Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 13:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Picunda, Sobór św. Andrzeja (03).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Picunda, Sobór św. Andrzeja (03).jpg
Oppose For a "clean" exterior building shot, I would expect (probably per King) either great light or some other feature like unusually high resolution or a special composition to make it more than a good QI. — Julian H.✈ 10:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 15:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Ida chain Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Ida chain Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpg
Support The Messara plain and the Mount Ida Chain, where Zeus was born, as seen from the archaeological site of Phaistos, Crete, Greece, february 2015.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The landscape obviously has a lot of three-dimensional variation and depth, but the flat light hides all of that. There are still a few nice patterns, but I personally don't see a fp-level landscape, sorry. — Julian H.✈ 10:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is sharp. Many other landscape and monument pictures get support here being much softer. I have suggested a crop, per King of Hearts. --Kadellar (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadellar: , @King of Hearts: , I've followed your suggestion, and cropped out a part of the sky. I hope other voters will agree, I don't think it is an "alternative". Everybody disagreeing,(or agreeing now) can change their vote, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed a nice view and those fields of aligned trees really do have potential to draw the eye ideally to the nice mountains in the back, but they don't. Colors and light are nice but as said the composition is not balanced IMHO and the detail is not the best, either, sorry Jebulon. Poco213:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 19:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wikimedia Conference 2015 photo by Pine - 12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wikimedia Conference 2015 photo by Pine - 12.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 13:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:경주 구황동 금제여래좌상.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:경주 구황동 금제여래좌상.jpg
Qualified support Yes, there are dust spots but I've seen a lot worse, God knows, in my own images; I trust the uploader can remove them. In any event they do not detract enough from the image for me to oppose it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 21:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpg
Question What had been better light for you here, King of Hearts? The creek and mountain are in sunlight, the trees at the left are partly in shadow which is imho a good contrast to the bright and snowy mountain. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit flat, an unavoidable consequence of shooting at noon. Granted, it might be the best possible light for this scene (as sunrise/sunset could create unwanted shadows) which is why I still supported, but not particularly inspiring in an absolute sense. The composition and contrasting colors are what I like about this image. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As already mentioned, the flat lighting. Personally, the image doesn't bring any wow for me, it's a pretty common sight. Sorry, but I can't see this as FP in any way. --LB08:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLB, I tried to capture the beauty of that place. I like the place and think I've chosen I good composition to transport that beauty. For me it is far from being a "common sight". I cannot say if a different shooting time had been better but the valley is quite narrow thus I think you will have distracting shadows, as King of Hearts has mentioned. BTW: A comment "does not bringing any wow for me" is not really appreciating. You should keep in mind that most of us spend a lot of time to produce nice photos. IMHO it is better to stay factual rather emphasizing two times that you cannot imagine why this [bad photo] should be an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso, what do you regard as a "factual" review? Dust spots and chroma noise pixel peeping? FP requires an emotional response to an image, "wow", and a failure to deliver that to a reviewer is just important a flaw as any other subjective opinion on composition or lighting. I think "I can't see this as FP in any way" is too strong/rude considering this is far from being FPX. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I can say what is imho no deliberative (better word) review: Writing two times that an photo is no FP in any manner as LC did. It is absolutely OK to write: The images has no wow for me. Assessing FPCs is always subjective and not fully factual. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuxyso: I apologise for saying that I can't see this as FP in any way, I didn't mean to sound rude and I agree that it was too much. I do, however, stand to the statement that the image doesn't appeal to me. I do appreciate your work. --LB11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{o}}} Neutralas I said during the QI process. For me not good enough with sharpness, therefore not FP-quality. --Hubertl (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHubertl - you've reviewed a different image :) For me the photo is sharp enough - a lot of details are visible on the trees, wood in the foreground and on the mountain itself. --10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right, I am really sorry for my mistake. This one is better, even when I am not absolutely convinced for FP. Sorry. So I go to neutral. --Hubertl (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm also not comfortable with the light. The very bright snow opposing the very dark shadows leave very little range for everything in-between, and the colours are very muted as a result. — Julian H.✈ 11:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me it has wow and I think a reasonable tradeoff has been made regarding the light, presence of shadows and time of day. I almost feel I can sense the fresh air and hear the stream of fresh water coming down. It is a little soft in focus in the upper right corner, but OK for me. I like the diagonal coming down from that corner. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is not the best, but acceptable in my opinion. The main issue I see here is the composition. The cropped fence is a minus and the square format is IMHO not helping to get into the picture. A protrait format from a bit further to the right (without fence) and closer to the river, could have worked better (not sure, because I don't know the spot). I mean something like this. Poco213:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, Poco_a_poco, photos are a very subjective matter. The composition is the aspect I like most (and most of the supporters) with this photo and was for me besides the beauty of the place the reason for nomination. Every element (also the cropped fence) is there on purpose. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I usually don't like this aspect ratio but I can feel the depth in this composition especially the combination of a creek and a path with this angle are excellent, seems very narrow valley so this sky is acceptable as well. --Laitche (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 09:41:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Admiralty Arch at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Admiralty Arch at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Yes it is cropped fairly close. There were some ugly and distracting elements just outside of the frame so I thought it was best like this. Diliff (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 07:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klensmedjan Horndal May 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klensmedjan Horndal May 2015.jpg
Neutral In thumb I was pretty convinced it would end out with an oppose from me as I find the crop vertically unbalanced (too little below, too much above) and it seemed too dark. However, in full view it is a rather well done photo with many details, good light despite the many dark areas of an usual subject recalling us that "valuable is not always beautiful". -- Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 15:00:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The shadow goes inwards (bad positioned ligth ?), also camera could be tunred little bit to recth, to see front plane better. --Mile (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [Edit conflict: per Kadellar, pretty much] I really think the front could be a little brighter, this should be relatively simple to correct. It's your choice of course. — Julian H.✈ 11:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, lighting arrangement leaves room for improvement. Also, standing on the edge like that, the camera somehow seems to defy gravity – maybe a plain white background without shadows would've worked better in this case? --El Grafo (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 09:37:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Raphael's Interior 1, Kingston, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Raphael's Interior 1, Kingston, Surrey, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 05:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Xian China Cultural-Performance-02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xian China Cultural-Performance-02.jpg
Oppose per Jebulon, I'm aware the lighting was probably colored and it helps to preserve a bit of it but this is still too much. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I read explanation for ligths and WB, but i have my opinion. There is no camera which would handle WB correct at such "extreme" temperature. Especially when set on Auto white balance. Unless you made calibration with color cards (which doeasnt look like). This and choped hands of woman in rigth. --Mile (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. I did try to lower T and it looks little better, i think from RAW could be even better.[reply]
Oppose per others, regarding the white balance. It doesn't have to be perfectly neutral in such a case, but too much of the actual variation in colour seems to have been lost here. — Julian H.✈ 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 19:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puerto de Cotefablo, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 02-04 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puerto de Cotefablo, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 02-04 HDR.JPG
Info The tunnel of Cotefablo is a public traffic tunnel located between Broto and Biescas, in Aragon, not far from the Pyrenees, Spain. The tunnel is 683 m long and was constructed in 1935. It was the scenario of a famous tragic accident during the 1989 Vuelta a España, causing that the brilliant 30-year-old german cyclist, Reimund Dietzen, retired from active sport due to the crash. All by me, Poco219:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 15:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wessel Couzijn (1980).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wessel Couzijn (1980).jpg
Support Very good portrait. The technical quality is as good as one can expect considering that it was taken in 1980. --Code (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 21:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Esquisse d'une carte géologique d'Italie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Esquisse d'une carte géologique d'Italie.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 12:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica of San Vitale - Lamb of God mosaic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica of San Vitale - Lamb of God mosaic.jpg
InfoLamb of God mosaic in presbytery of Basilica of San Vitale (built A.D. 547) Ravenna, Italy. UNESCO World heritage site. All by --Mile (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not too happy with the amount of sharpening because, due to the amount of sharpened edges, it changes the overall colours of the image and not only the 100% impression. — Julian H.✈ 13:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a different idea of "no sharpening", but given the subject and resolution, I think it's ok now. Support — Julian H.✈ 14:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sharpening issue: I was in doubt if to put any or leave it, photo is sharp enough in original, but at previous i put sharpening on 1 in scale of 7. Unsahrp mask set on 0. But, since there are two comments regarding it, i put it back, so no sharpening at all. --Mile (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 14:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus genutia 06847.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danaus genutia 06847.JPG
He has not much knowledge about processing of files. Any help/advise is highly appreciated and can be on his talk page too. (I've a private conversation and suggested him to shoot RAW. He has twomore photos of the same subject; but I think WB is too red there.) Jee01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian why me... but OK. I can say a sharp is a sharp so cannot increase the details, as far as I see the last version, sharpness is better but not so big improving and a little bit loss details and also a little bit gain noises so overall I cannot say which is better... But in this case I think they should respect creator's intention, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laitche: why you? because I know you're always try to be picky, and I thank you for that! You confirms here what I suspected this is not really a real improvement so I reverted, this image can not be more sharpened without overprocessing so it's better to keep the first version which is not unsharp, thank you again for your contribution :). -- ChristianFerrer21:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jkadavoor, The Photographer for your great help and support.Unfortunately all those pics shot in JPEG.@The Photographer i am a newbie in photography and so much in need for help. Vengolis (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rotring Technical Pens by Lucasbosch, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 16:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rotring Isograph and Rapidograph Technical Pens disassembled.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rotring Isograph and Rapidograph Technical Pens disassembled.svg
Info This is a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files. The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. All by LB -- LB16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, that with a vector graphic like this you can enlarge it infinitely without negative effects. The default display size really doesn't matter here. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That infinitely means you can see the more details in larger images (loss details) but those are not smooth because you can see kinda path (like this) of vector graphics and Bézier curve in larger images, but it's actually infinite at times, that depends on the way of making. --Laitche (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand the composition. Is it a set ? a picture ? Why the series ? Why individuals ? It lacks of clarification to me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: It's a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files (your comment reads as if you think it's all one file). The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. I hope you will reconsider your vote. --LB20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me. I know and understand what I see, my concern is about the "set" nomination. It is a very impressive work, by the way. --Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: Set nominations are okay by the FP nomination rules, and this set can be seen as a "group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object." (see set nomination rules, category 4). The class of object is technical pens currently sold under the Rotring brand, all possible variations are both Rapidograph and Isograph pens and the extra images showing them disassembled and the color codes (and different nib sizes) are for illustrative purposes. --LB21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This clear explanation makes sense, I strike my oppose, and I think that such a quality job deserves a support. btw, I'm the proud owner of two FP sets...--Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please change this to being featured? I don't feel comfortable doing all the steps correctly. @Poco a poco: , could you please do this? --LB21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 08:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose A different crop would have been better. Pls don't cut the tail but some less important areas on the other sides instead. --Tremonist (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 17:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Just a QI for me. I feel like you can find better specimens of this flower; this one is rather asymmetric, with the bottom folded up a little. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is the flower revealing from a bud. The middle is still hidden partially by petals. The nature lives not according to a drawings for the sake of symmetry. I wanted to show freshness and awakening of this flower. This plant blossoms only few days, so new photos will be at next year. Anyway, thanks for the review. -- George Chernilevskytalk22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but no wow and busy background, many flowers show the best timing a few days in a year thus that is not the featured factor, imho. --Laitche (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well done and probably a good candidate for VI as well, but it doesn't really stand out against all the other high-quality close-ups of flowers we have. --El Grafo (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 18:29:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Santi Nereo e Achilleo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Santi Nereo e Achilleo.jpg
WeakSupport. Great colors. I do have some nitpicking to do: 1) it's not completely centered; 2) the windows are overexposed. Overall, the defects are not too distracting so it's still enough for me to support. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose Nice, but strong magenta flare around the right pillar of the baldachin, close to the altar. Even visible at thumbnail. Not correctible I'm afraid--Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft in focus for me in the background at the top. I think you should have set the exposure time to 30 sec, and have chosen a suitable smaller aperture to get more DOF. Does not reach the current very high church interior bar. Do you have the new version 6 of Lightroom? I can recommend it as it has a builtin HDR merge, from which you can combine several exposures and get a "super-raw" with much more dynamic range (you can find a few of these in my recent uploads). I think it works very well and convenient with single frames (I still use PTGui for HDR panos) and would be suitable for these kinds of church interiors to get better results. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With HDR of Photoshop or Lightroom is a disgusting, also do not have time, because you see these empty churches are full of tourists and also expect also two hours to find the time that there isn't people, and are usually a few moments --LivioAndronicotalk20:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A technical discussion about HDR merge in Lightroom 6
I fully agree HDR in Photoshop is utter disgusting; but it works very differently in Lightroom 6. For instance, I just uploaded this Lightroom 6 tone-mapped HDR of three exposures 2 EV apart. I think you agree with me, that it does not look artificial? On the contrary, it helps to avoid the blown highlights while getting the details out of the shadows, much as your eyes do with their logarithmic response. You can setup your camera for a bracketed exposures, such that it does not take a long time to take. You can even repeat it a few times to avoid having people in the same place as the HDR merge in Lightroom also has the ability to remove ghosts. LR can also align the exposures if they are not perfectly eligned due to, e.g., shutter snap. Just a friendly advice. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I did not realize that. Still, manually changing the shutter time does not take long. I do that occasionally, when the three brackets I have at my disposal is not [[::File:Viborg by night 2014-11-04 exposure fused.jpg|enough]]. And again, do not worry that changing it will ruin the alignment. LR can autoalign the exposures and it works quite well. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat : I do not have time, because you see these empty churches but are full of tourists and I expect also two hours to find the time that there isn't people, and are usually a few moments --LivioAndronicotalk21:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger is right, the HDR function in Lightroom 6 works very well, I already used it quite often and I am very happy with the results. The pictures become dramatically better. Well, my new EOS 6D is able to take AEB with up to seven pictures which makes the whole thing easier, of course (but when doing night shots you have to use high ISO because the AEB isn't able to make exposures of more then 30s - the other option is to do it manually using BULB. But I think this shouldn't be a problem when doing church interiors what I didn't try yet). But as Slaunger said you can do this manually, as well. You should really try it. By the way: When I took this, this and some other pictures of monuments in Berlin, I had to wait for more than two hours taking lots of pictures until I got some on which no tourists were to see. The longer you set the exposure time, the less ghosts you have on the picture. @Slaunger: In my opinion the HDR of LR 6 is very good but the automatic ghost removal is completely crap. I don't know if it is my fault but it completely ruins the picture. I will upload an example as soon as I have the time. Maybe you can give me a hint if I am doing something wrong. --Code (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Code: I agree with you that the deghosting feature does work too well. I have yet to find an example of my own where it actually works. I have seen it work in a tutorial video from Adobe, but that is it. Maybe it is just marketing bullocks. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 21:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Góry Złote z Borówkowej 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Góry Złote z Borówkowej 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 08:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bromo-Tengger-Semeru-National-Park Indonesia Horses-02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bromo-Tengger-Semeru-National-Park Indonesia Horses-02.jpg
Info A Java Pony (Equus ferus caballus) at Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park, East Java, Indonesia. The Java pony is a breed of pony developed on the island of Java. It is a descendant from wild forebears of Mongolian Wild Horse ancestry. All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for some foreground haziness (which could easily be fixed, I think, in post) and the aforementioned tight crop on the right. Still a useful, high-quality depiction of the subject. — Julian H.✈ 20:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2015 at 12:29:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fly on stump, Albury NSW.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fly on stump, Albury NSW.JPG
Info A fly on a stump after an understory bushfire, taken near the summit of Nail Can Hill, Albury, NSW, Australia. This is the original, unedited image. Created, uploaded and nominated by thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The high contrast of the background is quite distracting, especially with the small size of the main subject and no strong colour contrast between foreground and background. — Julian H.✈ 13:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 12:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Monticelli (Rome) - interior.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Monticelli (Rome) - interior.jpg
Info Santa Maria in Monticelli is a church in the rione of Regola in Rome, sited on the street of the same name.
