Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 00:43:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BandoneonistaMDP-jul2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BandoneonistaMDP-jul2017.jpg
Oppose The light is too harsh, the hat and the keys are almost blown, and while the top-down view gives you a good background for the man, it is seldom a good way to photograph people. --cart-Talk09:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 09:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Куполите на манастирот Св. Јоаким Осоговски.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Куполите на манастирот Св. Јоаким Осоговски.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 20:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support One would ideally want it sharper, but given the conditions it was taken under I think we can accept this. It would make a great ad. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 20:16:34 (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 5 Aug 2017 at 02:42:58 (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 5 Aug 2017 at 02:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Texturas da Gruta da Lapinha.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Texturas da Gruta da Lapinha.jpg
Support, though I would support cropping out the tiny amount of unsharp lower left corner with a longitudinal (vertical) crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 10:40:48 (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 Aug 2017 at 12:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment OK, I'm giving the film thing another try. Better camera, better lens, better weather, finer-grained film and a subject that was purpose-built to be attractive ;-) Bonus points for the first one to find the reference to the year 3000 in the image. --El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info After viewing this on another monitor I think I pulled the highlights down too much in the initial version, so I brought them back a bit. Hope that's OK for you, Daniel? --El Grafo (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That change was unrelated to your comment, just wanted to make sure my only supporter so far (thanks!) is OK with me making changes post-vote. --El Grafo (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 06:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Carcote, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 54-58 PAN.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Carcote, Chile, 2016-02-09, DD 54-58 PAN.JPG
Support - How about another Chilean salt pan? The different substances and land forms in the picture give it a high educational value, and the way the lake curves toward the viewer helps make the form pleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you, Ikan! If I may add something this spot is quite far away from civilisation and you will see no turists around. It's rarely photographed. Poco211:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A real adventure was the day after when taking this "easy" 2 hours route (according to Google Maps). It took us indeed 12 hours as we had to partially build up a way to cross the mountains I guess we were the first drivers after 10 years... :) Poco218:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan: yes, some actually, but not that long. Usually our AWD could manage it after we dropped some rocks in the right spots. Sometimes it was even easier to drive near the road than on it :) Poco214:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 06:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vexillum citrinum 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vexillum citrinum 01.JPG
Support -- This is like the drawing where you see an old hag or a beautiful young woman. This one looks either like sea shells or holes in a balcony or something. PumpkinSkytalk19:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: , per Cart. This is the exact drawing I was talking about. There are similar examples. I first saw this drawing in Psychology 101 in my freshman year of college. PumpkinSkytalk02:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 08:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Парк Пелистер 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Парк Пелистер 2015.jpg
Support Very nice, there's definitely some wow here - especially how the clouds can be mistaken for distant snowy mountains and then you look at it closer and go: "say whaaaat...?" --Peulle (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2017 at 11:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Поезд на фоне горы Шатрище. Воронежская область.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Поезд на фоне горы Шатрище. Воронежская область.jpg
Neutral Wonderful composition. But there are two issues: Please check for CAs (for example at the posts) and please have a look for noise in the sky. Thank you. --XRaytalk20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'm finding it very over-saturated. EXIF confirms the various saturation adjustments are fairly extreme (e.g. Vibrance +47 will make the sky look odd especially, and red +84 is just burning out the RED dots on my screen). A more natural post-processing would get my support. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree those are pretty extreme settings, for me the red does not come on too strong; in fact it stands out better for that against the cool, subdued background. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2017 at 19:34:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hairy dragonfly (Brachytron pratense) male close up.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hairy dragonfly (Brachytron pratense) male close up.jpg
Comment No way! They also eat other dragonflies. When you've lived underwater for a couple of years and only emerge and fly around for a few weeks, you better enjoy it. Charles (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The description should be improved, IMO; it's a bit confusing to see what this is without knowing that the dragonfly is eating.--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support Not perfect but I trust Charles' judgement here, and this is not the sort of picture you can just go out and take every day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 20:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poststeig Gröden Pontives.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poststeig Gröden Pontives.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 15:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Virmalised 17.03.15.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Virmalised 17.03.15.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 18:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 138.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 138.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 16:06:35 (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 6 Aug 2017 at 10:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boots of a man.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boots of a man.jpg
Info Ever since I shot this photo, it has grown on me. The planking provides a very good, neutral but interesting background for the shoes. For me it is sort of a relaxed, scruffy-looking, 'yin-yang' complement to this FP. The photo is not staged, the man was quite surprised and amused when he saw that I was taking a photo of his shoes. All by me -- cart-Talk10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Casual shot. I fail to see it fitting among other pictures of this category. They look much more extraordinary. -- Pofka (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I quite like having such generic and useful images on Commons, but as for FP I'm not really seeing any particular wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support First, although those are Timberlands, they look similar enough to my own black Eccos that this could well be my feet in the wintertime (at this time of the year they are often likely to be bare, in contrast). Second, I like the internal yin-yang of this picture: the black boots, a little sandy, against the clean-looking planking. Third, we don't have a lot of FPs of clothing or footwear to begin with. Fourth and last, I like the idea of a picture of black boots that doesn't evoke fascism. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Peulle. I also don't like the untied boot, as it looks a bit sloppy. If this were going to be used as a stock photo, the untied boot isn't a plus and really limits the image's potential for use. DaphneLantier06:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2017 at 16:35:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buviksugga Risør (3).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buviksugga Risør (3).jpg
Info all by User:Peulle. The cairn was built as a daymark just outside Risør, Norway in 1898, and in 1979 a round-light lantern was added. The solar panel was added on later to ensure power to the lantern battery year round. At the time the cairn was built, Risør was an important port town in the south of Norway, and the cairn was part of the work of marking local rocks in the skerries. Beyond it is the east fjord, one of the two shipping lanes leading out to sea from the town. The open ocean can be seen in the distance. -- Peulle (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Living between two fjords as I do, I know just how dang hard it is to capture their grandeur in a photo, you just end up with a lot or nice but uninteresting water. The cairn is too small and dark in the photo to make the scene interesting. If only the sky had put on a show, things might have been different. Sorry. --cart-Talk16:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't downsample or crop my images needlessly. I'm thinking about shooting an image with closer zoom next time I go there.--Peulle (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 04:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mooie bloeiwijze van een Speerdistel (Cirsium vulgare) 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mooie bloeiwijze van een Speerdistel (Cirsium vulgare) 03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 06:05:19 (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 3 Aug 2017 at 13:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:European otter 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:European otter 02.jpg
Oppose - Yes, a nice capture, but that fuzzy thing (piece of wood?) in the near right corner distracts my eye a lot. I might reconsider my vote in case of a different crop, but I'd have to see it before passing judgment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral focus is slightly off, but for me that is compensated by the overall coolness of the image. but what is this thing in downright corner and could it be get rid off? Kruusamägi (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2017 at 10:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fennec Fox Peek.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fennec Fox Peek.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 07:33:45 (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 3 Aug 2017 at 16:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tiger Zoo Vienna.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiger Zoo Vienna.jpg
You don't have to do anything with this, it will be archived soon enough. OR, you could {{withdraw}} one of the other nominations and open up this instead if you want to. --cart-Talk08:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom open again after nominator closed another nom and now only have two. This was just a newbie mistake that I'm sure will not be repeated. :-) Please get on with the voting. --cart-Talk14:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCharles what does you mean by composition, technically, ... critic. It seems you are an ambitious photographer and your critics maybe can help getting better. The composition was chosen to give the tiger space in front of him and preserve a rule-of-third. The left eye at the crossing of the most left and upper third. A tighter crop would have chopped of his leg or leave a small green frame which doesn't look good either. Without space underneath his paw the lake would not be complete. Exposure was 1/500s to get the waterdrops sharp and ISO 200 to reduce noise as much as possible. The lens was at 200mm with a 2x converter, together 400mm with widest aperture at 5.4 giving smallest possible dof. It reaches from ear to ear, keeping the background out. Point of focus left eye. The picture appears as sharp as a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 can be with exact focusing, even in a 100% zoom. I don't know which point I missed in your critic and hope you can help me. Alexander Leisser (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everything is a matter of opinion and sorry if I was too abrupt. The basic idea is OK, but the water masks the face unfortunately. Also, I think the crop is too tight for this type of image. The sharpness problem comes from 1/500 sec - far too slow to freeze the water and paw and the F number is too small for good DoF with the lens used. Also, I think we need to see an animal's eye. Charles (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2017 at 11:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Закат на Бзерпи.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Закат на Бзерпи.jpg
Oppose Sorry to say it but the technical issues are too much for me. It's a very nice motif but the heavy grain pulls down the overall impression; the green areas closer to the camera look completely ruined.--Peulle (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 15:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Luz en el Horizonte - Amancio Gonzáles - Morro Jable - 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luz en el Horizonte - Amancio Gonzáles - Morro Jable - 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 21:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Morning at the Hamilton Valley located just outside of Mammoth Cave National Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morning at the Hamilton Valley located just outside of Mammoth Cave National Park.jpg
Oppose It's a nice scene and I can live with the graininess due to the fog, but not the lens flares at top right and bottom left corners. --cart-Talk22:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in addition to the lens flares, there seem to be a series of little dust spots in the middle of the picture frame. If you look through the picture correctly and fix everything, I could support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose I want to like it but a) there is more lens flare than I think is necessary, b) there is clear evidence of overuse of HDR on the trees to left of center and c) the sky could have been handled better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 18:00:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose While I agree that we should consider images like this one and not dismiss them out of hand, that other photo is in a different class, IMO. There's more going on and more of a skyline imagery. This one would have to be really really good to impress me, and it's not really doing it. There's quite a lot of chroma noise, the composition is a bit tight on both sides and the light is not really great either. In summary: I must oppose.--Peulle (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis of the CA, which I see distinctly. If you fix that, I will reconsider (no promises of a changed vote, though). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 16:45:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Оџакот на манастирот Св. Јован Бигорски.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Оџакот на манастирот Св. Јован Бигорски.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 13:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Szent Ilona kápolna Teskánd Zalaegerszeg.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Szent Ilona kápolna Teskánd Zalaegerszeg.JPG
Oppose Too dark (for 15:50 July). The grass shouldn't be that colour in daylight I think. Either under-exposed or badly processed. Could do with being saved with an embedded colour profile too. Wrt the "perspective correction", I don't think this is going to be possible as the photo was shot too close to the church and the resulting distortion would be too much. I don't think, even with light-level fixes, this is comparable with FP level for churches. -- Colin (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously too dark and unnatural. I think the image wasn't edited in Lightroom or Photoshop yet and still has that ugly darkness which sometimes happens when you are photographing with Nikon DSLR in sunlight. If it was captured in RAW, then I think it can be easily solved. For now complete oppose. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light isn't too bad, but shadows need lightening. Perspective must be corrected a bit and the sky needs denoising. If you can fix all of this I might change my vote but as it is, no.--Peulle (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 22:00:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese Garden Stone Cistern Fountain NBG 6 LR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Japanese Garden Stone Cistern Fountain NBG 6 LR.jpg
Info All by me. This is a stone cistern fountain at the Japanese Garden at the Norfolk Botanical Garden. The cistern has a natural tilt to the left. PumpkinSkytalk22:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good light and a very pleasant subject, unfortunately that plant-sign behind the water pipe is very distracting. Any chance of getting it cloned out? --cart-Talk09:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 04:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Keine Ahnung, wie ich das übersehen haben konnte. Ich repariere es. Danke. (Und ich werde wohl die Aufnahme irgendwann zur Goldenen oder Blauen Stunde wiederholen. Dann vielleicht ohne Baustelle. Bis September kann man auch noch durchs Wasser laufen, denn quer durchs Becken geht die Skulptur "Steg" von Ayse Erkmen, die bekannteste Skulptur der Skulpturen-Ausstellung.) --XRaytalk05:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this scene could work very well with some more interesting light (golden hour?), but as it is it just looks too bleak to me. (I'm also not a huge fan of all those user space templates on the description page, BTW) --El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 22:08:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Giuseppe dei Teatini (Palermo) - Dome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Giuseppe dei Teatini (Palermo) - Dome.jpg
Info San Giuseppe dei Teatini is a church in the Sicilian city of Palermo. It is located near the Quattro Canti, and is considered one of the most outstanding examples of the Sicilian Baroque in Palermo. The church was built at the beginning of the 17th century by Giacomo Besio, a Genoese member of the Theatines order. It has a majestic though simple façade. In the centre niche is housed a state of San Gaetano, founder of the Theatines order. Another striking feature is the large dome with a blue and yellow majolica covering. P.s. The Roof lantern is white non overexposed. All by LivioAndronico(talk)22:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 06:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info One of the most striking images I've ever seen on Commons - and certainly deserving another shot. If you've ever tried something like that, you certainly understand how difficult it is to create this effect successfully. Colin's work is a truly great photograph that we should appreciate accordingly. A couple of weeks ago I expressed the hope (in our group on facebook) that FPC has become much more open to unconventional yet great motifs. So please do prove me right. Btw., two years ago critics pointed out that there would be no possible encyclopedic value - they were proven wrong. Created and uploaded by Colin, nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep! I've always been under the impression that this already was an FP. Silly me! Thanks Martin for setting things straight. --cart-Talk08:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm just not wowed - sorry, that's my personal opinion. On a side note, I have a bit of a Comment: The archive shows that this image was thoroughly discussed with a total of 27 people voting. It was not featured then and no changes has been made to the image since then, so I feel like the image had its chance, no?--Peulle (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first nom was made over two years ago, the Wiki-project has grown, the whole world has changed since then, maybe also the FPC? I wonder if any of my abstract FPs would have been welcome back then. --cart-Talk14:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per my !vote in the previous FPC. These seem to be a thing lately, at least in the UK, according to the photo magazines I get, and I think having a featurable one like this would be great. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, yes it has been placed in an article but no the technique is not significant enough to warrant being featured on this basis. It would look odd and out of place among the other Nature shots in that category when from the discussion above and the nomination statement, the camera technique is the point being made. seb26 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That reads like an argument for requiring the photo to be featured in a special category, not an argument against featuring the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't represent what I wrote. My opinion is that it is not worthy of being featured regardless, and that additionally if it were under the Nature category it would be an inappropriate fit. seb26 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it and appreciate it! And I also say that as a painter which side of me people here might not know. Too hard for me to give either a support or oppose because I'm still not sure how it suits the motif of this website as a featured one. But personally very inspirative work indeed so I kind of want to encourage experimental stuff too. --Ximonic (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose There is nothing more than just a valued image of the photographic effect for me here. Photographs similarly to paintings are supposed to be works of art that have to allow engaging in deep thinking and enjoying while staring at, while this heavily manipulated one makes pain for the eyes in few seconds and does not allow one to concentrate on what is there and what it has to mean. I even think that the original one would be a much better candidate.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril, I'm sorry you don't enjoy it, and it causes you "pain for the eyes" but it is not "manipulated". File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg is "manipulated", and it's a POTY. The above image gives an impression of a bluebell wood in England. That's a valid form of representation imo, though not a common one. At another extreme of photography is File:Army Athletics Long Jumper at The Inter Corps Athletics Competition at Tidworth, Wiltshire MOD 45152793 (cropped).jpg, which gives the 1/6000th second moment a long jumper lands in the sand. It isn't "real" either, because sand doesn't stay absolutely still suspended in the air. It is an effect only possibly with high-speed photography, not human vision, and at one level is just a mess of sand getting in the way of seeing the athlete. -- Colin (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I praise the effort to create an unusual work of art from a photograph, but I'm sorry to say that this does not work for me at least for an FP (perfect valued image, though). As for the manipulation, most of the FPs we have here are manipulated in some way and no-one has a standardised definition of what "manipulation" stands for. For me personally, the combining of multiple images to produce unrealistic effects is "cheating", while altering a photograph that makes it difficulty to spot the composition normally is "manipulation". I also don't think this term should be taken in a negative connotation, as it is a normal thing done on photographs in the lust of creating something special or of higher quality. Regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril, I have neither "combin[ed] multiple images" nor have I "alter[ed] a photograph". I pressed the shutter while moving the camera. Other photos are taken by pressing the shutter while the subject moves. Any processing was no different to that for a standard image. Only a single image here. I'm not sure you appreciate that the 1/6000th second photo of the athlete is no more "manipulated" or "cheating" than this. Just different ways of observing the world through a camera. See en:Photo manipulation -- this is not that. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2017 at 14:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guépier d'Europeau parc national de l'Ichkeul 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guépier d'Europeau parc national de l'Ichkeul 1.jpg
Charles, unless I'm blind, which is certainly possible, that other photo is not an FP nor is it listed elsewhere here at FPC, so there's no "too similar" debate to be made here at FPC that I can see. PumpkinSkytalk21:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't mind another FP of this kind of bird (there are a few already) but the tail-part in this photo is too unsharp for me. Nice otherwise. --cart-Talk22:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 10:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The gardener really thought this one through. Given that it is a large file, the pixel-peep unsharpness is overcome by the wow-factor for me. --cart-Talk12:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 13:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roca de la Ley, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 022.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roca de la Ley, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 022.JPG
