empty space, and its body cut off in a way that doesn't feel compositionally justified to me. It's mostly quite sharp, though. I'd suggest nominating this for Valued Image and Quality Image. I know you take a lot of bird pictures. I look forward to seeing one that I'll support for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 22:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lamp March 2016-2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lamp March 2016-2.JPG
Oppose – I love the colors a lot - the dark blue and warm yellow work excellent together - but that's mostly it. The light itself looks like it's slightly off-balance on the pole and the boundaries of the light-sky looks a bit low quality when zoomed in. The simplistic composition is fine, but it doesn't help. ~Mable (chat) 10:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 09:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It might just be because of where I live, but the scene looks normal and uninteresting. The lighting and weather don't help. The ground is littered with vague rock-shaped objects, but I'm not even sure what they are. The horizon isn't entirely straight. I'm overall not sure what the appeal is. ~Mable (chat) 09:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Similar to the first comment: I don't like the dull gray hazy light. The file size (in terms of megapixels) is a bit small, too. I'm not fully convinced that a Quality Image nomination of this photo on Commons would pass, but you can try one. A Valued Image nomination is a natural, as I seriously doubt there's likely to be a better picture of Gorakhpur Junction Railway Station, though I could possibly be wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 11:12:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Israel. Rock Hyrax (15356301944).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Israel. Rock Hyrax (15356301944).jpg
Comment - I'm not sure about this one. The hyrax is pretty, but I'm just a bit bothered by the unsharp branches on the left side of the picture frame and a smaller one that juts out diagonally below the left side of the hyrax. I think a crop on the left side might be helpful. This is surely a good Quality Image, but I'm not sure about a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a good photo and your crop helped on the left side, but left the rock hyrax too low in the frame for my taste. I therefore suggest cropping the top as well. I put my preferred crop in an annotation in the nomination page. -- Rftblr (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had to manually clear the cache, and then I was able to view the current version of this file at full-page and full size. Your crop helped, and I think Rftblr's crop would improve the picture further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much too much contrast. It must be reduced. The shadow is too dark and the brightness too bright. When this is fixed I'll give a neutral. The quality is good but there is not enough wow for me. --Hockei (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 13:37:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Webcartoonist's depiction of his own nervous breakdown.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webcartoonist's depiction of his own nervous breakdown.jpg
Info In 2014, webcomic creator Tarol Hunt "Thunt" Stephens (best known for Goblins) suffered a nervous breakdown and went on hiatus. After two months, his wife persuaded him to draw what he was feeling; he produced this image. - uploaded by DragonflySixtyseven - nominated by Maplestrip (my first nomination) -- Maplestrip (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 18:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore Florenz März 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore Florenz März 2014.jpg
Comment - I haven't decided how to vote on this picture. On the plus side, the stormy skies in the middleground and background and the illuminated buildings in the foreground are unusual for this motif and really appealing to me. On the minus side, I dislike the crop on the left side that seems to randomly cut off a building with a striking sloping roof. Of course the cut-off building is not the featured subject (I don't even remember the name of the cut-off building), but this crop is still sub-optimal to me. I don't suppose there's any way you could add the rest of the building? If not, maybe it would be best to make a crop about halfway between the current left margin and the front (viewer's left side) of the Duomo. I'm not sure precisely where the best place for the crop would be, but maybe just to the right of the red satellite dish. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a pity that the golden globe and cross at the top of the dome is so soft in focus (see annotation). Is it improvable? Nice light, like the dark clouds in the background, gives nice contrast and helps emphasize the main subject. Otherwise on par with or better than this other exterior view FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Contrast between dark clouds and Duomo is a fresh take on this one, at least here. I might have cropped in tighter, though. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
tactical Oppose: if this is cropped as per Daniel Case and my crop suggestion on the nomination page I will support it. — Rftblr (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My crop suggestion was a little further to the right on the left side ("maybe just to the right of the red satellite dish"), but I think your crop suggestion would satisfy me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2016 at 22:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Presidential Palace in Warsaw (by Pudelek) 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Presidential Palace in Warsaw (by Pudelek) 2.jpg
Mild Oppose. I like the idea of this photo, and the blue-hour light is pretty. However, the light is kind of a dead weight with no clouds, so I then am left to contemplate the rest of the composition. And for my taste, a more nearly symmetrical composition that doesn't cut off the right-hand building so far away might make me fully appreciate the picture in spite of the lack of great interest in the sky. This is definitely a very good Quality Image, but as I don't feel there's that much encouraging my eye to move around the picture frame, I'm not feeling this as a Featured Picture. Sorry, and much respect to you for your effort. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 22:08:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tibães March 2016-21.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tibães March 2016-21.jpg
Info Antiphonary in the High Choir of the Church of S. Martinho de Tibães, Portugal (need the help of a better Latinist to translate the text!...). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - I don't love the unsharpness on the left and right sides, especially as it affects the view not only at full resolution but at full-page size, but I'm willing to tolerate that because of the overall quality of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 14:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I am not a professional photographer, I use compact cameras, but more than 15 years my hobby to photograph locomotives. The photograph 9Pm locomotive monument located in the factory museum in the city of Nizhny Tagil (Russia). I also do not speak English and I use Google translator, sorry. -- Volovik Vitaly (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is a bit harsh, and the composition doesn't work for me; there's too much dark area at bottom, a blown building at right, and I can't help wondering what the structure we see looks like further up and to the left. As for the compact cameras, I would suggest upgrading to a decent digital SLR if at all possible. Before digital was big, I used to use a Mamiya RB67 and a Minolta XE7; the difference between the results from those, and the results from the Nikon Coolpix I'm stuck with at the moment leaves no doubt whether an upgrade is worth it . You can get a Nikon D3300 on Amazon.com, with a standard 18-55mm lens, for around 500$ new (I'm saving up for the very same). INeverCry00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – because of the shadow (per Mile), and because I don't like the composition much. Perhaps cropping the bottom would help. I don't really like the dirty brown look either. I don't think it's as good as other featured pictures. ~Mable (chat) 08:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm by no means against pictures of locomotives at all, and I've happily voted to feature a number of photos of trains and nominated one, but while I respect your initiative in nominating this photo, I won't be supporting a feature in this case. A search for Featured Pictures under Commons Category:Locomotives produces 63 results. Most of the results actually do show locomotives, but most are not shot at close range. However, a fair number are. Looking at those pictures will give you a sense of what the standard is for featuring close-range photos of locomotives on Commons. In most cases, there is some kind of scenery, or there are clouds or people that help the composition. However this is an example of a picture of the train without beautiful scenery, sky or visible people, though it's not a closeup of a locomotive. Here's another example that might be more relevant to you, perhaps. Or there's this one, though note the scenery. All of this is to say that I don't think your composition in this photo is as harmonious as the Featured Pictures in Category:Locomotives are, but see if looking through those pictures could inspire you to take a photo that is, or if you already have another photo that could meet with more approval on this page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the locomotive in your first link, though I'm not sure about the crop on the left side, and some people would want you to crop closer on the bottom, too. From the list of files, the picture I like best is this one, but though I like its composition, the light is a little glary and parts of the photo aren't so sharp, so I don't think it would be approved for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Per INC. To address my remarks to the original nominator: В правде, мне нравится лоҝомотив в єтом промышленным настройки. И цветы сильны. Но, таҝ INeverCry, Я обеспокоен темным пятном в нижней части. Я думаю, что вы получите лучшие результаты с лучшей камерой, как это было предложено. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 13:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015.10.10.-08-Viernheim--Gruener Knollenblaetterpilz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.10.10.-08-Viernheim--Gruener Knollenblaetterpilz.jpg
I like the composition and the mushrooms are great, but the lighting still doesn't do it for me overall. I agree with Ram-Man's oppose rationale below, so I'll stay at neutral. INeverCry16:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It's a good picture for Quality and Valued standards, but it gets absolutely no "wow" from me. The colors don't stand out much and the composition isn't very interesting either... But that's just me, I suppose. ~Mable (chat) 08:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 16:56:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 11:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Radiation Dose Chart by Xkcd.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radiation Dose Chart by Xkcd.png
Support – Munroe's dosage chart is both very useful to gain understanding of the topic and notable on its own as part of xkcd. ~Mable (chat) 11:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Actually, there are SVG versions specifically intended for translations, but they are significantly less pleasant to look at. See this image. ~Mable (chat) 12:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination – I had not considered translation as much as I probably should have. The SVG-versions aren't nearly the visual quality of the PNG. I suppose there's no reason to go on with this one. ~Mable (chat) 14:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 09:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Batya Uziel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Batya Uziel.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 08:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - This photo has a complex form in which all the elements work in beautiful symbiosis, in my opinion. I really enjoy the diverse lines from the various wires, tracks and other elements, the cheery bright light, the contrasting colors and shapes, and the trees and bushes and contrast between them and the tracks. If this photo were only about the locomotive, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting to me; the shape and colors of the locomotive help, but it's the sum of the parts that really makes this special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I think it's a very beautiful and eye-catching picture. I wonder if the background is a bit too busy and if the subject is focused on enough. The background can definitely be distracting. I'm not entirely sure if the image has a noise issue - I'm not really experienced enough to pick up on that. I think I could be swayed to a support or oppose after seeing a few more people comment on it. ~Mable (chat) 09:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my opinion, the background is not distracting, but instead, is an integral part of a unified composition that the locomotive is a part of. If you'd like a comparison with paintings, this is more akin to a painting of figures in a landscape than to a portrait on a black background; by analogy, the locomotive is perhaps first among equals but is not meant to be the exclusive focus of the viewer's eye any more than the figures in, say, a mythological landscape are expected to be the sole focus of the viewer's eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion a background can only be seen as a part of a unified composition if it is somehow topically related to the subject. In this case a suitable background could have been e.g. railway tracks or a railway freight terminal. The background in this case looks too arbitrary for me, and does not help the composition at all. Thus although a good QI, this photo is not FP for me. — Rftblr (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
reply - The background is what's next to the tracks! So it's obviously related to the tracks and a locomotive on them. Do you feel the same way about paintings? I certainly hope not, but perhaps you don't like a whole lot of great art, or perhaps you feel that photographs cannot possibly be good if they do the same or a very similar thing compositionally to what many great paintings do (I thought, for example, of this work by Pissarro, as it's no less natural for buildings and trees to line a street than for them to be next to the train tracks in a city). The way the different elements interact (or do not interact) to the viewer as part of the form on the picture frame is the only thing that matters for whether the foreground, middleground and background are "related" - not whether they are in some theoretical way "topically related" (because only tracks or a terminal need to be next to a train?) or whether they "distract" the viewer from the "subject". In many cases, the subject is the form; not all artworks are portraits on a black background or the equivalent. I fully understand that people are finding the light too glary, the contrast too great, or simply not feeling a wow - I respect all of that, and apparently need to expect most photographs with bright light to be voted down on this board. But the idea that the different elements in an artwork have to be related in any way other than as a form is a kind of thinking that, however much I respect you for your own art, seems inflexible and wrongheaded to me, in that if I'm reading your meaning correctly, you are deciding beforehand that if you cannot rationalize a "topical relationship" between the "subject" and the "background", the form can't work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am built way simpler than you infer: If I don't like a background optically, but there is some connection between the subject an background that makes sense to me I might still tolerate it. In this case I don't like it, it just seems arbitrary to me and I just don't see your rationalization of its connection with the subject. — Rftblr (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since this thread is still here for now: If you don't like the background in a photo for reasons of form or technique, that of course makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure I'd go further than that, myself, except to the extent that I tolerate bokeh sometimes while not really liking the bluriness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - You all may have a point about glare. I didn't really focus on it before, but there may be clipping on parts of the trees facing the tracks and the white buildings on the right. I haven't changed my mind about the composition, but there's no point in prolonging this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Knowing that I'm a bit late... The subject is interesting, the image is very colourful and I like to scroll through the details, the background included. I am with Ikan Kekek here. --Cayambe (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 03:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata 'Royal Star' Flower High DoF.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata 'Royal Star' Flower High DoF.jpg
I like this one better (or even this one), but alas you can't feature a flower on the commons with shallow depth of field. Well, almost. If this one fails, maybe I'll try one of those others and see, but I think the majority of reviewers would prefer this one. -- Ram-Man03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2016 at 08:24:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 12:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - Snow leopards are very rare, but only part of the leopard's face is in focus, so I really don't know how to vote. I will probably abstain and leave this to everyone else's discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't compare a "focus" of wild animals with a common zoo animal or a building. Circumstantial factors should be taken. To say that this picture is unfocused is absurd, especially because of the difficulty and some evaluators are not able to distinguish, rigid minds that evaluate all photos alike.--The Photographer (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What possessed you to personally attack me for abstaining with an explanation in two instances? And since this photo was apparently shot at a zoo, should I then vote against it instead of abstaining? I'll make my own decisions about how to vote and why, if you don't mind terribly. And you might want to review my remarks in the thread about the vizcacha picture, since you're really so interested in my reasons for abstaining, which in that case were by no means solely intellectual. Finally, I'll simply say that in cases in which a consensus here decides that a photo of a rare wild animal is for whatever reason too flawed to be featured, that's what Valued Images are for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Description and categorization on file page should be improved. It should mention, e.g., that it was taken in Roger Williams Park Zoo, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. It is a zoo shot. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, I had not seen that nomination. The request to improve the file page for this nomination is still relevant though. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Other similar FP of captive felines (like this) do not require allowances for rarity of subject. The depth of field is at least 2/3 stops too shallow in the most important part of the photo. -- Ram-Man11:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2016 at 15:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I agree with Livio that it would be nice to see the tops of all the fireworks, but I don't find the lack of them debilitating for this picture, as the cropped fireworks have the effect of drawing the viewer's (or at least this viewer's) eyes to the top of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 01:21:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/ File:Booker T. Washington by Francis Benjamin Johnston, c. 1895.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/ File:Booker T. Washington by Francis Benjamin Johnston, c. 1895.jpg
Neutral – It's a quality and valuable historical portrait, but the photograph seems to have a somewhat shallow depth of field, with both his shoulders being out of focus. It doesn't appear bad while zoomed out, but becomes very noticeable when zoomed in to look at details. I don't know if this is normal for historical photographs of this time, but I wouldn't feel right to support it based on the discussions of some contemporary photographs discussed here. ~Mable (chat) 11:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of have to judge 19th century photography by different standards. A medium with such long exposures that required head braces just isn't comparable to a modern dSLR; it's still the relatively early days of the medium. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even judged by today's standards, the composition, expression, and exposure are all very good. The shallow DoF has legitimate mitigating reasons. -- Ram-Man02:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's some motion blur at full size, but that's to be expected given the slooow shutter speeds at that time. And more importantly: It's sharp enough at screen size and should print just fine on A4 (with a little bit of sharpening, maybe). I'm not blown away wow-wise, but I think it's got something special to it (even though I'm not sure what exactly it is). Otherwise per Ram-Man. --El Grafo (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2016 at 13:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/ File: Rue Burdeau Est - 69001 Lyon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/ File: Rue Burdeau Est - 69001 Lyon.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 08:10:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro de las ruinas romanas de Itálica, Santiponce, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 34-45 PAN HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro de las ruinas romanas de Itálica, Santiponce, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 34-45 PAN HDR.JPG
InfoAmphitheater of the ancient roman city of Italica, today municipality of Santiponce, near Seville, Spain. The amphitheater was build during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138) and, with a capacity of 25,000 spectators, was one of the biggest amphitheaters in the Roman Empire. Italica was the first roman city in Hispania and was founded in 206 BC by the great Roman general Publius Cornelius Scipio (later given the nickname Africanus) to settle his victorious veterans from the Second Punic Wars against Hannibal and the Carthaginians. All by me, Poco208:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture is a HDR panorama: I used a tripod to take pictures from 3 angles, and each of them with 3 different exposures. I also had to do some editing to remove some tourists. Poco209:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really well done! I love the cypresses in the background, and I wouldn't be surprised if some were there during ancient Roman times, too, and were appreciated by them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interesting and very good looking amphitheater; I love the panorama composition. It shows the ruins off beautifully. ~Mable (chat) 11:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 07:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Well, why not? Well captured, useful, good quality — and not unnecessarily downsampled. If there was a bit more detail in the highlights, this would be surely a perfect photo of its motif; but nonetheless an FP. --A.Savin08:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 09:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tulum - God of the Winds Temple 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tulum - God of the Winds Temple 03.JPG
InfoTulum is the archaeological site of a postclassic Maya city situated on the east coast of the Yucatán Peninsula on the Caribbean Sea in the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico. The structure to the left is the God of Winds Temple as seen from the south. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done ! But... couldn't you erase the bottle (see note on picture) laying on the beach at the bottom left corner ? --Gzzzzz18:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 07:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:UGC 1810 and UGC 1813 in Arp 273 (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:UGC 1810 and UGC 1813 in Arp 273 (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg
Comment - Right now, I'm getting a "502 Bad Gateway nginx/1.9.4" error when trying to use the non-flash zoom tool, which is also making it impossible for me to judge photos of paintings for Picture of the Year. Once that starts working again, I'll be able to judge this. The thumbnail looks great and most NASA photos are excellent, so I'd expect to support this. Does anyone have any other suggestions? I remember one of you suggested another zoom tool for another picture. I don't really want to resort to downloading huge photos in order to view them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. It's beautiful at that size, and I suppose that view is sufficient for me to Support this nomination, but I'd still like to see a larger size of the image with more details that I'm missing. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Hubble pictures of galaxies we get to see here are a bit like sunset shots: Spectacular at the beginning, but the more you've seen the more you get used to it and they start to become boring and alllookthesame. Compared to those, this one looks like a carefully composed artwork to me and brings back quite a bit of the WOW I experienced when I saw my first high-res Hubble galaxy picture. --El Grafo (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 01:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:"A New Sandow Pose (VIII)", Eugen Sandow Wellcome L0035270 - restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:"A New Sandow Pose (VIII)", Eugen Sandow Wellcome L0035270 - restoration.jpg
Comment Something a bit unusual, but I think interesting as an example of how the entire bodybuilding movement got started. (Sandow was basically the first bodybuilder, and the early movement had rather a lot of these sorts of things.)