Santa Maria in Monticelli.
A church was founded at the site in the 12th century and reconsecrated by Innocent II in 1143. It was known as Sancta Maria in Monticellis Arenulae de Urbe, in a bull by Urban IV in 1264. Little remains of the medieval church, except for the bell-tower. The church was entirely reconstructed in 1716 by Matteo Sassi, on a commission by Clement XI, and in 1860 by Francesco Azzurri. The church is the home to the Curia Generalizia dei Padri Dottrinari.All by -- LivioAndronicotalk12:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe that this picture is one of our finest church interiors, the bar is really high here. I find the sharpness just ok and the subject not spectacular, but what really spoils it to me is the lack of symmetry with the stand and book in the foreground off the center, sorry. Poco218:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 05:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Slussen Stan May 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Slussen Stan May 2015.jpg
Support Everything comes together so nicely in this picture. Normally I would complain about rule of thirds, but somehow the composition works here. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition doesnt work for me, i would crop some from above. Choped bus in bottom and bus which turns left dont help much. --Mile (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the special light lasted only a few minutes before it started raining again, it was no time to run home and pick up a tripod and no opportunity to come back another day. I was lucky that I had the camera in my bag. I used a railing as tripod and was unable to include more of the foreground (pointing the camera down had also given more distortion, its taken with extreme wide angle). I like the triangular shaped composition with Riddarholmen and the historic Riddarholm Church in the center. I think the sky is to beutiful to crop.--ArildV (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well 1/6 - 1/5 could be handheld shot, depend on f. You could put ISO to 800 not losing anything, benefiting in compostion. Camera is good FF. --Mile (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Higher ISO would affect the quality, even with the D600. Especially if you consider that this image has large contrasts between light and dark areas. It requires post-processing of the dark areas (shadows), a higher ISO had given a lot more noise in the dark areas. The lens has not particularly good corner sharpness at larger aperture, therefore f/8.--ArildV (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I believe that it would have been a bad idea to pointing the camera down more. It would disturb other parts of the composition and provide more distortion, and the bus is not an essential part of the composition.--ArildV (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe you are rigth, lens are often a problem, i dont know which you used, i checked now sky, it gave you banding and posterization (see notes). --Mile (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even when I stare at the images in full resolution (22 MP uncompressed wide-angle) its very difficult to see, I'm not even sure I can even see what you're talking about. Anyway, I do not think it is a big problem and the overall quality (especially if one takes into account the resolution) is above average for wide-angle-FP.--ArildV (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I don't mind the posterization since it's not the worst ever, far from it. But it does tend to point out how this might be better with more of the top cropped off. Stunning image otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Mile, the composition doesn't work for me. Although the sky is pretty, there's too much of it and it unbalances the composition. Better to use the rule of thirds I think. Diliff (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 20:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2012 Olbrachcice, Kościół Świętych Apostołów Piotra i Pawła 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2012 Olbrachcice, Kościół Świętych Apostołów Piotra i Pawła 05.jpg
Oppose While it has been improved, it has not been improved enough. I still see some unnatural tones in the sky and clouds. The church could also stand to be perspective-corrected. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long hesitation... Pro: Sharpness, light, eye appealing. Contra:Per Daniel Case, composition a bit trivial and flat, if I may say, and lack of "wow" for the subject. But weak oppose.--Jebulon (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 20:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baltyk-1-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baltyk-1-8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 13:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Faro de La Entallada.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Faro de La Entallada.jpg
You're right. To get recangular (and not bended) lines in such panoramas, the left and right outer parts of the panorama must be stretched, whereas the center must be compressed (=reduced in size). So you have automatically some difference in sharpness, especially the central part is sharper than the left and right part (Diliff told me some time ago, that he has smilar problems in his stiched cathedral panoramas). I reduced the sharpness in the center a bit to correct this effect. I hope, it is better now. --Llez (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's even better but still I can see the partial sharp, I will not oppose this but also the composition dose not work for me so I cannot support this, imho. --Laitche (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 20:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Päikesetõus Pärnu jõel..jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Päikesetõus Pärnu jõel..jpg
Comment I think Mile may be right but some creators don't like the overwrite so before then you can ask the creator or you can revert anytime, I don't care which but in this case overwrite might be better. And did you upscale this image after rotation? If so upscaling is not allowed here(FPC). --Laitche (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coastline doesn't have to be horizontal. Don't be fooled. It's just the composition that leaves the impression that it is tilted. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well luckily, there is a water reflection in the photo, so you can check if the reflection is vertically aligned with the corresponding object. That being said, I think it's more important that it looks right, at least in this case. — Julian H.✈ 21:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question The original nominator of this photo is Kruusamägi but alternative nominator is ArionEstar, in this case alternative nomination is counted as nominator's nomination? if so this one is ArionEstar's third nomination thereby this should be put on FPD. Or if an alternative nomination for others nomination is not counted as nomination, it's no problem. Does someone know about that? --Laitche (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but if that becomes a problem, I'd gladly adopt the nomination. We could just ignore it, too. It's not like you can reasonably bombard FPC with countless alternative nominations. — Julian H.✈ 07:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Julian: Yes, that's right. @ArionEstar: Currently you have two active nominations this and this. This nomination is an alternative but the third nomination of yours if we accept this because of the alternative then that becomes we have to accept countless alternative nominations as Julian mentioned. I think this nomination will expire soon by rules of the 5th day unless get an oppose vote, so would you please postpone (withdraw) this nomination till then and you can reopen (unwithdraw) this nomination, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 09:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hasht Behesht, Detail of the dome by Pascal Coste.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hasht Behesht, Detail of the dome by Pascal Coste.jpg
Support I love unappealing colors, mostly, when they are dull. Especially empty spaces makes me happy and keeps me young. --Hubertl (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 05:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I think this composition is not bad and can see the nest in the foreground vegetation and the female mallard maybe with eggs are lovely for me :) --Laitche (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian and Fotoriety, no wow. It does more than enough right to be a QI, but somehow it just can't get that little extra push over the cliff. Mist can do amazing things, but it doesn't seem to be working here—frankly, what struck me in this image as the potential "wow", was the juxtaposition of the shores rather than the mist. I think the colors in the foreground are not strong enough to contrast enough with the dulling of the mist. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2015 at 02:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palo Alto Baylands January 2013 004.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palo Alto Baylands January 2013 004.jpg
Oppose Quality is great, but the composition doesn't really satisfies me. There are lots of examples when imperfect objects looks great, but this one simply isn't one of these. -- Pofka (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both versions, as compositionally wanting. Might be a little better if cropped in on the building and reflection, but still not sure ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll cut some more (or add some water) to try to make an horizontal symmetry however the subject attracts more and enough attention for me, thanks -- ChristianFerrer11:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is not bad and nice light, nice reflection but almost half of the houses are in the dark shadows and the shadows of the pillars and reflection on the door glasses? are a bit distracting. --Laitche (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think that this version is the best, but the result is not FP to me due to the power line posts behind the house, they spoil the composition Poco218:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info My idea for the original composition was to have the power lines form a visual line and for the distant poles to help frame the subject. Clearly, that idea hasn't been very popular so far; perhaps it is just wasted space in your eyes. So I'm adding a shot of just the building itself (note that this is a different exposure, not merely a crop). -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2015 at 07:09:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Long Island City New York May 2015 panorama 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Long Island City New York May 2015 panorama 3.jpg
Support. Very well done. Everything in this picture of Queens is pretty clear, unlike the pictures that I take of Queens. :-) Epic Genius (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that they are too straight, and being striaght means that instead of leaning backwards, the buildings lean forward, giving an unnatural look for the perception of distance is distorted. From the point of view of the camera, the bottom part of the building is closer than the top part of the building. A natural look would make the top slightly less narrow than the bottom, that is, the buidings should have converging lines, not parallel lines. In essence, with perspective correction the top part of the building is stretched sideways to give the appearance of straight, hence the leaning forward perception. There are several ways to take the picture with an acceptable perspective control before resorting to artificial digital means. One thing is to mitigate excesive converging due to lens used and other considerations and it is another to exagerate the correction. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The outermost right vertical of the right house is slightly bended inwards, Caused either by using a wide-angle objective or by stitching the panorama. I know this problem, I have it sometimes the same in some of my panoramas. Should be fixable. --Llez (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, both Photoshop and ACR only allow you to set the vertical perspective correction in integer increments, and the next increment over pushes it too far in the opposite direction. IMO it's not too noticeable, and the creators of Photoshop seem to think that being a half-point off on their vertical distortion scale is not a big deal. Given the choice, I'd rather buildings lean in than out. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had the choice of my 18-55 and 35 prime. Unfortunately the height of the building could not fit entirely in the wide dimension of the 35, so I had to take a 3 x 2 horizontal pano, which I spent several hours trying to stitch and gave up in frustration. I think due to the wide view and distortion, my frames were actually missing pieces of sky in the top, so both Photoshop and Hugin got thrown off pretty badly. I ended up going with Plan B, which I took because I knew multirow panoramas would be a pain in the ass. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2015 at 22:53:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seaweed in Ensenada Baja California.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seaweed in Ensenada Baja California.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 16:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:1635 Blaeu Map Guiana, Venezuela, and El Dorado - Geographicus - Guiana-blaeu-1635.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:1635 Blaeu Map Guiana, Venezuela, and El Dorado - Geographicus - Guiana-blaeu-1635.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2015 at 20:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.08.09.-11-Durbach--Weingut Schloss Staufenberg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.08.09.-11-Durbach--Weingut Schloss Staufenberg.jpg
Weak Support Are 20 minutes that I look at this picture and I do not understand the opposition of jebulon, the composition is excellent quality less but this does not discourage me from putting a positive vote. The quality is not that beautiful views of Christian Ferrer but the boy has a center for me.--LivioAndronicotalk20:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice and colorful landscape, but I think it would have benefited from a higher point of view. The land in this image can be thought of as having three parts: the vines in the foreground, the hill in the middle ground, and the fields in the background. Unfortunately, the foreground is a bit too dominant and squeezes out the middle ground IMO. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport Actually I agree with Jebulon, a pity for the crop in the foreground, but still, the view is amazing with those lines "running away". I think it would be a great panorama expanding it on the left as far as I could see in Google Maps. Poco218:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 14:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apse mosaic - Basilica of San Vitale (Ravenna).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apse mosaic - Basilica of San Vitale (Ravenna).jpg
Info Apse mosaic in basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna, Italy. Built 547. A.D. UNESCO World heritage site. All by --Mile (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 20:50:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Es wurde exakt ausgerichtet und auch bei nochmaliger Prüfung kann ich kein Hängen zu einer Seite hin feststellen, das mag eher der Eindruck durch die perspektivische Sicht sein. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist richtig, dass der linke Mast minimal schief ist, aber das ist wohl aufgrund seiner Bauweise so. Vergleiche das direkt davorliegenden Geländer und den anderen Masten. -- -donald- (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. The lighting and perspective are wonderful, but the grass looks like fuzzy carpet. It's something I'm willing to forgive due to the wow factor, though. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 11:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bridge at night, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bridge at night, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Haha, well no I wasn't exactly, but I know which one you refer to and I can see the resemblance. I had actually intended to photograph the bridge from the side (it's quite impressive from that angle too, but I wanted to improve on it and take the photo at high tide and with better control of the highlight details), but when I arrived, the light had faded a bit too much and the tide was again quite low, and I realised it was quite a nice view from the road. It was tricky to photograph though. This is a 5 x 2 segment panorama with three bracketed exposures up to 8 seconds, taken on a tripod. On two occasions, I had to remove my tripod from the road as cars were approaching and you can see that I was standing in the middle of the right hand turn lane! I was lucky to find the exact same position again though and there were no stitching errors. Diliff (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Sure there isn't an altar in the back there? Really, though, the deeper in the background you get the more magical this is. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although a lot of my recent photography has been interiors, I don't really discriminate. :-) Some of my featured pictures on the English Wikipedia are sports, portraits, landscapes, birds, insects and waterfalls. Diliff (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. I really want to know how you get your pictures that sharp. This can't just be the lens I suppose. --Code (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a combination of things: a large number of images stitched together (high resolution), a good lens and then a bit of downsampling and sharpening. No magic involved. Diliff (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. The horizontal lines are horizontal. It's just that the scene isn't perfectly symmetrical. The booth on the right is slightly closer to the camera and appears slightly taller due to perspective correction. Diliff (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 02:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palm Springs International Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palm Springs International Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg
Neutral quality is actually not too bad considering the conditions (I've produced much worse), but I'm not sure if it's enough for FP. Framing is great though, and educational value is quite high. I've taken the liberty of nominating it for VI as well. --El Grafo (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp patch at the first entry to the runway on the right. Also a large bright elliptical patch overlaid over the whole image (probably a reflection in the window), acting like a very strangely shaped vignette. — Julian H.✈ 17:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's possible to put something dark, like a black shirt, around the front of the lens to get rid of such reflections. It's also possible to get rid of the effect in post, although that's a little more tricky. — Julian H.✈ 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not "blur" that you see in the window, it is the propeller. I was shooting at full speed (9fps) and selected a photo that framed the runway and was clear in showing the features a pilot would see on short final. The camera was covered, in that I had a black cloth over the camera to shield the light. The plane is a "Pilatus PC 12", it has a green tint in the windshield that creates a little color effect I tried to offset with some Magenta addition. --WPPilot (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, the propeller is a lot harder to work around, especially a four-blade prop. Not sure if, with a shorter shutter speed, it would have been possible to get a clean image. I really think, if there is a RAW file, this is worth trying to fix through editing. A little brush work in Lightroom or Photoshop should be able to hide it at least reasonably well. — Julian H.✈ 20:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 11:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Séverin Sanctuary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Séverin Sanctuary, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 03:08:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Three Arch Bay Photo Taken by pilot D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Three Arch Bay Photo Taken by pilot D Ramey Logan.jpg
Comment This is Three Arch Bay, in Laguna Beach, California - Latitude 33.489252 ° N 33 ° 29' 21.3" 33 ° 29.3551' Longitude -117.734136 ° W 117 ° 44' 2.9" -117 ° 44.0482' --WPPilot (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taking in consideration hardness to achieve it one must take with reserve some objections. But its good. --Mile (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 14:27:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dehrn Lahnbrücke02circcropedit 2011-05-21.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dehrn Lahnbrücke02circcropedit 2011-05-21.jpg/2
Oppose Nice, but I think it would fit better among Quality Pictures. The picture really isn't extraordinary to be named as one of the best pictures in Commons. I fail to see this picture competing with something like this, this, this or this and so on. -- Pofka (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI for me. Not one of our best bridge reflection pictures IMO; the lighting could be improved, and the crop on the two sides could be wider. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "crop could be wider" distracting objects just outside of image area; "too dark" image already exposed to the right -- KlausFoehl (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colors look a bit faded, I am not sure because there is no metadata but reprocessing from the RAW with sRGB workflow might be improving light and the colors, imho. --Laitche (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2015 at 20:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Another fine image I could see illustrating a magazine article about the mine. It catches the eye and makes you study. -- Colin (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: : Thanks for your review and question. I used a tripod with shortest possible length of legs. The height of the room is also large as can be seen from the picture I have linked to in my nomination text. The annotation in that picture show where this picture was taken in the large change room. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 20:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fountain of the Four Rivers - river god Ganges (Rome).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fountain of the Four Rivers - river god Ganges (Rome).jpg
Info I can put little bit wider crop, but i dont have 3rd row which i would love to make, i dont have panoramic head - its on a wish list. --Mile (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was reconsidering to put bigger with wider crop, but i've decide for current option (zoomed). At least its much easier to open it. No need for 80 MPx. --Mile (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2015 at 12:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rochuskapelle, Mannersdorf an der March 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rochuskapelle, Mannersdorf an der March 01.jpg
Oppose Very good for QI, but nothing outstanding for me, nothing extraordinary. The subject is not FP worthy in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon, though I suppose the subject could be an FP if there were some really nice sunset clouds on the left and they were included in the composition. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2015 at 12:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rochuskapelle, Mannersdorf an der March 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rochuskapelle, Mannersdorf an der March 03.jpg