Info Canyon along the Lögberg (icelandic for Law Rock), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. The Lögberg was the place on which the lawspeaker (lögsögumaður) took his seat as the presiding official of the assembly of the Althing, the national parliament, from 930 until 1262 (when Iceland took allegiance to Norway). Speeches and announcements were made from the spot and anyone attending could make their argument from the Lögberg. All by me, Poco213:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. My initial reaction was that the lighting could use some more wow, but on second thought that would cause harsh shadows on one side of the canyon, so it is best as is. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 05:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Red sky + Giraffe + Kenya = A sunrise to remember (15062623745).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red sky + Giraffe + Kenya = A sunrise to remember (15062623745).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 21:27:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parliament of Canada, Peace Tower under Clouds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parliament of Canada, Peace Tower under Clouds.jpg
Oppose per Daphne. I see you're pretty new to the site. You might consider nominating photos to COM:QIC first, and/or to avail yourself of COM:Photography critiques. I don't mean to suggest you aren't welcome at FPC. You are, but nevertheless, you might get more tips at those other parts of the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2017 at 05:58:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss, Louvre 22 July 2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss, Louvre 22 July 2017.jpg
Support - I find this photo compelling: It pulls me in, so regardless of the fact that photos with these kinds of crops aren't normally featured, I think this one should be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose The sculpture is compelling, not sure about this photograph though. There is possibly a vignette applied to the image, which helps "pull one in" to the faces but then one can't actually see Psyche's face, just a nose. Compare File:Psyche revived by the kiss of Love, Louvre 14 September 2009 003.jpg where we can see she is looking into his eyes -- surely that's essential for a close-up of this scene. Btw, the full sculpture looks like File:Psyché ranimée par le baiser de l'Amour.jpg. I think the best crop shows the embrace of both figures such as File:Amor-Psyche-Canova-JBU04.JPG. I don't think the landscape orientation is helpful here and the figures are positioned with Cupid's eye in the centre (perhaps cause that's where the focus point of the camera was) rather than framing a little lower and more to the right. As a plus, the image is sharp, and retains detail on the stone, and avoids any distractions in the background (which isn't easy). I also like the soft tones, because too many photos like this are ruined by applying lots of "Clarity". -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This angle and crop is designed to capture a moment rather than a statue. The shot creates a tension and makes it sensual, intimate, almost erotic. Sure, we can't see Psyche's face, but her exposed throat and arms up in surrender to love, shows how vulnerable she is at this moment. Just picture Google "woman with head back" for comparison. --cart-Talk09:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cart I tried your Google, but mostly I still see a face in each image, rather than a neck and nose. I agree with all the qualities you describe, but feel they come from the statue, which is great, rather than this composition, which seems created by holding the camera in the standard orientation aimed at Cupid's eye. I understand the point of cropping, but they are embracing, so I'd like to see his arm to complete the embrace, rather than a bit of wing. I'll change to "weak oppose" because it is a good quality photo of this statue, and it isn't as boring as many of our statue FPs. But if you're going to crop, the composition/orientation is the point, and I don't think it is quite right here. We've got a 3:2 horizontal image because that's what the camera makes when you hold it normally rather than a crop that is based on the subject. Why all the space on the left? I'm just itching to turn the camera vertically. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 04:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Waterloopbos. Koelwatervijver Maasvlakte centrale model M1193.M1217 001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waterloopbos. Koelwatervijver Maasvlakte centrale model M1193.M1217 001.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 10:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anax imperator 2015 11 23 6807.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anax imperator 2015 11 23 6807.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 04:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arnoldstein Radendorf Wallfahrtskirche Maria Siebenbruenn mit Dobratsch 23052016 2048.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arnoldstein Radendorf Wallfahrtskirche Maria Siebenbruenn mit Dobratsch 23052016 2048.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 01:18:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Waterloopbos. Onderzoek afsluiting van zeegaten Deltawerken M995 18.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waterloopbos. Onderzoek afsluiting van zeegaten Deltawerken M995 18.jpg
Support - I'm nominating this photo because I find it lovely. I'm not blind to the noise in some areas of shadow, but overall, I love the composition and find the technical quality of the photo as I see it to be quite adequate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this was all nature, I might support, but I find the concrete and metal unattractive and not really in harmony with the rest of the scene. DaphneLantier01:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2017 at 13:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.10.30.-01-Wagbachniederung Oberhausen-Rheinhausen--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.10.30.-01-Wagbachniederung Oberhausen-Rheinhausen--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpg
Comment - The iridescent dragonfly is wonderful, but the background is very distracting. Would you consider fading the bokeh more? Otherwise, I don't think I can vote to feature this photo in spite of how beautiful the insect is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 09:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nizwa Fort and Minaret of Friday Mosque.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nizwa Fort and Minaret of Friday Mosque.JPG
Info The minaret of Friday Mosque as seen from Nizwa Fort, Nizwa, Oman. This picture grew on me over the time. First I was a bit disappointed that the sky was rather misty. But misty skies are actually to be expected when visiting an oasis town in the middle of the dessert surrounded by mountains. So now I really appreciate the "One Thousand and One Nights" feeling the image conveys to me with everything from the parapet to the minaret. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very striking image. The nearest foreground is unsharp at full size, but it's a large file, so it's best not to overemphasize that detailed a view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and cart. Doesn't seem like it should work, and indeed it's almost oversharpened, but as a result the background detail is sharp enough to not use "unsharp background" as a reason for opposing, and frankly the minaret is just the right amount off center. (I also like that roof, so much like Qusayr Amra in Jordan ... wonder what the shared architectural influence might have been, as I don't think the Sassanids got that far south. And what's that museum in Dallas with the similar roof ... my dad noticed that right when we got to Qusayr Amra, and wondered if that had been the inspiration). Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 15:55:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image: Bad Doberan Zisterzienserkloster.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image: Bad Doberan Zisterzienserkloster.jpg
Oppose Too much random trees everywhere covering the main subject (church). Half of the cut tree in the right hidden in shadow made the decision clear for me. It might work if not that dark tree, though. Sadly, it is obvious that cropping it is not possible here as it would also damage the church. -- Pofka (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is a bit unfortunate with those trees but I might have been able to forgive that (since it's part of the actual scenery) if everything else was great. Sadly, it's not. The light is very pleasant, but the level of detail on the building is low. Also, as a tip to the photographer: before nominating something for FP, try to really check the image so it's as good as you can make it. Why am I saying that? Well, take a look at the lower left corner and you'll know what I mean ... --Peulle (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2017 at 22:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cow on Pupers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cow on Pupers.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 15:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I know that the bar for horse FPs is quite high but I've received positive feedback about it, so I'm going to try it with this one. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ikan for the comment, exactly that's the problem: as you can see in the file history, there is a former version with more space on the right. However, there was another horse in the blurred back which someone could consider a nervous background. I'm not sure what's your opinion but I decided to crop it out. What do you think? --Basotxerri (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the previous version was worse because the background was bad. I'll make a decision about this photo and post it later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a no cropped version but with the disturbing out of focus horse cloned out, please revert if you don't like, or I can upload it in a separate file if it is an issue. Regards, Christian Ferrer(talk)05:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll vote for this now, but none of you thinks this kind of cloning out is cheating? I know it seems to be accepted as a matter of course here, but why? Perhaps that's a topic better discussed on the talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was on the fence about this one because of the tight cut before. I don't mind removing the other horse, they are not permanent fixtures and it was such a small part of the photo. A bug flying in front of the lens at the wrong moment could have caused just as much disturbance and no one would have thought twice about removing it. --cart-Talk07:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 13:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Awesome - I love the frosty fog and the light reflecting off it. (Why is the FoP template used here, though? Is there a hidden building or artwork I can't see?)--Peulle (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was prepared to !vote against this, but looking at it closely I reconsidered. It doesn't have any special features to it, but ... it just presents winter at its most essential. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 19:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pärnu jõgi Sindis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pärnu jõgi Sindis.jpg
Support Nope, nothing ordinary about this double fire river sunset. :) I'm glad that the tree grows a bit away from the water, if that had been reflected as well it would have cluttered up the composition and been too much. Maybe a little bit heavy on the saturation of the greenery. --cart-Talk22:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport, beautiful scene. A pity that an inappropriate aperture was used resulting in the foreground being out of focus, but it is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2017 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grandiflora Rose MEIzolle Glowing Peace NBG LR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grandiflora Rose MEIzolle Glowing Peace NBG LR.jpg
Oppose Not quite high enough quality for FP, IMO; there is some grain in the centre and loss of focus further from the lens (DoF is a bit too shallow). For a shot like this one, where the subject is still (also the resolution is not very high) I'd really want it to be even crisper to reach the FP status.--Peulle (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I love this kind of roses and they hold many positive memories for me but this is too soft and not crisp enough for an FP, especially since it is a rather small file. --cart-Talk15:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 06:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Kanal Schubschiff Muflon-5 17RM0003.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Kanal Schubschiff Muflon-5 17RM0003.jpg
Oppose Fine but just a QI. I don't see any light or composition or wow subject or clever approach that lifts this to FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 13:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The family of sphingidae is not the most attractive aesthetically because they do not have bright colors. Their beauty must be discovered for been appreciated. Especially since here it is a "lady" and that for this family the females are much rarer than the male. When one has the chance to find them they are not always in very good condition which is a little the case of this specimen. Thanks to Peulle --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 21:10:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoYazd Atash Behram (in English "Yazd Victorious Fire"), a Zoroastrian temple located in Yazd, Iran. It was built in 1934 and was open to non-Zoroastrian visitors in the 1960s. It is one of the nine Atash Behrams, the only one of the highest grade fire in Iran where Zoroastrians have practiced their religion since 400 BC; the other eight Atash Behrams are in India. All by me, Poco221:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2017 at 15:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cisles Forces de Siëles.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cisles Forces de Siëles.jpg
Oppose Flat lighting on most of the scene (or else you've lifted the shadows too much) means the mountains are all middle-grey. I'm not seeing the exceptional light from our FP natural scenes like this. And nor is there exceptional detail -- the image is really soft and especially so in the corners. I have to downsize considerably to get a sharp image. I think Wolfgang Moroder, you should get that lens fixed, as your camera is capable of so much better image quality. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 20:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guarda Presidencial no Palácio do Planalto (35906623615).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guarda Presidencial no Palácio do Planalto (35906623615).jpg
Comment PLease check the verticals. The picture is tilted (more obvious from the middle to the left side). --Llez (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite low quality and dull light. Also where is the main subject of the picture? I really fail to find it as I keep looking everywhere. Consequently, I doubt if I would support it to be named even as a Quality Picture. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2017 at 18:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It's a very interesting subject, but I don't think it was captured under the best lighting. The shadows in the foreground and the near-black areas of the background trees are distracting. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. I think neither the lighting nor the framing (left and right crops) are outstanding enough to bring this up to FP. Obviously, a strong majority disagrees with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017 at 00:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral The snake is very good captured. But I cannot to acquire a taste for the black background. In the past it was one of the most reasons for opposes. You can correct me if I'm wrong. --Hockei (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that much about the past "black" discussion, but the photographer explained about the lighting of these photos on another nom. This isn't black cutout, it's just dark. You can even see a bit of green in some places. It's not that hard to get an almost black background even in a natural environment. Even a totally inexperienced "wildlife" photographer as myself managed to get very dark backgrounds in some photos taken on an extremely sunny day and no flash, simply because the flowers grew out from under some bushes. (Ex.1 & Ex.2). --cart-Talk21:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Sorry for my late answer. In the past it was very often a reason for oppose also concerning my pictures. (I don't fancy for looking for examples.) Maybe before your time in FP? In this picture here I cannot find any structure of plants for example or what ever in the background. It looks like erased. --Hockei (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2017 at 07:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Theater street 4261766.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Theater street 4261766.jpg
Support I love the casual way these three work colleagues carry themselves and interact. For me they bring to mind the paper dolls I had when I was a kid. You could clip on any outfit you wanted on them. It's the same with these, they could just as easily be dressed as lawyers, teachers, electricians, shop assistants, whatever. They just happen to be performers, dressed as a cow, chicken and dinosaur. -- cart-Talk07:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is already as noise reduced as possible IMO. I cannot find any disturbing noise. Don´t forget that the camera technology has undergone massive further development since 2008.--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support...and 7. Cow, yes; chicken no, that's a duck, look at the shape of the bill, it's too flat and broad to be a chicken; dinosaur possibly, but it could also be an alligator. PumpkinSkytalk11:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you are right. But do ducks have a red combs and alligators ridges on their nose? I think we can settle on this being three fantasy animal costumes. :-) --cart-Talk15:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 02:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golden hour at bekol savannah.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden hour at bekol savannah.jpg
Info View of the Bekol Savannah in Baluran National Park, East Java, Indonesia. In the forefront is a wild buffalo. The image was one of the finalists in Wiki Loves Earth Indonesia 2017. Created and uploaded by Candra Firmansyah, nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And 2500 pixels on the long side, so yes. It was not a requirement for the Wiki Loves Earth Indonesia competition for images to be uploaded in their original resolution. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but that just sort of ruins it for me; it's a fairly "easy to take" image and I'd like the resolution to be higher for it to wow and impress me.--Peulle (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Easy to take"? The description says "wild buffalo", its African cousins are listed among the Big five game, killing more hunters than the rest. I would not like to stand in front of any wild buffalo on any continent! --cart-Talk09:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bubalus bubalis is apparently less aggressive than its African cousin. Needless to say, however, a one-ton beast is certainly not something I'd try to anger. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that this is not a photo taken from 500 yards away with a 600 mm lens, showing a cheetah at full sprint or something that may require cropping; it's a photo of a buffalo standing fairly still, taken at fairly close range. It seems to me that the only reason for the downscaling of this image was to make it appear better and sharper, which we should not do.--Peulle (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know how wild kerbau (to use the Malay word, which I think is the same or almost the same in Indonesian) behave, but domesticated ones are very docile and slow-moving. I was wondering how we would know for sure this one was not owned by anyone, but I'm guessing that privately-owned kerbau wouldn't stray onto a national park. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Peulle: Standing close to such an animal, having the sun setting just behind the mountains (I bet this has involved scouting), and incidentally giving a delicate lighting. I don't see much room left between that and a difficult shot. - Benh (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2017 at 06:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican guitars and toys.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican guitars and toys.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017 at 00:01:34 (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 11 Aug 2017 at 22:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winchester Cathedral Choir, Hamshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winchester Cathedral Choir, Hamshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support - Sure. As often happens, I am unable to get any results from a search for any special category (FP, QI, VI) in a category, in this case, the category of "Interior of Winchester Cathedral", but w:User:Diliff/UK_Cathedral_photography would seem to demonstrate that none of his other pictures of the cathedral look very similar to this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017 at 14:13:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Маяк Анива.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Маяк Анива.jpg
Support Yes. Even though it's actually not a Protected Area, which was the reason why it has not come into WLE'17 Russia Top-10. But within WLE or not, very valuable photo of a hard-to-reach spot anyway. --A.Savin18:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 22:56:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus taeda CG NBG - for CROP LR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus taeda CG NBG - for CROP LR.jpg
I find the shape of this piece of bark fascinating. It's simultaneously almost a square, almost a circle, and almost a rhombus. All by me. PumpkinSkytalk22:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I'm with Alchemist-hp on this. Love the subject, good composition, but the focus didn't hit the mark on this one. Camera acting up again? --cart-Talk08:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 10:06:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fisherman at Gullmarsvik mudflats.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fisherman at Gullmarsvik mudflats.jpg
Info Mostly I was fascinated by the wave pattern and how it contrasted to the lugworm casts. The guy fishing added scale and ambience to the scene. All by me. -- cart-Talk10:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice idea resulting in a very good composition that would have been even better had there been division in thirds with some sky on the top.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to oppose but then I looked repeatly at photo, several times. I think it's worth an FP, below the lugworm mud and above these regular waves, they are caught very well. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The regular waves is what pushes this photo over the FP-line, IMO. They occurred only two times (a freak wind or something) in the twenty-something photos I took and the guy had the best pose in this. The rest of the photos have "just" normal waves and they are less spectacular. --cart-Talk17:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, along the same wavelength as Basotxerri, except that I could have easily not voted. But I think it's just a really interesting image, and sometimes, that's all you need. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2017 at 07:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kleinziegenfelder Tal 1270347.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kleinziegenfelder Tal 1270347.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 01:32:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hermagor Moederndorf Filialkirche hl Martin WSW-Ansicht 08062017 9263.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hermagor Moederndorf Filialkirche hl Martin WSW-Ansicht 08062017 9263.jpg
Support - I feel like this is the kind of scene that postcard-makers try to distill as the essence of the Austrian Alps, but I'm guessing this particular rustic view probably isn't actually on any postcards. Either way, it's really well done, and I think it would be good to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support What image comes to my ming when talking about rural landscape in Austria? Something like what your picture shows. Well done. --Sputniktilt (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 10:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zeche Zollverein trees and grass ICM impression.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zeche Zollverein trees and grass ICM impression.JPG