Oppose This is a good digital reproduction of the print, but imho the print itself is not a good reproduction of the original photograph. It's a heavily rastered newspaper-grade print and I doubt that this is an adequate representation of the original at least resolution-wise. Maybe I'm overly picky here, but I don't think we would feature a file showing Mona Lisa that is a scan from a printed art catalog rather than a direct digital reproduction of the original, would we? --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmh, seems like this was explicitely shot for publication in this magazine, so it's quite possible that this is the only publicly available version. Starting to doubt my decision … --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 15:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Janki Mandir.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Janki Mandir.JPG
Oppose - I agree with The Photographer that you should crop at least half the sky from the top. I'm not a big technical expert on photography (many of the other regulars here are), but it looks to me like the whole picture is too bright. The whites on the facade of the building need to stand out a little more from the surroundings, but they can't without more contrast between them. Maybe one of the others will have specific technical suggestions of the best way to do this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the composition of the alternate version. I agree that some sharpening would help. The buildings to the left of the Janki Mandir are notably unsharp. And I still think upping the contrast between the buildings and surrounding sky and ground, if justifiable based on how it actually looked, would be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed, chromatic abberrations, not really sharp - sorry. It is really a great motive, but everything must be perfect here in FP. Je-str (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2016 at 15:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset view of the Janaki Mandir (Janakpur, Nepal) captured on Nov. 02, 2012..JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset view of the Janaki Mandir (Janakpur, Nepal) captured on Nov. 02, 2012..JPG
Oppose – per Ikan; it's a pretty sunset/rise, but the building in question might as well have been my local shopping mall with some towers on top - it is too dark to see much of it. Meanwhile, the whole top-third isn't aesthetically pleasing either. I don't think the picture is entirely sharp, though I'm not 100% sure of that. Still a pretty sunset, though. Maplestrip (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2016 at 20:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling Painted Dome Cupola Angels Fighting Demons in Vatican Museums.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling Painted Dome Cupola Angels Fighting Demons in Vatican Museums.png
Question - I like this picture, but is it possible to make it oval-shaped with the border being the oval's circumference, so that there's no rectangular border with random(?) gray filled in when I look at it in full-page and full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The background is transparent, so how the border will look like depends on your browser/image software. The only other option would be to give the border a solid colour, since the usual file formats for raster images seem to only support rectangular images. --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2016 at 22:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pietà (Perugino).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pietà (Perugino).jpg
Not done Please compare with this well balanced image. BTW, you are not the "author" of this work, please take a look Artwork template documentation For some objects "author" is more appropriate term than "artist". In most cases either "author" or "artist" should be used, not both. --The Photographer (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done WB is wrong and that version is too dark,but this thing are boring for me --LivioAndronico(talk) 22:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2016 at 19:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Total lunar eclipse.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Total lunar eclipse.png
Each of the photos in this series is small, with little detail. So considering that this is being nominated for a feature as one of the best photos on the site, my view is that logically, I should Oppose the nomination as not special enough. This series could be nominated for Valued Image, though, if there is no other similar series with that status at present. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2016 at 10:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Siena Cathedral facade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Siena Cathedral facade.jpg
Oppose - Undoubtedly a high-quality photo technically, but I don't like the crop on the bottom that cuts off St. Peter's pedestal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It just feels too strongly cropped. My eye keeps falling on the solid color of the sky near the cross, but all the interesting stuff is down in the lower-third. I find it somewhat unpleasant to look at because of it. ~Mable (chat) 19:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 15:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Israel Supreme Court.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Israel Supreme Court.jpg
Oppose The right part of the building is overexposed, and the white balance is not perfect : the whole picture is yellowish... sorry --Gzzzzz18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for noise, focus problems, lack of overall wow, etc. Definitely a useful picture, though, so try a Valued Image nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of overexposure. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2016 at 01:41:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marshall Point Lighthouse Center.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marshall Point Lighthouse Center.JPG
Comment - I would vote for your crop, too, if it were nominated, but my reaction (though I could change my mind) is that it isn't superior to this one, just different. The placement of the lighthouse in the middle of this picture makes it more restful to me, whereas your crop would produce more of a sense of motion by emphasizing the clouds to the lighthouse's left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not tilt, it is perspective. The things "tilted" down to the right are closer to the camera. The white blocks are horizontal on the pillar and the lighthouse. There is no horizon visible, so even the straight lines in the blocks assume that the builders actually built them level. There is no reliable horizontal reference. -- Ram-Man21:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is, I saw that at my first view. It is very easy to correct it. Almost lossless. Rotation in RawTherapee 0.51. Try it and you will see, that it looks much better. --Hockei (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I love the clouds, I love the rocks, I love the white structure, and I even love the background. I think it's all-round a solid picture. I'm more bothered by the person in red hiding in the sea than by the slight tilt, but neither are really noticeable. Great composition! ~Mable (chat) 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 13:44:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Gegharkunik, Sewanawank, Kościół Świętych Apostołów (07).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Gegharkunik, Sewanawank, Kościół Świętych Apostołów (07).jpg
Moderate Support - Very picturesque, pleasant light (though a bit hazy in the distance), nice composition, and while there are areas that aren't fully sharp (e.g., some of the flowers from the center to the right [motion blur from wind?]; the background across the body of water, which is completely understandable and arguably good; and regrettably, the cross on top of the church), I don't think they are disqualifying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disorderly composition because it is not possible to know the main subject of the composition and several weight objects are observed which makes it difficult to focus on one. In addition, the bushes are disturbing and prevent complete visualization of the church. --The Photographer (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually rather like the composition, as the gravestones form a nice perspective line pointing the subject, taking good advantage of it being off-center. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even after concidering the opposing arguments I still support. I might be a different kind of thinker as I don't find the composition confusing. I don't think the main subject has to be either the building alone or the stones but they can both interact together in the same picture. The subject is then broader, which is the place itself. --Ximonic (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 10:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
weakOppose Too bad for this nice image / bird. But the DOF is too small. I had chosen an smaller aperture (f/8 at least and not f/5.6). --Hockei (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – The bird is beautiful, but the out-of-focus front part of the twig is not agreeing with my eye. Left claw too. Same issue as Hockei, I believe. ~Mable (chat) 12:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - This is a very good Quality Image, but compared to other photos we've been featuring, I think it's just not quite sharp enough to meet the very high standard of featured bird pictures. In other words, it's not that the picture isn't very good - I think it is. It's that the standard for featuring is so high. I agree with Mable on the twig, too, but that couldn't really be cropped without also cropping part of the bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2016 at 18:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:16-03-30-Jerusalem-Altstadt-RalfR-DSCF7786.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:16-03-30-Jerusalem-Altstadt-RalfR-DSCF7786.jpg
Oppose - Sorry, I've been looking for a photo of yours that would be a good FP nominee, but I don't love this composition. The mosque is much more beautiful and interesting than the foreground, which is given greater weight (or at least equal weight). I also don't find that this photo greatly facilitates my moving my eye around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2016 at 16:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Universität Wien - Vestibül großer Festsaal Stiegenhaus-2186.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Universität Wien - Vestibül großer Festsaal Stiegenhaus-2186.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 09:35:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zion Amir.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zion Amir.jpg
Support Excellent portrait with attention to detail (background!). Thanks for the higher resolution, now I can whole-heartedly support. --El Grafo (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 13:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ciliate.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ciliate.svg
Neutral - I don't have a strong opinion about this, except that it seems useful, so regardless of the outcome of this nomination, it should be nominated for Valued Image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 18:04:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nutella food truck.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nutella food truck.jpg
Because it's a amazing super wow extraordinary composition, unreal, beyond belief, mind-bending, overwhelming. Any factor is purely subjective (non-technical) and it depend of you and your culture. I prefer to leave it to free interpretation, if you have doubts about if this is a FP, you should vote Oppose. For example, background could be disturbing for someone and for someone else not because background is same subject street food :) --The Photographer (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might want to argue for the composition and give me something more to consider, but I guess I'll just Oppose based on it not being that sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose because of too tight crop (left/top/right) and oversharpening (sharpened noise visible all over the frame). Nice idea and magic colours though, certainly a beautiful image, just not perfect enough to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel05:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything obviously wrong with your settings. Maybe an even shorter focal length would have enabled you to go for a slower shutter speed without risking blur due to camera shake and then in turn go down with the ISO a bit. But then again wider lenses tend to have slower apertures. Speaking of aperture: Maybe you could have tried another shot at F1.8 or 2.2 (depending on how well your lens performs wide open) to see if that still brings you enough DOF and less noise (through lower ISO). After all, with a DSLR you don't have to pay for film ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Putting the noise and crop issues mentioned above aside for a moment: As long as I look the cart only and ignore everything around it, this is a beautiful image - love it! I realize that in the streets you have to work with what is there. Nevertheless, the surroundings are a part of the picture, and like the choice of the main subject they can make or break the over-all image. In this case, unfortunately for me they break it. The yellow-ish light coming from the sharp right (easily visible on the panels behind the cart) is not in perfect harmony with all that purple, but on second thought might actually work quite nicely (warm yellow balancing the cool purple ...). It's the background in the upper third that's bugging me most. 1) That section adds several different light sources that don't really harmonize with the main purple and yellow ones. (Try converting to greyscale to see this: The magic of the purple of course is gone, but also the background is much less attention-grabbing) 2) The background is way too "busy" for me, especially the people below the red roof of the cart are very distracting for me. I'm actually having difficulties keeping my eyes on the subject as they always seem to drift towards the heads. Again, shooting wide open might have helped a bit with that. The borders between subject and background are pretty straight and simple apart from that potted plant, so it might be worth a try applying some gaussian blur to the background to smoothen things out a bit. As always: Just my personal impression, someone who actually knows something about street photography might disagree strongly. --El Grafo (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done@El Grafo: Excellent comments, I removed distracting people, I denoised area (top parasol and main object) and yellow bottom light. Please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But will you please fix the black backpack of the guy who wears white shirt in the middle of the photo? It looks weird :). Thanks Ali Zifan21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 15:02:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Smooth-billed ani (Crotophaga ani) GC.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Smooth-billed ani (Crotophaga ani) GC.JPG
Support, although I must say I don't find it's a good crop. The left side should be cut a bit and above should be a bit more room. --Hockei (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The bird is sharp, the post is sharp, the bokeh is good. I don't care greatly about the crop - if anything, I'd like a little more room on the bottom, all things being equal, but this is fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 12:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Comercio de peluches en Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 47.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Comercio de peluches en Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 47.JPG
Support Excellent, the visible distortion in the corners doesn't really bother me. I guess even a fisheye lense could produce wonderful results here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea but Oppose for technical reasons: Overexposure on some white areas, altogether hopelessly oversaturated (red channel blown on many red objects), noisy, looks oversharpened at full view (sharpened noise speckles). See annotations. Especially in an image like this I would appreciate a high level of detail. I’d suggest to re-process (less contrast, less saturation) and re-nominate. --Kreuzschnabel18:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kreuzschnabel: I've uploaded a new version where I have tried to address your issues. Please, take into consideration that this is no studio picture (no tripods allowed, lots of people, bad lighting) and I do see lots of details actually. Doing a panorama hier to get more detail was almost imposible as the items in the botton where next to the walking path. Poco219:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel this focal length suits this subject. The stuffed animals in the corners are hopelessly distorted. I appreciate that you chose this focal length for a reason (people around) but for me it just doesn't work. But others might not mind it! -- Thennicke (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have mixed feelings about opposing a feature, but I have to concede that I am not wowed by this photo. I like a lot of compositions with complicated forms, but this one doesn't give me as much pleasure to look at as some others do. I'm not sure why that is, but the composition isn't really speaking to me. It feels to me like a jumble without obvious order. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just doesn't work for me. It's too chaotic to have a clear composition, but too ordered to be totally random. And personally I do mind the distortion. --El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 12:21:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - This photo is very interesting and useful and should definitely be nominated for Valued Image. I'm less sure of featuring it, because there are Landsat photos of every part of the Earth, so I think that a featured Landsat image should be not only fascinating but beautiful, and while this has some elements of good composition, I'm not fully convinced that it's a great composition. I'll think it over and may vote to support later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2016 at 23:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jielbeaumadier gorilla gorilla gorilla femelle madrid 2014.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jielbeaumadier gorilla gorilla gorilla femelle madrid 2014.jpeg
Oppose - Hi, Jiel. I've noticed that you've contributed a lot of Valued Images, so I'm glad to see you participating here, but unfortunately, I don't see this as a featurable picture. One reason is that the light is unpleasant to me. Surprisingly, Commons Category:Gorilla contains no Featured Pictures of live gorillas, but I think this is the best Quality Image of a gorilla. I'm not sure I'd vote to feature it if it were nominated, because I dislike the bokeh, but look at the composition, which I find to be a much clearer example of a portrait, with better light, and a more expressive facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll look forward to that. I'm an admin at Wikivoyage, which is how I got turned on to Commons in the first place. I've inserted thumbnails of a number of your Valued Images into Wikivoyage articles. So thank you for those photos! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per Ikan Kekek. Poor crop (face in center of frame, leaving too much space to the left and top), main subject in shadow against bright background. This can be taken better. --Kreuzschnabel07:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this picture touches me badly, but unfortunately the technical implementation from the perspective of photography is not good --Hubertl08:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 22:35:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jielbeaumadier veau madrid 2014.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jielbeaumadier veau madrid 2014.jpeg
Oppose Nomination by accident? Nothing special here, and very mediocre quality (NR loss-of-detail), eyes hardly visible, centered composition, boring attitude, uninteresting surrounding, dull lighting, slightly underexposed. Sorry, I cannot probably see why this is supposed to be one of the very best images on Commons. --Kreuzschnabel12:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2016 at 06:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Braga March 2016-20a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Braga March 2016-20a.jpg
Oppose - I realize, of course, that the perspective non-correction is fully intentional, and the picture is sharp with good light and a pretty sky, but it nevertheless bothers me that your approach cuts off the lower corners of the cathedral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 10:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Wiese in der Bauerschaft Börnste -- 2016 -- 1523-9.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Wiese in der Bauerschaft Börnste -- 2016 -- 1523-9.jpg
Yes, I fully agree. IMO one of best light conditions ever. Fresh and clear light (and it's not hectic, the birds are singing). But it's true, you must wake up early. --XRaytalk07:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fog, morning dew, I can almost smell the cow patties - I see more of a detail punch (dynamic contrast) rather than the harsher HDR tweak - it's hard to eliminate a noticeable halo effect created with HDR manipulation, especially when there's fog, but I'm not seeing that here - even after I used Refresh Tears. Atsme📞22:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking about too, but in the end, I belief that this effect is more due to the hoarfrost and not so much the tone mapping. Maybe a little. --Hubertl09:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
XRAYs image self describtion: "HDR-Bild nach Tone Mapping". I know this effect very well! I still think this is too much HDR (the halos is very typical for this!) and no hoarfrost. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2016 at 13:13:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:August Wilhelm Julius Ahlborn - Blick in Griechenlands Blüte - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:August Wilhelm Julius Ahlborn - Blick in Griechenlands Blüte - Google Art Project.jpg