Oppose. I see a number of processing artifacts, mainly halos around the trees on the right and strange detail reproduction in the trees (possibly from a lot of sharpening of some kind). There is also some clipping on both sides of the histogram due to strong contrast - I am not sure whether that's a result of processing or a limited dynamic range of the sensor. — Julian H.✈ 13:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be better reprocessed from the RAW with sRGB workflow since the color profile is AdobeRGB unless you are using almost 100% AdobeRGB-capable monitor. --Laitche (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2015 at 18:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St-Etienne-du-Mont Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St-Etienne-du-Mont Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg
Support. Thanks for the nomination Paris 16. You always seem to notice my uploads before I have a chance to nominate them myself. ;-) This was one of my favourite churches in Paris, and kindly suggested by Jebulon. I hope you feel I've done it justice! It's a very wide angle view but there were too many details that I didn't want to lose by cropping it. Diliff (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel. I actually would have been tempted to nominate this one personally, as the screen's stonework is a bit more detailed, but both images have different strengths and I don't want to complicate matters by adding it as an alternative. Diliff (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Diliff, I can't support this one. It is my own parish church and I know it very well, in details. To be short, the pillars are perfectly circular in real, not oval. I'm not comfortable neither with the ceiling of the transept, a real renaissance masterpiece, which I find suffering of a too strong distortion. I agree with you, this one is far much better, because the extraordinary rod screen is very eye catching and attractive. The distortions are less disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 17:37:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bratyslawa Cumil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bratyslawa Cumil.jpg
Oppose Usual tourist shot. I don't see anything extraordinary here. QP, not FP. By the way, the background is captured quite randomly, not in any interesting perspective. -- Pofka (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Average quality, random crop, as per above comments. Yann (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 22:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pahalgam Valley.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pahalgam Valley.jpg
Support Great detail. Once you look at it at full res, you realize that it wasn't underexposed ... the trees on the right are just very dark. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually looking for the original RAWs to redo this image - the pine trees are really dark in real life too (and almost against the sun), will see if anything can be done about it but no promises. KennyOMG (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2015 at 12:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support For this set. An alternative would have been to zoom out from shot to shot to have always the whole eruption on each photo (but I'm not shure if this is possible in the short time of a beginning eruption) --Llez (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me defense: there was no way to use a tripod and hope that I can use it quietly with hundreds of people around me. Furthermore between the 1st and 8th frame I had only 3-4 seconds time, all this happens very quickly and a perfect framing for each point of time of an eruption is almost impossible, and an eruption later or sooner it looks again in a different way. Poco216:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 19:15:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charnel House at St Helens Church, Cliffe, Kent, England, 2015-05-06-5136.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charnel House at St Helens Church, Cliffe, Kent, England, 2015-05-06-5136.jpg
Info The Charnel House is a grade II listedcharnel house in the village Cliffe, Kent. The Charnel House was built during the mid 19th century. It was used as a make-shift mortuary until the bodies were taken away to be buried. Its location close to the River Thames is key as bodies found were washed up or floating along the Thames were retrieved and taken to the charnel house to be stored awaiting identification and burial. The building continued to be used until the start of the twentieth century, when a series of Public Health Acts forced buildings such as this to become redundant. After this, the Church used it for storage and at one time a hive of bees was also put in there to deter intruders. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Nice quality, but the shadow and the tree branches are distracting IMHO. I think it is better to show the whole tree rather than cropping it and letting some branches creep into the picture. Nikhil (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. A bit QI-y but for some reason I can't explain, it just seems more interesting than the average QI. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2015 at 19:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hauaneeme laht 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hauaneeme laht 2013.jpg
Qualified support Pleasing and soothing to look at, the visual equivalent of some of those Enya songs. Maybe some slight posterization in the dusk, but we shouldn't sweat it. Compositionally OK as is, though I agree a crop would be an improvement. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an original pretty good. As for the cropping much depends on the layout or use of the photo. One extreme would be to crop out 50% of the top clouds, so that the foreground covers one third, the middle one third and the top one third. I can see this image in editorial content. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English description please cause I want know what I'm looking at exactly (of course I can be guessing though). --Laitche (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support Nice colors, nice mood. Anyway what this natural phenomena is? Daniel added Category:Dusk but time data is 22:54:44. I think time data should be the photo taken time, isn't it. --Laitche (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, in Estonia about 23:00 (the middle part of June) is dusk? in my country dusk is about 19:30 so I was confusing... --Laitche (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow for me, I enjoyed this place. Nice landscape, nice sky, nice colors, nice rocks setting. I'd crop a bit of sky because it looks a bit unbalanced, but still FP to me. Poco218:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this could do with a crop of the top. The attention is drawn to the bottom colours, so this section should have more weight in the composition. The land/water should at least comprise a third of the frame.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2015 at 15:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose unnecessarily high contrast (esp. the dark areas are almost black) and tight crop on both sides. Sharpening and saturation are probably ok imo. — Julian H.✈ 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 07:56:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Regretful oppose Good scan quality and interesting subject, but alas: from a featured DjVu file of a whole book I would expect a (selectable) text layer. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 09:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Srinagar pano.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Srinagar pano.jpg/2
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 21:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I think that the picture does not really convey the brilliance and complexity of an abalone shell. I think that too much visual space has been given to the outer part of the shell, which does not convey its natural state, which is probably more interesting than the cleaned outside surface. A scale reference would be nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info It depends on the intention. I photographed this shell in the same way like all other - meanwhile nearly 1000 - gastropod shells (see [1], especially compare it with my other pictures of Haliotis- species). I want to show shells in a scientific way, not in a single spectacular aspect. Only in photographing all shells in the same way, they are really comparable. As the mother of pearl layer is only visible in one of the five aspects, you see it only in one of the five pictures, also showing, that this interesting part of the shell is completely hidden and not visible in the living animal. Concerning the scale: Please read the caption. In all my shells the size is given in the description -Llez (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2015 at 21:19:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Germanuskirche bei Nacht1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Germanuskirche bei Nacht1.jpg
I feel like during the blue hour, there is no one correct WB. It is all relative to the proportions of blue and yellow in the picture. In pictures with more blue and less yellow like this, I think it helps to use a yellower WB to achieve the beautiful blue-yellow balance that blue hour cityscapes are famous for. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll test a different WB, but IMO the image impression is correct. We don't have here a cityscape of a big city with strong lights but a rural suburb of a small town with rare light conditions. So the comparison is not admissible. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 01:42:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aparados da Serra 17.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aparados da Serra 17.JPG
Oppose What King of Hearts said. It seems the photographer of this image is not familiar with their gear --- not only is the photo somewhat out of focus, I'm not sure why they used flash for this, and why they opted for ISO 400. Dllu (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 17:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tés de cafés após a passagem da maquina de colheita.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tés de cafés após a passagem da maquina de colheita.jpg
@Laitche: (Sorry for Portuguese) Se você olhar para a parte superior da imagem, você vai ver outras plantações de cafés. Isso pode nos dar uma pista de que há mais plantações acima ao ponto de que é improvável conseguir capturar fotograficamente o céu a partir desse ângulo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laitche: Translating: If you look at the top of the image, you will see other plantations of coffee. This may give us a clue that there are more plantations up to the point that it is unlikely able to capture the sky from that angle. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. Lovely sea of green. Would have preferred a better time of day and/or the use of a polarizing filter to get better saturation from the vegetation. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPC should be a stunning photo, the lack of the sharpness, the excessive processing (look the house) don't make this a FP. Another thing "rows of coffee trees after recent harvest by machine", where are this machines? -- RTA06:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have difficulties finding a real subject or object of interest, and therefore any composition. The whole photo is very similar in colour and brightness. In other words, I miss "wow". — Julian H.✈ 17:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 08:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dante Gabriel Rossetti - Joan of Arc (1882).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dante Gabriel Rossetti - Joan of Arc (1882).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 06:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150509172554 - Estação da Luz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Webysther 20150509172554 - Estação da Luz.jpg
Oppose, FPC should be a thoroughly made photo, this photo have colour issues, composition, and light.
[2] in 4 min using a jpeg file, the sky was improved, and the sharpness also. I could not fixed this magenta issue, normal to DSLR (and some crap Instagram filters), because this takes time and better results just with the RAW files.
Cropping this image, will made this worst, this should have a little bit of area, the problem is the composition.
If you wanted to show the street, get there and the street: e.g.
If you wanted to illustrate the rail road entrance, go there: [3][4]
But you stuck in the middle, leaving a stick in middle of your subject. It's unique, but not good, you can clone stamp the pole and the green abandoned area is a distraction...
And now I realise that the author was not the nominator, so the light issue I will not give my view, but this is not a good time, 30 min more, and boom, a golden hour photo [5][6]... 1h more, blue hour not a good photo but see where is the sun
Seya, I will probably seat there and do a picture on this coming months (we can go there together with you want), I just need a non event situation on Pinacoteca ruining the photo :D. -- RTA10:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the file page the photo is licensed as CC-BY-SA 4.0, the EXIF says CC-BY-NC 4.0. I think it would be preferable if the EXIF was aligned with the file page license (as CC-BY-NC is not a valid license on Commons). -- Slaunger (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 19:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Transit of Venus, 2012 Orbital Paths.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Transit of Venus, 2012 Orbital Paths.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 21:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buddha Shakyamuni as Lord of the Munis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buddha Shakyamuni as Lord of the Munis.jpg
Support Interesting work from Western Tibet, high resolution and good quality reproduction. I made a 50 x 60 cm print of this, and it is nice. -- Yann (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 21:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment There are white borders on the bottom and both right and the left side and also there are black borders inside the white borders (They can see these borders in Media Viewer or any viewer which background is not white at 300% zoom) and top crop is a bit tight so I nominated the alternative which removed these borders and cloned the top. --Laitche (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2015 at 21:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Montforthaus, 20h45.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montforthaus, 20h45.JPG
Oppose The composition looks unbalanced to me, with not enough weight in the bottom right. Also not particularly sharp for the resolution (2.47 MP). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional. Composition issues (lots of grey car park, light pole breaks up building). There are better compositions in the set you uploaded, but some others have issues with ghosts. But 2.47MP from a D800 at FP. That's pretty insulting to all those who get their full-size images pixel-peeped to death here. -- Colin (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant and outstanding in my opinion. The by far best view of the amazing architecture can be get from this side. Grey zones in the right bottom corner of the picture are the public square in front of the building, not a car park. --Plani (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not extreme as colin, but for me it is too small. In addition the composition actually could be better, the guy sitting gives me a hassle you do not know ... then the tree cut. Anyway nice picture but not FP for me.Sorry. --LivioAndronicotalk19:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much space on the bottom and a bit both right and the left sides but when crop these areas it would be less than 2Mpx... --Laitche (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 06:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I dont like composition, long exp bring you disturbing motion of plants in the front. f/16...how about ND filter. --Mile (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. I tried crop, without grass, works much better.[reply]
Neutral I think this quality is very good especially 20 sec exposure with these leaves but I cannot find composition work and light is a bit dull. --Laitche (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 12:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Highland cattle .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Highland cattle .jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 21:24:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support though a bit small. I feel like it's sharp enough to do without downsampling; any chance you could upload a full-resolution version? --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
w przypadku miejscowości które mają ugruntowane nazwy w innych językach (czy to historyczne, czy nadal urzędowe) zawsze staram się podawać je w tytule lub w opisie. Raz, że z przyczyn historycznych, dwa - jest łatwiej później szukać po nazwach --Pudelek (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel this composition narrow and cramped with that cutting shed, needs a little more space and that blue light reflection on the train is a bit distracting. --Laitche (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC) added comment. --Laitche (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but I'm not a fan of platforms obstructing parts of the train (esp. since this picture focuses on the train and not the station). --Kabelleger (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's technically okay (not particularly great, but alright); but as others have said, it's "just" a train in a station. I would have surely supported if this was a rare rolling stock, or if it was out in the beautiful outdoors, but as it stands, it does not seem that amazing. Perhaps, if the Wikipedia article on the subject were expanded, it would have an okay chance in the Wikipedia featured pictures. Dllu (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 07:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reflektion Langkær Gymnasium.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflektion Langkær Gymnasium.jpg/2
Oppose If the photo attempts to present the artwork, I think it shouldn't require a second image as an explanation. If the intention is to stand on its own as a celebration of that artwork (which, I think, is the case), it should be more visually stunning than it is. As it is, there is no real composition and not much contrast either - except for the part with the brick building. — Julian H.✈ 17:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but it seems like a random shot, taken by being near that monument. I don't see it extraordinary or of outstanding quality. -- Pofka (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 13:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunser over Hanoi After the Rain.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunser over Hanoi After the Rain.jpg
Support After 1.5 year of use, I've just discovered that disabling the automatic WB of my camera gives truly authentic colors. No post-processing required (but for the brightness & panorama stitch), yay! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... If you don't use auto WB, you need to use a 'preset' instead, which isn't necessary the correct option either. Setting WB manually in a RAW processor like Lightroom is much more likely to give you authentic colours. Are you not shooting in RAW? If not, you really should. Diliff (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am shooting in RAW and am even discarding the JPG versions when importing the photos onto my library. I did this change of WB setting on the camera after noticing that the sky color was not consistent from one photo to the next when giving a first try at shooting this panorama. Still now, I see this issue while viewing the RAW photos in Lightroom, on top of having much paler colors in the sky. But the RAW photos that I took after disabling the automatic WB setting, which have the same Lightroom preset applied to them, don't have this issue and look much more vivid/authentic. As such, I'm not too sure what's happening but I conclude that disabling the automatic WB setting on the camera definitely has a positive effect, at least in this case :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you shoot RAW, then the WB setting in the camera has absolutely no effect on the RAW file. Normally it only affects JPGs. The WB setting is not 'solidified' until a JPG is created. Perhaps your RAW converter is using the camera's auto WB setting, but it would allow you to use any alternative WB setting when you process the RAW file and the camera's WB setting has no effect at all on that. Diliff (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff, the camera's chosen WB (and whether it was automatic or preset or custom) is saved in the RAW and used by all RAW converters as the default for processing. It also affects the embedded JPG preview, the image you see when chimping, and the histogram on your camera display. Yes you are free to change the WB in an authentic way that is not really possible once backed into the JPG. I'm curious you think this may only "perhaps" affect the converter -- perhaps you have your Lightroom set up to ignore this on import, or Canon doesn't save it? But Christopher, you are right that unless each frame in a panorama is consistent in temperature/tint then it won't stitch properly. As Diliff says, unless you use AWB then you yourself must choose how to interpret the temperature and tints on the scene. I think that unless you take great care, using manual WB will actually create a good deal of post-processing work as you have to fix all your indoor shots taken with "Cloudy" WB or all your outdoor shots taken with "Tungsten" WB. Most cameras do a pretty good job of this so I see no harm in leaving it on. You can always choose "Cloudy" later in Lightroom if you want. I use AWB but when I import a set that I want to make into a panorama, then I ensure they all have the same temperature and tint (pick one that looks right or the average value in the set). The other thing worth applying to all photos in your set is the same lens profile correction -- do this before exporting the TIFFs for panorama creation. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said perhaps because it depends on your RAW converter, and your import settings (I don't set it to ignore the WB settings but the first thing I do when I open up an image is manually set the WB so the auto WB settings are almost irrelevant to me). Canon does embed the chosen in-camera WB settings, but the point is that regardless of what setting you use on your camera, you can (and normally, should) make any change you want when you process the RAW into a JPG. I just wanted to make sure that Christopher was aware that the in-camera WB settings are largely irrelevant in terms of processing RAW files. Yes, they might affect the default view when you first import the RAW file into a converter, but that's about it. No matter what WB settings your camera uses, you can change it later. That's the beauty of RAW. I just took issue with (or rather, I was concerned with) the statement that "disabling the automatic WB" with "no post-processing required" gives "authentic colours". Better to forget about in-camera WB and just adjust it manually later. Yes, it requires post-processing, but it's necessary. Neither auto-WB nor a preset will give accurate colours with regularity unless the lighting is very predictable and static. And then there's the question of what 'accurate colours' actually means, especially with something as inherently warm-tinted as a sunset... It's kind of a moot point. :-) Diliff (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The X100S is marketed as being able to render accurate colors when in JPG mode but so far my RAW photos weren't that accurate—by default—for such sunsets. I thought that this WB setting was maybe the key to unlock this trait without me doing some guesses in post-processing. I understand that I could have been wrong thinking this, and that I only have been lucky on that one. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your camera has various processing modes for its JPGs (with names like Standard, Natural, Vivid, Portrait). So what you see on your JPG does depend on what mode you've picked. Similarly, Lightroom/CameraRAW has several modes. The default is "Adobe Standard" which is supposed to be a calibrated neutral. Often there are other profiles available that are designed to more closely match the manufacturer's profiles (Sony's "Standard", is different to Adobe's). I don't know if these are available for Fuji but you may prefer them if available. See Adjust the color calibration for your camera and How to Get Accurate Fuji Colors in Lightroom. I see from this second article, that only the temperature/tint is transmitted from Fuji RAW to Lightroom, not the name of the white balance preset used. For the panoramas, the vital thing is that each frame has the same settings (whether done in the camera or in Lightroom doesn't matter), but the "correct" temperature for a sunset photo is really personal. -- Colin (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the marketing, some cameras might be better than others at estimating the WB but you can only really be sure of it being neutralised in situations where there is only a single light source with a consistent WB temperature and a truly grey object that you can use to base your WB from. In any other complex situation like sunsets and scenes with multiple light sources (eg sunlight, incandescent lights, fluorescent lights, sodium lights), you can never truly get a neutral WB for all of them. Sometimes you simply don't want to either. As Colin says, your choice of WB for many scenes is not about 'correct' WB, it's about personal choice. For a sunset, you typically want warm hues, you don't want to neutralise them. Other scenes don't look very good if you don't completely neutralise the warm or cool hue. That's why manual adjustment of WB is crucial. Don't rely on your camera's WB settings whether it be auto or a preset. Use them as a starting point if you want, but use your own judgement when processing the RAW files to find what looks best for the scene. Diliff (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're water tanks. Probably to provide reliable water pressure? Hanoi is very flat - on a river delta, so I'm guessing the municipal water supply doesn't come from the mountains, and would require local water towers, or tanks on top of individual buildings. Diliff (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they are water tanks but I had no idea what they were doing up there on each building of Vietnam until Diliff's explanation :) On a side note, it's not possible to see it on this photo but some terraces/balconies are surrounded with a mesh/grid. Why? So they can put some chicken there. With all these roosters shouting all day long, it's like living in a farm. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff, thank's for the explanation but lots of places are very flat and get water from low (including London). We have municipal water towers to supply the even pressure to our taps. I don't know why you would need a private personal version, unless the water supply was so erratic that you wanted to hoard some water for yourself. -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I know we have water towers in London. I was just guessing that their water supply pressure is not reliable enough, I don't know for sure. But that's generally why people have water towers on top of the building. I did also find this article which suggests that it could be either because the maximum height of the water towers is less than the buildings, or because of the limitations of the building's plumbing. Diliff (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. Not too happy with the greyness of the buildings, but the colors of the sky and window reflections are very nice. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you say that because, when checking the photo preview on my camera, I was so happy to see that the sky colors were identical but it's only later on that I regretted to not have also compared the colors/luminosity of the buildings. The sun was already below the horizon when the photo was taken though, so maybe the grayness is fair enough? I'll try to pay more attention next time. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's funny that KoH says the buildings have a 'greyness'. I'd say they are very strongly tinted blue actually, not grey. It relates to what I was talking about above in the WB discussion. You have set the WB for the sunset, at the expense of the foreground shadow detail, which has resulted in very cool tones in the shadows. Not that you did anything wrong. You could manually reduce the saturation of the blues to compensate but that would only make it more grey, not less. If you use Lightroom, you could also 'paint' a warm WB adjustment over the shadows to compensate. Diliff (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he means that the buildings are rather desaturated, rather than that they are neutral grey (they aren't, but are blueish). The red roofs for example, are not vivid, which they would be in daylight. -- Colin (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besides being able to catch the eye, the photograph is an interesting document on urbanism. It has lots of information about an important city, building materials, distribution of space, water use, etc. It is an intimate picture of an urban setting... Somehow, however, I miss seeing people. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a person visible on top of the tall building to the uttermost left. Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what the small blue dots are in lower part of the image? Philaweb (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably within manufacturing tolerance to have a stuck pixel or two. If your camera is brand new, then perhaps the shop will let you swap? I think some cameras can detect a bad pixel and hide it in the same way our eyes hide our blind spot. -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2015 at 21:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Too much useless foreground. Could you have a look at perhaps cropping the bottom up to the yellow flowers or a bit further up?--Fotoriety (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I thought of options for cropping it, because the main subject is so far behind. But having a closer look, the composition really has something, with the canal separating lawn and church in an elegant way. --Tremonist (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 16:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pedra Furada Padrão.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pedra Furada Padrão.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 12:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fresco of hall of Apollo in Villa d'Este (Tivoli).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fresco of hall of Apollo in Villa d'Este (Tivoli).jpg
Info One of beautiful Frescos in Villa d'Este. The Villa d'Este is a villa in Tivoli, near Rome, Italy. Listed as a UNESCO world heritage site, it is a fine example of Renaissance architecture and the Italian Renaissance garden. All by -- LivioAndronicotalk12:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry, very nice shoot, however, pincushion distortion and right side is Underexposed, top right corner is cut. if it is fixed I will change my vote. its fixable, I think so --The Photographer (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there pincushion distortion (assuming that the surface is flat) or are we looking at a curved surface? Poco219:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why didn't you mention that not precisely unimportant information? The opposes -as far as I see- assume that there is pincushion distortion, but it is a normal effect due to the fact that the middle is further from the camera than the corners. So, maybe it is something that voters should be aware of. On the other side the uneven lighting and the cut corners are real problems for me, therefore Neutral (but this border/frame is IMHO much better than in the FPC Jebulon opened) Poco220:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I maybe wouldn't have done it either. But latest when you get opposes due to a distortion problem of your lens that is none, then you should provide this information in your defense Poco221:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 11:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gröna Lund June 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gröna Lund June 2015.jpg
Info The historic amusement park Gröna Lund in Stockholm founded in 1883. This images was taken 11pm handheld from a ferry waiting for departure (the only way to get this view of the park). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I am normally a big fan of your pictures, Arild, I think this one is simply too dark and therefore cannot be FP. Additionally I think the composition is not the best: There is too much water on the bottom and not enough space on the top and on the left. This should have been done using a tripod and an exposure time around a second. Given the conditions it's a nice photo, but not one of our best. I am very sorry. --Code (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Code Thank you for your review. It is not possible to use a tripod here, the only way to get this view is from a ferry. And the small ferries is not sufficiently stable, and it is also vibration from the engine.--ArildV (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ArildV: Ok, I understand. Given these conditions it's a decent piece of work, but as far as I understood only the result counts for FP which is not good enough in this case, I think. Nonetheless: Looking at your photographic portfolio I really envy you for your skills. --Code (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A great photo in many ways, but many lights are simultaneously clipped and very dark, which is much worse in my opinion than if they were just clipped. — Julian H.✈ 17:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Julian, it looks really odd to see grey light bulbs (Highlights -100 in Lightroom EXIF). Just let 'em blow! One definition of HDR is photography that can capture the DR of a light source, and this scene can't reasonably be HDR. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Julian Herzog and Colin: Thank you, now I understand Julians review better. I uploaded a new version. I changed the highlights setting to -27, I compensated for it by using the local adjustment brush to make the carousel darker. The images is also brighter now (as requested by some user above).--ArildV (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2015 at 17:29:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry but I entirely fail to see what’s supposed to be featured here. Nothing but a straightforward winter street, technically well done, QI, but no wow at all to me. Category:Forests_in_winter shows dozens of pics with more wow. --Kreuzschnabel10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I feel George is trying to take a good (or nice) photo but it's required wowed photo for the FP, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not overexposed. You can download this picture and draw a white line (ffffff color) in any graphic editor. Line could be visible in any almost white area. Also have a look to the histogram. -- George Chernilevskytalk19:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@George Chernilevsky: Maybe I'm wrong but from what I know the histogram show the edited version. You can decrease white and highlight levels as you want in the editing process thus the histogram will say ok. But It stay always a little details lost if there was an overexposition when taking the photo. It is possible to have an "ok" histogram with an image totaly blown. -- ChristianFerrer 06:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Histograms of edited version don't say if there is details lost when clicking on the camera to shoot the photo. Enough edited, 100% of the images of Commons can have a histigram ok, are they all FP? no. The mood is very nice here and the scene is pretty, but to my eyes have it been a bit overexposed? yes some few details, just a few I agree, are clearly lost despite of any histogram. -- ChristianFerrer07:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 01:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cranes made by Origami paper.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cranes made by Origami paper.jpg
Info This is re-processing from raw version with Lightroom 5.0 since I did a bit wrong color adjustment with former version, in this version posterization is fixed as well. The altitude of the sun at 18 December 2007, 15:29:35 (JST) was 12.72°, actually background is white but they can see the long shadows by sunlight. I think this is the third nominations (formar nomination). --Laitche (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice subject and composition but the DoF seems insufficient to me. The right wing of the red bird is completely out of focus. And then the shadow is a little bit disturbing. Not bad enough to oppose but not good enough to support as well. --Code (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Code: Sorry for late reply, it's a macro shot and the subject is very small and used 90mm prime macro lens with f/13 and subject distance was 29cm therefore Dof is about 37mm 3.7mm and subject height is 35mm width is 60mm plus two subjects hence focal plane control was so tricky consequently taking all subject in focus was impossible + this luminous, f/13 was limit. The way of this shot is very similar as this shot or this shot. --Laitche (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Laitche: You calculation seems to be a bit wrong! My calculation says: DOF = 3.7 mm (not 37mm) for a Pentax K10D camera and a 90mm lens. Please recalculate it here too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alchemist-hp: Yes, you are right. I've been mistaken a digit place, hahaha. so subject distance was maybe a little farther than 29cm but I don't remember exactly it's seven and half years ago... but nearly. --Laitche (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 11:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Nysa, Dom Wagi Miejskiej 13.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Nysa, Dom Wagi Miejskiej 13.JPG
Comment It would be worth to know what represent those coat-of-arms... Interesting stuff, is that Moravian in bottom with Austro-Silesian in the middle...in Poland ? Pattern is well depicted. --Mile (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice colors and idea, a bit pity direction of the light is upper left thus upper left areas of the windows are in shadows (that shadows are unavoidable for this kind of windows but slanting light is a bit distracting). --Laitche (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 09:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fountain water droplets.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fountain water droplets.jpg
Info Fountain water droplets as seen on very short time exsposure of 1/16.000 s. Total internal reflection can be observed on "brigth" droplets. A Brewster angle if lucky. --Mile (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some, but due to nature of it, you cant just move "cursor" in software and remove it. This is refraction-diffraction-polarization mess, that is about it. Also, CA is very rare, you probably messed up with diffraction. --Mile (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
InfoArionEstar : it just Natural (scenes), not Natural places. I think its OK, since about nature. CA issue: i did remove some near UV spectre on left. Which migth bother some, despite i am still not sure if it was rigth. Purple yes, but when you see near circular almost nice diffraction band then one migth not be sure. I did remove most obvios one. The purple has bad reputation. However, my thinking: due to very extensive diffraction, lens couldnt handle the extensive UV spectre well, i think UV filter migth help at such situation. CA is problem of backligth, and here is probably not an issue. --Mile (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I fancy water drops shot like this and think well done with 1/16,000 sec exposure but this composition does not work for me. --Laitche (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VERY distracting background. This is not a difficult shot at all, just freeze the movement. A tele-lens would have been a better choice. --Kadellar (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I must say this was not easy shot. Its made on second level of this fountain. I made jump on first level, put hands above the head, and make a shot, water was bursting everywhere, i got some of it on camera. This was best shot from 5-6, made of 3 jumps (standing there still isnt possible, its rounded). On first level droplets arent so nicely distributed. --Mile (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Kadellar about the background, I guess not a few supporters may be You cannot see the wood for the trees.... --Laitche (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 11:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frans Post - Gezicht op Olinda, Brazilië.jpg/3Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frans Post - Gezicht op Olinda, Brazilië.jpg/3
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2015 at 12:20:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gargoyles and Saints - Siena Cathedral.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gargoyles and Saints - Siena Cathedral.jpg
Support Too much sky, one might argue, but the colours are fine, the petrified guys have a nice view from up there. :) --Tremonist (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a good demonstration of how to effectively use empty space. The various figures on the right are beckoning towards the left, and the placement of the subject at the extreme right necessitates leaving a lot of space at the left. The clouds also help to retain interest in what is otherwise just a sea of blue. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 07:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seal ämblikud magavad.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seal ämblikud magavad.jpg
Comment There is also that. As thous images are made in really early morning hour around sunrise, then virtually everything is possible. I'll ask from the author about the colors. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to have a look at the original image with the original colours first, to see if the colour reduction was really necessary for the webs. Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't unsharp at all and all the so-called noise could be attributed the the morning fog. With that distance and time of a day (6AM), that is clearly a very fine quality image. BW image is an artistic expression. You may like it or not, but don't make a reference to bad quality where there isn't one. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a judgement for this kind of photo is very difficult, I think FP is not a photography technic contest but the technical elements is also important though that is not must required in every case, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not really bad, but a bit noisy, not enough contrasted for to be a good black and white image, and a bit dark at bottom. -- ChristianFerrer17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me this slight grain adds an aestethical value here, no matter what caused it (please note that the image exif data shows iso 100). I think the image is not unsharp, it's clear and without sharpening artifacts so one could add suitable sharpening anytime, for printing etc. I can't understand the "not enough contrasted" rebuke either. Come on, this is a dawn on a misty nordic landscape, guys; you can't really expect the author to fake the weather conditions here ;) Amadvr (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 16:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Jaskinia Niedźwiedzia w Kletnie, szata naciekowa 22.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Jaskinia Niedźwiedzia w Kletnie, szata naciekowa 22.JPG
Oppose Nothing stands out beyond QI in my opinion. Light and composition are both not really impressive in my opinion. On-camera flash is just hardly ever good. — Julian H.✈ 14:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Using a flash in this kind of subject just ruins the magic of the place. Everything looks cold instead of misterious and warm with the poor available lighting. Maybe with a subtle flash the result would be better, but you just went to far here, sorry Poco219:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not sure if there is any light at all in the cave to allow for an natural light photo. On the other hand, a Google search reveals that this cave is a well-known tourist destination with lamps and stuff installed inside so surely it is not out of the question to use a better light source. Dllu (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there could be other options: putting the camera of a fence, on the flor, using a monopod, leaning in a wall with high ISO, ... Poco209:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using the flash against the opposite wall (ideally slightly to one side) to achieve indirect lighting. — Julian H.✈ 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2015 at 18:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aguarales de Valpalmas, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-06, DD 06-11 PAN.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aguarales de Valpalmas, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-06, DD 06-11 PAN.JPG
Info Panorama view of Los Aguarales de Valpalmas, a rare, fragile and dynamic geological phenomena located near Valpalmas, Zaragoza, Spain. The landscape is the result of water flows over fragile material in a process known as piping. All by me, Poco218:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some blown out highlights (judging from the value histogram and the red channel histogram). The composition is not appealing to me --- is it necessary to have such a wide field of view? It seems to me that the nature of these rocks looks similar across the image. The center-right area with the light hitting it head on without any shadows looks jarring and is the cause of most of the blown highlights. Unless there are important geological features that I am missing across the frame, I think a crop of the left two-fifths, with light hitting it at an angle, might be more interesting. Overall it is a very good panorama but I think some reprocessing might improve it. Dllu (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The highlights aren't quite blown enough for me to oppose, but I can see where Dllu is coming from. His crop suggestions should be considered. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 19:44:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Moros, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-05, DD 04-18 HDR PAN.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Moros, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-05, DD 04-18 HDR PAN.JPG