Comment This is much better than this one and has some artistic value, but I am still unsure whether we should allow featuring manipulated photographs in a such way. It is also difficult for me to decide whether this should be evaluated as a photograph or as a painting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's definetely a photograph if the latter's defined as a "process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)." I wouldn't even say it's that much "manipulated". I merely panned the image vertically during an exposure time of 1/5s. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kiril See my comment on the Bluebells ICM. It isn't "manipulated" in the sense people mean here (post processing). All photographs are a manipulation of time. Whether 1/6000th second or 1/2 second or 30 seconds. Only photography can choose to freeze a brief moment in time, if one wishes to. Reality is continuous. It should be evaluated as a photograph, just don't think so conservatively about what a photograph is. -- Colin (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I'm fine with the "manipulation" if it results into something interesting. In this case, the thing is that this looks nice to me compositionally as a work of art that fits good to my eyes regardless of whether it is a photograph or painting. However, I'd like to make sure that this is something that we allow for FP. I agree with you that my definition for a photograph is a bit conservative and that's probably another factor for my hesitancy about such innovative works.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was not to be unfair to you or anyone else here and I explained that the term "manipulation" does not have any negative meaning in my comment bellow. I may be wrong about using the term for this but I assure you that it wasn't supposed to be something derogatory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I made this nom, no one questioned if it was a photograph. Motion is relative, in one photo the subject is moving and in another it is the camera. They both result in an unusual photo. --cart-Talk13:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that there's some artistic value, but I'm just now wowed when I can't see anything. To really like an effect like this, I'd want an object that is clearly discnerable, but blurred for effect.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Might definitely be catchy in an art gallery, but I think not here or not in this category. If we will fill the "Natural" category with FPs like this, then I think we will start destroying what this community has already created. In my eyes, pictures like this should have their own category and doesn't fit among clear pictures we currently have. And yes, I really like it and would absolutely buy a ticket to the exhibition filled with such mystical works of art. Thanks for some pleasure therapy to my eyes as this one clearly is pleasant and not something painful for sight as we recently had in another nomination. -- Pofka (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Surprising, and particularly compelling to me at full size. And as with the other nomination, I don't think questions about what category to feature the photo in are good arguments against a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1. If people are iffy about putting this photo together with the rest of the pics in 'Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural', I don't see why we can't add a sub cat at the bottom named 'Other' (Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Other). We have that option in some other main FP categories for odd files like Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Others. --cart-Talk22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHi Martin Falbisoner, I am not an expert on art or photography, I found your picture interesting, beauty and I understand that producing this kind of image requires effort, knowledge and talent. But as I say this only my personal opinion I love about 95% of FP pictures in fact I love the 4 examples that you selected, I found in the examples lines and shapes very well defined and a nice light distribution my soul finds joy on this pictures I am sorry I don't feel the same about your picture, please don't get offended by my totally subjective personal opinion on a type of picture I don´t know how to describe this, so I choose the expression “too abstract” but only as an intent to express my personal feelings, best regards --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ivar, Pofka, thanks for your vote! Maybe you'd like to take into consideration that - should this nom turn out to be successful - the image would not be placed into a "regular" nature category. I've created a special ("other") section that is linked to "photographic effects". So there would be a clear distinction. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 21:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, I think this would have been better if you had just focused on the line of beach chairs and the sand, preferably when the light was better on the trees behind them. Now the chairs and the sea are competing for attention on either side of some rather featureless sand. --cart-Talk16:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also the man is not well posed, with his back to us, and it is unfortunate that his partner is adjusting her clothing. They don't give the image of a couple relaxing and enjoying themselves. -- Colin (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2017 at 15:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose so far.The halos around the fir tree tops are a result of a not very careful reduction of the highlights. That should be fixed IMO. The composition deserves it.--Ermell (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done@Ermell: @Ikan Kekek: I've uploaded a version developped from the scratch, I've prepared highlights and shadows in a less aggressive way, however as a side effect some of the dynamic range is lost. Anyway, I think it's still good enough. If anybody wants to object, please let me know. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I miss the brightness on the nearest hillside that slopes up to the right. For my taste, I'd love some kind of compromise, but I'm in no position to insist and won't change my support vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it's just too unsharp for me. At full res (14 MP) the fine details are clearly smudged, but even at 3 MP the details look more like fine brushstrokes in a painting than real vegetation. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 11:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crab spider (Misumena ssp) with prey nettle tree butterfly (Libythea celtis).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crab spider (Misumena ssp) with prey nettle tree butterfly (Libythea celtis).jpg
Info The front four legs of these spiders are larger than the others and so they look like little crabs. They don't make webs, but hide on flowers waiting for nectaring insects. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a compelling scene, but what accounts for the sort of scored-looking surface of the background, in the sense of a dense alternation of different shades, something like you can get by using pastels thickly? I think I can get used to it and I might vote for a feature, but I'm curious about this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice catch (for the photographer as much as the spider!}. but the unsharp areas in the front are too distracting for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2017 at 13:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:150111 Port of Kobe Japan01s5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:150111 Port of Kobe Japan01s5.jpg
Info This photo shows "Dezomeshiki". Dezomeshiki is a event that is conducted by fire fighters in Japan at the first work day of the year. --Yapparina (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Peulle, "perspective correction" is not possible here. The camera is clearly "looking down" and that's what you get when you look down. Perspective "correction" can only really give the illusion that one was looking straight ahead provided the deviation isn't huge and that the resulting vertical angle-of-view isn't absurd. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You would be right if the shot was a typical bird-s eye view, but even looking at the buildings directly ahead (other side of the bay), they're also leaning. --Peulle (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting event but the composition isn't great (fine for an opening shot on a video where we zoom in on the detail). This camera/lens should be able to take great pictures but the quality here is poor with too much contrast/saturation and chroma noise. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017 at 15:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2017.01.20.-22-Paradiski-La Plagne-Piste unter Lift Colorado--unberuehrter Schnee.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.01.20.-22-Paradiski-La Plagne-Piste unter Lift Colorado--unberuehrter Schnee.jpg
Comment The place is well selected and not random at all. The WB is natural so that the snow is white and not yellowish like in many other snow pictures. There were no tall green reflecting trees around it. Also the sky is blue as it was in reality. I spent much time and needed many tries to keep the structures of the snow clearly visible in these pictures. --Hockei (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like the snow shapes and appreciate that you did spend time trying to get the best composition, but ultimately that doesn't come through and the trees don't seem to form any intended-composition, particularly the crop on the left. I think that for FP it would probably need to be just the snow or else a great arrangement of trees, perhaps with leading the eye towards something interesting. -- Colin (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 21:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea cinerea head - Heidelberg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea cinerea head - Heidelberg.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2017 at 10:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Merak tarung.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Merak tarung.jpg
Support I've seen a lot of peacocks, but never a fight. Usually they just shake their tail feathers which makes a creepy rattling sound... DaphneLantier21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a great moment, but I just don't find it clear enough to want it on the front page. The motion blur on the flying peacock is understandable, but the fuzzy foreground blocking part of the other peacock bothers me enough that I don't want to promote it just for documenting a moment in a fight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2017 at 02:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Great photo, but I want to see more of the city and less of the water. I think that cropping off some of the bottom (see note) would enhance the wow-experience. Thoughts? --cart-Talk13:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From my part, I'm satisfied with the current crop. The picture is also for illustrating Moskva River articles (sv:Moskvafloden and others), so that the water definitely cannot do harm to the picture :) --A.Savin14:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2017 at 20:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parc du Bois-de-Coulonge, Québec ville, Québec, Cánada.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc du Bois-de-Coulonge, Québec ville, Québec, Cánada.jpg
The subject is the place, the park. I like the big trees composition and the excellent DoF where you can see the Saint Laurent river and the port. However, my opinion is positive because I'm the author :D --The Photographer21:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand what you are portraying, but I have two problems with this photo: (1) Composition. The idea is good, but one of the two men on the right is partially cropped out and you have a tiny bit of metal fence (I guess) on the left. These distract the viewer (or this one, anyway) and detract from the main point you are making, which is to see the marina between the trees. (2) Sharpness, though it's a really large picture, so I don't think I'd oppose if I were perfectly satisfied with the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2017 at 08:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stortjärnen July 2017 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stortjärnen July 2017 02.jpg
Oppose I've looked at this for a while, and played around with different crops. But I can't really get the composition to work for me. I'm guessing from the lack of lens EXIF that you're using perhaps a manual focus fisheye or ultra wide. My fisheye is pretty sharp so am puzzled why only the central rock is sharp and the land on either side is very soft. Did you apply a lens correction that has stretched the edges? Or perhaps your 10-stop ND filter isn't so good at the edges? The focal point becomes the sharp rock in the water and it just isn't that interesting or well lit for me. The sky isn't the best sunset potential either. -- Colin (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I was using a manual focus ultra wide (12mm) lens and it was a conscious choice to focus on the central rock (approximately 1 meter from the camera). So only the rock is in focus. The background is just out of focus. No lens correction (except for removing CA and reduce vignetting). Personally like the low sun below the clouds and the light.--ArildV (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The composition works for me. I like the focus on the rock, the long exposure and the reflection of the streaming clouds in the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2017 at 06:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Strassburg Poeckstein 1 Schloss Poeckstein Sued-Ansicht 28102016 5180.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strassburg Poeckstein 1 Schloss Poeckstein Sued-Ansicht 28102016 5180.jpg
Support - Certainly good, but are those tiny dark blue dust spots (I count 3) above the left side of the building, or was there perhaps hail in the sky or dark holes in the clouds? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2017 at 06:28:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Strip photo of San Francisco Cable Car 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strip photo of San Francisco Cable Car 10.jpg
Comment - dllu, please explain the limitations of this technique. On the face of it, this photo contains chromatic aberration, but I'm guessing that's unavoidable in this style of photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is some slight colour fringing because the line scan camera I'm using actually has two lines, one with alternating red and green pixels and one with alternating green and blue pixels. It is possible to digitally correct for this offset, but I haven't implemented this yet since this is my first day shooting with this camera. Perhaps in the next few weeks I will write a program to do it. In any case, the effect is very minor in this photo. Another limitation of this technique is that this is essentially a high speed camera; each column of pixels has a very short exposure time. As such, the photo may be slightly noisy. dllu(t,c)07:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. The effect doesn't seem minor to me, but the composition is good, and I may after deliberation vote for this photo on the basis of the composition and pure novelty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never heard of this technique before. Can you explain why the background and foreground have a bunch of lines and the streetcar doesn't? PumpkinSkytalk11:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to understand how strip photography works is to imagine that you are standing with your camera in a fixed position behind a door that is only open a very small crack. You rapidly take photos of what you can see through the crack from that point of view. At first nothing happens so your photos will all be a very thin vertical line that looks the same in each frame. Then something, a streetcar, passes by the crack and you get a small piece of the vehicle in each of your photos. When it has passed by the opening, the scene may go back to what it was before and once again all the photos you take of the crack will look the same. After shooting this sequence, you take all the photos and crop away all the black around the crack in the doorway, leaving you with lots of photos of just the crack and you paste them side by side in chronological order. As you do this a photo of the streetcar as it passed the crack will start to appear. If you were taking photos at the same time-interval during the shooting session and the car moved at a constant speed, you'd end up with a photo like the one here. Imagine if the car had slowed down, then you would have got more photos with it in the crack towards the end of the session and the back of it would have been sort of "drawn out". And if it had stopped in front of the crack all your photos until the end of the session would have had a bit of streetcar in them that looked the same until the end. Now this is done with a special camera that shoots only a slit that is two pixels wide and the photos are taken in an automatic fashion to make sure the time between shots is the same and the shots are merged into a photo with software, but the principle is the same as photographing through a crack in the doorway.
All this said, it would be very useful if the creator of this photo could mention in the description on the file's page, what camera and/or gadgets plus software (and the usual facts about camera settings) were use to make this photo since there is no EXIF on this photo. --cart-Talk15:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up question out of sheer curiosity: After looking very carefully at the photo, I noticed that the lines on the right side of the streetcar are a bit wobbly. Is this the ground shaking from the passing streetcar or did you accidentally record a small earthquake? Or is it just heat turbulence in the air after the car? --cart-Talk22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Excellent description. If you didn't have a special camera it'd be a lot of work. So it's sort of like what you do to get a sharp photo of an athelete in motion, which makes the background blurry? PumpkinSkytalk21:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PumpkinSky: Yes, strip photography is often used for photo finishes. It is different from panning though. Most regular video cameras don't have sufficient framerate for this type of photo. For example, most video cameras do 24 to 60 frames per second whereas this type of photo requires around 2000 frames per second (the fast-moving cable car took only a few seconds to pass by). Prior to digital line scan cameras, this type of photo was made using a film slit scan camera, such as [1], for which it's possible to use a wider slit as long as you move the film to match the speed of the subject exactly. dllu(t,c)21:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting demonstration of this technique; I can't think of many better subjects to do this with. There are some imperfections and blown areas but on the whole they are outwowed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017 at 18:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The colour contrast could make a great photo, if focused more on just the carriages with sea behind. The composition is rather centred and not dynamic. I only see a QI here. -- Colin (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do you have a version of this view taken from a bit further back and higher up? The near-centering of the post is no issue to me at all, but I feel like I'd enjoy seeing a little more of the uppermost cord and the top of the tree at the extreme right. On the whole, I'd like a little more room at the top of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ultimately, I feel like this photo is good and interesting but not quite outstanding, for the reason I mentioned above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2017 at 11:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toronto Financial District August 2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toronto Financial District August 2017.jpg
Info The three tallest buildings in Canada and some historic interesting historic skyscrapers. The photo is taken from the intersection of Bay Street and King Street West. The intersection of Bay and King Street is often seen as the centre of Canadian banking and finance. Four of Canada's five major banks have office towers at the intersection. I like the composition but also how the images tell a story about 20th century skyscrapers and architecture. From fine Art Deco (Commerce Court North built 1933 and the the tallest building in the British Empire/Commonwealth for roughly three decades) to great examples of International style (Toronto-Dominion Towers from 1967) and Postmodernism (Scotia Plaza from 1988). See images notes for more information. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, I could never get a steady shot like that unless shutter speed was really fast. I need a tripod for virtually everything. PumpkinSkytalk21:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's being held in Montréal, and they have a huge rivalry with Toronto, not in least because Montréal used to be Canada's financial center. Daniel Case (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2017 at 14:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Наблюдательная поза пищухи.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Наблюдательная поза пищухи.jpg
Comment High education value (we don't have many QI of this animal), good composition, nice light and colors. Could be sharper, but still OK for me. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Poor quality how? To me, it looks like a good composition and a pretty good photo of the pika, though not quite pinpoint sharp at full size, and I would support it unless you can show me some major fault. Are you seeing an artificial border around it or something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks. I've considered your specific objections but don't find these drawbacks nearly as big to me as they are to you. I still consider this to deserve a moderate level of support for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Hockei. At first I thought it could be improved with a crop, but there are still plenty of issues around the animal's head. Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2017 at 13:15:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Kirche Chiesa Madre, Erice (Sizilien).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kirche Chiesa Madre, Erice (Sizilien).jpg
Comment Ich bin mir sicher, dass dieser Benutzer sehr ernst über diese Nominierung ist, aber es wäre besser, wenn Sie zuerst Ihre Fotos bei QIC nominiert haben, um ein Feedback auf sie zu bekommen, bevor Sie sie hier nehmen. (Google Übersetzung) --cart-Talk14:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, besides the lens flares and the overprocessing I find it rather small for such a landscape photograph. Nice mood, though. --Code (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inappropriate way to relist the nom again. "For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2" Jee09:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPlease tell me more in this place!... -- Swift11
Swift11, you need to create a new nomination page by mentioning "Квіточка до Сонця ).jpg /2" in that box here and click on the "create new nomination" button. Jee07:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 16:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment@Daniel Case: , cropped. Agree this is better. @Famberhorst: I tried to reduce the halo but I'm not sure I saw what you did. If it's still there please add a note to image and I'll try again. Thank you for the complement on the photo. PumpkinSkytalk19:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Goedemorgen. @Famberhorst: I never would have seen that without you pointing it out. My eyes aren't very good for seeing really tiny things and that halo was really tiny. I've tried to fix it and I think it's a little better now, maybe even gone. PumpkinSkytalk11:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 11:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden Tympanum at Entrance of Kumari House- Basantapur, Kathmandu Nepal-0368.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden Tympanum at Entrance of Kumari House- Basantapur, Kathmandu Nepal-0368.jpg
Oppose - It's a great motif, but it's actually cut off on top. Do you have another photo of this that includes the entire tympanum? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 09:43:02 (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 13 Aug 2017 at 16:45:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose party-poop oppose (sorry!) - I really dislike the background to the right of the church. The overly bright sky kills the (otherwise great) mood for me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 12:56:19 (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 13 Aug 2017 at 12:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nikon SpeedLight SB-700.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nikon SpeedLight SB-700.jpg
Oppose@Cvmontuy: It's lacking a bit in the WOW!-department for me, and I guess that's why so few people have voted so far. But I've taken the liberty of nominating it over at COM:VIC. Over-all, it appears to a bit on the dark side, maybe try to bring the lettering a bit closer to actual white? Aesthetics-wise, I think it could look better/more balanced with the 3rd image moved to the far left so that the front and back view are framed by the side views. --El Grafo (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 22:21:55 (UTC)
Front facade of Gulskogen manor in Drammen, Norway.