Support -- Very high in resolution. Rich colors. Sharp with lots of interesting details. An overlooked masterpiece, in my opinion. Carlylean (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Why hasn't anyone commented on this one yet? I'm not really good at judging paintings... Regardless, I think this is a very beautiful composition. I particularly love the background. The painting has this level of detail that makes it very enjoyable to explore. ~Mable (chat) 08:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can speak for myself on this. I don't know this artist or his style, so if I supported this photo, I'd have to trust that Google got it right, but I really can't have an informed opinion about that. I'm also a little confused about what we're judging, because it's described as by August Ahlborn after Karl Friedrich Schinkel, so is it a copy of another artist's painting? If so, how significant a work is this copy, that we're now judging a photograph of - so at least twice removed from the original? As for the painting itself, it's ambitious, but either the composition doesn't really work for me or the photo hasn't given it a clear enough representation in some way. And for this big a painting (235 × 94 cm / 92.5 × 37 in), a larger file would also be welcome; unless my memory is tricking me, I thought I recalled that previous Google Art Project files have been huge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2016 at 20:49:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Topiary gardener (or artist?) working a cypress in the cemetery of Tulcán, located in the city of Tulcán, capital of the Carchi Province, north of Ecuador. The cemetery, of a surface of 8 hectares (20 acres), was founded in 1932 to replace the former on that was damaged in the 1923 earthquake. José María Azael Franco Guerrero was back in 1936 in charge of the city parks and started topiary works in the Tulcán cemetery. In the meanwhile the cemetery park has become internationally popular in the art of topiary (practice of clipping the foliage and twigs of trees and shrub to develop and maintain defined shapes) and was renamed in 2007 to cemetery Azael Franco to honour his work. Poco220:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2016 at 21:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Yes. It’s a hilly region, the flue goes uphill actually, so the horizon hardly ever will be straight. This lens is virtually distortion-free on an OM-D body, and even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t bend a cross-center line. --Kreuzschnabel17:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 20:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Daurian redstart at Daisen Park in Osaka, January 2016 II.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Daurian redstart at Daisen Park in Osaka, January 2016 II.jpg
Oppose It's a shame that there are blown highlights and the bird is looking away from us. The focus on chest much sharper than head. Charles (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 12:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP, 35.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP, 35.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2016 at 15:49:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Afrastering om natuurgebied. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Afrastering om natuurgebied. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 06.jpg
Neutral - Very pretty landscape picture, as usual from you; however, I'm not fully convinced it's a FP. I don't know what would be further to the left, but I feel like my eyes need a bit of space to the left of the leftmost tree. If I had that, I'd probably like the composition enough to vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but imo nothing special about this landscape. It is easy to catch very similar view somewhere in Rhein-Erft-Kreis on a usual sunny day, just to name one example amongst many. --A.Savin08:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Fairly "common" scene, but it's well captured and beautiful. The photographer certainly composed the scene well. -- Ram-Man02:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2016 at 10:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arnsberg-Panorama Herbst 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arnsberg-Panorama Herbst 2015.jpg
Support – I really enjoy looking through this panorama and seeing all the details. The trees on either side beautifully frame the town, and the colors are just generally pleasant. The biggest issue I notice is that the foreground is in the shadow of the trees, but I look at this more as a stylistic situation and I think it may be for the best that the big white building isn't as well-lit as the rest of the town. ~Mable (chat) 11:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not blown away by the composition, but like you, I really enjoy looking around the panorama at full resolution, and also the beautiful colors of fall foliage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 11:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erosion of tephra layers - Lanzarote 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erosion of tephra layers - Lanzarote 01.JPG
Support - More fascinating than beautiful to me, but fascination is quite a sufficient reason to support a feature of a photo that's sharp and has a good composition. Supporting this picture is not a hard decision for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 17:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2016 at 11:44:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lillehammer 2016 - Short track 1000m - Men Finals - Tjerk De Boer, Yerkebulan Shamukhanov and Aaron Heo 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lillehammer 2016 - Short track 1000m - Men Finals - Tjerk De Boer, Yerkebulan Shamukhanov and Aaron Heo 3.jpg
Oppose Composition doesn't work for me. The skater in the middle looks great, but I would've preferred to see the other two skaters fully rather than having them cut off at the knees. INeverCry16:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your point, I think your proposition doesn't work either. You'll find yourself with either too much space on the right, the top and the bottom, or a decentered in-focus subject. Pleclown (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would've been better for your composition if the American skater was in first place, or if the guy in third was further behind on the inside... INeverCry17:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not an easy to make picture. But anyway, there are too many artefacts (noise). The high ISO (1,250) leads to this. Also the DOF is too low. The blurred front man on the left side borders me. Sorry, not FP in my eyes. Composition I'm not sure. --Hockei (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose despite the actual rules and the good practice here, this picture is not FP. The composition is pretty good, but there are a lot of problems especially sharpness and noise. It´s a pity, that we are not able to create some special rules for live-pictures (sports, events, concerts), everyone can accept and use. And there will be more support for images of this sort. But that can not hide the fact that the problems are visible. It is not mandatory that sports photography can not have a certain sharpness. --Hubertl14:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition works for me. The black "thing" on the right is good for balancing it and the "cut" bodies give an impression of movement. Erdrokan (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Athletes being cut off doesn’t work for me either, though I understand that for others it does. Going to be a strawpoll here. --Kreuzschnabel07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Neutral, because I am worried about unsharpness of the image. Still cool though (and one of my favorites). Such a pity... --★Poké9505:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very good and informative picture. It challenges the status quo of Featured Images indeed, but that is a good thing imho. The person in the middle of the picture is as focused as it can get. Given the light and speed, the quality could be hardly better.--QuimGil (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 18:40:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paul von Hindenburg (1914) von Nicola Perscheid.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paul von Hindenburg (1914) von Nicola Perscheid.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 06:37:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 03.JPG
Info Anyone remembering "Pirates!"? I used to play that a lot on my old C64 (and well, also more recently on my iPad). Brimstone Hill Fortress on St. Kitts is about as piratsy as it can get in the eastern Caribbean, though the British fortification was primarily used to keep French interests at bay. Today the well maintained site is part of the UNESCO World Heritage and offers extremely picturesque views. The island to the right is Dutch Sint Eustatius btw. - if you remember Pirates!... ;-) All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 17:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Unidentified young soldier in Confederate infantry uniform.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Unidentified young soldier in Confederate infantry uniform.jpg
Support A very impressive tintype photograph, showing a young boy, soldier in uniform of the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War (1861 - 1865). This boy was possibly a drummer-boy. The reason for nomination is due to the special face of this boy, soldier, but still a very young child, and due to the very hard and long restoration job. May I say that I'm proud enough of the result of this work ? Please have a look to the original cropped version reworked by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 05:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Sun just up.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sun just up.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 21:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brugge Sashuis R01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brugge Sashuis R01.jpg
I'm afraid that the cloning out is not easy to do. Of course, the image would be nicer without the blue-red couple. On the other hand, the spot is very touristic and thus pretty crowded. The presence of selfie takers is just part of the reality there. So I prefer to keep them into the picture. -- MJJR (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really pretty! I feel like a marginally tighter crop on the right side would be optimal, though, in order to eliminate the sliver of a building, the two right-most people, and the part of a tree trunk. If it's not fully clear where I'm suggesting a crop, I may try to use the crop tool to input a line for the suggested new right margin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. I agree. I made a slight crop, but with preservation of the whole willow tree. Doing so, the tower spire stays in the middle of the picture. -- MJJR (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excellent. And by the way, I don't mind that the tourists taking a selfie are in the photo. That's real life that was going on there and hardly visible at full-page size, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2016 at 20:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Karl and Johannes von Littrow, Nr 96 bust ensemble (bronce) in the Arkadenhof of the University of Vienna-2379-HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Karl and Johannes von Littrow, Nr 96 bust ensemble (bronce) in the Arkadenhof of the University of Vienna-2379-HDR.jpg
Info Karl and Johannes von Littrow, bust set (bronce) in the Arkadenhof of the University of Vienna, (Maisel# 96). Artist: Hans Bitterlich (1860-1949), unveiled 1892. All by -- Hubertl20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a very well-done shot with a good level of detail. At first I thought there was a slight tilt, but after checking it, it seems like the shot is almost completely straight. No issue there. The black busts don't really stand out well against the black background, but that's just the way it is, I suppose. ~Mable (chat) 10:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slight opposition - I have found this photo unimpressive, and I think the reason I don't like this photo much is one that Mable identified: the black sculptures on black backgrounds. These make me doubt this is really a good photo to feature. It's possible that no photo of this display could be good to feature, because of the nature of the display. And I think that, if true, is a legitimate reason to oppose a feature. It's of course completely not your fault, but that doesn't eliminate the problem. It's also possible that if a brighter light were shined onto the statues, they'd look better (but perhaps they'd look worse). In any case, I don't find that the experience of looking at this photo is very rewarding, nor is the motif impressive - again, not your fault, but nevertheless, in my opinion, true. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not really photographer's fault if the busts are black on a dark background. Given that, they're still quite visible (pink wall helps make them pop), and the picture otherwise has excellent symmetery and detail. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 02:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It’s certainly nice but lacks something special for me. I was hoping for a great level of detail but it’s rather unsharp at 100 percent view! I particularly don’t see any special composition as suggested by Ikan Kekek – it’s a random crop of a bark, structures being cut off on both top and bottom. It might be the best within the category given but it’s still a straightforward shot IMHO, below my personal threshold of wow to be featured. Try Valued Images instead, that’s about the best images within a given range. --Kreuzschnabel05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I consider the composition excellent because of how my eye moves around the picture frame, and secondarily, how pleasant the varied textures are. It had to be cropped somewhere. What's important to me is the results. We simply have different taste and/or reactions to this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness issues aside, to me it's just a picture of bark in its natural state. Definitely potentially a VI but it's not striking enough to me for FP> Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 18:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Untouched Lands.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Untouched Lands.jpg
Comment - Really pretty photo, but I don't like the total lack of information about the location where the shoot took place. Is there any way the photographer could be contacted to inquire about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 05:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ballet shoes (Russian ballet school М. Исаева).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ballet shoes (Russian ballet school М. Исаева).jpg
Oppose - Light is overly glary on the right, providing insufficient contrast between the background and the dancer's tights. Moreover, no wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, do you see three circles in this test image? If you use a laptop screen, then you may be limited about how well it shows detail in bright or dark areas, and viewing angles can strongly affect the image. I see plenty separation between the tights and background, though of course a dark background would be greater. -- Colin (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The focus is perfect, with plenty detail in the shoes and tights. The diagonal forming the edge of the floor is a bit distracting (and a yellow/orange blob in one part). But the main distraction is that the shoes are dirty and old. Possibly a fair bit of Photoshopping could transform them but ideally we'd have clean new shoes. I like your black and white version, and the white vignette is appropriate for the subject and high-key image. The b&w conversion fails to distinguish the shoes from the tights -- the targeted adjustment tool suggests decreasing yellow (and some orange) will separate them. We lack good photos of ballet shoes on Commons. Is there any chance you could try again with a new pair? -- Colin (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did want to nominate BW version, since its perfect for ballet. I saw some people dont like BWs, but there is category BW modern photos, ideal for it. @Ikan Kekek if you would say why left side isnt enligthened i would get you, high gradience is benefited here. Not black, not here, check around. For no wow, i say big wow, see for Pointe ballet shoes shots. For glared shot...check your PC screen. I see you voted yes for 2 church shots bellow, which are underexposed. @ Colin Colors are original, yellow back there not so good... will be dismised with BW. I raised contrast also and will put later BW option. Otherwise, this balerina had most "preserved" shoes. They are made so, go quickly, what i can do, to ask when will she buy new one... --Mile (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How can you argue about wow? It may be that this kind of shot doesn't wow me because I went to a performing arts high school with dancers, so perhaps it may take more than merely a photo of a dancer's feet on pointe to wow me. If so, that's the way it is and I'm only one vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 14:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baked trout.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baked trout.jpg
Oppose The fish has a foiled aspect, this may have happened due to careless cooking. The plate and background have the same color, which makes it difficult to distinguish the edge. The amount of potatoes is exaggerated in relation to the protein. --The Photographer (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm fine with the potatoes, but the lighting doesn't convince me: Plate looks close to pure white at the bottom and pretty dark at the top. There's quite some purple fringing at the lower left. Nothing against replacing an ugly background per se, but it's a bit too obvious for my taste (the background doesn't have the same lighting as the subject). --El Grafo (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. While the setting as such is nice and the quality very good, the overall impression does not seem "real" to me due to incoherent lighting, and the background doesn’t fit into the image, the plate has been too obviously cut out. --Kreuzschnabel15:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 06:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lamanai - High Temple.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lamanai - High Temple.JPG
Infopossible alternative? With a height of 33m, the High Temple is one of the largest structures of Lamanai, for 3000 years a major city of the Maya civilization, today a predominantly still unexcavated archaeological site located in the north of Belize. Although I generally agree that images shouldn't have to be explained, in this case it might help to elaborate a bit on why I'd like to nominate this photo. Though it might appear common, maybe even banal, taking it was actually quite a task. I guess that's why there are barely one good pictures of the High Temple on Commons. 1) Getting to Lamanai is quite a hassle. You cannot reach it by car, only by speed boat. 2) The lighting situation is demanding, as the whole site is pretty much in the middle of the tropical jungle and therefore overgrown with tall trees. 3) Unlike Mexico, Belize allows visitors to climb the temples - and that's what they do. So I had to be first patient and then pretty fast to catch about 10 seconds with absolutely no people in sight. Though my photo might give you the impression that the place was calm, peaceful - and empty, it was actually totally overrun with guided tours. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for providing your rationale. You've certainly earned a VI for this but I'm not sure as an image it gets FP. The shadows and the very straightforward composition count against it. I shall sleep on it. I prefer this image that includes some trees, and better illustrates the "temple in the jungle" theme. -- Colin (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Colin, for your thoughts. As for the "temple in the jungle" theme, I've just uploaded an image that is very similar to the example you've provided. Would you prefer something like that? Please note: I'll upload a larger version of this file tonight. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 10:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 09:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eran-Zur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eran-Zur.jpg
Neutral - Pretty good portrait, I think, but with a small file and soft focus, I'm not convinced it should be featured. But if this nomination fails, definitely nominate this file for Valued Image and Quality Image; I would think it would be both. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 21:37:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I like this photo. I was looking at it in Quality Images and noticed that there is a reflection of a building in the squirrel's eye, and I wondered what the squirrel thought about the building. Interesting to think about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 09:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Perseus by Benvenuto Cellini - foreground.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Perseus by Benvenuto Cellini - foreground.jpg
Question - Perseus' face is in shadow. Is it impossible to get a picture of the statue with both heads in the light? Also, the background is not very interesting, but I don't know if you could do anything about that; probably not. I'm tending toward opposing a feature for this picture, because it doesn't seem to me to present the subject really impressively, but I'd be sympathetic if that's nearly impossible to do; I don't know what the setup is like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but apart from the unpolite practice of cutting off Perseus’ privates, this image shows considerable motion blur and sharpened noise. Oversharpened, contrast overdone. --Kreuzschnabel18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but apart is more unpolite this comment,to the rest do not answer (and not do it again) because I have realized that it would be only a colossal waste of my time--LivioAndronico(talk)19:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionSorry once more – what’s unpolite about my comment? I really don’t find the crop of this frame very fortunate for the figure depicted. --Kreuzschnabel17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come Livio. We’ve been through all this before, about 18 months ago. We assess images. If anybody is not enthusiastic about your nomination, it’s nothing against you. Just against the image. You can either learn from the criticism what kind of photography does work and what doesn’t. Or you can feel insulted and strike back. As for me, I really don’t see anything featurable in this image. Please explain it to me, given I am just too dumb to see. --Kreuzschnabel17:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 15:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 13:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Raffelbergpark-Frühjahr-2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raffelbergpark-Frühjahr-2016.jpg