Info View of the small village of Moros and its surroundings, province of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. The whole village of Moros lies on a hill, with the most relevant buildings in the top (church and former town hall), the residences in the middle and the sheep pens at the bottom. The current population of Moros is 441 people (35% of the population one century ago, that's why many houses are abandoned). The picture is the result of the blend of 15 pictures (panorama stitch of 5 frames x 3 frames for HDR). I try it again after this nomination didn't work. All by me, Poco219:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, many very good elements. However, the post processing shows a little bit too much as a contour line all across the horizon, where sky meets hills. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas, Code: I have uploaded a new version where the fringe between sky and hills is reduced in the 2 right frames, where the issue was more noticeable. Poco205:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poco uses a very different technique (exposure fusion) rather than tone mapping. I personally don't like the result, I don't think it's very realistic looking, particularly for the sky. Diliff (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but the thing is that I am happy with the result. And I could affirm the opposite and say that the result of tone mapping looks sometimes like a painting. There is no realistic HDR picture IMO. Can we do it like this? I pass you the RAW files of this pano and you pass me the RAW files of one of your pictures (I'd choose one that I feel doesn't look realistic) and then we upload the result and let other judge. I'd be curious what others say. Poco220:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
InfoI put some notice windows. First is for crop, i would crop left from the road which ends behind hill, since "important" stuff (town) is moved so far to the edge. Second, more problematic, i see at least 4 unbalanced exsposure gradiences in the sky (vignetting ?). They are pretty visible, even more obvious if you check them on smartphone. --Mile (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laitche, Mile: I have just uploaded a new version addressing some color issues along with the visible gradients (for this I applied an inverted Gaussian filter of the sky in Photoshop). The bottom crop is now also more generous. Poco212:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think you cover horizon + border some pixles down, so its not just there where Laicthe marked but all over horizon. Maybe better to restore previous version back and try Gauss without going into the land, just sky. It will be work, but worth to do it. --Mile (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArionEstar: Can you please let me know where do you see low quality in the current version. Actually I enjoy that smoke as a sign of life in the village Poco212:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean. There is no fringe anymore. Please, be aware, taht the sun hid behind those hills and causes that the area around them is brighter Poco217:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but that is not the point. If there is an issue in the picture, I'd like to see it in order to fix it. Poco222:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but maybe Arion means halos between mountains and the sky and also not sure these are halos or not but I added the note. (and that spot which Arion noted maybe there is just a little bit halos? on the right side of the rock...) --Laitche (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry. This seems to just be me, but if I see a photo where the sky is clearly much darker than the ground even though the ground is exclusively lit by that very sky above it and isn't white, that looks very wrong to me even at first glance. It just doesn't (and can't) happen in reality. I understand why the sky is darkened here, it permits higher saturation, but I don't understand why the ground has to be so bright. — Julian H.✈ 17:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but I am not sure wether the picture is that wrong. Why did you oppose right away, doesn't it make sense for me to upload a version where the bottom part is aligned with the sky? Poco217:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the reason for the oppose was not that I thought it was unfixable. Changed it to a comment if that's less harsh. I usually don't hesitate with voting with so many supports in, when there is already a pretty good consensus that the photo, as it is, should be FP (and I'm therefore not very likely to cause any change). — Julian H.✈ 17:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Julian: sorry, I didn't ask you to change your vote, I was just asking for time to address your comment. I have uploaded a new version with a more balanced lighting between top and bottom. I think that it actually looks better know, and who knows, maybe it goes towards Diliff's expectation, as well Poco220:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it is definitely better, enough to not oppose it. But I still tend to agree with Diliff - so I'll think about it, or just stay Neutral. — Julian H.✈ 18:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just don't like the processing of this. As I keep saying in other nominations, the HDR processing is not done well IMO. The sky looks very wrong (dull and faded and unsaturated), there are halos and as Julian says, the foreground is actually lighter than the horizon which is the source of light for the foreground. It just doesn't look right to me. I like the view but I cannot support an image that looks so unrealistic. Diliff (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a slight improvement. The foreground looks better now, but the transition between the foreground and sky is still not good. The sky being darker than the foreground is only one of a number of problems I have with the image though. Mostly it's the overall tonality that doesn't look right to me, which is the same problem I have with most of your HDR images. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but the truth is that I find Tufuse's results unattractive and from past experience, you aren't interested in changing it (I've suggested a better workflow a number of times and you've said you're happy with the results of Tufuse). If it was an issue that was simple to fix, I would probably have waited for the fix before voting, but I don't think it is - it would require a major rethink in how your image is processed. But anyway, I don't see the problem with voting first and striking it out if the problem(s) are addressed. Diliff (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose So much was done right ... the detail is fine all around. But David's points about the still-artificial character of the lighting and the visible overprocessing in some areas still stand despite the improvements.Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even after the discussion between ArionEstar and Poco2 above, I still clearly see a distracting and strong glow where the hills meet the sky. I am not convinced that HDR is strictly necessary for this scene -- and even if it was, the author should greatly increase the "smoothness" or "radius" slider on your tone mapping software, or use one of the established methods for edge aware HDR merging which do not introduce these unsightly halos. Dllu (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support after Poco's last edit. Looks acceptable now even though the panorama is almost entirely brown. The view and level of details is nice. dllu(t,c)15:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2015 at 01:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ahaetulla prasina, oriental whipsnake - Kaeng Krachan National Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ahaetulla prasina, oriental whipsnake - Kaeng Krachan National Park.jpg
Support, though background is a bit dark I guess caused by flash, I am not a fan of flash light but this one is very nice. That strobe in the reflection on the eye should be removed. --Laitche (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 01:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
StrongSupport I am in total disagreement with Laitche, if there's something I'd like on the POD would be a rare instrument as this, I'm a musician and these instruments fascinate me incredibly, it is original as anything else --LivioAndronicotalk20:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Livio make it thru, but Crisco 1492 should put more effort to describe it. I could get the importance, i hope others will read that. Sky is for background ? --Mile (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 11:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Biebrza NP in Dolistowo (02).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Biebrza NP in Dolistowo (02).jpg
Strong oppose I had looked at this while it was on QIC. I would have strongly considered passing it there—in fact I thought I had, but there was an edit conflict and I had to go eat or something like that so I didn't feel like doing it all again. So QI, quite likely ... but this is a prime example of a QI that will never be an FP. Just no wow, per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 18:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:American crocodyle la manzanilla 08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:American crocodyle la manzanilla 08.jpg
Weak support That branch is a bit distracting and focus is on the back I want focus on the eyes but this action shot is wow for me. --Laitche (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ArionEstar, the scene has naturally a great dynamic range, from specular reflections in the water created by its turbulence because of the quick movements of the crocs, to the shadow areas of the dark skin of the crocs. The specular reflections are imposible to control, for basically the sun is reflecting on the water and there is no way to control them in this type of scene. The dark skin in the shadows creates another problem but it is managed somehow here. In short, lighting conditions are terrible, but the event can be rescued somehow with some drama. There are not many photographs of fighting crocs and this is probably the only one in Commons. A photograph has to be judged not only in terms of obtainable quality pixel, exposure wise, but of the type of event. A picture of church interiors, where everything is still and there is ample time to set up the camera on a tripod demands a much more severly quality criteria than a picture of a rare and fast moving event. Not all pictures can be judged the same. For example, Robert Capa´s photograph of the Spanish Civil War, the moment of death, or his pictures of D Day are technically blurred and with other faults, but the extraordinary moment that they capture erase any technical flaws. Photography is not about pixels, hdr, stitching or post processing only, which seems to be the case here in FPC, but also about eternalizing fleeting moments. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I´ve been surfing the net to find fighting crocodile pictures and I find next to nothing. However, here is a video of crocs feeding on gazzelles, which show the quick movements of crocs. .#REDIRECT[[8]]. It is really too bad that lighting was what it was where I was, but it was what it was :( . Still, this is an uncommon photograph. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although I agree that the difficulty and technical constraints should be considered when judging, that doesn't mean we should also ignore aesthetics. This is an eternalised fleeting moment, just not a very good one IMO. Diliff (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anybody that knows a little about zone system would know that specular reflections are impossible to control. Basically, a specular reflection is the sun itself reflecting on a shinny surface. To bring that surface into the dynamic range of the image would automatically render everything else totally dark, for the luminosity scale shifts as a unit, and we would have a bad picture of sun reflections on the water and nothing else. This picture captures dark objects in the shadows and renders them within the texture range even on a high contrast, back lit scene. As for the aesthetics, well, how much aesthetics can two fast moving fighting crocodiles offer? This is not meant to be a pretty picture, but a rendition of animal behaviour in the wild. One thing is to photograph old empty churches maintained as tourist attractions where the photographer enjoys the comfort of time, location and stillness and another to photograph the moving world under adverse conditions and come out with little observed behaviour of the animal kingdom. Aside from the "technical" issue of specular reflections, I think that the photograph captures the drama of the event in above average detail. Can anyone find a better picture in the net of fighting crocs? Not that this is the best, but definitely a good one, and definitely illustrative. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop comparing your photos to churches. Everyone knows they're different subjects. Also, you apparently don't understand that churches are not easy to photograph (well) as you imply. They're usually not empty or maintained as tourist attractions, it's only with skill, patience and timing that I can capture them as I do. The same amount of skill, patience and timing required to take a good photograph of wildlife IMO. I also never mentioned specular highlights, so I'm not sure why you've brought that up, although I agree with Alchemist that a polarising filter would have helped. There are so many other ways to photograph fighting crocs in both a more interesting and a more aesthetic manner. It's triviallyeasytofind a better photo of the subject on the net. Yes, your photo has above average detail, but very little charisma that the images I linked to have - that's the sort of action I'd want to see in a FP of fighting crocodiles. Diliff (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... You really knock me out with those trivially better images of fighting crocs. I do point out however, that what you share as fighting crocs, at least in two images, they are just sunbathing. Crocs sunbathe with their mouthhs open all the time. Commn behavior not to be confused with fighting... ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David, fyi, here are opened mouthed crocs taking a sunbath, a very common behavior with american crocodiles. Also, it may be good for you to distinguish between alligators and crocs... They ain´t the same... #REDIRECT[[9]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 19:18:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brooklyn Botanic Garden New York May 2015 panorama 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooklyn Botanic Garden New York May 2015 panorama 2.jpg
Support Nice Japanese Hill-and-Pond (this subject is a bit ordinary for me , Japanese wisteria and azalea is a bit odd combination for me but no problem.) --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your later comments are valid concerns (though in my defense, it was a cloudy day and I intentionally excluded the sky, while a sunny day would have robbed the greenery of its saturation). But unsharp? This is a manual-focus telephoto used by the pros in the 1970s, equaling the best of today. I don't believe I missed the focus on any of the frames. Remember that plants have low apparent sharpness (look at any FPC on this page that has both buildings and plants in it, and I can guarantee you the buildings look sharper). Moreover, this is a 46MP image. Anyways, thanks for the review. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don´t get me wrong, it is a nice picture, but not FP for me. A crop of 1/8 of the bottom image would enhance the image a lot IMO. Crop halfway the reflection of second rock on left to bottom. Leave the red flower reflections in their entirity and a little bit of the bottom reflections, just a tad... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt that I should comment so I will explain. This is Japanese style garden as you can see this. They can see this kind of garden at many places in Japan, exclusive restaurants, residences, tiny parks or like that, many and any places around my house. On the other hand Japanese garden like this (description of that scenery), they can see a few places in each prefecture, at large shinto shrine or large temple or famous Japanese gardens, like can see this site so these are totally different :) --Laitche (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2015 at 14:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Siegestor Munich at Dusk.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Siegestor Munich at Dusk.JPG
Info The Siegestor in Munich, here as seen at dusk, was designed by Friedrich von Gärtner in 1843 as the northern point de vue of the monumental Ludwigstraße. There's already another FP - that I also like very much - but I nevertheless want to nominate my own candidate, as it's a bit different in a couple of regards: different time of year, reduced brightness... All by myself, -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I agree that there isn't enough space in front of the monument. The composition feels a bit unbalanced. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Laitche, Diliff, Julian, Wolfgang Moroder, Daniel Case, et al.: I admit, the bottom crop is rather tight, but for a couple of reasons. One of the few issues I have with the existing FP is that it shows too much concrete, pavement markings, and parked cars. These elements don't add any real value to the picture as a whole. But you're right, my composition tended to be a bit unbalanced. That's why I've cropped a significant segment of the sky. The result is imo much better now. Thanks. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this crop is a bit too much, slight crop might be better and main subject is a bit small in this composition, imo. --Laitche (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose I am with Wolfgang here, it is far too small for the possibilites of your camera. On the other side, the composition is featurable to me. If you don't try it again, I can give it a try :) Poco219:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ~7 megapixels isn't that great a resolution for the 5D III, true. On the other side it's more than sufficient for virtually all practical purposes. I'd see absolutely no problem having the photo printed with more than 150cm on the long side. This being said, the reason why the image is relatively small is that I recently came to dislike correcting distortions / problematic perspectives in postprocessing. I prefer keeping the lens absolutly straight and perpendicular when taking architectural shots - and cropping afterwards. As for retaking the picture: Well, to my utter (utter!) regret I'm not Munich based any more. And even when I get the chance to go on an occasional photo spree back home, I always depend on weather conditions, clear skies, etc, as well. So for the time being I'd really appreciate if the nomination got a positive reception (and a star ;-) ). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What was the issue that you had with correcting perspective in post-processing? It takes a bit more work, but I think the result is better (more resolution) than having to crop a significant amount of the frame just to achieve it. Aside from the time spent post-processing, I can't think of any reason why it isn't better. Diliff (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting perspective in post-processing often lead to a noticeable decrease in overall technical quality, at least the way I used to do it. Especially when compared to shots taken with my lens kept strictly perpendicular... But of course you're right, David, I won't argue here. I simply need to redefine my workflow and maybe finally switch over to Lightroom - which I've never liked that much, unlike the rest of mankind, it appears. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does result in a decrease in image quality, but so does using a wider angle lens and cropping it, because to achieve the same field of view as a perspective-corrected image, you need to shoot a bit wider and then crop the part you didn't want (this image may be an exception though because you cropped the bottom for compositional reasons rather than because you needed to for the perspective). So generally you end up with less detail/resolution. Therefore I don't think it really solves the problem of image quality. Only stitching can really do that: you get the benefits of higher resolution and/or you can downsample to minimise the loss of image quality caused by the perspective adjustment (which isn't that bad anyway for minor corrections). Diliff (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but even if I should ever enter the stitching business, I won't start with images that prominently feature dynamic (and consequently also extremely difficult) elements such as light trails... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could be possible even in this scene. You could have 4 images (2x2), the bottom two contain one light trail each, the top two contain the building and sky. No problem with stitching that. :-) But yes, I suppose don't start with that! Diliff (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2015 at 17:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brazilian savana Flower.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brazilian savana Flower.JPG
ArionEstar Why you do not stop to nominate? Serious, you are not capable to choose a FPC, every time you choose a not strong photo, you make volunteers loses their time to reject your nomination. 1 of 10 that you nominate are a FPC, the others not even QIC... -- RTA03:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2015 at 06:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Railway workshop.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Railway workshop.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 06:54:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral East Window, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laon Cathedral East Window, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg
847
8938
3691
908
6050
9866
DoF problem, I am sorry
3691
7727
161
1311
6050
9866
the candle is completely out of focus because DoF problem
Yes, this was because I selected a lens that would provide extra detail of the stained glass, but sacrificing DoF. It's a stitched image of about 100 photos using a focal length of about 200mm so the blur is unavoidable unfortunately. But look at the resolution (60 megapixels) and detail. The area of the image in focus is extremely sharp. The only reason I included the altar and seating in the composition is because without it, it would feel unbalanced. But they are just accessories to the main purpose of the photo which is the stained glass. Diliff (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your comment, I do not know what lens you choose, however, the depth of field can be scaled manually (maybe you could explain more about that). I've seen pictures of you perfect and I do not understand why this can not be. --The Photographer (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll explain in more detail. There are two reasons why it is not possible to get complete DoF with this image. One, it is the angle of view. With a wide angle of view, you can use a focal length like 50mm and take (for example) a panorama with 5 rows and 5 columns. The equivalent focal length of this panorama might be about 15mm. You could get almost everything in focus from infinity to about 1-2 metres. But if you don't want (or can't) use a wide angle of view, you must get further back and use a lens like the 200mm that I used in this image. A 200mm lens has a much smaller DoF. Even at f/16 or more (things will start to become less sharp after f/11), it cannot get everything in focus. Exactly how much focus you can get will depend on how far away you are but it will probably never be more than a few metres of sharp focus for an interior. So, you might ask: If you can get better DoF with a 50mm lens, why didn't you do that? Well, it's because of the second reason. With a very wide angle view, you have a lot of distortion at the edges. This is usually acceptable for most interiors because you want to see the wide view and it's the only way to see a lot of it all at once in a single image. But for this view, a wide angle view would be from very close to the glass and the altar would be in the way, you wouldn't be able to see much of it, and the glass at the top would be very distorted. So for this interior, I chose to get further back so I could see as much of the glass as possible (the other end of the room) and this introduced a compromise: Less DoF but more detail and less distortion. Hopefully that helps you understand why it was necessary for this photo. Diliff (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A textbook example of the appropriate use of tonemapping to reveal details in the very bright windows. In my personal opinion the pillars and walls on the sides should not have been processed as aggressively (they look almost like bas relief instead of actual 3D pillars and walls), but it is still pretty good. Dllu (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why didn't you crop out the (out of focus) chairs ? Anyway, very nice main subject for one of my favourite gothic cathedrals of France. Worth a visit, if you don't know.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't crop them because, just as landscapes need the horizon for a sense of perspective, I felt the chairs were important for context and compositional balance. What do you mean worth a visit? This cathedral or another? I did visit this one already, obviously. ;-) Diliff (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2015 at 19:11:31 (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 Jun 2015 at 17:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Statue of John of Nepomuk near Saint Matthew church in Wrocław (Breslau).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Statue of John of Nepomuk near Saint Matthew church in Wrocław (Breslau).jpg