Rear side of the estate.
Front side view of the estate.
Info all by yours truly, I thought it was most appropriate as a set nomination. Gulskogen Manor, bought by Peter Nicolai Arbo and Anne Cathrine Collett in 1793 and turned into a manorial estate in the following years. It was made into a museum in 1963. The house, its contents and the park surrounding the estate are intact from the 1800s. -- Peulle (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the first image need fix Horizontals, the weather not was the better resulting on different light in contrast with image and another, need WB, Underexposed zones on seccond one, the last one the right space is too thin --The Photographer22:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer. Most of this is in shadow, if possible, try to time your photography so you get the sun in the right position for such a manor shot. This is done in the evening, judging from Google maps, a morning shot might have been better. I also think that the whole white flowerbed in the first might have been included. --cart-Talk08:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Also, a set nomination requires each image to be FP standard wrt wow, etc, so quite hard to achieve for this kind of image. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 20:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) - Dome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) - Dome.jpg
Info The Parish Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo (Italian: Basilica Parrocchiale Santa Maria del Popolo) is a titular church and a minor basilica in Rome run by the Augustinian order. It stands on the north side of Piazza del Popolo, one of the most famous squares in the city. The church is hemmed in between the Pincian Hill and Porta del Popolo, one of the gates in the Aurelian Wall as well as the starting point of Via Flaminia, the most important route from the north. Its location made the basilica the first church for the majority of travellers entering the city. The church contains works by several famous artists, such as Raphael, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Caravaggio, Alessandro Algardi, Pinturicchio, Andrea Bregno, Guillaume de Marcillat and Donato Bramante. All by LivioAndronico(talk)20:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality quite far below the bar set by others for church ceilings. The stonework has no texture (possibly too much NR) and the carvings have way way too much local contrast ("Clarity" slider to the max). -- Colin (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you do, Livio. There isn't a single photo at FPC that hasn't got some NR. But you use NR and Clarity like a tart uses foundation and lipstick. No subtlety whatsoever. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
s Switched to neutral as I explain below I reckon that probably for a professional photograph contest it might not be fit; but apart some exception none of us is a professional photographer and we may consider it safely a featured photograph. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)22:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] PS I learnt a new term, didn't know that what we call fondotinta is called foundation in English. But you don't need to be a tart to massively use foundation
Comment Above vote canvassed from favourable Admim. Blackcat your only contributions to FP have been to support Livio when he calls you. This is very unwise for anyone, and doubly unwise for an admin. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the extensive FP work of amateur photographers such as Poco a Poco, Code and Diliff, to name just three, before suggesting we should lower the bar for your wiki friends. I strongly advise you, Blackcat, to strike out your vote, and remind your fiend that canvassing at FPC is taken very dimly indeed. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am a regular uploader of original photographs myself but my photographs' quality cannot be compared to the ones I see in the FP contest. I think that maybe a photograph of mine would lower the bar, not this. As for voting, you're unfair to me: do you think that I express a vote just because canvassed into a FPC? -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)08:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And not only "expressed a vote", but "expressed a support vote" because you were canvassed. Your record at FPC is clear.Your bias for Livio is also very much on-record both at FPC and as an admin. We're not here to judge images as "It's better than I could do" but "Is it among the finest on Commons". A quick glance at the contributions from those names I mentioned above would assure you that the answer is "No, not by a long way". -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. Then I'm sorry but I have to switch to neutral: sunset in Rome on 7 March was at 18:08 UTC+1 and there couldn't be that amount of light through the dome's windows. Maybe you gave the pic too much brightness. I thought it was taken around midday which could have justified all that light. -- SERGIO(aka the Blackcat)15:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2017 at 04:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 20b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 20b.jpg
Oppose Nice enough but not really getting any wow. The scenery has too much path/mud and the bench has no character. The magenta marker isn't adding to the scene. It would be improved by photographing people on the bench, but we don't seem to go in for photographing people at Commons FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 03:17:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crucibulum spinosum 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crucibulum spinosum 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 20:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Quite nice but several technical issues; lens flares, dust spots, image page lacking, small resolution doesn't help ...--Peulle (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Martin that this is a great composition - the nearest penguin looks like it's worshipping the sun! But for me to support this photo, it would have to be bigger, with the lens flare and dust spots removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 12:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drammen Bybro juli 2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drammen Bybro juli 2017.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 10:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A few of my best memories as a Photographer. - Flickr - Christopher.Michel (21).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A few of my best memories as a Photographer. - Flickr - Christopher.Michel (21).jpg
Oppose Very impressive landscape inded, but as per Ivar. Also: strange vertical line left to the small summit at left. --Cayambe (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with all the criticisms of this picture, but what's preventing me from opposing is that it's such an unusual view. The mountains of Antarctica are very remote and by no means commonly visited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2017 at 05:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ncisles Forces de Sieles Muntijela Gherdeina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ncisles Forces de Sieles Muntijela Gherdeina.jpg
Comment If you compare this image at thumbnail to Johann's image (next nom down), it's quite obvious that the contrast is not optimal. Even if the histogram has a few pixels that are black and white, you might still need to apply a nonlinear function, such as a curves adjustment, to make it look less washed-out. Ultimately it's a matter of taste but people will vote accordingly. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this better than the other one as the shadows have been preserved, even though it's a little unsharp at upper right. I take King's point about the lighting, but I'm not sure any other time of day would have been better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks great with a good composition. But it's too soft. When I look at this, I have the feel I must clean my classes. --Hockei (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The natural beauty comes through, but I think you could get a more compelling form out of this motif. The crops on the left and especially the right feel random to me. I also think the other opposers make good points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 05:39:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pre-clovis-sites-of-the-americas.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pre-clovis-sites-of-the-americas.svg
Oppose Sorry but I don't see that this is anywhere close to "one of the fines images on Commons". It's just a simple sketch. Could be a VI, but not an FP.--Peulle (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 18:04:14 (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 21 Aug 2017 at 17:40:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bielerhöhe - Winterweg zur Wiesbadener Hütte 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bielerhöhe - Winterweg zur Wiesbadener Hütte 01.jpg
Oppose Sorry the b&w isn't really improving here I think. Dark shadow on right side. The path snaking into the valley is absolutely typical scene so not really exceptional. -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This photo just doesn't look spectacular, at least as B&W but I think that would probably be true in color, too. It's a nice idea, but I'm not feeling a pleasant eye movement, really, and a lot of the photo isn't too sharp, either. If you shot this scene again in stronger light, I might react differently, but I'd have to see the result. I think the really pretty mountains are in the far distance, and the path through the rocks and the dark rock face on the right are just not that interesting for me to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 00:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160331120144 - Monumento a Ramos de Azevedo.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20160331120144 - Monumento a Ramos de Azevedo.jpg/2
Declining to vote to support counts as a lack of conviction in featuring, given that 7 support votes are required for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll weakly Support again because I like the monument and the feeling of upward movement. But though I understand the reason for the tight crops from last year's thread, I don't love the construction on the right and wonder what this scene looks like now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I really like the image, although I too have to say I really don't like renominations just because a photo didn't get enough votes last time, especially when no changes have been made to the image.--Peulle (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per tight crop as KoH noted last time. Distracting background makes for a cluttered base -- some subjects are just handicapped by this and nothing you can do but accept it is just a QI. Also agree that the reason for renomination isn't valid -- no wow is often expressed as no vote, and that should generally be respected. My bluebell photo was renominated (by a different person) for the reason that they believed the community view on such images had changed in two years (but didn't appear to as it turned out), not just because we were unhappy with the lack of votes or disagreed with the result. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, even though I !voted support last time, per Colin's critique and also because on further observation it seems a tad overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, It seems that colleagues judges the image based on quality than wow, I recommend watching the other pictures and see the reason for the cut and angle, I tried harder to perform a better image, but the lane around and the buildings did not help. --Webysther (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've looked at the other contents of the Category and it seems you've put a lot of thought into this. It might well be the best image we have of this monument, but that alone doesn't warrant the star for me. As Colin pointed out above, sometimes the surroundings of an interesting subject simply prevent taking a picture of it that's astonishing rather than "just" very good. Might be worth giving it a try over at VIC, though. --El Grafo (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The noes have convinced me. I haven't decided this is anything other than a good, maybe very good picture, and I still like it, but I have to admit I no longer think it belongs among the best of the best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 12:19:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 119-121 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 119-121 HDR.JPG
Info Ceiling of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. Note: high quality images of this temple are rare as photograhs are strictly prohibited without a special permission of the authorities. All by me, Poco212:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 06:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RB BDhe 2-4 II Rigi Staffel - Rigi Kulm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RB BDhe 2-4 II Rigi Staffel - Rigi Kulm.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 14:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skäralid in Söderåsen National Park 121020 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skäralid in Söderåsen National Park 121020 01.jpg
Support One of the great photos from this year's WLE Sweden. This is the lake at the bottom of Skäralid ravine in Söderåsen National Park. -- cart-Talk14:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colour, the sharpness! :D Despite having fairly flat light, I really like this shot due to the good reflection. Big wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the coordinates seem a little off. They were obtained from the camera's exif since this is a Commons newbie and this is the user's only upload, so not used to our forms and templates here. I have left a message on their talk page with a question about the coords. In the meantime I have at least moved the geotag down to the lake shore. --cart-Talk07:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I have the same problem with the built-in GPS receiver of my camera (DSLR). On most photos, I have to adjust the geocode afterwards. About 5-10% show completely wrong (!) geocode and/or altitude. In general, I wouldn't rely on camera GPS and "wait for the bot" :) --A.Savin11:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 28th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Am I the only viewer who doesn't love this or see it as an obvious FP? What I see is that in significant parts of the picture, such as the background toward the upper left, the trees are too white. HalfGig could be right that some of the others are oversaturated, but it's the undersaturation that's bothering me. And in terms of composition, I feel like the movement is too much to the right with no countervailing movement to the left, so I question whether this particular view is well-chosen. Sure, it's pretty because it's fall foliage with a reflection, but I don't feel it's particularly great. However, I won't vote against it and don't feel bad that it will be featured. But I don't really share the overwhelming enthusiasm for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2017 at 14:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Strassburg Ansicht mit Bischofsburg Loreto-Kapelle und Stadtpfarrkirche 27032017 7168.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strassburg Ansicht mit Bischofsburg Loreto-Kapelle und Stadtpfarrkirche 27032017 7168.jpg
Comment My !vote notwithstanding, after reviewing the satellite photos (would use Street View, but like Germany Austria is a little funny about that) and comparing them with the image I think the coordinates from which the image was taken are wrong in the geotag. My guess as to the camera's actual location would be 46°53′42″N14°19′14″E / 46.89505°N 14.32067°E / 46.89505; 14.32067, or somewhere near the vicinity of Sankt Margarethe. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good quality, but the crop at the bottom trough the houses bothers me too. IMHO a FP needs a better solution there. I don´t know the location, but I know that not all locations have FP-potential. --Milseburg (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2017 at 06:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Escolta presidencial, Plaza de Armas, Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 40.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Escolta presidencial, Plaza de Armas, Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 40.JPG
Comment - I plan to vote for this portrait of toughness personified, but is there some chromatic aberration on the flag, such as on the shadowy border of the yellow diamond shapes? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: I've uploaded a new version and made some improvements regarding the CA (still 100% removal is not really easy). If there is something that you still believe should be fixed, would you please add a note? Poco216:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess I'm still uncertain about the borders of many things that are raised, such as the diamond shapes and the letters of words like "regimiento" and "escolta", but it's hard for me to be sure what I'm seeing, whether there's any CA or just a bit of blur from their being further than the focus distance. What do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Yeah, he looks tough and all, but that is spoiled by the fact that he is so low in the picture. He is just peeking up over the bottom edge and that cut golden cord on his breast is very annoying. Had you only stepped back or something so at least his eyes had been mid-pic it would have been so much better. --cart-Talk11:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2017 at 04:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose for now, and sorry to interrupt the consensus support - this doesn't hold up as a whole picture to me because so little of the pictured plant is sharp. If you would crop the picture just enough below the one relatively sharp leaf to enable it to breathe, I believe I would support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2017 at 04:51:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pink rose and red.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pink rose and red.jpg
Info A rose is a woody perennial flowering plant of the genus Rosa, in the family Rosaceae, or the flower it bears. There are over a hundred species and thousands of cultivars. They form a group of plants that can be erect shrubs, climbing or trailing with stems that are often armed with sharp prickles. Flowers vary in size and shape and are usually large and showy, in colours ranging from white through yellows and reds. Most species are native to Asia, with smaller numbers native to Europe, North America, and northwestern Africa. Species, cultivars and hybrids are all widely grown for their beauty and often are fragrant. Roses have acquired cultural significance in many societies. Rose plants range in size from compact, miniature roses, to climbers that can reach seven meters in height. Different species hybridize easily, and this has been used in the development of the wide range of garden roses. All by LivioAndronico(talk)04:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice detail, but too dark to wow me. Also, there are so many varieties of roses, as anyone who's gone to a rose garden with every different cultivar labeled knows. I think that for FP, a specification of the cultivar might be necessary and would certainly be helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan there is nothing here to see that is remarkable per many other flowers that are unidentified. Rather tired specimen too. Please don't copy/paste paragraphs of text from Wikipedia - a link is sufficient. -- Colin (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2017 at 12:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info I was driving near the Thukela river when I saw three of these rare birds (Vulnerable, IUCN 2016) descending into the valley; after stopping the vehicle and jumping out, I managed a few shots before they disappeared - and before I could think about settings. So the resulting motion blur was entirely accidental, but makes this one of my favorite long-exposure shots. -- Alandmanson (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't get me wrong, I understand a bird in flight can be a difficult subject to capture and I love the motion blur of the background but the bird itself is nowhere near sharp enough for Commons FP. -- KTC (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent representation of the speed of a bird flying, and dare I say it, some Intentional Camera Movement! Most BIF rely on fast shutter speed, but with panning is not possibly to get sharpness at 100% 12 megapixel peeping over 1/50s. I think the bird, especially the important head and eye, is plenty sharp enough. Agree about nominating at Photo Challenge too. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Colin. The background's just great (too bad there was this trunk (?) on the right side - but that's not more than a minor flaw). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2017 at 14:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ciri Cosplay (The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt) • 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ciri Cosplay (The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt) • 2.jpg
Support Wow! Something new and fresh here, although this kind of photos have been around for years in the world outside FPC. Not a normal portrait, but a photo meant to capture a fictional character and the mood of a game/alternate world. I find the darkness in this very appropriate. --cart-Talk15:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weakSupport for the wow factor - although most of that comes from the work the cosplayer did, not what the photographer did. I'm surprised at the shallow DoF leaving even the leather straps out of focus.--Peulle (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COM:COSPLAY and its statements are described as superseding that discussion. And although it doesn't come down strongly on my side of this, I honestly don't see any difference between someone cosplaying a character and a statue or action figure of that character. They are all derivative works of the same copyright. So I !vote ...
Daniel, cropping the top off the headshot is absolutely standard, and not a flaw. See this article and links. As for the copyright, if you feel strongly enough to oppose, then create a DR so it can be assessed by the community. -- Colin (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Thanks for the link; I can certainly see situations where you might crop the head. But perhaps since I'm as tall as I am, I get sensitive to this issue since I have so often bumped my head on things the midgets who run the world, at least the world of interior design and architecture , do not imagine any human being could possibly bump their heads on.