Comment The composition is great and the landscape very pleasant. But I'm not fully convinced by the overall sharpness. I need more time to think of it.--Jebulon (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey Jebulon! Thanks for the review. When I nominated the photo I thought that sharpness is the least problem of this photo ;) If you take a look at the leafs and branches, the detail quality is very good even at the frame borders. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 18:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-04, DD 10-12 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-04, DD 10-12 HDR.JPG
Info Mountains and reflections surrounding the Uyuni salt flat during sunrise, Daniel Campos Province, Potosí Department, southwest Bolivia, not far from the crest of the Andes. This salt flat is, with a surface of 10,582 square kilometers (4,086 sq mi), the world's largest, and during the rain saison (December-February) offers spectacular reflexions. Poco218:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jiel: I believe so. I haven't used any different settings during processing and as far as I remember the scene it looks right to me. Poco206:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poco2 Don't know. I thought that maybe even the air was kind of salty, with strong winds blowing over the plateau, similar to a situation in the dessert. Last time I went there, I was really worried and kept my camera wrapped up in protective covers most of the time. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how this would spoil the symmetry; the upper and lower edges provide no additional information; and with 16:9 crop, you had also an excellent start desktop wallpaper. Just imho, you must not take my suggestion any serious. --A.Savin18:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin: I thought that your suggestion was to leave one third below the water level and two thirds above it, that was definitely not what I was looking for. The 16:9 proposal keeping the water line in the middle is a good one. I have uploaded a new version Poco219:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry the dust spot I didn't see before (see note), please remove it. I am willing to support, really nice picture. --A.Savin19:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 09:32:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Mild to moderate Support - At full-page size, this is a very nice picture. At full magnification, it's not as good except for the brilliant centerpiece, which stands out as the artist undoubtedly intended, God's Holy Spirit shining down to the people below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer a more symmetrical crop, the curtain does not add IMO. Info text translation:"He grants peace to your borders and satisfies you with the finest of wheat.", psalm 147 (down). "he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes.", Genesis 49, blessing of Judah by Jacob (up).--Jebulon (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 07:34:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Testudo graeca at Dibbeen2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Testudo graeca at Dibbeen2.JPG
Oppose - The tortoise itself is not sharp enough, and the bokeh is somewhat disturbing to me. The one existing Featured Picture in Category:Testudo graeca is strictly a headshot, but look how much larger and clearer the head is in that picture. The other Quality Image in this category has harsh light, but look how much clearer the tortoise's body is in that picture. Also, the bokeh in that picture is less disturbing. I believe the glary light and small image size would doom any nomination of that QI for FP, but in the terms I lay out, I find it a better picture than this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the nomination. I am happy to see my picture nominated, but honestly I don't believe it is suitable for a FP on commons. It is taken from a weird angle (I don't have much experience at this), sub-optimally edited, and just doesn't show that much about the subject of the photo. It is good enough as a QI --aad_Dira (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 21:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge from London City Hall 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge from London City Hall 2015.jpg
Info High resolution (114MP) image of Tower Bridge viewed from the balcony at City Hall, which is only open to the public one day a year for Open House London. So this is a rare view allowing one to see the whole extent of the bridge and surrounding districts of London, unobstructed, and with the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf distant. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The clouds are nice but a real pain getting a good stitch since the lighting changes rapidly. So I had some extra sweeps back and forward that I took but didn't end up using due to the change in light levels. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all on the image description page. Sony A77 II camera. Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens. Stitched from 29 images. This is a 3 row stitched mosaic using a Nodal Ninja 3II panoramic head. It was stitched with PtGui and then Photoshop used to hand-select parts of some frames (a) so that a coach didn't obscure important parts of the bridge and (b) to ensure even lighting on one building (otherwise PtGui chose a frame in shadow and a frame in sun). The resulting image was cropped to create a 16:9 format. -- Colin (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This has it all - resolution, composition, lighting, and a unique, hard to get to angle. I'm actually surprised at how small the file is: I got a bigger filesize from a 24-image pano I recently stitched. That said, I always save at a compression of 100%. Anyway, well done! I know from experience how long these high-res composites can take to make. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I use the 90% setting, which is actually the second-highest after 100% -- there's nothing in between. See this old article. I don't see any image penalty to 90% (even looking with a magnifying glass) and there's a big saving in filesize. Noise reduction / sharpening can also impact filesize if there's a noisy sky (there's no point sharpening clouds or blue sky -- it just creates noise). The number of frames doesn't correlate well to final image size since sometimes a lot of overlap is useful and sometimes you end up cropping out a lot of the generated image. Here, since it's a once-per-year opportunity (and great weather), I wanted to be extra sure. Plus I suspected I'd need to fix up stitching issues with the road/people traffic and this requires repeated overlap so you get several duplicates that one can pick and choose from. As it turned out, Smartblend did a really good job and I didn't end up with any half vehicles or obvious twins, and it was just a personal choice to remove a coach that hid part of the tower arch.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2016 at 22:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trupial (Icterus icterus).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trupial (Icterus icterus).jpg
Info Venezuelan troupial (Icterus icterus) eyeing the pulpy red fruit of a Carnegie gigantic. Created, uploaded, nominated by Atsme -- 22:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I like the composition, and the bird is beautiful. However, the standard for FPs of birds is very high, and this one is neither as sharp nor as detailed as others we've been approving lately. If this nomination fails to get enough votes, perhaps this could be a Valued Image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, Bonaire is not Venezuela. Next time I want to see a picture in Venezuela actually. IMHO this composition is not beautiful like others, however, the bird is on focus and the fact that this bird is the national bird of my country has a big weight --The Photographer (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Not quite sharp enough" as compared to the needles of the cactus? 😝 I probably should have explained the circumstances in more detail, and will try to remember to do that in the future. I was shooting from atop a hill equivalent in height to a 2nd story window, doing my best to avoid all the scrubby thorns and cactus needles in order to capture the bird maneuvering multitudes of very sharp needles atop a tall 30' +/- cactus "tree" so it could eat the pulp of the cactus fruit which was also covered in very sharp needles. I thought it was an amazing feat for any bird to accomplish. I've seen the less agile Caribbean mocking birds impale themselves trying to land on cactus like that (some do manage without incident) and I also watched a bird get poked in the eye with a cactus needle while trying to eat the pulp. Wish I could've captured that shot!! I'm not trying to needle you, but to my knowledge, images like this one are not an everyday occurrence. Wish I could've gotten closer, but if I had put a 30 ft. ladder on that cactus, the bird would've flown off, the cactus needles would've found their way around the rungs of the ladder, and I would've looked like a bloody red pin cushion which definitely would have been a FPC with lots of "wow" factor. 😳 Atsme📞21:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm OK with the sharpness as is, although I would wish for a bigger image cropped a little more tightly. But I suspect you were working around the limitations you faced. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 20:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tufted duck in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tufted duck in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2016 at 00:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Манастир „Св. Јован Бигорски“.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Манастир „Св. Јован Бигорски“.jpg
Comment -- At first, the composition looked odd, but I gave it a chance, and I find it fun to move my eye around it. The photo is also sharp, except for the area where the people are, and they're unimportant to the composition. After looking at a whole bunch of last year's Featured Pictures, I feel sure this will not be a candidate for 2016 Picture of the Year. I also doubt it'll get enough votes to be a Featured Picture. But I find this picture, with its non-traditional composition, interesting and good enough to give it mild Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Oh boy, this is my jam - I really love this image. As Ikan Kekek said, it's just really fun to look at. The image has some odd lighting (in particular, the base of the foreground stairs looks too bright), but most of the shadows just make it more fun to look around. ~Mable (chat) 12:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 00:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Annelinn, Anne 80 (3).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Annelinn, Anne 80 (3).JPG
Oppose - This is a somewhat Alvesgaspar-style photo, but in Alvesgaspar's best photos of this type, there is a sharper focus - and even more so, better light. I find this photo too drab to be a great one of its type, which is what I think is required to feature this type of composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2016 at 15:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015.08.07.-01-Anglersee Huettenfeld-Lampertheim--Feuerlibelle-Maennchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.08.07.-01-Anglersee Huettenfeld-Lampertheim--Feuerlibelle-Maennchen.jpg
? Thanks, but it is. English and Latin (scientific name).--Hockei (talk) you mean cursive. I always use the same style. The other people also don't use italics inevitably. 09:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific names of species, genera, etc are often designated as 'Latin names', which is not entirely correct. Following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), scientific taxon names do not need to be latin words, they only need to be latinized words. In a text with normal type letters, scientific taxon names are written in Italic type style (strictly speaking, cursive has another meaning). Please, let me be clear: 'italic' versus 'normal' type letters is not a real problem here. However, why not follow the 'scientifically correct' way of doing? Kind regards, --Cayambe (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2016 at 19:24:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:360° Panoramic view of Santa Rosa de la Eminencia Castle.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:360° Panoramic view of Santa Rosa de la Eminencia Castle.jpg
Oppose - Using the 360° viewer, the sky is a weird vortex, as if it were some kind of black hole eating up the clouds. Of less importance but still disturbing is the degree to which other parts of the picture are unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are different types of panoramic 360 degrees, this photograph is not a spherical 360 and that is the reason why not work with the viewer. It's a planar 360 panorama and this kind of technique is generally used for the images that cannot be completed in one time, such as streets or fort architecture. The camera is translated at equidistant along the subject, until the whole subject is completed. Then the pieces are synthesized to be a panoramic photo, which is called planar panorama. See also Understanding Projecting Modes--The Photographer (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively all white, known as "blown-out highlights" or "clipped whites" is actually the Sun and "stitching error" is a 1600 canyon deformed because oxidation process. --The Photographer (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The JPG file format is based on a 24-bit color palette, however, these files tend to drop information when they are decompressed. For example you and your friends could use a MacBook Pro 15″ has a resolution of 2,880×1,800 or 220 pixels per inch, however, at this scale, most people are unable to notice panorama images on individual pixels at typical viewing distances. Thanks for your question --The Photographer (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Lenovo ThinkPad, not a Mac, and I still don't understand how I should view this photo. You're not saying a Mac is required to view this photo, are you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My personal recomendation is a Asus VE247H 24" Full HD Display, however, it's a suggestion not a requirement. This is a monitor of excellent quality vs price. The Asus 24 inch (technically 23.6") VE247H TFT LED-backlit LCD display is a pretty decent bargain, coming in at around $160 at Amazon (available this month with an additional $20 rebate, and often on sale from other retailers around the $150 mark). It's full HD, with a native resolution of 1920px by 1080px (60hz) and 16:9 aspect ratio and excellent to see panorama pictures. --The Photographer (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to buy a different screen. My screen has been perfectly adequate for viewing everything else. Shouldn't anyone with a decent screen be able to view a photo? I don't get it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avarage user might have some 17" 4:3 screen. Keep in mind that. --Mile (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC) For photo: its not stitched well, broken lines.[reply]
Comment Still numerous stitching errors, I added some annotations. The front part of the cannon is ceartainly not real (unless the cannon became transparent from the aging, allowing the background to be seen behind its edge). --Kreuzschnabel13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I pointed out are clearly stitching errors and won’t be found in reality. Since you refuse to fix or even accept them, Oppose on my part. --Kreuzschnabel18:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 23:02:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Afrastering om natuurgebied. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Afrastering om natuurgebied. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 04.jpg
Support Yet another great painterly landscape by Dominicus. A great sky, beautiful lines (e.g., the right angles created by the row of trees and the other trees and sky in the distance, and with the gate in the foreground), good light. I hope you agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My issue is with the lighting direction. The important elements (particularly the fence) are in shadow. No 'wow' for me, but nice image otherwise. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I really like the composition and the subject, but I'm not a fan of the lighting: the photograph seems somewhat underexposed in general, but also somehow inconsistently exposed (just a feeling I get from looking at the grass, the gate and the clouds). Storkk (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't want this one to get promoted before I could register my support. A silk purse of a sow's ear ... I wish I could have taken this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 21:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpg
Support - Interesting, well-composed photo. However, I'd request that more information about Falcon 9 Flight 23 (the category for the photo) be provided in the description, which really isn't sufficiently informative now. It would also be very interesting to known how this launch platform was photographed (from a helicopter, perhaps?), although I don't think that information is necessary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a more accurate description for the image. SpaceX stated on the launch webcast that the aerial views were taken from a chase plane (if I remember correctly). --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not including that myself, I don't use Wikimedia Commons much so I was new. I think I've done a bit of a better job with my latest uploads. But yes, it was from a small chase plane according to the commentators on the SpaceX CRS-8 hosted stream. Appable (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 01:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Río de Janeiro, Brasil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Río de Janeiro, Brasil.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 15:57:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drone Reconnoitering.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drone Reconnoitering.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 14:00:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heinrich von Ferstel - bust in the vestibule of the big ballroom - 2059-HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heinrich von Ferstel - bust in the vestibule of the big ballroom - 2059-HDR.jpg
Info -- Hubertl14:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC) The composition of Heinrich von Ferstels bust in the Vestibule of the big ball room at the University of Vienna. Ferstel was the architect of the main building.[reply]
Mild {{o}}. I feel like there should be somewhat more light on the face of the sculpture, so that everything around the sculpture isn't emphasized, with the sculpture being deemphasized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2016 at 15:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klonglan waterfall 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klonglan waterfall 03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 11:05:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Levin C. Handy - General Robert E. Lee in May 1869.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Levin C. Handy - General Robert E. Lee in May 1869.jpg
Support - If this were a new photo, I might object to his being out of focus below the waist, but it isn't, and it's a damn good portrait, if you consider it to focus on his head and torso. What's more, it's of obvious historical importance and another fine restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2016 at 18:42:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160331120144 - Monumento a Ramos de Azevedo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160331120144 - Monumento a Ramos de Azevedo.jpg
Weak Support. I like the monument and the sense of vertical motion in the photograph, but the crops on the left and right are a lot tighter than I'd prefer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What would be in the picture if there were just a bit more space to the left and right of the monument that would bother you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 15:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Viewing a Spacecraft Launch from Space.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viewing a Spacecraft Launch from Space.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 12:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toy train SMIL.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toy train SMIL.svg
Oppose I don’t see anything special here. What’s the rebounding blue figure supposed to mean? And don’t the lift-gates usually block the roads on level-crossings instead of the rail tracks? --Kreuzschnabel17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- thanks, The RedBurn. @Be..anyone: what do you use to validate? @Kreuzschnabel: it's supposed to be a simulation of 3D in SVG using pure SMIL and CSS. As the title suggests, it's meant to be a toy train, so the gates are not supposed to be realistic and the figure is just for fun. I can make any changes deemed more approriate – let me know!cmglee (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{igen}} links to the W3C validator. Replace 22 by v (valid) and maybe U (unknown tool) by your tool (lots of cryptic abbreviations) when ready. –Be..anyone (talk)01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Be..anyone. Worked around a W3C validator bug. But I concur that it's not really encyclopaedic, except to show capabilities of SVG animation without JavaScript/ECMAScript. Some whimsy is often a welcome change though...