Oppose Normal place for such a statue, just outside of the middle of the apse of the church. Bricks give a good contrast with the stone. Nevertheless, I don't think the subject is worth a FP. There are many other very beautiful statues here around in "Commons", this one is an excellent QI, but nothing more IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I seem to not have mastered the art of deciding whether to use a set nom. I nominate a single image, and people clamor for a set. Here, it's the reverse. Per Tomascastelazo's comments, I'm offering up just the third one, which features the train most prominently. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong Support very good, all works here, light, subject, composition, quality... however maybe it lack a bit of space at right.-- ChristianFerrer17:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome structure. I would have preferred a view from further away though (reducing the distortion), but I have no idea if that is possible. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly possible - but I intentionally chose this view to bring out the front of the train, as a train going completely sideways is less interesting. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great angle, and the image may have some further historic value as it may well be one of the last times we see an AEM-7 pulling an Amtrak train. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 15:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:1alessandromartinelli2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:1alessandromartinelli2015.jpg
I think anything but this square crop would have been detrimental. The subject of this image is the kick that's about to happen. He's got his leg back as far as he can, certainly farther than you or I could cock it (that's why they pay him the big bucks ), and there's so much potential energy in that pose that we know that ball is either going somewhere very far away or somewhere near at a very high speed. That would be lost, IMO, in a more horizontal shot. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best sports shots I've seen here in a long time. And very nice to have a soccer shot that captures the apex of a kick in so dynamic a fashion. I love the detail ... especially the dirt coming off his back cleat. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 01:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms - Pieter Aertsen - Google Cultural Institute.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms - Pieter Aertsen - Google Cultural Institute.jpg
Comment It will be next to impossible control the color reproduction or representation of arworks. The best that we can really hope for is a decent job. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good social/historical commentary. As Tomascastelazo said. No, I don't think it is "oversharpened", by the way, it's a high quality good scan, they do look like this, the google files. --Hafspajen 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 14:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica of Saint Denis Choir Misericords, Paris, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica of Saint Denis Choir Misericords, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. These misericords of the Basilica of Saint Denis date from between 1508 and 1517. The image doesn't look that impressive in a thumbnail, and is best appreciated when viewed in detail. The craftsmanship is quite incredible. Although the angle and perspective isn't ideal, it's unfortunately the best angle to photograph them from, as they are protected behind barriers that prohibit a good straight view. -- Diliff (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don´t like the wide angle distorsion and how it affects the with of the seats down the row. Also, I miss reading the banner of the last seat. The image fails to capture the woodwork of the scenes adequately. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I do like the detail, I agree "the angle and perspective isn't ideal" and at FP it overall image has to work as well as any technical excellence at the fine-detail level. It may be the best that can be achieved, given the barriers, but the overall image doesn't exceed QI despite the fantastic resolution. -- Colin (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport Carvings are really beautiful and nicely depicted. However, Colin has a point here, I basically share his criticism. --Tremonist (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To me neither the subject not the composition are featurable, and the right side is pretty distorted Poco219:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even the subject? It's a historical object of considerable craftmanship. What makes an unfeatureable subject for you? Diliff (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no doubt that it is encyclopedically valuable but give more importance to the visual effect, and this subject is not really eye-catching or especially original to me Poco220:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like (good) wide angle views, the distortions are not really disturbing here. Very high quality and nice composition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 15:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brompton Oratory Nave 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Oppose Unnatural looking top dome. While the picture is almost perfect to a fault, as Jebulon pointed out on a similar picture, the columns become oval, and I wonder just how many distortions there are that make the image not truly representative of the real scene. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I agree with Tomas that the angle of view is too extreme here. On other images, one might "get away with it" but the dome just looks like it is angled at 45-degrees rather than straight down. And the magnification at the left/right edges is large. I've suggested a crop that I would support, which minimises the distortions. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why is this distortion a problem here and not a problem in a fisheye image? Both have distortions owing to the extreme angle of view, but fisheye is a legitimate projection and this is not? Diliff (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking me? You already know the literature on wide-angle perspective issues since Leonardo da Vinci and others documented them and tried to limit them. This is a straight documentary image of the interior rather than an artistic perspective that revels in its distortions. It is clear in a fisheye image that the view is not straightforward, and nobody is under any illusion that the curves are real. Here, it is disturbing to see the angle of that dome. The degree to which one can accept such distortions depends on the features in the scene and on the individual viewer. Consider a photo taken at an extreme angle may (or may not) succeed at an artistic level, but a photo with just a slight tilt just looks like a mistake. This isn't the first time I've opposed where a circular ceiling or wall feature gets distorted too much for comfort. Perhaps I am more sensitive to it than others, but to me this is easily solvable by a more modest angle of view (as suggested on the image page). -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already have my own opinions on distortion and I believe the distortion is reasonable here, so I'm asking you why you support your own image with a greater vertical angle of view but not this one. You mention the way the dome looks, but what of the top and bottom of the escalators? You're viewing them at a near 90 degree angle, but that's not a problem because you declared it to be artistic rather than documentary? ;-) It's no more or less a problem than the dome IMO. It's an inherent feature of the vertical angle of view and the projection. You say it is a "straight documentary image" of the interior, but what if it's not? What if you re-imagined it as more creative image showing a wider angle of view than is normally possible with a straight rectilinear documentary style? I think you draw an overly sharp line between 'creative fisheye projection' and 'documentary rectilinear'. I think the truth is, particularly with the freedom of stitched images and complex projections, that there is no delineation - it is a continuum from straight-edged 'normal' perspective to the weird and wild projections of your imagination. As for the crop, I'm not really interested in cropping it to be honest, I like the view as wide as this and I think there are too many compromises in the composition with your suggested crop, so I'll let the chips fall where they may. ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to a detailed discussion featuring a number of points with a single link to an article that doesn't really relate to the discussion is rude. You could at least follow up to explain why you think the 'continuum fallacy' relates to my point. I don't think it does though - I think there clearly is a continuum. At what point does rectilinear become fisheye? At what point does rectilinear's angle of view become 'ugly' or 'wrong' as it increases? There are no precise answers to these questions, because it's a matter of opinion. Leonardo might have had his opinions on matters, but he was musing over aesthetics, not absolute truth. You know very well that it is a mathematical continuum between projections, so I really don't know why you call it a fallacy. You might look at an individual image and declare that you don't like the distortion in it and that's fair enough, but it's not so easy to say that you know where the line is drawn. The same distortion in a different image might be acceptable. In fact I'm sure it is, because you've supported many images with similar levels of distortion before. I'm not trying to change your mind about your vote, just pointing out things as I see them. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really wasn't intending to be rude. In fact, I assumed you could read the article and slap yourself on the forehead without me trying to explain. I proposed two (with fuzzy definitions) styles of photography: the artistic where distortions may be accepted and even enjoyed, and the documentary where distortions are kept to a minimum. You suggested I "draw an overly sharp line" while saying there is in fact a continuum. But I never said these groups had a "sharp line" or "delineation", only that they are distinct. I point out, using the fallacy article, that one does not need to (and I did not) define any hard line between two groups and the fact that there is a continuum does not prevent it being possible to place things into distinct groups. Read the lead paragraphs of the article -- there doesn't seem much point in me repeating them. Given your statement "The same distortion in a different image might be acceptable." I'm now at a loss as to why you are arguing or questioning my vote at all.
It may be possible to place things into distinct groups, but there are situations where categorising things as one or the other does a disservice to it. That's why I said you draw an overly sharp line. You defined this image as documentary rectilinear, and I disagreed, pointing out that it is more truthfully somewhere on the continuum, and you responded simply by telling me (in a roundabout way) that it was a fallacy to argue that. The continuum fallacy, according to the article "appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all)". But that's not what I implied at all. Obviously if you compare two images (fisheye and non-wide rectlinear) in isolation, it's clear that they are very different in purpose and in perspective and are thoroughly distinct. But my wide angle rectilinear images start to blur the lines between the two definitions, and that's what I was trying to point out. I often (and did so in this image) use some compression of the perspective in order to minimise distortion at the extremes, and that sometimes has the effect of compressing objects. The dome is an example of that. It looks to be taken at a 45 degree angle by its position in the image but has the perspective of something a bit greater than that. So I would argue that although my image does a good job of being a documentary photograph (verticals are straight and vertical), it is not a simple rectilinear image and should not be categorised as such. It straddles the line between fisheye and rectilinear in its angle of view and treatment of the extremes. It has the wide angle of view of fisheye but the perspective and straight lines of rectilinear. Obviously it has the compromises inherent in any fusion of perspectives, but it is part of that continuum. That's why I suggested you "re-imagined it as more creative image showing a wider angle of view than is normally possible with a straight rectilinear documentary style". Diliff (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually say there were only two styles of photography here ("one or the other") and never argued there was a sharp line between them. You are reading things into what I said. I agree your image falls in between the two categories, and that it why it does not work, for me. It fails to be a successful documentary image since the dome appears to be at a very strange 45-degree angle and the sides are hugely out of proportion. And it fails to be a successful artistically distorted image since too much of it is perfectly straight. Like Nick Clegg trying to tell a joke. I do like, and support, many of your very-wide-angle photographs. I just think that the aspects of the scene here mean you can't get away with it and the flaws are too disturbing. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you argued there was only two styles of photography or a sharp line between them either, it was simply my observation of the way you judged the image by pigeon-holing it as a documentary photograph. I think you still have a narrow sense of what is 'artistic' if you think that its straight lines makes it ineligible though. :-) But ok, fair enough. I won't keep this going unnecessarily. Diliff (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well on the first sentence, I just have to 100% disagree and lose patience. As for my narrow sense of "artistic", you never asked me for a definition of this, nor have I given one. You cannot possibly work out my sense of that from the bare examples we have been discussing. You are confusing examples with definitions I think. As I said at the start, why are you asking me? If you want to know then that requires a different approach. If it is just to have an argument, then I'm not really interested and have better things to do, sorry. -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best explanation to your question is that the overall precision and accuracy of much of the image sets up expectations in the viewer that it is a thoroughly accurate representation of the scene. Those expectations are damaged when one examines the near dome or the extreme left and right, where angles or proportions are just completely wrong. One is left considering if it is instead an optical illusion or joke architecture rather than a very straightforward interior and a documentary photograph. With a fisheye lens, the viewer (at least one familiar with such images, as most of us are) has fewer expectations. The same with my tilted photo example. If very titled, one knows it must have been taken at an angle for some effect. If only slightly tilted, one wonders if the surface is sloping or if the camera was level and isn't really sure. -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expectations and assumptions are a dangerous thing and the cause of many a disagreement on Commons, and you've been the recipient of perhaps unfair expectations too (B&W photography). What one is left wondering is up to that individual - not necessarily my problem. ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Distortion made by wide angle views can be a problem - here it isn't. The parts that are distorted aren't in the main view axis so the image impression is what here counts for me and this is very good. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2015 at 06:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Capitolhill panorama 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Capitolhill panorama 1.jpg
35
589
8270
6169
22388
6931
Capitol Hill, Seattle
19758
2599
2526
4159
22388
6931
Interstate-5 passing under the Washington State Convention Center
Thanks for pointing this out. I have just now mitigated the lean and corrected a slight tilt in horizon. There is still a bit of lean on certain buildings due to imperfect stitching, perspective distortion in each frame, etc, but I think it is far less than 0.2 degrees and should not significantly detract from the image. Dllu (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how that came to be but in any case that is negligible when viewed at any reasonable resolution. Dllu (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed (contrast and saturation/vibrance). The actual viewpoint seems a bit arbitrary. For example, a crop of the rightmost square makes a better composition. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I increased the saturation a bit, adjusted some curves. I guess I've been looking at too many photos from stuckincustoms, heh. I've uploaded the original frames straight out of camera in case anyone wants to attempt a better postprocesssing/stitching. I also have the RAW files available. As for the composition, the left part of the picture is actually Capitol Hill. I'm not sure what the middle part is called and the right part is downtown Seattle. Dllu (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laitche: @Poco a poco: @Colin: What do you guys think of the Alternative with faithful colours below? Also, will Laitche please explain what you mean by "quality is not reaching the FP standards"? In terms of resolution, image noise, sharpness, distortion, etc, I think this is pretty good. Thanks! Dllu (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The noise level is not at all visible if you view it at 50%, which is 11194 x 3440, still much better than many other panoramas which have passed FP status. Dllu (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it is nominated at 50% downsampled, the noise level is probably acceptable. I think every member is judging nominated one not what if downsampled... --Laitche (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laitche: You are mistaken. The Commons:Image guidelines clearly states that images should not be downsampled under any circumstance. A 150 megapixel image with a slight amount of noise when inspecting individual pixels is always better than a 15 megapixel image that appears as though it does not have any noise. Dllu (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I am not suggesting downsampling, I just wrote my thoughts why every member is not supporting this great panorama but not sure cause I don't know the others thoughts :) --Laitche (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laitche: will you stop pixel-peeping. This image, when viewed on your monitor at 100% is over 5 metres wide. And are complaining about noise which is only visible from close inspection at that level on a 155MP image! We do not encourage people to downsize images for Commons and unfortunately Commons MediaWiki software cannot render a 50% view of such a large image for people to review. You say you are not suggesting downsampling but your oppose for noise leaves nominators no option but to upload downsized images to prevent this sort of petty and ignorant review. Stop it and please learn how to review digital images properly. We look at the image, not the pixels. Dllu, I'll look at the alternative tonight if I get a chance. -- Colin (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't "my ideas" but the standard mature approach to reviewing digital images. Pixel-peeping is universally regarded as a newbie mistake in all photographic forums. Your "don't criticize me, my ideas are precious" approach to life is fine for primary-school children, but in the real world of grown ups, you should welcome criticism and learn from it. Your pixel-peeping approach to image review is positively harmful to FP and you should stop doing it. Learn to look at the picture. -- Colin (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is most regrettable that we now need rules to document common sense. Meanwhile you continue to make a mockery of FP by complaining about noise in a 150MP image. -- Colin (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
InfoAlternative version: With natural colours straight out of camera without any post-processing. Also cropped out artifacts near bottom edge of picture. Dllu (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view. Although sharpness is not the best at full size, this is over 150 MP and we've seen panoramas promoted here with less than half the linear resolution of this (which, by the way, looks flawless at 50%). Perhaps there is something to be gained by increasing the brightness (though not the saturation). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 03:14:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carnitas in Mexico.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carnitas in Mexico.jpg
Neutral a bit noisy and reflection? (or shadows?) is a bit distracting and I prefer deep DOF for this subject, imho. --Laitche (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unpleasant story explained in single moment. Not the traditional "wow", but the picture generates plenty of emotion for the viewer. --Pugilist (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Shocking" only to vegetarians, or at least those who never ate meat ... Apart from that, the color is, while accurate, not all that striking, and compositionally it's just a random assortment of irregular shapes that the eye does not linger on. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps an untrained eye would not linger on anything, except maybe on the nose. But a Carnitas Connoisseur, would see, smell and taste the delicacies of liver, small intestine, sausage, stomach, tongue, ribs... Maybe it is too ethnic in these parts. ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is it shocking only to vegetarians? There's a difference between piles of intestines and a nice, sliced, steak. Or a processed burger patty. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment points up another argument against featured status. I had thought those pieces might be bits of intestine (which in any event the consumption of which is scarcely limited to Mexico), but then they also look like bits of fat. Only when you told me this did I know for sure. If it were truly featurable, it would be obvious enough that it was intestines and I wouldn't have needed your explanation.