As for starting a deletion request, I would note that since there is an entire category devoted to this, it's not as simple as it sounds. It looks to me like all of those images are copyvio
However, I'm heading on up to Wikimania tomorrow, and given that there is often enough downtime between panels, events, get-togethers and random encounters with interesting people, i.e. all the things that make Wikimania great, where I find doing this sort of housekeeping work very relaxing and about up to where my state of mind is, perhaps I will take your suggestion and create that DR. And maybe the one for all the Christmas lighting displays from countries without FoP/with insufficient FoP, and the ones of Cloud Gate, all of which cannot be free images, which I have talked about initiating in the past. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a suggestion for the people who are concerned about the copyright issue: let's vote on the actual image here in FPC, and if you have concerns about the copyright, nominate the image for deletion and take that discussion there. Then we can stick to the issue of judging the image quality here in FPC.--Peulle (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm the only one who has seemed to notice that we do have this policy. I !voted oppose because an image that is not free cannot be on Commons, much less be an FP. This forum addresses only the latter issue. As I said in my response above, I see that I may have the opportunity to create the deletion request for the entire category this coming weekend, so I will attend to that from Montreal (I hope). Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I haven't voted on this photo, but let me ask you all: If someone intentionally posed to look like Superman, Batman, Spiderman or Ronald McDonald, would you consider all of those poses not to be violations of copyright? Supposing, for example, someone posed in a cape that looked just like Superman's cape, down to the big "S", would you then argue that a letter isn't copyrightable? I find it hard to understand why this is a usable image at all in terms of a common-sense approach to copyright. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright issue here. And if there was one, open a DR, don't do votes unrelated to the image value. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 06:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Kastell von Kopenhagen, Kommandantgården -- 2017 -- 1594.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kopenhagen (DK), Kastell von Kopenhagen, Kommandantgården -- 2017 -- 1594.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 06:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gordon Tobing (c. 1960), by Tati Studios.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gordon Tobing (c. 1960), by Tati Studios.jpg
Oppose both versions. Seems a bit soft even for a 1960s photograph, crop is a bit tight for my taste – but both of that that might have to do with this being a promotional image (for autograph cards?). Over-all not a very convincing portrait in my book: If you want to want to promote a professional guitar player, you certainly don't want him to look at his fingers like a student (especially when he's only playing a simple A-minor chord). No "wow" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Softness can be attributed in part to the medium; the paper used was a very grainy kind, and thus to reduce that some softening was applied. Likewise, the close crop was made by the studio. The physical photograph has the same composition. Heck, this version has had an extra fifty or so pixels added. Please also keep in mind that the technology being used in Indonesia was not the same you'd expect from contemporary American studios. I'd be surprised if the camera here was any less than five years old. Might have even been this one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Don't get me wrong: Given the size/intended usage of the original, the sharpness is perfectly fine. It just appeared to me as if the paper would have been able to resolve more detail than was present in the negative. But that's of course irrelevant and not the reason for my oppose. I just should have kept my finger still (and I should probably be trouted for pixel-peeping something like this). The "no wow" remains, though. --El Grafo (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish they'd use better quality paper, yes. The Indriati Iskak image I mentioned above was on much smoother paper. Mind, this was still better than the paper used for File:Chitra Dewi, c. 1955.jpg (turns out I don't have the unedited version on Commons!). As for the pose/wow, I have no issues with your oppose. I just wanted to point out the technical aspects are a bit different than one would expect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 22:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Honda VTX 1800 C 2007 - center.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Honda VTX 1800 C 2007 - center.jpg
Info When I first saw this bike, I took a bunch of photos with my pocket camera just to be sure to have something, but after that I managed to track down the owner and talk to him about some better shots. So while he wiped off some bugs and dirt from the bike, I went and fetched my better camera and tripod. The sky was so clear and blue, reflecting on all the chrome and this is the photo that I like most from that session. There will be more uploaded soon. All by me -- cart-Talk22:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been on the road for ten years but since it has had only one owner, it has been very well cared for. He have made several trips from Lysekil up to North Cape (Norway) with it (2,100 km one way). --cart-Talk08:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most obvious FP, but to me it captures how the chaos of the internal combustion process creates the serenity of the ride. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's deep, and nice. :-) For me it is like a complicated abstract sculpture in which the soft reflections of the landscape collaborate with the hard sleek metal shapes. But there is no denying the power you can feel is contained inside the metal. --cart-Talk16:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2017 at 01:34:03 (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 24 Aug 2017 at 20:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Radium Yellowknife port side Toronto skyline.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radium Yellowknife port side Toronto skyline.jpeg
Info The tugboat Radium Yellowknife, which for decades served Canada's far north, traversed the Northwest Passage and now serves the waters of Canada's largest city, Toronto, background. (Constructive feedback appreciated.) Created/uploaded/nominated by Reidgreg (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 39 edits so far. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk08:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: thank-you for your comment. Could you be more specific? The linked page does not contain "low image quality" and only "image quality" once in a very general sense. Or are you saying this is a general failure on all counts? – Reidgreg (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg: See our guidelines for what makes a featured picture (FP). If you look at the image at 100% view (go to [2] and click to magnify), it is clearly unsharp. It is not great in the center, and even worse towards the edges. I'm sorry if it comes off a bit harsh, but we do have quite high standards. File:Toronto - ON - Skyline10.jpg is a Toronto skyline FP, and as you can notice it is much more detailed at full-resolution than your image. I'm guessing your photo was taken with a phone or point-and-shoot; I'm not saying it's impossible to create an FP without a DSLR camera, but it's much harder to meet the image quality requirements with a small camera. But image quality is only one part of the equation; your photo is also taken during midday, when the lighting is not very interesting. An hour or two before sunset is a good time to take photos in general. To be an FP, an image must have high image quality and have a "wow" factor. I suggest you try submitting photos to COM:QIC first to get a sense of what kind of image quality we're looking for here. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination A vague form-letter rejection can come off as officious and bitey. I'm unlikely to intrude upon this forum again. All the best, Reidgreg (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 20:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinbruecke-Neuenkamp-Sperrung-08-2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinbruecke-Neuenkamp-Sperrung-08-2017.jpg
Comment Bridge 'Rheinbrücke Neuenkamp' over the Rhine at Duisburg / Bundesautobahn 40 (Federal Motorway 40) during closure in August of 2017. A rare photo because the Federal Motorway A40 in one of the heavily used motorways of the Ruhr district
Comment - Useful VI, but what makes it an FP to you, keeping in mind that the mere rareness of an empty superhighway is not thereby an amazing sight on the order of a view of Pluto or some tiny undersea creature? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 19:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.09.09.-05-Anglersee Bruehl--Feuerlibelle-Maennchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.09.09.-05-Anglersee Bruehl--Feuerlibelle-Maennchen.jpg
Oppose A beautiful capture of a dragonfly that is hard to shoot, as Sixflashphoto mentionned above. But unfortunately, there are too many issues; their sum makes that your picture is not FP. --Sputniktilt (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2017 at 17:40:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Nice summer holiday snap, but overall compostition isn't working for me and lighting/scene not exceptional. Don't see what separates this from others to reach FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2017 at 11:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moon Bridge and Fountain, Friendship Pond 2 NBG LR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon Bridge and Fountain, Friendship Pond 2 NBG LR.jpg
520
307
4401
2907
5495
4000
3:2 crop here. Has distant chair on a rule-of-thirds point which helps it become a focal point to some degree. Removes distracting foreground.
Oppose Nice enough scene but not uncommon in an ornamental garden so not really seeing enough wow to take this from QI to FP. The foreground in particular isn't helping the composition, with the stone and stump distracting. I'll suggest a crop or alternative framing. -- Colin (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the suggestion Colin. I agree this is better. I really like the way the crop brings the viewer's eye to focus on the bridge's reflection more, which I think is a key part of the photo. PumpkinSkytalk11:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) again... Oppose Sorry, this is't working for me but for other reasons than above. Technically fine but the light makes the whole scene look washed out and then there is the fountain stealing all the attention from the scenery. If we are going for a Zen garden, a baroque water spray has no place in it. --cart-Talk11:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fountain is actually one of the reasons I took this photo, after waiting 2 weeks for a cloudy day (because of the bright sun we get this time of year). I feel the juxtaposition of the fountain and bridge is fascinating. So we disagree on this one ;-) PumpkinSkytalk11:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - PumpkinSky, I'm with you on the fountain behind the bridge being a nice thing, but what spoils the composition for me is all the leaves in the near right corner. Of course you couldn't chop down those bushes, nor would I want you to, but the result is that they cut off part of the bridge and the serenity of near-symmetry is lost to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ikan Kekek: There are many bushes and trees here in this wooded area. About the only way I could maybe get that bush marginally in the photo instead of where it is now is if I stood in the stream. When I'm there on another cloudy day (bright sun is bad for this spot for photos) I'll decide how hard core a photographer I am ;-) PumpkinSkytalk10:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From mosts spots the pine tree on the left cuts off the left side of the bridge. I'll see if I can find a spot where that doesn't happen where I also won't get wet. PumpkinSkytalk11:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2017 at 17:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boston skyline from Museum of Science garage roof - HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boston skyline from Museum of Science garage roof - HDR.jpg
Oppose - That's really pretty, but there's an artifact near the bottom right that must be fixed, and on a less serious level, I really like the light reflection that's all the way over to the left but would like a bit of room to its left on the picture frame. If both of those things can be addressed, I would reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I can look into fixing the artifact. (Not seeing the artifact either.) I'm not sure there's much I'm going to be able to do about the room on the left because this is the same photo found on Flickr without any cropping. Sportsguy1719:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure what artifact Ikan sees. I see several little burnt holes where the HDR has not handled highlights properly. The framing doesn't extend to the whole bridge. The technical quality is ok but lower than many of our FPs but most such FPs are considerably higher resolution than this 9.7MP so I can't really say it is comparable to FP level for such city sky at night scenes. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might not be using the right terminology; maybe "burnt hole" is more specific, but I'm seeing one just below the 2nd-to-leftmost boat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Colin. A nice effort from Flickr, but I think better pictures of the Boston skyline from that vantage point are possible. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 13:03:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:"The woman of my life doesn’t yet love me" (1999) by Daniel Knorr.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:"The woman of my life doesn’t yet love me" (1999) by Daniel Knorr.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 06:31:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bahrain Fort March 2015.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bahrain Fort March 2015.JPG
Info The Qal'at al-Bahrain, also known as the “Fort of Bahrain” and previously as the “Portugal Fort”, is an archaeological site located in Bahrain. Archaeological excavations carried out since 1954 have unearthed antiquities created by various occupants from 2300 BC up to the 18th century. It was once the capital of the Dilmun civilization and was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2005. I think the rather harsh lighting actually helps the composition here as it accentuates the architectural features of the fortress, underlining the power and resilience of its walls. The earth-colored tones of the image’s lower half and the deep-blue sky of the upper half define an interesting contrast. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. You also have an interesting ancient-and-modern thing going on between the fort and the skyscrapers visible in the background on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great picture. A fort is a massive, heavy, and strong building. Martin successfully translated these traits of a building into a beautiful picture. --Sputniktilt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2017 at 14:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mohrhof Weihergebiet 17RM0275.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mohrhof Weihergebiet 17RM0275.jpg
Weak support Background is sort of jumbled, but curvy dirt roads in rural areas (trust me, I live not too far from a few) always work. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, essentially per Karelj. High-quality photo, but I don't find the composition outstanding, even though elements of it are nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 17:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - Sorry, high-quality picture, but an obtrusive, almost aggressively uninteresting (to me) subject plus construction to its left is just not wowing to me. This would be a really good VI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The building is very interesting and the quality is high but the angle is uninteresting. I think that a lower angle might have worked better here as it would 'open up' the house a bit. See how it worked for this opera house. The cranes are not on a construction site; that is the shipyard next to the opera. The cranes are permanently fixed on each side of the dock, so not going anywhere soon, they are part of the cityscape. --cart-Talk10:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose. Good light, but compositionally a bit boring. On borderline cases like this, I tend to look towards resolution/quality. I feel like there might be a bit too much water and sky, so there's really only about 10 million high-quality pixels, which isn't enough to push an otherwise marginal image over the edge for an easy-to-take subject like this. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 18:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spb 06-2017 img01 Spit of Vasilievsky Island.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spb 06-2017 img01 Spit of Vasilievsky Island.jpg
Support - Outstanding documentation! I realize this is a drone picture, and a damn good one. I'm assuming further noise reduction would injure something else about the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment undoubtedly a great and well composed picture. But imho the whole front part of the city is in shadow (cloud?) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Although I think it would be stronger if cropped to the foreground, where the detail is sharpest. But this is an improvement over other drone images we've had. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2017 at 15:11:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Succisa pratensis - Niitvälja bog - Keila.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Succisa pratensis - Niitvälja bog - Keila.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 14:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elizabeth L. Remba Gardner, Women's Airforce Service Pilots, NARA-542191.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elizabeth L. Remba Gardner, Women's Airforce Service Pilots, NARA-542191.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 03:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpg
Support The low technical quality is easily eclipsed by what this image is and the time it was taken must be taken into account. Great wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 22:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ferry Building at night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ferry Building at night.jpg
Support - Beautiful. The sky is subtly blotchy at full size. Full size is quite big, but if you feel like smoothing that out a little and that doesn't do some other kind of damage to the picture, go ahead. My vote doesn't depend on that, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 17:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallnitz Stappitzer See Südwest 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallnitz Stappitzer See Südwest 02.jpg
Oppose Not impressed by the lighting, especially the backlit cabin and lack of color in the sky due to the time of day. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, since I´ve been there I'm convinced, that this location is represented very authentically, also the proportions. Maybe a little step on the shore right of the boat should be removed. I think the time of day is well choosen for this shot, because later or earlier a day such valleys are in shadow comletly. Perhaps the cabine should be lighten up a bit. --Milseburg (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - I feel like this peaceful, comparatively simple composition is an FP, and I'm willing to tolerate the haziness in the further background for the rest. But I do agree with Colin that the other view he linked to could produce a more breathtaking FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 08:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old door in Bamberg (color version).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old door in Bamberg (color version).jpg
Info A crooked old door in one of those tiny alleys of Bamberg, Germany. In most of the times, painting graffiti on ancient structures like this would be considered vandalism, but for some reason I think in this case they really add to the over-all appearence.
Support A difficult one. First of all, I would like to thank you for having listed this picture here. A very beautiful picture of a door, which is worth to be examined from close. At WP, we need excellent images for everything, and this door is a picture that can tell many stories. But I would like to add a wish: please add your info note above to the file and add more precise location information (the coordinates of the camera position is given, but I guess this picture depicts a door in a street and is accessible, therefore please indicate the Street's name as well) --Sputniktilt (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 18:05:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pesenbach Kirche Innenraum 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pesenbach Kirche Innenraum 01.jpg
Comment - So far, I haven't figured out how I feel about this photo. Beautiful altar and some other nice details, but most of the church is in shadow. Would anyone like to comment about this and maybe teach me something? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ikan Kekek: What you describe so clearly makes this church interesting for me. Austrian churches tend to be overloaded by altars, paintings, etc., mostly of doubtful quality. This church is different, and I like the very special atmosphere there. A church in a little village, unknown to most people, no tourists. I have spent there about two hours, just this excellent altar, my camera, and me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice and high quality work especially the excellent light management in the altar area. But most of the picture is dominated by the quite uninteresting cross vault.The altar on its own would be a FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The majority of rural churches in Austria (or Bavaria) were built in the 14th or 15th century, i.e. they are essentially gothic. Many people don't realize that since most church interiors were significantly changed during the baroque period. So it's actually rather challenging to find good examples of, more or less, "unaltered" (I know the term might be misleading) rural gothic parish churches. This image here is a great example and technically well executed. We should appreciate that, the photo is very valuable. From a purely aesthetic perspective I really do prefer baroque decorations, but that's not very NPOV... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the image would be strengthens by cropping off some ceiling e.g. to 16:9 or even slightly wider. The ceiling repeats so not really losing much information and then the arches along the sides become more dominant pattern. -- Colin (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel like I've given this photo a chance, and all that shadow doesn't do it for me for an FP. To me, it makes the photo interesting, and I understand why it was a pleasant experience, but the shadows don't help make it impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. This is the interior as it was originally designed, and having a good-quality picture of an intact gothic church interior is significant enough to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2017 at 09:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stirnberg - Ausblick vom Nordwesthang.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stirnberg - Ausblick vom Nordwesthang.jpg
Oppose As before. As an overall scene, it is far too narrow to form a pleasing panorama for the eye: everything is tiny and there's a lot of snow and not enough sky. I fee like I'm looking down at the snow and can't lift my head up straight when I look at this. The only thing my eye focuses on is the tree on the far right, as everything else is too indistinct to make out. As an image to zoom into, it is neither a full 360 nor is it detailed compared to other FPs that reward zooming. Look at the other images in Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas and you will generally see they make great images even in small size. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colin and Daphne, again I disagree. The full 360° around aren´t rational here. Behind me is dark forest. View offers only the direction shown. I don´t know what medium you use for regarding my panoramas. On my screen it fills clearly more than 100% in the standard-viewer and full resolution. It is not narrow. There is no interest to blow it up with simply white snow on the bottom or empty blue sky at the top or the forrest behind. The panorama shows the natural outlook as it can be seen with free eyes into a landscape I often work with in the German Wikipedia and I think it´s usefull there. Details are limited. I dont´t want to show the house numbers in the villages. Do you want to suggest another FP-category for my images since you think that only 360° or 360°x180° are panoramas? Yes, some FPs are better, some not. Is it a valid guidline that a FP rewards zooming in any special viewer? --Milseburg (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess the real question is, is the curve up to the right and left really there? About how many degrees is this panorama? 180°? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, A cylindrical projection keeps vertical lines straight-up-and-down but only the centre horizontal is straight (remember this image may not be cropped symmetrically around the centre of the projection). There is one cylindrical projection (here) that preserves diagonals-from-the-centre-vanishing-point straight also). Other than that, horizontals get increasingly bent as you deviate from the centre. See File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - South Panorama.jpg for an example, and you can check on Google Maps that the road I'm standing on to take that photo is relatively straight. Some scenes hide this better than others, but it is still there and cannot be elminated. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, Colin. This seems like a gentler curve than that, but I'd love to see what this photo would look like in a straighter horizontal projection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info The viewing angle is approximately 200 °. Consider, that I am not standing on a plain. It is a slope. If you take a look in this way, it´s normal that the view goes down the hill first and than rises up again. A straight snowy plain in the foreground isn´t correct here. --Milseburg (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring unbalanced composition and extreme ratio. The downsampling algorithm (?) yields those very sharp, aliased and unpleasing edges. - Benh (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 08:02:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:A man sells some rabbits.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:A man sells some rabbits.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2017 at 18:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Acrida ungarica 2017 Koroni 02 the grasshopper itself is not very colourful and the background neither. I think that these colours are quite natural. Compare it to the second shot of the same hopper which appears more colourful, here on the right side. This second shot has been taken later, under a very warm, descending sunlight, i.e. less natural (the timestamp is UCT+1 but Greece has UTC+2), while the picture listed as FP candidate was shot a bit earlier, with less direct sunlight (it was a bit cloudy that day) and with more stones and sand in the background to have a clear contrast between the background on one hand and the sticks and the insect on the other hand. Not all insects are colourful ;-) --Sputniktilt (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The colour of this very interesting insect itself is not my problem. But this almost colourless or cold or grey background with these crosswise lying stems disturbing me very much. After long thinking about that I just can give an weak oppose, sorry. --Hockei (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Changed to Neutral in order not to block the speedy promotion. --Hockei (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for pointing out the dead pixels (not good for Capture One, because they are not on the raw file). It's fixed (please refresh your browser cache) and I added the file to the category Insects of Greece. Please feel free to add another cat if you think that that might be useful. --Sputniktilt (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
true. I added Koroni as a place. But I have to admit that I am not the grand master of Cats. If you like to add another, please feel free to do so. Your help is much appreciated. --Sputniktilt (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Depth of field might be a bit too tight, and I don’t think this picture is for everyone but the more I looked at this the more I like it. The sharpness is just great, I didn’t see hardly any grain, and to use Martin Falbisoners word "camouflaggy" really sets it apart. Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Charles. Another of those (to me) unusual photos where the animal's ability to blend in with its surroundings makes the picture better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has to be the best publicity photo I've ever seen in my life. Look how cute they made her! I was shocked when I saw the Luise Rainer page on Wikipedia. Just absolutely shocked. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PseudoSkull and thank you for wanting to make a FPC nomination. Unfortunately this nomination was not made the right way. You can't just create a page with the nom name since it will then lack all the links, transcriptions and whatnots into the international system that is done automatically when you make a nom the right way. You need to ask for deletion of this page and do the nomination the right way by following the instruction on COM:FPC#Adding a new nomination. You might need help from an admin on this since the system is messed up by this faulty page creation.