While the image might be what it’s supposed to be, this does not qualify it to be among the very best images there are on Commons. Not convinced, sorry. It’s funny but rather simple-looking in result. --Kreuzschnabel15:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Fun, but not all that interesting, in my opinion. I'd rather look at a video or photo of a really good actual toy train track. Also, the jumping character is odd, and I wondered if it would jump onto the tracks and get run over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To qualify my vote, which I had meant to when casting this: I know we don't have to consider EV here, but I see this as illustrating the SMIL technique of animating an SVG, and not so much the concept of toy trains. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I concur that this is not a great illustration of a toy train; but it's a mind-bogglingly good demonstration of SMIL animation in SVG. Motion paths! Pseudo-3D! Wow. One criticism: I would like to see the "start positions" adjusted so that non-animated views, like the thumbnail, look reasonable. -- Perey (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 11:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Moderate support I like the perspective and the way the trail leads into the center between the two peaks. Though more DoF might have been better. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 23:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:TWA 707 Pushback.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:TWA 707 Pushback.jpg
Support: First, I'll see strong mitigating reasons to discard the resolution requirement in that we look here at a shot on classical film. Additionally, I am not aware of any possibility to recreate something like this using a modern DSLR without extensive stacking techniques in computerised image processing, as the picture is made using multiple exposures. So, having said this, I want to put emphasis on the "wow"-effect - this double long exposure nicely illustrates the aircraft movement on the ground by the marvellous lightning effect. -- Grand-Duc (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't find this a good photo. Unsharp and not particularly interesting to me. If there were a historical significance to it beyond the fact that TWA is a defunct airline, we might have something to talk about, but I don't see any clear rationale for considering this one of the best photos on the site. I don't think it's a Quality Image, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2016 at 21:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Facade of the church of San Toma at night in Venice.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Facade of the church of San Toma at night in Venice.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 16:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Park Sentmaring -- 2016 -- 1911-7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, Park Sentmaring -- 2016 -- 1911-7.jpg
Oppose On one hand it is refreshing to see a backlit picture, but it is hard to do right, and I agree with Alchemist-hp, that it has resulted in the flowers being too dark. Composition is good, but not excellent IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - I looked at this photo in Quality Images. As a thumbnail, I found it interesting, and I wanted to see if I thought it was featurable. Of course the flowers are beautiful. At full-page size, I like it, but at full size, I dislike the bokeh. I don't know if it would be reasonable to darken the bokeh a bit, but given the other reactions this photo has gotten so far, it would be completely understandable for you to not even consider doing anything that might get a single vote changed. I definitely don't agree that the flowers in the foreground are too dark, for whatever that's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. I think that the vote is clear and understandable. So it's better to finish the nomination. --XRaytalk05:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2016 at 11:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caldera de Masián - Lanzarote.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caldera de Masián - Lanzarote.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2016 at 00:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Sjunik, Zorac Karer, Prehistoryczny kompleks megalityczny (079).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Sjunik, Zorac Karer, Prehistoryczny kompleks megalityczny (079).jpg
Comment - I love the megalith! But the background is too noisy for me to consider this featurable in its current condition. Could you denoise the background some? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2016 at 20:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica dei Santi Apostoli (Roma) - Interior.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica dei Santi Apostoli (Roma) - Interior.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2016 at 20:19:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brugge Begijnhof R01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brugge Begijnhof R01.jpg
Mild Support - This is not the very best composition I've ever seen, but it has a beautiful foreground of flowers, a nice middleground of tree trunks and a background of buildings and sky, and it's also a rather large, sharp picture. I'm not sure whether another crop would make it a more obvious winner for Featured Picture and wouldn't know what to suggest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2016 at 08:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Couillet - chevalements de la mine du Pêchon - 7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Couillet - chevalements de la mine du Pêchon - 7.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 16:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Uitlopende bladknop van een tamme kastanje (Castanea sativa). Locatie, De Famberhorst 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Uitlopende bladknop van een tamme kastanje (Castanea sativa). Locatie, De Famberhorst 01.jpg
Mild Support, mainly because I find the bud so fascinating to look at (as a bonus, the fly is a nice touch). Also, the overall composition is good, and although everything but the bud is blurry, the worst that can be said about that is that the stem is kind of dark and dull green/brown blur and some of the rest is somewhat gray. None of it makes me dizzy or anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2016 at 11:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, no. The light comes from the wrong direction, and the green foreground is to prominent in my opinion. Pleasant place nevertheless.--Jebulon (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problem with the foreground or the lighting. The contrast may be a bit unrealistic in order to compensate for the latter, but not to the detriment of the image, which to me gives this monument a nice sense of context. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the lighting is bad causing much of the monument to be shadowed and the pronounced sunshine on the plants to the bottom is disturbing. I also don't think that the image was taken from the right angle because the well lightened cropped building on the left side of the background detracts attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 08:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charleroi - Maison dorée - verrière.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charleroi - Maison dorée - verrière.jpg
I'm also seeing that there are hundreds of Quality Images of stained glass windows, some of which seem more readily featurable than this picture. I think I agree with you: This is a good picture, but it lacks the kind of pinpoint focus and great light that a FP of a stained glass window should have. Mild Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2016 at 07:14:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hall of Knights (Brežice Castle).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hall of Knights (Brežice Castle).jpg
I'm not referring to the frescoes but where there's a lot of light on the chairs and other surfaces. I've decided to Oppose a feature on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. This has for sure a great wow, but the HDR effect is too strong in my opinion, so I am not convinced by the details. In fact, I doubt that HDR is really necessary here, as there are no extremely bright or dark areas. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. The bright light from the window should benefit from HDR but the result here is clipped and lacking in detail on those chairs. I wonder if an alternative HDR processing workflow would help. Several here use PtGui (to create HDR TIFF) and Lightroom (to tonemap back to JPG). -- Colin (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2016 at 21:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vizcacha de la Sierra (Lagidium viscacia), Desierto de Siloli, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 31.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vizcacha de la Sierra (Lagidium viscacia), Desierto de Siloli, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 31.JPG
Oppose - Cropping from the top will help, but it doesn't look like it will eliminate the disturbing bokeh in the background behind the viscacha. That degree of blurriness tends to make me dizzy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 21:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canterbury Cathedral Choir 2, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canterbury Cathedral Choir 2, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support - David's photography is a treasure that will be missed while he attends to more important tasks. Thanks for nominating this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is an existing FP taken the same day of the choir but facing the Trinity Chapel, which I think is better. I have not yet made up my mind if this nomination is enough special and different to warrant another FP in this series. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 21:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ferrocarril en el salar de Ascotán, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 46.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ferrocarril en el salar de Ascotán, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 46.JPG
InfoFCAB railway crossing the 35 kilometers (22 mi) long route over the west side of the Ascotán salt flat, southwestern Bolivia. The train covers the route Antofagasta - Calama - Ollagüe - Uyuni - La Paz, from 0 metres over the sea level in the coastal city of Antofagasta to over 4,500 metres (14,800 ft) in the area where the picture was taken (exactly in Collahuasi) and has a total length of 1,537 km (955 mi). The locomotives have engines EMD GR12 2402, Clyde GL26C-2 2010 and Clyde GL26C-2 2005 whereas the Ascotán salt flat has a surface of 246 square kilometers (95 sq mi). All by me, Poco221:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2016 at 15:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 08:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - At full size, almost all of this photo is blurry except for the flamingo, and even at full-page size - a small photo, given its width - the top third or fourth of the photo is very blurred. I understand that you're focusing on the flamingo, but how does all the blurred background make the photo better than if you cropped it at least somewhat closer? At that degree of blurriness, I don't think the change in tone to brown really does much good. I expect others to disagree and defend the bokeh, but this photo isn't one I would have picked to nominate. Do you have any other closeups of flamingos that are a little less blurry at full-page size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 17:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Valley of the shadow of death.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valley of the shadow of death.jpg
Comment I think it would be nice to add more details to the image description. The description should at least contain some information about the fact that the authenticity of the photo's subject has been disputed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2016 at 17:34:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015.05.08.-04-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Buntspecht-Weibchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.05.08.-04-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Buntspecht-Weibchen.jpg
Support - I like this. The photo has a feeling of being symmetrical, with the tree trunk on one side and the leafy bokeh background on the other, and the nice woodpecker picture in the middle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2016 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Abbey Lincoln in 1966.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abbey Lincoln in 1966.jpg
@Ikan Kekek: Do remember that freely-licensed images are going to be a very small subset of what's available for people of this era, though. It could easily be a hundred years before any of the images you're looking at leaves copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's a good point. However, I'm not sure that's a sufficient reason for a feature. It's certainly a sufficient reason for this to be a Valued Image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 18:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alkeemia - Digresk & Orchestre des 2 Mondes - Festival Yaouank 2015 - 28.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alkeemia - Digresk & Orchestre des 2 Mondes - Festival Yaouank 2015 - 28.jpg
Kreuzschnabel: I disagree, it would IMO ruin the very nice diagonals formed by the instruments to make such a tight crop. I do think though that the composition could be slightly improved by cropping 5-10% from the left to optimize the diagonal effect. But I of course respect that you think your proposed crop would be an improvement. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like this if they were actually playing, but they seem to be sitting around taking a break, which isn't very interesting. INeverCry19:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition but the face is overprocessing, Seems the detail of faces' skin is losing. Bright light on the left cheek is a bit distracting. --Laitche (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 06:14:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Empusa pennata redpit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Empusa pennata redpit.jpg
Comment I've never seen this mantid, but looking at other images online I think the colours are artificial. Also, I don't think the head is in focus. Charles (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now. I might be convinced to change to neutral or even support, but the red bokeh is really weird and unnatural-looking to me. In fact, I feel in general that the photo looks quite strange, although I have no trouble accepting the rusted rails. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The DoF is too shallow and the sharpness is not great. Sure there is great separation of the subject, but at least in cases like this the subject should be spot on sharp to justify not using a smaller aperture. -- Ram-Man20:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 20:34:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Géiseres Sol de Mañana, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 56.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Géiseres Sol de Mañana, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 56.JPG
InfoSol de Mañana ("Morning Sun" in Spanish) is a geothermal field in Sur Lípez Province, Potosi Department, south-western Bolivia. The field extends over 10 square kilometres (2,500 acres) and is between 4,800 metres (15,700 ft) and 5,000 metres (16,000 ft) high. There area, characterized by intense volcanic activity, with sulphur spring fields and mud lakes, has indeed no geysers but rather holes that emit pressurized steam up to 50 metres (160 ft) high.