Also, I have had carnitas a few times, particularly as a burrito filling at Chipotle, and while for all I know it may have included intestine I do not recall seeing it look like that. Nor does the carnitas in the picture that was until recently the lead image in the enwiki article show anything that looks like an intestine the way the bits in this picture do. The article itself describes carnitas as primarily meat, saying nothing about other organs of the animal being included.
Now, I'm not denying that it might be made that way wherever in Mexico the picture was taken (Maybe I'll have a chance to find out in person at Wikimania next month ...). This is just to speculate that perhaps the filename needs to be more specific.
As for the requirement of obviousness needed in order to be featurable I disagree with you, because obviousness implies the capacity to distinguish a priori the elements presented. This can only happen when prior knowledge exists. That would mean that if there is an unkown element, then the image is then not featurable. However, that is a factor attributable to the observer, not the object observed. It is like saying that something does not exist because you don´t know the name of the thing. The fact that you do not distinguish between an intestine or a piece of fat is not the fault of the image or the subject itself, but the fault of lack of prior experience or knowledge. And here is precisely one of the values of photography, that it captures a subject(s) and becomes a vehicle of knowledge, presenting a vision of a non present subject that can then be incorporated to the cultural capital of the observer. Here you have gained knowledge by distinguishing between a piece of intestine from a piece of fat. That is called learning. But instead of a piece of fat, it could have been an insect, a plant, a fish, a cultural element, etc.
As for your Chipotle example, with all due respect, they are hardly representative of mexican cuisine. They may be closer than Taco Bell, but still hardly a trustworthy reference as to what Mexican food is like. Same goes for the carnitas taco in the picture that you link to, while accurate in a very, very, but very generic way, it does look like a carnitas taco, not carnitas themselves. That taco could be a shredded beed taco, a birria taco, even turkey taco, and not necessarily a carnitas taco.
I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that I was some sort of FOAK about Mexican cuisine. I'm glad for the elucidation. It suggests we do need to improve the article, and certainly this picture is a step in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the image is not striking enough to be featurable, well, that is your opinon and you are entitled to it. So your vote is appreciated anyway.
OK, those help. But it is worth noting that a) the image at Flickr shows the pot, giving a sense of scale which this image did not have, and b) the blog post suggests that what we see here may be subject to further preparation (i.e., cutting into shreds) sometimes, so (as Tomas's discussion of the taco photo I linked to suggests) it does not represent all carnitas. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the reflections in the glass to be distracting. Not so much the one in the top left, but the one on the bottom right that stretches far into the center. — Julian H.✈ 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Dear Jebulon, David Case´s opinion centers on the issue that the elements are not identifiable and therefore the picture is not featurable, for if the elements were identifiable the picture would not need an explanation, and therefore be featurable. So my question is, is this the case only in this picture or is that criteria applicable to all pictures that have elements that are not identifiable by the viewer? This position, while valid on the personal level, is disastrous in an effort that seeks knowledge independent of ideological or cultural bias and is based on the cultural capital of the individual and not on the object that represents knowledge. This get close to Taliban or ISIS mentality. On the issue of aesthetics, is that a requeriment for featurableness? If so, we really have a problem, for aesthetics is culturally given to a very large degree, and would therefore render a lot of culturally centered images unacceptable to propose for FP. That, I think, is an arrogant posture where a dominant culture excludes the diversity of aesthetics, which in western civilization seems to be a prevalent position. Are foreign objects beautiful only when in agreement with another culture´s values? Dog meat, for example, to westerners is abhorrent, yet to some oriental countries it is a delicacy. Likewise cow meat, to westerners is a good thing, but Hindus would tend to disagree. Some people would think that fine french wine is grape juice gone bad. People tend to dislike those things that they do not comprehend. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, let me say that I'm perfectly fine with the content of the image – the subject itself is surely featurable, imho. I also like that you managed to almost entirely fill the frame with the meat. But there are some aspects that prevent me from supporting: 1) Julian already mentioned the reflections. 2) Composition: The nose is the only thing I can easily identify, which automatically makes it the anchor point for my eyes. Having this anchor point right in the center makes for a quite boring composition; I would probably have preferred it to be arranged around one of the vertical lines of the rule-of-thirds grid and pointing more towards the center of the frame (rather than me). 3) Lighting: The direct lighting from the top makes the most important part of my main anchor point (the front side of the nose) lie in the shadows. It is fighting for attention with the less interesting top part of the nose, which is more in the center and has lots of glistening fat (eyes are typically drawn to the brighter parts of an image). Also, shadows in general are a bit on the harsh side. A tiny little bit of fill flash from the side might have improved the lighting quite a bit (would've been tricky, though, if there was indeed a piece of glass in front of the meat). Nevertheless: Thank you for this very interesting image! --El Grafo (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 19:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Gavarnie, Haute-Pyrénées, France.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Gavarnie, Haute-Pyrénées, France.jpg
Enthusiastic support I could spend all day just looking at this at full-size ... that's how detailed and colorful this is. Another one I wish I could say I had taken myself (But do do something about the noted dust spots. They're faint but they're there). Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembering the previous pictures and nominations of this cirque this is clearly the best one for me. I like how some shadows are giving it the shape and there is not much atmospheric haze either. --Ximonic (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff because I forgot I didn't even upload it to Wiki :) Wasn't even thinking it was FP worthy... You may have noticed I lately uploaded a few pics to Flickr which haven't made it through to Wiki yet... Wish they make an LR plugin for Commons ! - Benh (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 03:43:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flight to Star Cluster Westerlund 2.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flight to Star Cluster Westerlund 2.ogv
Oppose Always the same, these star videos or photos. Nothing different from ton of others we have here, therefore no wow for me as a FP candidate. Of course an excellent document though.--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 15:22:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Giuseppe Verdi, Un Ballo in maschera, Vocal score frontispiece - restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Giuseppe Verdi, Un Ballo in maschera, Vocal score frontispiece - restoration.jpg
Info A fun one. Biggest challenge was fixing the heavily damaged text in the lower right. This opera seems shockingly badly illustrated in the Wikipedias, so quite useful to have a good image for it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2015 at 13:45:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Halobaena caerulea in flight - SE Tasmania.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Halobaena caerulea in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg
WeakOppose Good capture and although I am aware of the difficulty of this kind of shot, it is too small IMHO. It is hard to appreciate detail here Poco219:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expected this kind of reaction. I thought this photo gives us very good opportunity to think what is the FP, I never say that Poco is wrong but this photo is completely FP for me :) --Laitche (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's FP to you, otherwise you wouldn't have proposed it to FP. I just expressed my opinion. Poco220:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2015 at 18:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoHolocnemus hispanicus in the Community of Madrid, Spain. Body is 10 mm long. Created by, uploaded, nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know about focus stacking (I've never used it), but I guess I'd need a lot of frames for a single picture of this spider. I have added the size of the body in the description. --Kadellar (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Estos animales son bien difíciles de fotografiar sin buena luz y con un lente regular, yo he pasado tardes de pesadilla comido por mosquitos intentando fotografiarlos. Yo, por lo general utilizo un trípode, si no puedo, utilizo tres tomas que cubran el espectro de profundidad de campo, uno frente, medio y fondo. Por eso es que vez más que todo fotos destacadas de mariposas, porque para ellas solo necesitas una corta profundidad. Es recomendable hacer toma en horas de la mañana cuando los insectos todavía no se han despertado totalmente y están más lentos, también algunos recomiendan colocarle algo de comida y esperar con el trípode listo. Dale una mirada a este manual básico y a la colección de insectos en la página de Richard. Saludos --The Photographer (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if you don't practice macro and therefore you don't really know about it, think twice before opposing. I seldom oppose something I don't do, like underwater photography or illustrations, because I don't have knowledge enough to do so. --Kadellar (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I do not like, I did not say that I do not know or I can't judge it. I find it too complicated, and in fact you can see by your photo, however, because it is becoming too long and boring ..... exchange so you are happy--LivioAndronicotalk12:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A daddy long-legs spider is like a camera on a weak tripod in winds. So focus stacking is not an option here. Jee02:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 12:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info San Crisogono is a church in Rome (rione Trastevere) dedicated to the martyr Saint Chrysogonus. It was one of the tituli, the first parish churches of Rome, and was probably built in the 4th century under Pope Silvester I (314–335), rebuilt in the 12th century by John of Crema, and again by Giovanni Battista Soria, funded by Scipione Borghese, in the early 17th century.All by -- LivioAndronicotalk12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You could try lower position, if you could capture head of saint on that painting behind bidermayer. In that case you would aim lower, no need for roof. Someday. --Mile (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the picture is ok, the theme is a little boring. Too many church interiors with same point of view, making them indistinguishable from each other. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been more elegant to put neutral because one thing you favor and one against Tomascastelazo. However that kind of perspective I can? It 'a church and if you want to see all is the only way.Besides the churches maybe he will be taken from the same point of view, but there are many types like: Medieval, Romanesque, Gothic, neoclassical, etc...I'd be curious to know the David's opinion --LivioAndronicotalk19:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion is that if Tomas thinks they are all indistinguishable, perhaps he should refrain from voting on church interiors in future because he seems incapable of judging them fairly. It's one thing to find a particular photo or view boring, but he seems to think that all symmetrical views of church interiors are boring and therefore a good reason to oppose, and that's a systematic bias that I think should be acknowledged. I agree with you that there's usually very limited options for locations to photograph a church interior and the most aesthetic and educational view is usually the view from the entrance looking straight down the middle. This is the way church interiors are designed to be viewed, so it makes sense to photograph it in this way. I do think the technical quality of this image is not great though. It's the same problem I see in your other interior photos: the textures are not sharp and it looks like too much noise reduction, which I don't understand really because at ISO 100, it should be free from noise and noise reduction shouldn't be necessary. Also, it looks like you didn't quite take the photo from the middle. You are slightly to the left of the centre. Livio, can I have a copy of the RAW file that you used to make this image? I'd really like to see whether the image quality is because of the camera, or because of the processing you use. If you are happy to let me see the RAW file, send me an email with the link to the file. Diliff (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, why don´t you keep your thoughts to yourself about my voting on nominations that are not yours? You have a nasty habit of contaminating other nominations that need not be contaminated. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was in the context of a disagreement with you, and he didn't say that he only wanted an opinion on the image, so I took it to mean he wanted an opinion about the thread you and he were involved in. Diliff (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No,no I asked the David's opinion for your opinion: How is possible ask for another way for do a pictures of a church??? And more....all the church are similar? This do understand me that your knowledge of churches is somewhat limited, as is mine to the photos of quartered animals--LivioAndronicotalk08:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if the sidekick wants his masters opinion, so be it... And going back to the issue, which is the cookie cutter way in which churches are generally presented here. Yes, most catholic churches have the same layout design wise, especially medieval and renaissance churches. That style was exported to the american continent and can be seen throughout latin america in their different styles and interpretation of styles. However, I think that while the layout forces people to initially encounter the church due to the manner into which one enters the church, it always gives a generic point of view, the visual encounter becomes rather boring, for it becomes a repetitive pattern of perspective, etc. To photograph a church interior from this point of view, while providing a familiar look, it becomes too familiar and a run of the mill image, regardless of the craftsmanship needed to photograph the subject. In your particular case, the challenge is not to replicate someone else´s style, for that spot has already been taken, but rather, to find a new interpretation of the same subject that shows the particular attributes of a generic subject. Without a doubt David´s images are unquestionably, in his style, the best images of church interiors around here (achieved despite the inherent dangers that lurk in those tourist attractions ;)) and he has set a very high bar for everyone else, myself incuded. So if I were to photograph genetic churches (generic in the way that basically obey to the same layout) I would not try to replicate what someone else is already doing, but to find a way to document the same generic building springing from its particularity or contribution to the arts. Now, insofar as you trying to learn clairvoyance from your master in the way of determining my understanding of things, try another tack, he is indeed a master craftsman in photography, but rather a poor clairvoyant. I do have an an understanding of churches, and not just their architectural elements, but also their history, their construction methods, the workers who built them, the symbolism present, their cultural role, etc., but I guess that is another issue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've downloaded them and processed them as I would normally process my own images. I can see that there are some minor differences between your final image and mine. You seem to have applied a much stronger contrast on the image, and also a stronger sharpening effect. My image has a bit more detail visible of the wooden reredos behind the altar (not so dark) and the sharpening looks a bit more realistic in my image (I think). I also corrected the perspective a little bit better, so that the floor was not looking tilted, and I left a bit more of the ceiling which you cropped out (just my tastes, but maybe you didn't want so much of it). I've uploaded my version as a derivative of yours (hope you don't mind), so you can compare them directly. The difference is small but I think these small differences do improve the image quality. Diliff (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2015 at 16:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Colin. A tourist looks out from the balcony of the Sky Garden atop the "Walkie-Talkie". The view is partly obscured by two workmen in a cradle, who in turn are partly obscured by reflections in the glass. Black and white used here to focus on what is important in the composition. I hope the elements in the scene guide your eye and that the image rewards closer inspection. -- Colin (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understood why this image is Black and White with above info but I think the color version should be shown in other versions. --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not publishing the colour version, for the same reason I don't publish the unprocessed RAW file. And you shouldn't ask for it for the same reason you don't ask people to upload an uncropped version of their photographs. This is the creative work I made. -- Colin (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between suggesting an uncropped version and suggesting a further crop to be made? I don't see the problem, as long as they're requests and not demands. Diliff (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question you ask is not the issue. Laitche thinks the "color version" (i.e. the original) "should" be shown. So that's a demand, albeit a polite one. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see it as a demand though. It comes down to (as per a conversation we had a while ago) the "I think" prefixing it. If you say 'you think' something should occur, you're saying that 'in your opinion, it would be best if...', not an authoritative 'you should do x!'. I don't see the problem with what he said, given some allowances for English not being his first language. I think the main reason 'requests' to crop are acceptable and normalised here is because it's easy (and legal under CC-BY-SA) to extrapolate a crop from an uploaded image and anyone can do it, but you can't extrapolate a colour image from a uploaded B&W image or 'uncrop' an image, so the control over this is solely with the original author. They're all equally deviations from the original creative intent though. Diliff (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt to your first sentence, you are simply wrong. But I have no interest in arguing further about language usage nor irrelevant aspects of what was merely an analogy. The conversation was between me and Latche and he appeared to understand just fine. Can we discuss images rather that words? -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're taking an opinion and interpreting it as a statement of fact. It is not. You are simply wrong. Anyway, perhaps Laitche can clarify whether he thinks his comment was a demand or a request. And yes, of course we can discuss images. I'd quite like to in fact, but you chose to ignore the part of my reply that discussed images. Diliff (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it dropped. I just think you've had a bit of a tantrum here and misunderstood Laitche. That's all I've been trying to say all along. Diliff (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff: Yes, my comment is a request but I don't care if the creator don't want to do. And thanks, I believe I can testify myself, I think there are trillions types of personalities though actually there aren't trillions people on the earth... :) --Laitche (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Laitche. That's what I thought. I wasn't trying to testify for you, I know you can do that for yourself. But that doesn't mean I can't also disagree with Colin about the claims he makes. And yes there are many personalities, but this was not an issue of opinion that we can all agree to disagree about. He said you were demanding (fact claim), I said I thought you weren't (my opinion), and then you said you weren't (confirmation). He was wrong, end of story really. Diliff (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)
Shouldverb used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.[10].