Having said that, it is very unlikely that a nomination of this photo will be successful since the photo is much smaller than the 2Mpx limit here. --cart-Talk17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 21:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016-1122 Lower Manhattan Skyline from liberty Island By Frank Futia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016-1122 Lower Manhattan Skyline from liberty Island By Frank Futia.jpg
Oppose - I know this is going to sound harsh, and I'm sorry about that, but the point of FPC is to find the very best photos on the site, and this photo is of fairly poor quality and is really an absolutely typical tourist shot, with lots of uninteresting water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 12:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frauenstein Kraig Kirchweg 6 Pfarrkirche hl Johannes d T 14082017 0358.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frauenstein Kraig Kirchweg 6 Pfarrkirche hl Johannes d T 14082017 0358.jpg
Support It is a church. A perfect picture of a church. Wow? Hard to say, not really spectacular, I would say. But it is close to a perfect shot. Can it be done better? As long as this shall be an encyclopedic picture, that would be hard I guess. Therefore, FP is the right status for this picture. --Sputniktilt (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the votes for this one weren't so overwhelming, I would be a stinker and oppose this one, too. I think the idea of a church emerging from the trees is a good one, but to complete the form, I'd like a cloud over the church, and I mention this in case you have a chance to take another photo on a mostly sunny day when there's a cloud or two in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever there is a chance, I am going to fulfill your wish for a photo that meets your taste of a brisk cloudy sky of blue, white and perhaps some shades of grey. For the moment I thank you for your honest review and stimulation. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 18:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.06.10.-02-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Scheckhorn-Distelbock.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.06.10.-02-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Scheckhorn-Distelbock.jpg
Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 39 edits so far. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk08:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 19:25:52 (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 25 Aug 2017 at 17:28:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) underside Bulgaria.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balkan fritillary (Boloria graeca balcanica) underside Bulgaria.jpg
Info This little butterfly (see thumbnail on right) lives at 2,300m above sea level at the top cable car station at the ski resort of Borovets in Bulgaria. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support seen from a technical standpoint, there are some little issues (for example DoF control around the head). One could relativize that, as it is a tiny butterfly and a difficult one to shoot I guess. But what makes this picture FP for me is the composition. Beautiful. --Sputniktilt (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was a difficult image from a technical standpoint. Being small you have to get very close, but it's windy at 2,300m so I needed 1/800. Charles (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I agree with Sputniktilt, but Charles, does this meet your own standards of image quality for a butterfly, considering that you consistently argue in Consensual Review that pictures of insects without sharp heads should be declined, even if the picture is large? I'd like you to answer that before I vote, although left to my own devices, I would certainly normally vote to support this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, very much so. The sharpness of the hairs around the head is what I wanted to achieve. But I only have 2mm DoF available. I have two other images on different flowers, which I also considered to be FPC
I can't get the third photo to display, supposedly because of errors, though my browser sometimes crashes. Anyway, I Support per others, my own opinion and your explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2017 at 19:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Choca-de-chapéu-vermelho (Thamnophilus ruficapillus).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Choca-de-chapéu-vermelho (Thamnophilus ruficapillus).jpg
951
373
755
293
2666
4000
strange colour.
Please further detail what is strange? The bird is with the raised tuft, please visit the page of the species in Wikiaves ...
Stains? In the background is the natural blur that a telephoto lens generates when the background is distant, in the background is a pasture with several shrub, which generates several shades of green
Mild Support - I could nitpick the composition, and a little more sharpness on the bird's head would have been welcome, but it's a pretty large file for a bird picture, the sharpness is solid, in my opinion, and it's a nice bird that took a nice pose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stains in the backround and strange colour around the feather above the head (for example) and the head and beak. See note. --Hockei (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 04:27:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ford Piquette Avenue Plant - Front Façade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ford Piquette Avenue Plant - Front Façade.jpg
Oppose - Not an FP, but a possible VI and perhaps QI, though you'll be requested to correct the perspective so that the building doesn't look like it leans back as it goes up. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. But it's still a little hazy/unsharp, among other issues (the crop and even presence of the stop sign would get some objections here). I think your best shot is to nominate this photo at COM:VIC, where it would have to be compared to all other photos of this facade. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2017 at 19:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Japacanim (Donacobius atricapilla).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Japacanim (Donacobius atricapilla).jpg
1311
265
730
340
2490
3731
stains
There are no spots, it is the natural blur generated by the 600mm telephoto lens from the background, the background is a greenery
1776
680
473
323
2490
3731
strange colour around the beak
Please detail what is strange, because it is the color of the beak of this species, the above brightness is the light of the sun ....
Question - What are the things that look like water color boundaries (if you get my meaning) in the background, such as right above and slightly to the right of the bird's eye? They're a little distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 13:06:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Montevideo, playa pocitos.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montevideo, playa pocitos.tif
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2017 at 06:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was only your second edit. --cart-Talk12:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice video, but I'm reluctant to support because I feel like there should be more explanation of what we're looking at for FP. Is the octopus catching and eating an organism at the end of the video? What species? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The video lingers too much on just the eyes of the octopus, it would have been nice to get more glimpses of other parts of the creature. The file is also lacking info on where and how the video is made; aquarium, open sea, where and so on. --cart-Talk17:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 20:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Alameda, Santiago de Compostela, España, 2015-09-23, DD 56.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Alameda, Santiago de Compostela, España, 2015-09-23, DD 56.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 17:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sa la crëusc sun Resciesa Gherdeina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sa la crëusc sun Resciesa Gherdeina.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 14:21:39 (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 20 Aug 2017 at 07:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neuhaus Mühlweiher 17RM2099.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neuhaus Mühlweiher 17RM2099.jpg
Very weak oppose So much went right with this picture, but I've looked at an inordinate amount of water-reflection pictures while creating and diffusing that category and this one just doesn't stand out enough for me. Maybe a zoomed shot of the mill opposite? As it is it just doesn't seem to have a subject, pretty through the background and foreground are. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 14:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.08.21.-14-Gorxheimertal--Besenheide.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.08.21.-14-Gorxheimertal--Besenheide.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 16:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rock in Evia Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rock in Evia Greece.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 07:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - I usually don't notice these kinds of things, but isn't the church leaning just a bit back and to the right as it goes up? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the point of b&w is to be artistic then the car and the rubbish bins fail the image. The building on the far left also isn't in-keeping with the subject/mood. -- Colin (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 15:11:54 (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 25 Aug 2017 at 20:51:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Sorry, mild Oppose per Karelj - very good photo, excellent light, but most of the composition feels too pedestrian for FP to me, what with the concrete walls, cars, scrub, debris and dirt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC) I'm having second thoughts about this one because I like the light so much. I'll live with it longer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reinstating my Oppose vote because although I like the light very much, I just don't think this picture, overall, is one of the very best. So per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 18:24:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Archimollusc-en.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Archimollusc-en.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 19:10:36 (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 26 Aug 2017 at 17:08:35 (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 26 Aug 2017 at 05:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Helicophanta vesicalis 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helicophanta vesicalis 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 18:02:16 (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 23 Aug 2017 at 04:18:39 (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 23 Aug 2017 at 07:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castel del Monte BW 2016-10-14 13-04-18 stitch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castel del Monte BW 2016-10-14 13-04-18 stitch.jpg
InfoCastel del Monte (Italian for "Castle of the Mountain") is a 13th-century citadel and castle situated on a hill in Andria in the Apulia region of southeast Italy. It was built during the 1240s by the Emperor Frederick II, who had inherited the lands from his mother Constance of Sicily. In the 18th century, the castle's interior marbles and remaining furnishings were removed. It has neither a moat nor a drawbridge and some considered it never to have been intended as a defensive fortress; however, archaeological work has suggested that it originally had a curtain wall. Described by the Enciclopedia Italiana as "the most fascinating castle built by Frederick II", the site is protected as a World Heritage Site. It also appears on the Italian version of the one cent Euro coin. created User:Berthold Werner with help from LivioAndronico - uploaded and- nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excuse me Berthold, this could have been a great picture (I especially like the shape), but I'm worried about the very unsharp areas at the edges. Not sure if stitching was necessary here. --A.Savin23:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, there are a couple of minor stitching errors visible at 100% - if you look carefully. I'm sure Berthold will take care of these as well. And yes, edges appear somewhat unsharp, again only at 100%. But it's a large file. Scale it down a bit, let's say to 3000x3000, and everthing's fine. So that's not a dealbreaker at all. Subject, colors, and composition are excellent, therefore I see no reason why this nom should not be featured. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 22:20:37 (UTC)
From the west.
From the southwest.
From the northwest.
Info all by me, including the boat piloting. :) The lighthouse was first built in 1879, and is currently a listed building. Automated in 2004, it was opened as a tourist hut available for rent after refurbishing in 2011. -- Peulle (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm ... not sure I agree. I do have the .RAW file so small tweaks can be made, but since other images in the series have the same exposure (800), I think perhaps the difference in light is due to the direction of the sun. What do you think?--Peulle (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some details on the facade are blown. And I would use more contrast on all three photos (perhaps matter of taste). --A.Savin14:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps the "southwest" one could do with a bit more contrast, although I think the "west" image would look overprocessed if I increase it on that.--Peulle (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a very good effort, and if not FP, very close, IMO. I like the compositions of the first two pictures, find them restful and consider them FPs. The left crop of the 3rd picture feels to me too close to the bridge over the stream (I guess that is). Would it be possible to add more room to the left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it's already at the maximum, but other sides can be cropped if you think that would improve the compositional balance. Perhaps you could add a note if you have a specific crop in mind?--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think nothing can really compensate for the lack of room to the left, so this is something else you can consider for your next go at photographing this motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing an FP in any of these. Also I don't think FP sets are designed so you can gain 3-for-1 FPs by photographing from a few angles. Photos one and three aren't significantly different. I think perhaps the "set" description of FP needs some work, as I can't recall anyone featuring a set like this. It would need to be a pretty amazing building to give "wow" from all facades. Even Diliff didn't nominate sets, vs choosing the best of many photos taken inside or out. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I agree that each of the images would have to satisfy FP status in order for the set to reach it (i.e. one should not be able to "sneak in" a non-FP amongst other images). As for the different angles, the reason I did it this way is that I noticed A.Savin using this strategy with his stadium photos. Thanks for reviewing. :) --Peulle (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "northwest" photo can certainly be cropped a bit at the bottom. Do you think that would improve the image?--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might be able to get behind #2 as a FP but on # 1 and especially #3 my eye is drawn to the Power Lines too much and that just keeps spoiling it with if you don’t count the uninteresting water on #3. Nominating a set is hard. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 14:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Munich - Viktualienmarkt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Munich - Viktualienmarkt.jpg
Oppose I like what you were trying to do but there is a white balance issue. It might be because of fluorescent lighting. Contrast also looks like it's way up. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 05:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Close wing position of Female Lethe chandica Moore, 1857 – Angled Red Forester.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Close wing position of Female Lethe chandica Moore, 1857 – Angled Red Forester.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 05:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Close wing position of Charaxes solon, Fabricius, 1793 – Black Rajah WLB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Close wing position of Charaxes solon, Fabricius, 1793 – Black Rajah WLB.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 23:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrus pyrifolia fruit on tree 1-PS LR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrus pyrifolia fruit on tree 1-PS LR.jpg
Comment Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 7 edits, 3 of them on this nomination. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk09:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The human eye does not see everything in focus. What is on the periphery of vision is always slightly out of focus. This is why this image works so well. The slight out of focus edges allow the eye to focus on the fruit - the subject of the image - without the eye bouncing back and forth on an image as it would when the entire image has the same focus. There is a sense that this image mimics the way the eye actually sees. Representational painters are often very aware of this fact and paint accordingly. The image is masterful in my opinion in part because of the slightly out of focus edges. Note the work of photographers like Imogen Cunningham and Julia Margaret Cameron who used soft focus techniques on images. Both sharp focus and soft focus are legitimate ways of dealing with a subject (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Comment You have done well with the fixings. But there are still some mistakes left. See my annotations. It can be quite an effort to merge a few images together.--Ermell (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great composition, the stem and leaves create a depth to the image and the light is just right. I will support it as soon as all the errors made when stacking the images are fixed. As you have seen by now, the merging programs can be very unreliable and you have to fix the blooper yourself. In a focus stacked pic, all parts in one focus plane must be equally sharp. --cart-Talk08:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will look at this again this evening. Honestly, I'm not sure I can fix it to FP level, but maybe. @Ermell: , and info for User:W.carter, I done understand what is wrong regarding the comment "clone stamp mistake". Can you elaborate? Also in the one where say the leaf goes sharp/unsharp, I'm not sure a source image is consistently sharp. Is it okay if, in order to make it consistent, it's more blurry than it is now? And I assume you're talking about the dead leaf here? PumpkinSkytalk09:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you can to make the photo as ok as possible. There are a few more places (besides the notations) with faults. I think you may have tried to 'run before you can walk here', since this is one of your first focus stackings. You chose a tricky subject and a lot (16!) photos, probably thinking that the software would fix it all. It might have been better here to do this in about 8 photos, leaving some of the background unsharp and less room for the program to <bleep!> up. --cart-Talk09:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That thought has occurred to me. If I can't fix it tonight. Maybe I'll restack with only 8 photos (the 8 best that I have). Yes, there are lots of objects and shapes in this. The trickiest parts have been the leaves.PumpkinSkytalk10:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationJohann Jaritz, Littleolive oil, Ermell, Andy Mabbett, W.carter, and Uoaei1...Thank you very much for your support and/or constructive comments. After more twiddling with this, it's apparent it's better to withdraw and restack this image with only 9 source images. I'll be putting that up with a separate filename (changing the "1" to a "2") and renominate it. That may be later tonight or sometime tomorrow. PumpkinSkytalk00:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 14:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wieskirche, August 2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wieskirche, August 2017.jpg
Info Just a rural, southern German church upon a hill... Well, not exactly: the Wieskirche, an UNESCO World Heritage Site , was designed in the late 1740s and is considered a major example of Bavarian rococo church architecture. Pilgrims have been visiting the shrine for more than 250 years - masses of tourists have been joining them for at least 50 years. So this place tends to be a bit crowded... When composing the image, I hoped to depict the scene the way visitors expect it to look like - not the way it actually looks like most of the time. So in this picture, the Wieskirche is just a peaceful, bucolic, but also serene chapel. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support - For whatever reason, I'm not feeling greatly wowed by this, but I think it works in doing what you want it to do and is a high-quality and fairly relaxing picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the crop, the compo doesn't work for me. For some unfathomable reason the whole scene seems squeezed together towards the middle. Sorry. --cart-Talk09:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 05:56:11 (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 24 Aug 2017 at 04:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Herfstwandeling door natuurreservaat It Wikelslân 09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Herfstwandeling door natuurreservaat It Wikelslân 09.jpg