Support - I looked through your geyser photos on Quality Images. I really couldn't decide which one had the best composition. I won't nitpick this one, though. It's stark and striking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 14:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Red-billed streamertail (Trochilus polytmus) female in flight 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-billed streamertail (Trochilus polytmus) female in flight 2.JPG
Oppose Good things first: I like the framing in general, and it's pretty sharp with still enough motion blur on the wing tips to indicate movement – in that regard I can whole-heartedly agree to all the praise! But apart from the neck area, the bird doesn't really stand out from the dark background very much. That doesn't necessarily have to be a deal-breaker in itself, but in combination with the large white area in the background, it becomes a problem for me: The human mind/eyes are typically drawn to the brightest area in an image, and hence that white area is drawing away the attention from the subject quite strongly (at least for me). The OOF leaf in the bottom left corner partially covering the flower doesn't really help as well. Compare that with this FP – or this QI/VI if you prefer a less uniform background. I know it's difficult to pay attention to both a moving subject and the background at the same time (failing to do so I've totally messed of many macro-shots myself), but an excellent image requires an excellent background. --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. But IMO the cropped big blurred green leaf in the foreground on the left side is better for the picture than to keep it because of the part of the flower (blossom) above. It would be a small sacrifice. --Hockei (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Mild, conditional Oppose. I've observed hummingbirds, so I understand how fast they fly and how hard it is to get a good photo of one. If you decided to do a crop of the left side (and possibly the bottom), such that we no longer see the larger blurred leaf, I would support a feature. Most of the flower would unfortunately be gone, but the tip probably could still be included. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better imho. But I'm still bothered by the white patch/dark bird thing. Might actually be possible to tune that down a bit with some careful dodging & burning or other local adjustments. --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by far not expert either, but I've tried my luck (see version history or [1]). The trick seems to be to use a large, soft brush with low opacity. I'm sure somebody more skilled in this could do much better, but that's about what I was writing about. --El Grafo (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 11:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Robert Earl Jones in Langston Hughes' Don't You Want to be Free? (23 June 1938; photograph by Carl Van Vechten).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Robert Earl Jones in Langston Hughes' Don't You Want to be Free? (23 June 1938; photograph by Carl Van Vechten).jpg
Support as an important historical photo. The photo looks great at full-page size, but the lack of good contrast between his shoulders and the background is more disturbing at full size. However, we can't use a time machine to go back to 1938 and retake the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2016 at 09:10:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in Fortaleza (1) - cropped.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset in Fortaleza (1) - cropped.jpg
Comment - I'm not sure what others will think of this picture. I like it, but I'm not convinced it's a FP, rather than a good QI. However, I would consider voting for it if the furthest right boats and buildings were cropped, so as to eliminate the current random-looking cut of part of a boat. I'd put the new crop just to the left of the lamp next to the 2 rightmost tall buildings, where there's a space between those and the next largish building to the left, taking care to avoid cropping any part of the boats to the left of those buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed, little detail. The buildings are mostly just dark brown. I don't see what is so special here -- lots of people have evening/sunset holiday photos taken with their camera phone that are similar in quality. -- Colin11:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no, blurry people, very granulated photo (not in a positive way), weird crop at the bottom, and too dark. -- RTA14:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2016 at 19:05:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset of Mykonos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset of Mykonos.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 09:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Микрокристаллы сульфата калия.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Микрокристаллы сульфата калия.JPG
Comment - This photo is quite interesting, but for Featured Picture consideration, I'm finding it unconvincing as a composition so far. I'll be curious to see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2016 at 22:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Busola.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Busola.JPG
Oppose - I find this too glary to want to support for a feature. With an object like this, I think the picture should be pretty near perfect for us to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering to help, but no thanks. I have a pretty good laptop screen that has a much bigger picture than smart phones, which are what I think most people are using to look at Commons, nowadays. It's a Lenovo 20dccto1ww. Will you offer to give INeverCry reset advice, too? I've started to feel like when I find fault with a photo, some people are trying to insinuate there's something wrong with my screen or display, because they're aware now that I use a laptop, rather than whatever it is they think I should spend extra money on (another laptop, someone suggested), which is NOT happening. But anyway, thanks again for your friendly offer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll stipulate that this is a good photo, maybe even very good, but I don't find it super-great and I'm not wowed by it. I mean no disrespect at all to Jacek in opposing a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, laptop. You know i never use laptop to edit/grade photo, far from real. I dont see any glare, thats the point. So togehter with INeverCry if using laptop, do it at night, no lights, might be helpfull - no reflections. I dont belive poelpe are using their smartphones for grading Commons, using AMOLED would be big mistake. --Mile (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think most people are using to view the photographs on this side (not to judge them at FPC)? Photographs need to look great on good laptop screens, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I use a 21 inch monitor on an HP PC, often with a high contrast black and green theme in the evenings. In this photograph, the light is quite uneven; the right side of the cover has glare, and there's also a bit of glare on the rim of the compass body near where the pointer indicates South. I wouldn't demand completely even lighting in a shot like this, but it should be more even and flattering to the object than this, as it is in File:Binocular compound microscope, Carl Zeiss Jena, 1914 (6779276516).jpg, which was promoted to FP not long ago. INeverCry17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2016 at 16:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013.06.24-03.-Woblitzsee-Havelberge-Nebelkraehe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013.06.24-03.-Woblitzsee-Havelberge-Nebelkraehe.jpg
Comment This does not strike me as FP material. I see a good (but not exceptional) quality bird photo of a common species (where I live at least), with a somewhat cluttered background, and a non-compelling centered composition. Hockei: As the creator and nominator, can you describe with a few words why you find this is FP material? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. IMO it's not the decisive point if the species is common or not but if the picture is good in relation to the level of difficulty and (yes) if the composition is good. It's not easy to get pictures from these intelligent clever birds and I'm glad I had the chance for that. The bird wasn't drinking from a puddle in zoo for example but in the wild from a lake while I was sitting in a boat. Normally you cannot point the camera toward these species of birds in a short distance. Not even in a long distance. They will flee immediately if you do that. But I don't want to defend my picture. It's your (and everybody else) decision if it's good for you or not. --Hockei (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectful opposeHockei: I certainly find it justified that you defend your picture and explain why you think it deserves to become featured. You have a valid point with the relative shyness of the common crow (although in my experience they can also be quite urbanized and non-afraid of being relatively close to people). For me though it does not all weigh up for a support; a nice catch, but not sufficiently exceptional for FP in my opinion, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite far below FP standard for birds. Per Slaunger. Plumage lacks detail/quality. The "low perspective" is a basic requirement of photographing animals on the ground, so nothing special there. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 06:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eisbach Surfer2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eisbach Surfer2.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 08:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Project 1164 Moskva 2012 G2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Project 1164 Moskva 2012 G2.jpg
Info Russian cruiser Moskva, the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet. This warship was used in the 2008 Russia-Georgia Crisis, in 2014 Crimean Crisis and in 2015 campaign in Syria.
Support - Good photo and of obvious importance. Did getting yourself in a position to take this photo take a lot of planning? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 07:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Universität Wien - Vestibule dome view-2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Universität Wien - Vestibule dome view-2016.jpg
Comment - Certainly of featurable quality, but since there's already a Featured Picture including the dome, why is it important to feature this one, too? I certainly like this photo, so I'll vote to Support, but I think it's important for everyone to consider whether two similar views should both be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, noted, but though this is a great photo, I think there's still an argument to be made that it's inessential because of the other photo. For me, the individual quality of this photo wins out. We'll see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2016 at 20:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica dei Santi Apostoli (Rome) - Ceiling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica dei Santi Apostoli (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg
Support - Glary in some places on the left but still quite good enough for a feature. I really like the ceiling fresco. Could you please give the name of the painter in your description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is better that you check another time. Anyway with photoshop is easily fixed and should not be based on things easily solved (unless it is not in bad faith) --LivioAndronico(talk)17:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If a photo is too dark, it should be judged on that basis. If it can be easily fixed, that's up to you, not the reviewer. And if you upload a new version, you should ping everyone who's already voted. You post a lot of excellent photos, but you are way too thin-skinned in your reactions to comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Ikan Kekek,it is common practice when putting suggestions and not vote until you make the change. Moreover, I would ask you not to give comments if you do not know the whole story of a person you're new here. In addition, the photo remains here days and is easily controlled by all, and how often you do, change your mind. Also a photographer already knows what it is easy to change and what is not, such as Jebulon has done in this case. Then if you think you do not vote more my photos do not worry that it does not create me no failure, thanks.--LivioAndronico(talk)20:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you see what you do and you will understand. Anyway I do not know what you mean for "ugly personal conflicts", I'm just answering your allegations --LivioAndronico(talk)21:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"you are way too thin-skinned in your reactions to comments" yeap, and he believes that he is important enough to people pursue him. We can't point the obvious, we can't put our opinion.
About be easy, it's not, if we do not have the raw file the noise you will rapidly increase with small adjusts, and even using raw file this improvements are limited, so you should do in camera do receive the best quality possible. -- RTA14:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can annoy if people like you invent the things. Sure I cleared my photo and is full of noise now! Fortunately there are people who understand of photos --LivioAndronico(talk)17:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2016 at 13:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gobi, kompleks Szambala (22).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gobi, kompleks Szambala (22).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2016 at 13:42:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:JohannMatthesonCFritzsch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:JohannMatthesonCFritzsch.jpg
B&W should be linear, for RGB somebody (incl. me) could convert it to PNG and add a sRGB chunk (suggest an intent, please). –Be..anyone💩02:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have tested one of my b&w photographs (saved as a colour JPG in sRGB) and removed the profile. This does produce a small change in tonality when viewed by one of the defective browsers (i.e., all of them apart from a modified Firefox) on my wide-gamut monitor. Saving it as a greyscale JPG (i.e. only 1 colour channel rather than 3) seems to make no difference. The image above is greyscale JPG. I don't think Be..anyone is correct that it should use a linear luminance rather than one with a gamma, because that results in only 8-stops of dynamic range rather than 12. Linear is fine for intermediate files with large bit-depth (such as HDR formats, or camera RAW files), or working on computer generated images. See my comment below -- I think the subtle change caused to some viewers when a profile is missing is only really important if the image was produced with care and contained fine tonal range in a high-quality b&w photograph, which isn't the case here. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Current DSLRs manage about 12-14 bits linear (i.e. 12 stops of dynamic range). So a 16-bit linear file is not unreasonable. I'm not an expert on TIFF but I believe it is just a container format and there are many possible image encodings (for example, Adobe DNG raw files are actually TIFFs, but quite different to the TIFFs one might create with Photoshop or GIMP. -- Colin (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source image (as claimed on the image description page) is a colour photo with aged yellowed paper and brown ink. This nominated image is not only converted to b&w but also the contrast increased to turn the ink fully black. I fear some subtlety is lost. It certainly doesn't look subtle. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 15:07:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rainbow in Se Catedral.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rainbow in Se Catedral.jpg
Respectfully Oppose - I love the idea, but I'm not convinced by the composition. I mean, it's a great shot, but it doesn't give my eyes much to move around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 10:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 05.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 05.JPG
Support “If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.” Antoine de Saint-Exupéry --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. Cropping out the clouds helped the composition even more, and although it would still have been better if taken earlier in the morning, the boosted saturation is good enough for me. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@King of♥♦♣ ♠ Well, I was literally the first visitor that day. To my utter astonishment (and to the barely hidden delight of my cab driver who kept charging me while we were waiting) the fortress doesn't open until 9:30 am - or actually more like 9:45 in reality. So I took the picture less than half an hour after I passed the first gate. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like the lighting. The only thing that I'd complain about is the cut on the clouds at the top, but it's minor. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for the ping. I'm undecided on which version I prefer, but either way, I support a feature. Which version do you think is closer to how it looked in real life? I'd go with that one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's really hard to tell. I'd say that my "update" offers slightly improved lighting that closer resembles reality but that doesn't mean that my original version gives an untrue impression of what things looked like when I took the picture. The sun was in my back, partly covered by thin clouds, I was playing with my polarizer, so... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for your suggestion! But don't you think cropping that tight would leave the composition a bit unbalanced as there would barely be any sky left? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The upper clouds are not necessary. If cropped the land below comes more in the foreground. In other words this catches more the eye and is not so squeezed down to the edge. But it's only my opinion resp. my sense. --Hockei (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I give a Support. But nevertheless the upper crop hurts me a bit. My suggestion looks very much better in my eyes. --Hockei (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This really is a beautiful image, per Ikan. I do prefer the crop, despite it changing the aspect ratio from 16:9. Composition feels very horizontally balanced now. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is a great view, nice lighting, very useful, no doubt... but the quality?.. Is it just me who sees rather low level of detail? Especially when you look at the grass in many places, but above all at the water (!), which to me nearly completely appears somewhat like an oversharpened blue porridge. An other problem is significant blur at edges. Okay, I also suffer from this problem when using wide-angle lengths, but 40 mm... What's up, Martin? --A.Savin07:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know for sure. Occasionally I've experienced this problem before when using my 17-40 at 40mm - and it seems I'm not the only one. Another factor that could come into play might be my polarizer (though I'm generally very happy with it). And as for the blur above the water line - well, of course it was also a tiny bit misty. This being said, I honestly don't believe that the central elements of the image are affected, so I'd argue that the overall quality is still more than sufficient. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 12:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Three wheeler in Pingyao.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Three wheeler in Pingyao.jpg
Thennicke It can be done manually after promotion and bot handling. The bot can only handle one destination in the FP galleries. I agree it would be relevant to have both places. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: I noticed that too, not sure why. I just exported it with the default darktable export settings. I should probably have just added the colour space with a command line tool. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thennicke, Slaunger, I've uploaded a new one with an sRGB profile embedded + ColorSpace tag set to sRGB using exiftool. I used the public domain sRGB profile from ArgyllCMS. FYI the command line is exiftool -ColorSpace=sRGB "-icc_profile<=sRGB.icm" MyFile.jpg, where "sRGB.icm" is the name/path of a *.icm or *.icc profile. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support I like the National Geographic quality of it; I think it would be better with a squared-off crop. Also, the limitations of the small size are not completely hidden; I note the (small, admittedly) blown areas on the hats. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 06:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Duck at Munich Zoo1.JPG/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duck at Munich Zoo1.JPG/2
Info I'd like to give this nomination a second shot. It's not supposed to be your typical photograph of a bird. The depth of field is of course very shallow here - and the bird's posture almost a bit plump. But I like its overall mood very much. Though I'm of course aware of all the traps that anthropomorphism is setting, the duck appears very much at peace, maybe happy. Additionally I also like the brown-on-brown hues as well as the pleasant, smooth bokeh. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - To me, the depth of field is too shallow, as not much of the duck is in focus at full magnification. I'm unconvinced you need that much of the picture frame to be taken up by bokeh, either. Sorry to be a killjoy; we'll see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 23:07:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011 Ochryda, Cerkiew św. Pantelejmona (02).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011 Ochryda, Cerkiew św. Pantelejmona (02).jpg
Comment. Beautiful church, mostly sharp enough but not so much at ground level in the shade. Trees on the right are not sharp and may be posterized. I find the people perfectly acceptable at full-page size but distracting at full size, especially the guy in the yellow shirt who has to be viewed along with the entrance. I'm not sure this is really featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the building is very interesting to explore, and the light is very good, but presence of distracting tourists cluttering the foreground is an issue. Moreover, there are weird differences in the texture of the stones depending on if they are sunlit or in shadow. The ones in sunlight has nice and realistic looking texture, the ones in shadow are lack the details and appear washed out as if a too aggressive noise reduction has been applied in the shadow reqions. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2016 at 07:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flamant rose Salines de Thyna.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flamant rose Salines de Thyna.jpg
Comment - That's a good bird picture, and though it's not as big a file nor as detailed as many pictures of birds we've been featuring, I'm inclined to support it, partly because I appreciate the smooth background. However, I think there may be some more or less light small spots that were on the lens and, if so, they should be edited out before I vote for this picture. For example, I see some below the flamingo and above the water. If I'm right, there are unfortunately quite a few of them. I don't speak of the air bubbles in the water - those are quite evident and fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using another device is not an option for me. I cleared my cache and then opened the updated file. I still see what look like dust spots or water on the lens. I repeated the process a second time, clearing the cache and opening the updated file. The results were the same. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: If this problem appears simply click on refresh (or reload) in your browser. Either in the project page or in the opened picture. That should be all. --Hockei (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I miss further information on the file page, which just describes it as a 'greater flamingo'. I see from the categorization that this greater flamingo has been photographed in Tunesia, but where? A geolocation would add value. Maybe the creator Elgollimoh could provide this further information? -- Slaunger (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheating, of course, I put the Arab text into Google translate, got "Tine", and adopted "Thyna" from the existing French + Ukrainian description. –Be..anyone💩19:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak support The light and pose is really very good on this one. Resolution satisfactory, but not impressive. I agree with Ikan Kekek though that there appears to be either a few dust spots and/or water droplets on the lens. I have annotated the most distracting one in the nomination page. A minor issue for me though. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 15:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète, Hérault 14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète, Hérault 14.jpg
Moderate Support - I guess I don't like this photo quite as much as some other people do, but I do find it interesting. Some of the very closest parts, especially in the near right corner, are a bit fuzzy, so a slight crop might possibly improve the photo, but I'm not sure of that because it might injure the composition, and I don't consider it essential on other grounds, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Per Kikos, I like the green line that guide you to the city at the end but the pond in the foreground is too predominant, Poco221:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2016 at 17:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Retrato de una anciana fumando tabaco-.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Retrato de una anciana fumando tabaco-.jpg
Support it´s a common technique you can use as you can see it here, to focus a face by cropping the upper part. The main idea is supported pretty well. --Hubertl20:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being from Nevada, I'm not accustomed to seeing elderly ladies puffing on cigars (I don't know if they do so more commonly in NYC ), but I could've added "no wow" to my oppose along with the crop, which just doesn't work for me. I often see something that doesn't look good to me in an image, and I don't really look for more factors I don't like before opposing. INeverCry21:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to oppose but I'm still curious what the wow is, because I don't see it. And no, it's not that common to see really elderly smokers in New York. I suppose most tobacco addicts have died before they reach old age, but that aside... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here in Nevada I'm used to seeing elderly smokers taking off their oxygen masks to have a cigarette. The slot machine crowd...no cigars though... INeverCry22:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Acorde a como expresa --Hubertl la foto fue tomada con un encuadre común y muy usado por muchos fotógrafos, se considera una manera de hacer un Close-up, pero es lógico que será valorable por el gusto de cada quien. Respecto a la anciana y su adicción, en la actualidad tiene 90 años, y fuma tabaco desde los 15, mantiene una salud aceptable para su edad y a pesar de dicha adicción. Ivan2010 -- Ivan2010(talk)22:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK, but that fact that she's 90 and has smoked since she was 15, while unusual, doesn't give the photo wow. What wows you about the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Para mi es la mirada y el retrato como tal, pero obviamente es para que sea valorada por la comunidad. Solo coloqué la información anterior por lo que estaban comentando, sin trascendencia, solo como información adicional. -- Ivan2010(talk)23:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2016 at 06:06:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The building is disturbing: what is the main object, the crane or the building? Also vignetting, and parts of the crane are not sharp enough for me. -- -donald- (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not disturbing in my eyes. The contrast between the exposed concrete building and the od steel crane is according. The sharpness is good for such hudge resolution. But for sure I can reduce the size and the sharpness will rise. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per donald. There's a glow round the high-contrast edges like you sharpened and then stretched the image. Vertical perspective issues too. I suspect you are too close to this building to capture it without some perspective distortion. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 11:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Casio F-91W digital watch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casio F-91W digital watch.jpg
Info Casio F-91W digital clock. Macro, stacked. Stacking software was time trial, did resize to this size (Adobe PS is often lost at this). --Mile (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above, it is a useful and technichally fine photo (although small whited out areas in right), but lacks any extra impact to make it a FP. As a functional photo, perhapse cleanup of the grey background to pure white or transparancy would improve it even further.Prosthetic Head (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 07:38:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zoom in the corpse of a donkey.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zoom in the corpse of a donkey.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 09:57:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saltwater Limpet Diagram-en.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saltwater Limpet Diagram-en.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 17:20:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Milano, 1953) - BEIC 6356204.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Milano, 1953) - BEIC 6356204.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 17:04:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cuban emerald (Chlorostilbon ricordii ricordii) male cr.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cuban emerald (Chlorostilbon ricordii ricordii) male cr.jpg
Oppose Overall the image is too soft, and it's clear that on the front of the bird oversharpening was used to compensate for a lack of sharpness. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 12:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PlayaForteSaoMateo3-CaboFrio-Brasil-feb2016-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PlayaForteSaoMateo3-CaboFrio-Brasil-feb2016-1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2016 at 10:49:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo del Desnarigado, Ceuta, España, 2015-12-10, DD 37.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo del Desnarigado, Ceuta, España, 2015-12-10, DD 37.JPG
Info View of the Desnarigado castle (es), coast of Ceuta, Spanish exclave in the north of Africa. The fortification was built in the 19th century although there had been a previous defensive structure in that location from the 17th century. All by me, Poco210:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Certainly a beautiful subject, but I think the composition could be better. The land should occupy more of the frame IMO. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find something poetic in the amount of sea in the picture, emphasizing the fort's position, and it's certainly a pretty and high-quality picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 19:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Badaling China Great-Wall-of-China-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Badaling China Great-Wall-of-China-01.jpg
Info The Great Wall of China at Badaling, some 50 kilometres north of Beijing. As we do not have a FP of the Great Wall, I thought it might be a good idea to nominate one.
SupportBadaling, Badalang (Sorry; I've been waiting to do that since I went there myself). A bit overprocessed perhaps, but understandable as there is no sign of smog in this picture and I don't blame you for wanting it pin-sharp. Here's the reverse angle, from my visit. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2016 at 16:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ballet shoes (Russian ballet school М. Исаева) bw.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ballet shoes (Russian ballet school М. Исаева) bw.jpg
Info Pointe ballet shoes, Russian ballet school. More clean version, both sides on same light. High gradience classic BW shot. --Mile (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Oppose - I'm still not loving this. Sorry. And it's mainly because the composition doesn't wow me, although, carefully adjusting the angle of my screen for optimal light, I find that the white light, especially on the right side, is somewhat glary (and significantly more so than with the compass picture, which has only one spot of real glare and not that much of it). Devalue my opinion if you like, but if I'm the only opposer, I haven't hurt the prospects of this photo getting the 7 supporters it needs, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2016 at 13:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Desierto de Dalí, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 107.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Desierto de Dalí, Bolivia, 2016-02-02, DD 107.JPG
Neutral The sky looks a bit cyan, and the mountain has a weird outline, almost like an oversharpening artifact. Otherwise a beautiful image. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lol. Sure, and I could oppose you this one, or that one (the closest to reality), or that other one, or even simply here on Commons (good colors too). Googling around for bad pictures and you will find as many different colors than photographers, some of them really weird. There's no way to get this cyan cast naturally on Earth, even less at an altitude above 4,500 m where you will have a deep blue sky, by the way with an excess of magenta in this Andine region. It happens I traveled very close to that area not long ago and none of the photographs I brought back (or any of the others photographers I traveled with) has that funny color for the sky. Sting (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Poco, do you have any comments about this? It doesn't look like a response from you is essential for this picture to be featured, but I'd be interested to get your take on these objections. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: sorry for the late answer. I'm on my way to the WikiCon in Berlin right now. To my defense I can say that I haven't applied any special processing on this picture but would agree that there is a cyan touch that I could get rid of, no problem with that and no drama about it, either. It will not be though before Monday when I'm back home from Berlin. I would also be delighted to see some of Sting's works in Bolivia and get to know in which year season the pictures were taken. That would definitely help me to undestand his point. Poco216:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course ;-) Mines were taken less than 1.5 months before yours. For all photos the camera setting was at “Neutral” and in AdobeRGB; all other settings to 0. I made a new revelation of the Raw files in Camera Raw specially for this purpose here, with all settings to 0, so, of course, all images will look dull with a big lack of contrast, but that's not the discussion here. In ACR the Camera profile was let at its default value “Adobe Standard”, instead changing it to “Camera Neutral” which would give a sky even less cyan and much more magenta. No processing applied in Photoshop, only resizing, converted (and not assigned) to sRGB, 8 bits and added text. Saved at jpeg max quality to avoid color distortions. All this to avoid as little change as possible of the Raw file and not be called a liar, I hope. The first one has the most cyan sky I could find, shot in the morning at 2.500 m, and even pushing the saturation to the max we're far from the cyan of the candidate here. The second one was taken in another place at about the same altitude, in the middle of the afternoon; no more cyan here even pushing the saturation. The last one was taken 55 km away from the candidate here (23° 04' S – 67° 28' W), at about the same altitude, during the second half of the afternoon; the sky has even a deeper blue. Hope this helps. Sting (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are not the kind of picture I was actually expecting but thanks anyhow. I have still pictures from Chile yet to be uploaded that go in the same direction like the one from Valle de la Luna (the second one). The funny thing is that all of them have the same processing. Btw, if you are shooting raw I don't see how the neutral or any other such a setting could have an influence in the outcome. Regarding that cyan touch I will, as said, reduce it on Monday. Poco222:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt raw, the ACR camera profile can have a noticeable effect on colours. What what I've read, the "Adobe Standard" should be the most faithful setting as it's the one the Adobe engineers have calibrated to test charts. The other ones "Camera Standard", "Camera Neutral", "Camera Vivid" etc are all attempts by Adobe to simulate the processing that your Canon/Nikon/Sony does when creating JPGs and the various processing modes available in your camera. Generally the manufactures are less interested in neutrality, than making skin tones look healthy and holiday photos look great. But Poco is right that if you process the raw file, then the camera setting for AdobeRGB vs sRGB or Neutral/Standard/Vivid/etc should not matter at all. The only things those will affect are JPGs and thus the histogram in your camera display. Another variable is colour temperature/tint. Unless one photographs a test chart, then it is just a matter of opinion and judgement, rather than science. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 16:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ely Cathedral Choir, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ely Cathedral Choir, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2016 at 20:16:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Clemente, Skopie, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Clemente, Skopie, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 03.JPG
Support Nice finding, Kiril! I enjoy the architecture of orthodox (by the way, this one is the biggest of the Macedonian Orthodox church) churches very much. Thank you for the nomination! Poco221:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - I'd prefer if the light had been less gray, but that's not close to enough of a minus for me to vote against featuring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 22:15:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mumbai 03-2016 52 Dharavi near Mahim Junction.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mumbai 03-2016 52 Dharavi near Mahim Junction.jpg
Comment Am I the only one who thinks the composition would have been much better if the wall wasn't visible? Not sure if it was possible, but usually it helps to lean over the wall to avoid it being in the view IMO. Diliff (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't have had to sacrifice the apartment building on the right though, you just had to shift the camera's position to the left but maintain the same camera direction. This would move the wall out of view, but keep the same view in the background. In theory, anyway. As I said, I don't know if it was physically possible, but from what I can see in the view, it should be. Diliff (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not sure anymore how it was exactly; I believe, however, the camera was shifted as far to the left as possible. Normally, I try the best to avoid any distracting elements. --A.Savin14:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2016 at 14:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - The picture is very interesting to look at, so I'm not inclined to nitpick its composition. I totally agree that microscope photos need their own category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 13:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:IGFarbenGoetterrat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:IGFarbenGoetterrat.jpg
Comment I like it and it is valuable. I find the white specks on especially the dark blue clothes of Carl Bosch somewhat distracting. I wonder what the origin of these small defects is? This would be improvable with a small digital restoration I think. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with Slaunger. But I'm assuming the white specks are imperfections that exist in the painting itself. This is a valuable historical document, especially since some of these men were major perpetrators of genocide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm wrong. I just looked up these names, specifically. A number of them were Jews and some of the rest were opposed to the Nazis. It appears that none were major perpetrators, with one possible but attenuated exception: This is from the de.wikipedia article about Dr. Kalle, put through Google Translate: "During World War II he betrayed Zyklon B -Developments within the IG Farben about Erwin Respondek to the United States. He was therefore at the Nuremberg trials not charged." Sorry for talking out of turn here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of my jumping to erroneous conclusions before, this is still a very historically significant company, thereby making this painting an important document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the document is significant, that's why I'll give my Support for its nomination. And as for jumping to conclusions, well, history tends to be a treacherous mistress at times. No biggie. ;-) "IG Farben" and "Nazis" set almost classic traps occasionally... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2016 at 07:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nao Victoria (ship, 1992), Sète cf04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nao Victoria (ship, 1992), Sète cf04.jpg
Support - I might want a little more room on the right, but I fully understand why you cropped this photo as you did: to concentrate on the ship, which looks really good. Nice background, as always in these pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2016 at 13:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canal e o Barco.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canal e o Barco.JPG