Info Autumn walk through natural reserve It Wikelslân. The blades of this American Windmill stabbing beautifully against the bright cold frosty air. created All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too tight for my taste. I would prefer something like this, as it gives the main subject more room for breathing and has the frost on the ground as a bonus. This one would be my favourite from this day of shooting, had the windmill been placed more off-centre towards the right (in a golden rule/rule of thirds kind of way). --El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, the composition could be better. The windmill isn't in the centre but it's not enough off-centre and the result is a bit unharmonic to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 19:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Red-backed shrike.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red-backed shrike.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 19:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) - Cappella Cybo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome) - Cappella Cybo.jpg
Info The Cybo or Saint Lawrence Chapel (Italian: Cappella Cybo or Cappella di San Lorenzo) is the second side chapel in the right-hand aisle of the Basilica of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome. For the beauty of its paintings, the preciousness of marble revetments covering its walls and the importance of the artists involved in its construction the chapel is regarded one of the most significant sacral monuments erected in Rome in the last quarter of the 17th century. All by LivioAndronico(talk)19:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The furthest back row of chairs is really distorted - the one furthest to the right looks so tilted it should fall over. If you cropped out the closest row of chairs, I think that would greatly improve the picture, and I'd probably vote to support it at that point, though I'd have to see to be positive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm still a little bothered by the remaining distortion to the appearance of the chairs, but I think I'm just looking for that too much now. The motif is beautiful, and I like how the speckled surfaces are captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the marbles, real and false. The new version is better. IMO you should remove the reflection on the left part of the painting, by cloning or so.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 13:34:40 (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 28 Aug 2017 at 17:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cisles da Pieralongia Gherdeina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cisles da Pieralongia Gherdeina.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 15:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kathputli (Puppet)-IMG 0335.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kathputli (Puppet)-IMG 0335.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 18:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moon Bridge and Fountain, Friendship Pond 4 NBG LR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moon Bridge and Fountain, Friendship Pond 4 NBG LR.jpg
Support -- I like this better. I was neutral on the previous one but this one captivates me more. The plant on the lower right bothers me a little but only because it subtracts from the tack sharpness on the rest of it. It doesn’t change my vote though. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Glad you like this one. I had to stand in the mud just several cm from the water to get this shot. The entire left side of the stream is useless as a spot to take a good photo of the bridge. PumpkinSkytalk21:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a better view of the bridge but the fountain is still ruining the composition IMO. Sorry. Light also a bit washed out in the upper part of the photo. Standing in a bit of mud still doesn't beat Jee who had leeches crawling on him during one shoot. --cart-Talk08:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned in the other one, I find the juxtaposition of the fountain and bridge fascinating. As for the leeches, YUCK. I'll probably never top that one. Glad we don't have them where I live. I've uploaded a version where I tried to work on the upper light part you mention. PumpkinSkytalk10:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your's is too little processing and his is too much IMO. Some 50/50 version might be better. Please try too do as much of this editing before you make a nom. This is not the place for fixing photos. --cart-Talk12:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did my processing. But we don't know what is or may be wrong until we get additional feedback. It's at QIC waiting for the bot and no one made suggestions there. PumpkinSkytalk12:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to bring disconcertment to the FPC. I was simply curious, if the photo could be edited in a way that it possibly meets the taste of W.carter and others. Another version was uploaded. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- With this modified version of his own modification, I'm now really having trouble deciding which is better, so I'm supporting both versions. PumpkinSkytalk13:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So here's my dilemma: I would support this version and oppose the other, but I'm not sure if that makes sense if the other version is the truer one. In that case, maybe it's not justifiable to support this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek I can certainly understand your position. Trying to be neutral, I looked again at the other photos I made of this bridge and the coloring in this alt nom version is consistent with how the bridge can with certain lighting. PumpkinSkytalk15:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid per previous nom I'm not finding wow here to take it to FP. The fountain just looks a bit odd, with not being able to see the base and perhaps exposure is slightly too long this time so water is less clear and more blurred. The leaves/bark also appear quite soft compared to previous nomination, perhaps too much NR or not focused so well or light not so good. -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2017 at 14:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portnaluchaig beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portnaluchaig beach.jpg
Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You have only made 39 edits so far. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk08:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry... I think waiting a few minutes (or hours or days) for the lighting to be more favorable on the foreground rocks would make it a more compelling photo. As is, to me they are distracting. The composition is also not compelling... perhaps a longer lens from further away would be better, but I'm not sure. As it is, we have a tiny house on some bright green grass with dark shadows in the foreground and my eye is struggling to find any wow. Storkk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel Case, thank's for your comments. The ISO 400 was simply to allow faster exposure (no tripod) and greater dof in the subdued late-evening Scottish daylight (20:29 UTC = 21:29 local time). DeFacto (talk). 09:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 20:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Redoute du Pont-Levis, Sète cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Redoute du Pont-Levis, Sète cf01.jpg
Support I think a very slight crop to remove the yellow grass on the right (removing just past the tree in the background, leaving it about 6236 pixels wide) would be slightly less cluttered, but it's still featured quality as is. Storkk (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes and no, I remember to have integrated voluntarily the yellow grass, because I liked the colour and the sunlight on it, and I'm a bit refractory to the idea of removing it now. Specially as I had a zoom and I clearly chose this crop... Further more I usually try not to go less wide than 16*10, otherwise I have the impression that something is missing... But you are right that this yellow grass distracts a bit the spectator's attention, however if I don't want to crop this one, I will try to avoid such distractions for my next compositions. Christian Ferrer(talk)19:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 17:02:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Wow, our first FP from this year's Wikimania, already (And I suppose, since I was climbing Lyon Mountain, visible in the background right of center, at the time you took the daytime picture I'm in it in a weird way. The view from Lyon's summit was not clear enough to make out the Montreal skyline, alas, although I think I could see Mount Royal). Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially the night shot. The day time is also great , but has some visible stitching artifacts from (I think) two bad seams, that would be nice to correct. One seam is most visible at (8492, 1363) going about 212 pixels horizontally right. The other seam is more minor and looks like it affects (7378, 2147), (7431,2189), (7492, 2625), (7476, 2563). There is also some Moiré on the sides of buildings in the approximate boxes (5700+65, 1170+345), (6210+130, 1795+70), (6700+110,1780+180), (7115+100, 2145+430)... some of these may be more simple to desaturate or fix than others. Also, per W.carter, {{Location}} templates would be good. Storkk (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that the night shot is more beautiful, but that's partly because I just like the lights more than many of the buildings. Either way, great achievement and great documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done {{panorama}} and geocode and new version uploaded. Please add images notes for Moiré, I will do it tomorrow. Im going back to Europe tonight and will not have time or opportunity to read and answer here before tomorrow. Thank you for all votes and comments.--ArildV (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Each of two are eligible for FP, but I would have prefered two exactly superposable pictures, exactly symetrical, and exactly taken from the very same point of view. I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 14:02:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.09.02.-13-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Gruenaderweissling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.09.02.-13-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Gruenaderweissling.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 16:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Much better than the narrow-angle version, in my opinion. In that photo, the mountains in the background looked sort of artificial, not natural. Here, they look real, with resulting great improvement to the composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but I'm not seeing the "wow" factor. In general, on a cloudy day it makes for a better composition to exclude the sky altogether (which you did in the other version, which I supported). Here the sky is brighter than the ground, and exposing the whole scene properly (as you have done) makes the subject look grey and boring. While the sky is not completely featureless, the clouds are too soft to have a dramatic effect. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Inferior to the other one (even though I'd have liked more mountain in the other one). But really I think this is an abuse of FPC to nominate the same scene just with zooming out a bit. This is about selecting the "finest" not just accumulating gold stars, and the word I'd like to emphasise is "selecting". If you prefer this, offer this nom as a delist-replace, but please don't just nominate what are essentially alternative crops / brightness -- that's why we have alts. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 15:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bhavani island sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bhavani island sunset.jpg
Oppose No, I'm sorry, but just ... no. Like the other photo you nominated, the technical quality falls far short of the FP criteria. You should also make sure the image page is complete with categories. Please read the Guidelines; FPs are not just good pictures, they're among the best images on Commons - "the top fraction of a percent", one of thousands. Take a good look at the guidelines page for suggestions as to what makes a good photo. I suggest you try to nominate your images for Quality Image status - if they pass there, then perhaps they have a chance here as well. Good luck.--Peulle (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 12:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hibiscus Rosa-sinensis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hibiscus Rosa-sinensis.jpg
Support -- Moajjem Hossain 12:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry but even if I were to accept the fairly shallow DoF and low resolution, that top crop is just too tight for me to accept this as a Featured Picture.--Peulle (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, while there is no rule against it, it's practically impossible for a photo taken with a smart phone to get FP and even for QI it's very difficult, I only know a few photos taken with a smart phone. PumpkinSkytalk23:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 21:58:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old Paper Factory in Zurich.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Paper Factory in Zurich.jpg
Oppose - It's a pretty good picture, just not one of the very best on the site. I think the bottom left corner is probably too dark. Most of the rest is not too dark for me, and actually, what bothers me more is the soupy sky - a less glary day and/or time of day would look better. This picture is also extremely small for FP, as the absolute lower limit in size is 2,000 megapixels, but usually only an extraordinarily outstanding photo would be featured at that size. I think that if you submit this photo to Quality Images Candidates, it would probably miss being promoted, though possibly by a relatively narrow margin. You might find it useful to submit some of your photos to COM:Photography critiques or COM:QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too dark and the branches of the tree are 'burned out' against the sky, there is also the size - it looks like it might have been downsampled to get it sharp. --cart-Talk09:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 10:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aminah Cendrakasih, c. 1959, by Tati Photo Studio.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aminah Cendrakasih, c. 1959, by Tati Photo Studio.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 16:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak oppose For this to work the shadow should have been centered as well. The graffiti is also a bit disturbing. Sorry. --cart-Talk09:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.carter; when everything is essentially straight with one exception, I think there should be a reason for that exception. Here, to me the shadow just looks off-kilter. Also not the biggest fan of the graffiti. Storkk (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 10:19:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mésange (animal).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mésange (animal).jpg
Oppose The fact, that it is a common bird shall not taken into consideration, as quality matters. The bird has been captured in a good moment, but there are too many issues with this picture: overall sharpness and quality, DoF control, crop and las but not least, I agree with Yann, the background is disturbing. I am very sorry, but this picture is not FP. --Sputniktilt (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rarity is a criteria (at least to me). I could accept a less than optimal picture if the bird is very rare or specially difficult to catch. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I'm surprised at this comment. A photo of a blue tit, pigeon, or common park pond bird is relatively easy and we would demand the most high quality technically as well as composition (or at least, a photo that made us laugh). We also know that bird-in-flight is technically harder than bird-in-bush. I recall Jee noting the rarity of some insects he has photographed, and this being taken into account. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this one with a bit more resolution. If it is cropped to remove the empty space, it is below 2 Mpx. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2017 at 13:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clock At Zurich Lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clock At Zurich Lake.jpg
Oppose - Large file, but way too much color noise, and I also don't love the light. Remember: FP is for the creme de la creme of photos on this site. I really recommend for you to try COM:QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2017 at 23:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Gail Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Gail Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpg
725
704
4903
5416
6395
8145
Crop suggestion (+ cloning out of the top of the box)
Support - I just saw this at QIC and felt impelled to nominate it here right away. In my opinion, it's a complex, great altarpiece, excellently photographed with a good depth of field, and the other elements in the photo (except for the red rope) are a nice bonus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something white (electric light, reproductor?,...) on the right side, electric socket on the left side. Rest of some painting (probably) on the wall behind... --Karelj (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for explaining your point of view. Of course we disagree about whether this is an FP photo of this altarpiece, but do you think it would be possible to take an FP of this altarpiece? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cameras have gotten so good that today anyone can take a sharp picture of that with basic knowledge of photography. But maybe with a crop... - Benh (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
mild Support When you see this as a thumbnail I agree that it’s too cluttered but when you really look at it I see what Ikan sees. The whole photo is very complex and is excellently photographed. DoF is right on, it’s just that the other elements in the photo (except for the red rope and plant) subtract a bit. Lack of symmetry isn't a dealbreaker here for me. -- Sixflashphoto20:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject is more than excellent, The picture and the work are very good with a lot of details. But yes, there are many surrounding disturbing elements. I've suggested a crop, which could make me support.--Jebulon (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I guess the proposed crop will work fine, but not with a black mask. Unfortunately I do not have the RAW files with me, so I cannot provide a cropped version at the moment. Probably I will come up with this by next week. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By next week, this will either be an FP or be declined at FPC. If it passes and you'd like to offer the proposed crop, I suppose you could suggest a delist and replace, or you could propose that version as another FP, but I don't know how that would be received. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I planned to do, but I am also not sure about reactions. Maybe better to wait a bit. But in no case I want to work on JPG. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2017 at 03:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Georgen am Laengsee Sankt Sebastian Pfarrkirche hl Sebastian 02122015 9333.jpg
Mild Oppose. I'm going to give you what I hope comes across as a high-level criticism, because the thing is, as others have said, this is indeed a beautiful picture, and the light is beautiful. However, the fields and sky are pretty inert (sure, the sky gradually gets darker going up, but that's not enough for a great composition in this case, in my opinion), so I think this photo lacks something that could make it better than merely quite good, but truly outstanding. It looks like I'm far outnumbered on this, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your helpful in-depth reviews are highly appreciated as usual, even if they end up in a mild oppose like in this case. I will think about all items you wrote at the next opportunity when I will be out there taking open-air photos. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same feeling as Ikan Kekek. Furthermore I find the light a bit harsh. All is nice, good, clear, very well composed, but I miss "something". Empty sky ? Enpty grass ? I don't know, this is just subjective and I'm sorry for that. And I've found one dust spot (at least), please see annotation. --Jebulon (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 16:23:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Subduction-en.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Subduction-en.svg
Comment - Looks very good to me. Is there any minimum size for non-photo nominations here? I don't think so, but I'd like to know for sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine since it's an .SVG file, right? The Guidelines say that the "rule exclude images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image description."--Peulle (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2017 at 11:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RenaultMeganeMDP-jul2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RenaultMeganeMDP-jul2017.jpg
Oppose While I don't really see much wrong with the quality, there's no "wow" for me either. The old and dirty car isn't special either and doesn't add any coolness or wow to the scene.--Peulle (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, most of the car is in shadow and that is never good when photographing vehicles. For such a shot to work you'd also have to get down low for a more imposing angle of the car and preferably have just clean waves in the background, not having the image bisected by a wall as well. --cart-Talk07:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with the others. Not striking enough to be an FP; the car detracts from the view, IMO, although it's supposed to be the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2017 at 07:25:28 (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 30 Aug 2017 at 06:53:12 (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 26 Aug 2017 at 19:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bensberg Germany Schloss-Bensberg-Panorama-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bensberg Germany Schloss-Bensberg-Panorama-01.jpg
Info Bensberg Palace, a historical building in Bensberg near Cologne, Germany. It is a former Hunting Lodge, commissioned by Johann Wilhelm, Elector Palatine for his wife Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici. It was converted to a 5-Star Hotel in 1997. Cylindrical panorama from 11 single images, taken from a normal tripod.