Oppose - I think I agree with INeverCry. The foreground being in shadow doesn't bother me, but I think the boats would probably need to be in full view for me to support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 01:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I don't like it quite as much as you, as there are some unsharp areas around the edges at full size, but I do like both the photo and the motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of noise in the dark areas and it is out of balance, something is weird here, and that bright spot at the top, keep bringing my eyes removing the attention to the door, "it's the best interior view I've ever seen" o.O, search for Diliff. -- RTA12:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compared to our other interior FPs, this is very noisy and over-sharpened (making the noise worse). Sorry, but I think if I nominated this as my own, it would be torn to shreds by my friends, never mind my enemies :-). Clearly a subject worth photographing. -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its noisy, best of it, it has QI mark, where this would be main issue. Suppose Ccefalon was on break. I could not see EXIF to be more straight, hand shot or not...etc. Colors are fine. --Mile (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it has great wow when I see it in its entirety on my screen. If I look at full resolution, sure there is some luminance noise in the darker area, but it is also a 22 MPixel photo, which should be taken into account, it is not a downsampled 'thumbnail'. If we complain about this level of noise at this detail level it will motivate nominators to just downsample instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 03:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I don't see anything wrong with either; could you please elaborate? Is the objection to do with the dog being in the shade? And what is a better crop, in your opinion? Thanks -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put notice what kind of shot i would take. Sometime detail is much better. I would move down and to left. Taking care when dog will move head etc etc (to capture first legs and head). Anyway, to get dog for Feautered i think some work is necessary to get something. This is more problematic than portraits. --Mile (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Among other things, I don't like the very blurry background and don't see the justification for it. It's not like you're trying to focus on a tiny gnat or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, it's standard practise in portraits and photos taken of similar-sized things to blur the background; it helps the subject stand out. In fact, I used a much smaller aperture than is usual; many would open up to around f/3.5. And in the interests of me learning, could you please elaborate what the "other things" are? Thanks Ikan -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love the light. I think it's fine to have the dog in shade, but then maybe greener grass would help give more sparkle to the picture. In terms of my comments about just how blurry the background is, my objection to that is probably fairly idiosyncratic on this board, but I find the degree of blur unpleasant, and since the very blurred area is so close to you, it's not like it needs to be so blurred to show distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the explanation. This is a really normal DOF to see when taking pictures at these distances, for a full-frame camera. Can't do anything about the grass; it hasn't rained here in 3 months :P -- Thennicke (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you probably can't take a photo of the dog in shade on the grass right now that I'd consider a FP. But the rains will come, eventually. As for the blurred background, others will vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with my colleagues. The crop is fine, though maybe a little more space could work. The colors are not bad, quality is at the level, the DoF is well chosen. The dog is nice, in a nice standing. The only thing that prevent the image to be outstanding is the light, some area in the background are lighted by the sun, sadly not the dog... Christian Ferrer(talk)16:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. It certainly is a nice portrait of the dog, but the dull, cold colours of background and shadows spoil it. Not bad, but also by no means outstanding as a photograph. A lower point of view might be much more interesting, by the way. Have a look at other FPs of canidae. --Kreuzschnabel09:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 17:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment A clean and classic damselfly composition with good bokeh. See image note for a proposed alternative crop. Have you tried that? BG a bit (chroma-)noisy. Not a major issue, but quite easy to improve. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose After looking through our other damselfly FPs, I do not think this nomination is quite on par with the FP bar within this topic area concerning detail level and crispness. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry guys, are you sure? The quality is imo far away from the bug bar at FP. Looks good at thumb but at full res this one cant be FP! Please have a closer look and look for other featured damselfly pictures for comparison. --mathiasK17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree we have a better FP damselflys than this, but (in terms of detail) we have others that are similar too, and also don't have the tail in focus. But it's very noisy and the chroma noise is very unappealing, so without excellence elsewhere I must oppose. An experienced FP contributor should have fixed that prior to nomination, and there's no response to Slaunger's comment since two days. I agree with Slaunger about the crop improvement too. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 06:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Groep bomen in verruigd biotoop. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Groep bomen in verruigd biotoop. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen 01.jpg
Oppose - I love your sensibility, and you're not wrong that this is a good photo, but I don't find the composition interesting enough to vote to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is my favorite kind of composition, but the foreground is just mush. Maybe that's the point, I don't know, but it doesn't work for me. -- Ram-Man23:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Lacks foreground detail and needs a more interesting subject. And "rule of thirds" isn't a mark of quality in itself -- merely an easy-to-explain compositional suggestion for beginners. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin; I'd be a lot happier with this composition if the image had been taken from half a meter lower, obscuring the distracting foliage in the background with grass -- Thennicke (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not outstanding as a photograph, per others. Too much NR applied to foreground, and there’s a distracting unsharp foreground object is cutting the horizon on the left. @ArionEstar: Once more, this is not facebook. The question is not whether you like it or not, the question is whether you think this is so outstantingly excellent that it deserves to be counted among the very finest photographs there are on Commons. --Kreuzschnabel06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2016 at 15:49:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zwellende bladknop van rode beuk Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea'. Locatie, De Famberhorst 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zwellende bladknop van rode beuk Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea'. Locatie, De Famberhorst 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 08:12:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Faro del cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Faro del cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 01.JPG
Oppose For me a good quality photo, but the composition is too busy IMO, especially in the open-ended foreground with the cliffs to the lower left, and the cactus to the lower right. I think you are trying to show too many things at the same time and my eyes cannot find rest and they are not naturally directed to the main subject, which is the light-house. Due to that I find it has only a little wow. Moreover, I have a question about some strange colors on a rock in the sea (see annotation on nomination page). -- Slaunger (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, would the solution be a crop of the rocks on the bottom left?. Those "starnge colors" are nothing else but a painted rock with the colors of the moroccoan flag, not my signature ;) Poco222:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco: Ah. The maroccoan flag, of course! Regarding the crop; I do not know. I tried experimenting with it, but could not find a crop, which resulted in a significantly improved composition. I Think that is the lighthouse is really, the main subject, it occupies far too little space in the photo. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 16:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Very nice, although I'd rather support a similar composition with somewhat brighter, less gray light, so if you take one, please nominate that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality. I'm going to try to replace the current image on de:Emanuel Pendl by this one. At least one meaningful usage in Wikipedia articles is desirable for an FP, imho. --A.Savin01:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 18:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I find it a no-brainer to support this picture for a feature, but I'd like for the description of the file to state clearly that it's a light microscope picture, and the degree of magnification should also be mentioned, if at all possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I think a lot of the space around could be cropped out ... there is no need for it; we can't see anything in it that would give us scale. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 12:29:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palazzo Fontana Rezzonico Canal Grande Venezia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palazzo Fontana Rezzonico Canal Grande Venezia.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2016 at 12:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpg
Slaunger, the problem here is that all out-of-camera JPGs lack profiles. Saving a few kB seems to be important to the camera makers. Perhaps we should raise a feature request for MediaWiki to supply a sRGB profile where the tag is sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Or give a warning about it when uploading offering to add the embedded color space data. I think some would loose trust in the upload process if the jpg file was modified during upload into a file with another size and EXIF without being actively informed during upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, I was thinking instead of when the thumbnails are generated (and by thumbnail, I mean any image size that isn't 100%). See this fix to Mediawiki that replaces sRGB profiles with TinyRGB for example. A warning wouldn't be much use to 99% of users who would lack the tools to fix it. Ultimately, this is a browser defect as they aren't actually obeying the W3C spec, which requires them to treat all unprofiled and/or untagged images as sRGB and to colour manage those. Still, the only practical solution at present is to ensure our FPs are tagged and profiled and use sRGB where we can. This is getting a bit off topic... -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Ahh, good idea with the downsampled versions. Thanks for the link regarding TinyURL. With the warning I was thinking that the user could get the option of having the upload SW embed a proper sRGB color space in EXIF. I did not know the W3C spec requires that unprofiled and/or untagged images are color managed as sRGB. Interesting. And, yes, this is getting off-topic, so collapsing the discussion. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2016 at 05:47:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinturm - Gesamtansicht vom Medienhafen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinturm - Gesamtansicht vom Medienhafen.jpg
Neutral - There's a kind of majestic character to this tall and narrow picture, but I don't love the crop on the right side that cuts off a building. I might like the photo better if it were cropped just to the left of that building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This crop is because of the central composition of the tower. I have some reserve on both sides and I'll try a different crop. But nevertheless should the tower be here the main object. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting a crop that's even closer to the tower on its right! However, if you're able to show all of that building, I'd like to see that version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taxiarchos228: It is the EXIF which misses this information. That implies that an application which neeeds to convert the numbers in your file to colors have no information about how to do that. Most application will guess at sRGB, but there is no guarantee, especially not in the future. So an application may display colors entirely different from what you intended. You need to upload a version of the jpg, where the color space data are not stripped from the EXIF. See also User:Colin/BrowserTest. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make it more obvious, if you tilt your laptop/LCD screen up (so that you're looking at it at an angle from below), you'll see that the tower is clearly surrounded by a band of lightness. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes, I see it clearly in the thumb too, perhaps from your HDR-Software? It's typical for that. But ... it isn't visible in full resolution!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
seen from Burnt Mountain 3452 m.a.s.l. in the Snowmass (ski area) in Colorado.]]
![[[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]] * Info Crossing of the Church of San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain. The church is composed of 3 naves, where the central nave is higher than the lateral ones, with pillars decorated with gothic motifs and very diverse baldachins. The construction of the church began in 1484 due to a visit of the Catholic Monarchs to Jerez de la Frontera, but it took several centuries to complete, resulting in a harmonious mixture of elements from the late Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Iglesia_de_San_Miguel%2C_Jerez_de_la_Frontera%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%2C_2015-12-07%2C_DD_105-107_HDR.JPG/600px-Iglesia_de_San_Miguel%2C_Jerez_de_la_Frontera%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%2C_2015-12-07%2C_DD_105-107_HDR.JPG)
.
Info created by Ferahgo the Assassin - uploaded by Ferahgo the Assassin - nominated by Ori Livneh -- Ori Livneh (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Ori Livneh (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - There are spots in this image that need to be removed. I don't really love the glary white background, either, but it's a good illustration ("It's a bird!" was my first thought) and of obvious educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Leaning toward support, if the spots are cleaned up.
Question I need some sources for such a reconstruction of a prehistorical (?) bird. Is this picture duely usable in an encyclopedical article ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Jebulon makes a good point. But pending a response to his query, I will 
Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
--Hockei (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_S%C3%A8te_cf01.jpg)
.JPG)
_(cropped).jpg)
Fixed @Ikan Kekek: Luma NR added and exposure increased -- Thennicke (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
_white_form.JPG)
.JPG)
seen from Burnt Mountain 3452 m.a.s.l. in the Snowmass (ski area) in Colorado.]]
.jpg)
.JPG)
). I also use a 16-bit TIFF/ProPhoto RGB workflow. -- Robert F. Tobler (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
tilted. How did you know with that accuracy that it needed a 0,35 degree tilt? In this kind of pictures it's hard to find a realiable reference. Poco2 17:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
![[[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]] * Info Crossing of the Church of San Miguel, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain. The church is composed of 3 naves, where the central nave is higher than the lateral ones, with pillars decorated with gothic motifs and very diverse baldachins. The construction of the church began in 1484 due to a visit of the Catholic Monarchs to Jerez de la Frontera, but it took several centuries to complete, resulting in a harmonious mixture of elements from the late Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque.](/wiki/File:Iglesia_de_San_Miguel,_Jerez_de_la_Frontera,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2015-12-07,_DD_105-107_HDR.JPG)
_female.JPG)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Laguna_Ca%C3%B1apa,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_63.JPG)
.jpg)
%22,_Eugen_Sandow_Wellcome_L0035270_-_restoration.jpg)
chromatic aberration (see image note) --The Photographer (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
_captured_on_Nov._02,_2012..JPG)
.jpg)
Not done Please compare with this well balanced image. BTW, you are not the "author" of this work, please take a look Artwork template documentation For some objects "author" is more appropriate term than "artist". In most cases either "author" or "artist" should be used, not both. --The Photographer (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
_Restaured_and_Color_fixed.jpg)
INeverCry 21:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC).jpg)
.JPG)
_GC.JPG)
--LivioAndronico (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
--Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_von_Nicola_Perscheid.jpg)
_in_the_Arkadenhof_of_the_University_of_Vienna-2379-HDR.jpg)
.jpg)
_02.jpg)
_-_Dome.jpg)
Strong support This has it all - resolution, composition, lighting, and a unique, hard to get to angle. I'm actually surprised at how small the file is: I got a bigger filesize from a 24-image pano I recently stitched. That said, I always save at a compression of 100%. Anyway, well done! I know from experience how long these high-res composites can take to make. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC).jpg)
..JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
_-_Interior.jpg)
_Locatie,_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg)
.jpg)
Overexposed zones, overprocesed. --The Photographer (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Overprocessed, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_31.JPG)
,_S%C3%A8te_cf02.jpg)
,_Laguna_Hedionda,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_59.JPG)
_female_in_flight_2.JPG)
.jpg)
_-_cropped.jpg)
_-_Ceiling.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
–Be..anyone 💩 19:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf01.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_white_form.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Cañapa,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_63.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![78 File:"A New Sandow Pose (VIII)", Eugen Sandow Wellcome L0035270 - restoration.jpg, not featured](#File:"A_New_Sandow_Pose_(VIII)",_Eugen_Sandow_Wellcome_L0035270_-_restoration.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_captured_on_Nov._02,_2012..JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_GC.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
![96 [Withdrawn] File:Baku, Azerbaijan, satellite image, LandSat-5, 2010-09-06.jpg](#[Withdrawn]_File:Baku,_Azerbaijan,_satellite_image,_LandSat-5,_2010-09-06.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_von_Nicola_Perscheid.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_in_the_Arkadenhof_of_the_University_of_Vienna-2379-HDR.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
._Locatie,_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_31.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Hedionda,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_59.JPG){kind=link}
_female_in_flight_2.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_cropped.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6356204.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male_cr.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_bw.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf04.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_infuscans-obsoleta_2.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf01.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf01.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_at_Shitenn%C5%8D-ji_Honb%C5%8D_Garden_in_Osaka,_November_2015_-_Stacking.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_white_form.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_white_form.JPG){kind=link}
_white_form.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_white_form.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female.JPG){kind=link}
_female.JPG,_feat){kind=link}
_female.JPG,_feat){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Ca%C3%B1apa,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_63.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Ca%C3%B1apa,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_63.JPG){kind=link}
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_30.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
%22,_Eugen_Sandow_Wellcome_L0035270_-_restoration.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
%22,_Eugen_Sandow_Wellcome_L0035270_-_restoration.jpg){kind=link}
_captured_on_Nov._02,_2012..JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_captured_on_Nov._02,_2012..JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_GC.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_GC.JPG){kind=link}
_GC.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_GC.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_von_Nicola_Perscheid.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_von_Nicola_Perscheid.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Nicola_Perscheid.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_von_Nicola_Perscheid.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_in_the_Arkadenhof_of_the_University_of_Vienna-2379-HDR.jpg){kind=link}
_in_the_Arkadenhof_of_the_University_of_Vienna-2379-HDR.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_the_Arkadenhof_of_the_University_of_Vienna-2379-HDR.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
._Locatie,_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Locatie,_De_Famberhorst_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_31.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Desierto_de_Siloli,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_31.JPG){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf02.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Hedionda,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_59.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Hedionda,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_59.JPG){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Hedionda,_Bolivia,_2016-02-03,_DD_62.JPG){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Colorada,_Bolivia,_2016-02-02,_DD_97.JPG){kind=link}
,_Laguna_Colorada,_Bolivia,_2016-02-02,_DD_105.JPG){kind=link}
_female_in_flight_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female_in_flight_2.JPG){kind=link}
_female_in_flight_2.JPG,_featur){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_female_in_flight_2.JPG,_featur){kind=link}
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/6/64/20160418150650!Red-billed_streamertail_%28Trochilus_polytmus%29_female_in_flight_2.JPG){kind=link}
_female_in_flight_2.JPG,_featur){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_cropped.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_-_cropped.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_cropped.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:San_Carlo_al_Corso_%28Rome%29_-_Second_Left_chapel_ceiling_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Trevi_fountain_2015.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Santa_Maria_in_Via_%28Rome%29_-_Ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6356204.jpg){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6356204.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6356204.jpg){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6356204.jpg)
-2016-04-22T17:20:00.000Z-File:Paolo_Monti_-_Servizio_fotografico_(Milano,_1953)_-_BEIC_6356204.jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
_-_BEIC_6356204.jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
_male_cr.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male_cr.jpg){kind=link}
_male_cr.jpg)
_male_cr.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male_cr.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_bw.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_bw.jpg){kind=link}
_bw.jpg)
_bw.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_bw.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf04.jpg){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf04.jpg)
,_Sète_cf04.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf04.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_infuscans-obsoleta_2.jpg){kind=link}
_female_infuscans-obsoleta_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female_infuscans-obsoleta_2.jpg){kind=link}
_teneral_female_violacea.jpg)
_female_infuscans-obsoleta_2.jpg,_f){kind=link}
_female_infuscans-obsoleta_2.jpg,_f){kind=link}