I think that this is the normal effect when taking such huge building with a wide angle lense and forming it to a cylindrical panorama. It covers a view of 180° degrees and the distance of the left and right wing is perhaps 50 m while the main entrance in the far is 100 m from the tripod. I am not an expert on 180° or 360 ° panorama photos but some colleagues here are and probably can give a suitable explanation, why this has to be as it is. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think if you use the "spherical Panini projection" in Hughin, you will get straight lines instead of the bent lines, which would look more natural in my opinion --Llez (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's always tradeoff. Either u curve the verticals or the horizontals (there's more than that, but I make it short). From my experience, the best compromise would be to use a panini general (maybe that's what u meant), which allows to fine tune the amount of distorsion. - Benh (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a reminder for me and also where this photo in my archive is located. On request, I can provide interested individuals with the higher resolution (as stated in the section "Permission"). However 13.000 px width with 21 MB appeared to be more than sufficient for the majority of users. The max res is about 47 MB. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it's downscaled. You've been the first indicating me to the relevant guideline. I´ve no problem with that, but maybe it´s a bit problematic to offer a higher resolution by advertising with a downscaled image. --Milseburg (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and not a support because I'm per El Grafo. But I am fairly sure this can be improved with a Panini general projection. - Benh (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I installed Hughin and tried it yesterday evening. But surprisingly - though I took the photos in 20° interval steps with huge overlap - the program complaints, that it does not find enough stitching points. Probably, I am lacking experience to use this program after that short time of testing it. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On reading again the technical informations of Benh (thanks for that!); I gathered, that a 180° panorama can never have rectilinear verticals and straight horizontals. This seems logical to me, as the image is not just a wide angle representation, but a flat projection of a cylindrical representation. So, for my personal taste, the curved buildings are more suitable than curved/inclined verticals, especially as I was standing in a distance of the building where it is desirable to have rectilinear verticals. If someone does not share that view, it is ok, but it seems not justified to perform a post processing, that can technically not give the requested result. —CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Over the past couple days, I've really tried to like this. I'm sorry, though, I can't: it makes me feel like I've had one too many drinks. I think it may not be possible to photograph the whole building from this close up and obtain a panorama that I would like. Storkk (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is technically impressive, but the projection somehow gives the impression that all the verticals are wonky even though they're perfectly vertical. This optical illusion rather distracts from the building. --bjh21 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid it isn't working for me. I appreciate that the very wide view cannot be rectilinear, though the "Panini General" (aka vedutismo on PtGui) has the advantage of ensuring any diagonals radiating from a central vanishing point will be straight, as well as straight verticals. The verticals here aren't all quite perfect, with a few wonky ones. The "looking up" complaint may be solved by adjusting where the vertical centre of the projection is, and this may also minimise the degree of horizontal curvature a small amount. Alternatively go for a crop of the central portion and use a rectilinear projection. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 11:01:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Looking up the center of the Eiffel Tower 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Looking up the center of the Eiffel Tower 2016.jpg
Oppose A very nice picture with an interesting composition. But Commons FPC is for outstanding pictures. And unfortunately for you, we have a large number of very similar images already (1, 2, 3 to name just a few in 1:1 aspect ratio; another FP). There are some that manage to stand out among the others, such as this night view, this diagonal composition or this zoomed-in VI. I don't see this candidate standing out in any kind of way, apart from some advantages in image quality maybe. Others have done it before, the wow is gone – that's the problem with FPs of major tourist attractions. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per El Grafo. Also very uneven contrast brightness with some parts of the top half having high contrast and the bottom and centre very low. Almost like lens flare or lifting shadows too much. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition (it's a very refreshing original view IMO, and I'm a local). But it's not proper centered, has barrel distorsion and is blurry on the top part. - Benh (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to Benh, I'm a local too, and this view is not very original, per El Grafo. Nevertheless, I agree with opposers arguments. Not centered. Symmetry and wow has gone.--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 09:35:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruppell's warbler.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruppell's warbler.jpg
Oppose Sorry to disagree with the distinguished gentlemen above; I think this looks overprocessed, too noisy and with the tail out of focus. Quality not high enough for FP for me - I'm not even sure I'd support it as a QI.--Peulle (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the standard for bird FPs is quite high. Most of the bird looks sharp to me, but not the legs and especially not the tail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 04:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Speciale voertuigen worden ingezet voor onderhoud in het gebied. (Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper) Locatie Noarderleech 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Speciale voertuigen worden ingezet voor onderhoud in het gebied. (Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper) Locatie Noarderleech 03.jpg
Info Special vehicles are used for maintenance in the area. (Terra Gator 2104 Track Dumper) Location: Noarderleech. Noard Friesland Bûtendyks is a unique nature of It Fryske Gea. It consists of summer polders, drink dobben and salt marshes. For many birds an ideal habitat. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A consensus is clearly behind this, so I won't oppose just because I don't see a featurable motif there, but I'd like some remarks on why this is featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: In my view, this is a special vehicle for work in special and drastic areas. Each wheel has its own caterpillar. Very special for lovers of special vehicles. --Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: For my part, it's the "wow" (which is hard to quantify, I know); the subject matter plays a big part, and the light and sky are good.--Peulle (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but something is bothering me about the contrast... or perhaps the contrast and saturation. I think I prefer the colors on this version, though the composition of this one. Was this tonemapped? Storkk (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 03:21:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Villnöß Johanniskapelle mit Geisler.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Villnöß Johanniskapelle mit Geisler.jpg
Support - I think the contrail seeming to slant up from the star on the bell tower is really the cherry on top of this picture. Just one thing, though: I think the highlights on the rock faces on the left are just a little too bright, so I'd encourage you to dial the brightness back just a little, but not much, so that the actual look or at least feel of the bright light is maintained. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport noting the slight overexposure. Unlike Ikan I don't think the rock faces are too bright, but there appears to be detail lost on the white facade (namely, compression of the RGB values within a narrow band around 240) - probably unrecoverable since you took the photo at 1/80s @ f/10, a stop above what I consider the "standard" daytime exposure (1/250s @ f/8). Fortunately, it's a flat surface that didn't have too much detail to begin with, so it's not too distracting. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 07:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2nd Air Refueling Squadron refuels B-2's 161110-F-GV347-141.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2nd Air Refueling Squadron refuels B-2's 161110-F-GV347-141.jpg
Support Excellent composition (the timing must be spot on since the aircraft move around constantly), the symmetry is awesome. Huge wow factor as a result. Sharpness is good, as is exposure. There are rain/water drops flying around, creating "dust spots" that I wish were removed, but on the other hand such spray is part of the environment setting, adding to the realism of the photo. All in all, great work and definitely meets the FP criterion in my book.--Peulle (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know how possible it would be to photograph a view such as this without water (or fuel) droplets floating around during operations, there's always condensation from surface temperature differences and also air pressure/boundary layer issues. I think it adds to the realism of the image. Nick (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot and the droplets are part of this situation. Dissing this because of them and calling them 'dust spots' would be like opposing a photo of a water feature because of splashing droplets. --cart-Talk08:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Love the almost abstract geometric shapes in this ... it could be a logo. Scene reminds me of the opening scene of Dr. Strangelove. As per cart, the water droplets are inevitable in this scene. They could be cloned out, but at the cost of some of the realism. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 06:58:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Atc osaka03s3200.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Atc osaka03s3200.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 09:13:56 (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 31 Aug 2017 at 08:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoAali Qapu ("Great Gate") Palace, Isfahan, Iran. The name Great Gate was given to this place as it was right at the entrance to the Safavid palaces which stretched from the Naqsh e Jahan Square to the Chahar Baq Boulevard. The building, another wonderful Safavid edifice, was built by decree of Shah Abbas I in the early seventeenth century and is forty-eight meters high with six floors, each accessible by a difficult spiral staircase. It was here that the great monarch used to entertain noble visitors, and foreign ambassadors. All by me, Poco208:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 08:01:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thurnau-Schloss-P2077226.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thurnau-Schloss-P2077226.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 07:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoOpera Theatre, Yerevan, Armenia. The building, designed by the Armenian architect Alexander Tamanian, was officially opened in 1933 and consists of two concert halls: the Aram Khatchaturian concert hall with 1,400 seats and the Alexander Spendiaryan Opera and Ballet National Theatre with 1,200 seats. All by me, Poco207:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2017 at 13:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Small red damselfly (Ceriagrion tenellum) female form melanogastrum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Small red damselfly (Ceriagrion tenellum) female form melanogastrum.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 15:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skočivir (Скочивир, Македонија).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skočivir (Скочивир, Македонија).jpg
Oppose Looks overexposed ... that's easily fixed and I'd probably support it for QI after that, but as for FP the light doesn't really wow me.--Peulle (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2017 at 02:13:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aeronave A-29 Super Tucano em voo sobre a Floresta Amazônica.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aeronave A-29 Super Tucano em voo sobre a Floresta Amazônica.jpg
Oppose the original version was a bit milky, but I think the current edit goes a bit too far in terms of contrast, the shadows on the ground are way too dark for my taste. Over-all, I've seen better air-to-air shots, this looks kind of cluttered to me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 01:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church Door São Luiz Gonzaga, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church Door São Luiz Gonzaga, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
WeakOppose. This is a very interesting door, and the "wow" factor is definitely there. Unfortunately, this just isn't quite sharp enough for 5.5 MP. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 00:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pinacoteca de São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinacoteca de São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Oppose - Feels unbalanced to me. The crop probably isn't closer on the left than the right, but it feels that way because of the greenery on the right side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 00:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Air-to-air with a German Air Force Airbus A400M.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Air-to-air with a German Air Force Airbus A400M.jpg
Oppose per Ikan, the crop leaves something to be desired, giving the angle with lots of space in-between the wing and tail fin. --cart-Talk08:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2017 at 21:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Garska reka 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garska reka 2.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2017 at 19:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Domnica - Interior.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Domnica - Interior.jpg
I withdraw my nomination The Minor Basilica of St. Mary in Domnica alla Navicella (Basilica Minore di Santa Maria in Domnica alla Navicella), or simply Santa Maria in Domnica or Santa Maria alla Navicella, is a Roman Catholic basilica in Rome, Italy, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary and active in local charity according to its long tradition. All by LivioAndronico(talk)19:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting church that I wish I visited when I was in Rome and will try to visit next time. Of course almost any church interior photo suffers by comparison with Diliff, but I think this is good and striking enough to feature on its own terms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You usually lies from one guy that who comes here just to vote negatively on my photos as revenge. Also the floor is SPIRAL! But at least informed you before lying!--LivioAndronico(talk)10:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Livio, this comment is not OK. The floor may be spiral, but there is indeed some perspective issue. The floor below the alter is not horizontal. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And his comment naturally is OK true Yann? Anyway he talks about dln NR and the floor! So my comment is more than OK Yann. Then for the altar, if it was (!), I can safely modify it, and since you're an administrator you should better read what the other write OK Yann? P.S. Strange .... a Frenchman who defends a Frenchman! Strange world. --LivioAndronico(talk)12:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay how do you want I RETIRE!!!!!!!! You want to stay with friends and so will ........ I will continue to vote anyway you are ridiculous, you are afraid of these dumbfounders, okay I will continue to vote but I will not put my photos in FP any more good you are all good! Great people! GREAT JOB!!!--LivioAndronico(talk)13:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2017 at 05:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rizière Ambohibao.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rizière Ambohibao.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2017 at 18:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nautilus diagram-en.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nautilus diagram-en.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 10:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.06.18.-12-Bonadieshafen Friesenheimer Insel Mannheim--Beilfleck-Rotwidderchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.06.18.-12-Bonadieshafen Friesenheimer Insel Mannheim--Beilfleck-Rotwidderchen.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2017 at 11:26:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Auguste Renoir - A Girl with a Watering Can - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Auguste Renoir - A Girl with a Watering Can - Google Art Project.jpg
Support My high school art history teacher always used to say "There are very few bad paintings, and most of them are by Renoir". But he made a point of excluding this one. Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2017 at 16:23:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monnaie en bronze, Pont Amisos, 85-65 BCE.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monnaie en bronze, Pont Amisos, 85-65 BCE.jpg
Info all by me -- Ezarateesteban 00:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Ezarateesteban 00:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The light is too harsh, the hat and the keys are almost blown, and while the top-down view gives you a good background for the man, it is seldom a good way to photograph people. --cart-Talk 09:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Neutral Nice, but I'd like a tad more room ahead. Yann (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment Categories need improving - should be easy to fix. There's also a bit of green 
chromatic aberration in the middle.--Peulle (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
_male_close_up.jpg)
Done Charles (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Question Is that a stitching error a third of the way in from the right? (See the shoreline). Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC).jpg)
_03.jpg)
_-_Dome.jpg)
.jpg)
--Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
_with_prey_nettle_tree_butterfly_(Libythea_celtis).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Front facade of Gulskogen manor in Drammen, Norway.
Rear side of the estate.
Front side view of the estate.
.jpg)
_-_Dome.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Request per Yann: please see the guidelines for instructions as to how to set up the file page. Also, 
_%E2%80%A2_2.jpg)
,_Kastell_von_Kopenhagen,_Kommandantg%C3%A5rden_--_2017_--_1594.jpg)
,_by_Tati_Studios.jpg)
_(no_logo).jpg)
,_Mindanao,_Philippines_08.jpg)
,_Opernhaus_--_2017_--_1638.jpg)
.jpg)
--Hockei (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
_underside_Bulgaria.jpg)
_underside_Bulgaria_2.jpg)
_underside_Bulgaria_2_on_epilobium.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Sankt-Joergens-See_--_2017_--_1455.jpg)
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1699.jpg)
_04.jpg)
From the west.
From the southwest.
From the northwest..jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Cappella_Cybo.jpg)
-IMG_0335.jpg)
View from Mount Royal (day)
View from Mount Royal (night)
--Hockei (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
_male_close_up.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_03.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_with_prey_nettle_tree_butterfly_(Libythea_celtis).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_•_2.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Kastell_von_Kopenhagen,_Kommandantgården_--_2017_--_1594.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_by_Tati_Studios.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Mindanao,_Philippines_08.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![126 File:"The woman of my life doesn’t yet love me" (1999) by Daniel Knorr.jpg, not featured](#File:"The_woman_of_my_life_doesn’t_yet_love_me"_(1999)_by_Daniel_Knorr.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Opernhaus_--_2017_--_1638.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_underside_Bulgaria.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Sankt-Joergens-See_--_2017_--_1455.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1699.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_04.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Cappella_Cybo.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
-IMG_0335.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1515.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Locatie_Noarderleech_03.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_form_melanogastrum.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male_close_up.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male_close_up.jpg){kind=link}
_male_close_up.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_close_up.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_bw.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_03.jpg){kind=link}
_03.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_03.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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_fe){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_fe){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_with_prey_nettle_tree_butterfly_(Libythea_celtis).jpg){kind=link}
_with_prey_nettle_tree_butterfly_(Libythea_celtis).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_with_prey_nettle_tree_butterfly_(Libythea_celtis).jpg){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}
_-_Dome.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.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}
_%E2%80%A2_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_%E2%80%A2_2.jpg){kind=link}
_•_2.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_•_2.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_•_2.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Kastell_von_Kopenhagen,_Kommandantg%C3%A5rden_--_2017_--_1594.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Kastell_von_Kopenhagen,_Kommandantg%C3%A5rden_--_2017_--_1594.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Tati_Studios.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_by_Tati_Studios.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Tati_Studios.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_by_Tati_Photo_Studio.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Tati_Studios.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Before_restoration.jpg){kind=link}
,_by_Tati_Studios.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Mindanao,_Philippines_08.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Mindanao,_Philippines_08.jpg){kind=link}
,_Mindanao,_Philippines_08.jpg,_not_fea){kind=link}
,_Mindanao,_Philippines_08.jpg,_not_fea){kind=link}
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Radium_Yellowknife_port_side_Toronto_skyline.jpeg){kind=link}
_by_Daniel_Knorr.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Daniel_Knorr.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_by_Daniel_Knorr.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Daniel_Knorr.jpg){kind=link}
![13:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/August_2017#c-Shootzurich-2017-08-17T13:03:00.000Z-File:"The_woman_of_my_life_doesn’t_yet_love_me"_(1999)_by_Daniel_Knorr.jpg,_no){kind=link}
![12:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/August_2017#c-El_Grafo-2017-08-18T12:16:00.000Z-File:"The_woman_of_my_life_doesn’t_yet_love_me"_(1999)_by_Daniel_Knorr.jpg,_no){kind=link}
,_Opernhaus_--_2017_--_1638.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Opernhaus_--_2017_--_1638.jpg){kind=link}
,_Opernhaus_--_2017_--_1638.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Opernhaus_--_2017_--_1638.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_underside_Bulgaria.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_underside_Bulgaria.jpg){kind=link}
_underside_Bulgaria.jpg,_featur){kind=link}
_underside_Bulgaria.jpg,_featur){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}
,_Sankt-Joergens-See_--_2017_--_1455.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Sankt-Joergens-See_--_2017_--_1455.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sankt-Joergens-See_--_2017_--_1455.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Sankt-Joergens-See_--_2017_--_1455.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1699.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1699.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1699.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1699.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_04.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}
._Locatie,_De_Alde_Feanen_in_Friesland_02.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_De_Alde_Feanen_in_Friesland_01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Cappella_Cybo.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Cappella_Cybo.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Cappella_Cybo.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Cappella_Cybo.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
-IMG_0335.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-IMG_0335.jpg){kind=link}
-IMG_0335.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
-IMG_0335.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1515.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1515.jpg){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1515.jpg)
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1515.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Innenhafen_--_2017_--_1515.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1).jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Locatie_Noarderleech_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Locatie_Noarderleech_03.jpg){kind=link}
_Locatie_Noarderleech_03.jpg)
_Locatie_Noarderleech_02.jpg){kind=link}
_female_form_melanogastrum.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female_form_melanogastrum.jpg){kind=link}
_female_form_melanogastrum.jpg)
_female_form_melanogastrum.jpg,_fe){kind=link}
_female_form_melanogastrum.jpg,_fe){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