Shouldverb the past tense of shall: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory.[11]
Example 1: When Diliff finds himself having an argument about what someone wrote rather than the topic he should consider that his own initial interpretation of the wording may not be the only one that is valid, and that another interpretation may prove to be better fit.
Example 2: Laitche should take care to avoid the word "should" when making requests where he does not care about the response. The words "request" and "demand" are synonyms, with the latter having more insistence and obligation. When a request is modified by the word "should" it reasonable to interpret that as a demand, albeit one without urgency.
By saying "I think the color version should be shown in other versions" Laitche is saying he considers doing this to be an "obligation, duty, or correctness" on my part. That is not a mere request. And it is that that I objected to. I don't want to see another post on this candidate page that doesn't concern the qualities (or lack) of the image above. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find that the b & w does anything to enhance the viewers perception of the image and the reflections are distracting.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough, different. Good composition. However, I would have shown more of the building on the right, separate it a bit from the basket. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would have been nice to get that separation. The workmen were slowly moving (up or down, can't remember) so I didn't get a lot of chance to try different arrangements. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral about composition a tourist is distracting for me and upper left wall? and the reflection as well, about quality a little not sharp and maybe a little noisy. --Laitche (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laitche, you're pixel-peeping wrt sharpness and noise. Look at the rope or the stubble on the man's face, and remember the workmen are behind glass. Unlike a Diliff cathedral or just about any other picture you see on the internet, this is not downsized at all. The sharpness we see on many pictures at FP is an illusion. What you see here is just what images look like at normal size. What you think is noise is just textures, fabric and dirty windows. This image was taken at ISO 100 and not pushed. I don't mind comments about composition or distracting elements but please can we move on from picking apart, at pixel level and 100% magnification, an image that has not been downsized. It just makes people submit 5MP images to FP to avoid this sort of hassle. Unless, after downsizing to 5MP (say), you can still see noise or CA or an image still looks unsharp, then it has no real-world relevance at all, and just shows concern for the wrong aspects of the picture. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that my downsampled images tend to be much sharper than this and much higher resolution, so they're not only sharper because they're downsampled. However, they're not the same style of photography and can't be directly compared and I agree that too much pixel peeping is a problem here. Diliff (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso mentioned that Photos are a very subjective matter. in this nomination I agree with that opinion especially for the composition and about noise I wrote maybe so I'm not sure cause I've never seen the color version and reflection as well :) --Laitche (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The endemic problem here is an over-focus on tiny objective "flaws" which are then (wrongly) subjectively regarded as worth opposing or (as above) worth mentioning (even with a "maybe"). It's a bad habit and makes FP look amateurish. -- Colin (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's a bit sensitive problem, others may be misunderstanding my comment, maybe you too, I voted neutral because of composition-wise if this composition is my favorite, I would vote support despite if there are flaws. I think that depends on the voters, and you wrote "The scene isn't doing anything for me. Not FP" in this nomination, that "for me" means I don't know ( or care ) others. right? I think it's same. --Laitche (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get that you are neutral on the composition and that if you thought the picture was great that you'd over look the "flaws". My point is that these aren't "flaws" and I do wish FPC would stop pixel-peeping. It is an correctly focused photograph, taken with a high-quality lens/camera, at ISO 100 in daylight. Is "not downsized" a flaw? It is simply wrong to look at it 100% on a big monitor and claim it is "little not sharp and maybe a little noisy". The Japanese garden isn't comparable as subjective opinions about what images "work" is perfectly valid. Pixel peeping simply isn't. It is simply bad reviewing, and FP should work harder to avoid it. Please don't let us become as bad as QI seems to be with such nit picking. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well I'm consistent on this, no matter who creates or nominates the picture. I've campaigned against pixel-peeping comments at FPC for years, and don't plan on stopping. Hopefully it has an effect over time. If nobody complains then it just appears that such review comments are acceptable. And they absolutely aren't. Next time you find yourself reviewing a downsized 5MP FP candidate, that looks sharp and noiseless, consider whether it is you, Laitche, who prevented Commons from getting a 36MP instead. Because there are several nominators with 24/36MP cameras who do just that, and Commons is the worse for it. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do think that compositionally, it's awkward. I suppose you only had a moment to compose the shot, but I think it would have been stronger if you got a bit closer, more to the right side and lower so that the window bar was out of the frame at the top, or at least above the top of the Shard. There's a bit too much sky for my liking. Diliff (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the kind of photo that makes you think. I like the reflections on the workers and the overall balance of the elements of composition. B&W was a good idea here; maybe the woman was wearing a bright red sweater which would have distracted the viewer's attention, or perhaps the sky was an unattractive pastel blue. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 01:26:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints Margaret Street Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:All Saints Margaret Street Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support. Thanks for the nomination. It's quite a spectacular church and worth viewing at 100% for the amazing detail (if it doesn't crash your browser!). :-) Diliff (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing! 140 pictures were taken to make this. Even with a high quality panoramic plate, that takes patience (not to mention the dedication of visiting many churches to document such beautiful artwork and architecture). The only way this picture could have been improved was to use focus stacking to get all the chairs in focus. Just kidding. Minor point: in the image description, the lens is stated as the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM which is ambiguous and can be interpreted as the inferior Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens instead of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art which I think you used. dllu(t,c)07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even more confusing actually, I copied and pasted the template from another image I used it on, and adjusted all the exposure values but forgot to change the lens details, it was actually the Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens that I used on this image. I'll fix it now. And you know, I've even thought about focus stacking my interiors, but it's unfortunately completely impractical because there's no way to automate it. I could use Magiclantern which has autofocus stepper-based focus stacking but as far as I know, you can't combine that with exposure bracketing for the HDR side of things. And I'd rather keep the HDR than unlimited DoF to be honest. Diliff (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I resized to .75 and check details, all was there. No need to such huge file, unless will be banner for the crusade. Look at that simple bird above, equals to 67 of those kind of photos. Now if all will start this, we will be soon limited with space. --Mile (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you were joking or serious, but the file size/resolution is useful. There's 100% detail in every pixel in focus. Downsizing the image will remove detail from the image. Maybe you don't mind to lose detail, and that's fine, but the highest resolution image should be maintained because we don't know how this image could be used in the future. Also, nobody is saying that just because I took a high resolution image that everyone else should now follow. Diliff (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well its for Wikipedia mostly. Some books, etc follow next. Maybe they migth use it in full size, but this would be rare. --Mile (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia mostly, maybe. But what if in 50 years time, someone makes a documentary about churches and wants to show what the church looked in 2015 like on their 20k wall-sized TV? This image would be freely licensed and there would probably be nothing else in the world as good as it. We can't always imagine how these images could be used in the future. Limiting them just because it takes too long to download is quite short-sighted. Diliff (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're talking about the future, you should think in upload your RAWs files to commonsarchive in 50 years time (2055) and taking a positive view of humanity is not yet self-destructed, when we leave this world, these images RAWs be there, and perhaps a new technology could get them capture sounds. --The Photographer (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each panorama I take would be 1.5gb to 2gb of RAW files.... That would take 4 hours to upload with my broadband... It's not really worth it, I think. Maybe when my internet is faster. ;-) Diliff (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you place it in a in the cloud (could be dropbox also with a password that you can give me), I would handle it up requesting a mass upload. I recommend not to save RAWs on the hard drive, three years ago I lost 500 GB of RAWs in this way, a hard disk is damaged (Samsung HD). I spent some months depressed because they are pictures that will never return. Something similar happened to Poco a poco with his stolen camera. --The Photographer (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is still uploading all my files. I have more than 3 terabytes of RAW files at the moment. That would take about 4 months if I left my computer uploading 24/7 every single day and it would affect the speed of everything else too. And no service would let me store that many files without charging me a lot of money Cloud backup of that many files isn't practical. I'm actually in the process of building a RAID NAS server to backup my data. Last year, I had a hard drive crash and I lost every photo I took from 2001 to 2009 too, so I know what it's like. Diliff (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"3 terabytes of RAW files at the moment" => You dont need upload all this, just this file for begin.
"no service would let me store that many files without charging me a lot of money" => commons archive is free!!!
"I'm actually in the process of building a RAID NAS" => With fifth the price of that, you could pay a gigabit connection only a month to raise all that in commons archive.
I hope you never matter what happened to me, however, I more never in my life will spend money buying any hard disk. Just imagine that today a problem of light damage your hard drive, just think about it for a second --The Photographer (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already did experience what happened to you, as I said above... But you can have a reliable backup with hard drives. You just need to have more than one copy, that's all That's what the NAS is for. Yes, maybe I could upload just the RAW files but to send a real back up of all my DSLR RAW files to the cloud, it would definitely take 4 months with my current ADSL2+. I couldn't get a gigabit connection for only a month, I would need to sign a contract for at least 12 months because nobody (at least in the UK) will set up a new internet connection for just one month. Also, no residential broadband company evens offers 1gbit internet in the UK! the fastest residential broadband is only 150mbit and I'm pretty sure business fibre broadband is actually going to be a lot more expensive than 1/5th of the cost of a NAS even for just the installation, not to mention the monthly costs. Also, the RAID NAS would have other purposes, not just a backup. And Commons Archive only lets you upload source files for images on Commons, but not all my RAW files are for Commons images. I can't be bothered to figure out which RAW files are used for images on Commons and which are not. It would take days and days to do that. It's just not worth it. A NAS is much simpler. All files are backed up and accessible to me in seconds if I have a hard drive failure. :-) Diliff (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not just for Wikipedia. It is rather naive to assume the only way to look at such a large image is at 100% in a web browser, or printed on some huge canvas. Sadly the Zoom Browser seems to be broken more than it is working these days, but such interactive viewers are really the best way to explore and appreciate an image such as this. Hopefully soon, Wikimedia will support 360-degree panorama viewers, which are an engaging and natural way to study such a large 3D space. Knowing that Diliff's panoramas are already downsized, I simply don't believe that a further 75% reduction can be made without significant loss of fine detail. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 11:54:50 (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 18 Jun 2015 at 22:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hommikune Inahamne järv.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hommikune Inahamne järv.JPG
Comment Gorgeous mood. A bit unsharp but fine for a 24 MP DX sensor. But I think there is too much sky, which is not contributing to the image. I'd go for a rule of thirds crop. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The reeds are almost completely blurred. I don't think this really is high enough quality for a FP. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry reeds and noisy sky. Though the lighting is quite interesting, I am not too convinced that the composition and lighting are sufficiently good to overcome these technical deficiencies. Dllu (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 21:44:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Meydenbauerkamera.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meydenbauerkamera.jpg/2
Support Noisy but stilly ok (at ~8MP), obviously not as rich in information as a focus stacked image but still really nice. — Julian H.✈ 09:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 09:43:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Royal stairs in Palazzo Farnese (Caprarola).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal stairs in Palazzo Farnese (Caprarola).jpg
InfoVignola was the author of the frescoes of the staircase (the Scala Regia). This revolves around 30 columns of lava stone, through which, according to legend, the Cardinal went there on horseback to reach the floor.All by LivioAndronicotalk09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those are stairs on that pilars ? It could be sharper (paintings), maybe stacking would help, but i like composition. Maybe some -EV on highlights. --Mile (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's called scale directed otherwise I would have called the "royal steps". The paintings on the right were a little spoiled ... are always of the 1600. Regards.--LivioAndronicotalk14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The idea is nice! but the result is so-so, the pillars and the arc are occupying too much space in this composition. --Laitche (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This colors are a bit different from former version and I've never seen the real subject and also don't know it was reprocessed from the raw or just changed the color space therefore I am not sure which colors are correct... But every viewer is showing the same colors surely. I believe only you know the real colors. (p.s. The data is saying OK of course.) --Laitche (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 18:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rue du Mazel. Olargues 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rue du Mazel. Olargues 01.jpg
Oppose Sorry, but I don't agree with the choice of lighting here. Both sides of the subject are in shadow, making it too dark relative to the background. Indeed, the light coming in through the archway on the right is a nice effect, but that could be achieved as well on an weakly overcast day with the sun to the right, which would provide more balanced tones. Alternatively, having both sides illuminated by golden hour light (during the morning perhaps?) would also work. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a dark alley! this place is surrounded by high walls all around (the wall at left is just cutt off), and I'm not sure that ever the sun light it, but well...-- ChristianFerrer18:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Neutral after reconsideration... I didn't notice how tight the space was until I looked at Google Maps, and it's not like it's so dark that details are not visible. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It reminds me on seaside architecture - stony. You should capture those stairs on left. But good case. --Mile (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 19:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Sky Garden.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Sky Garden.jpg
Info The Sky Garden atop the "Walkie-Talkie". Claimed to be London's highest public park, this garden on the top of the highest skyscraper in the City of London has great views. It is freely open to the public, but you have to book three days in advance and pass through airport-style security. This model may help you understand the layout. Unfortunately, the blue-tinted glass on the open air terrace is a photographer's nightmare. All by Colin. -- Colin (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. You might want to straighten out the right; it's not slanted enough to be artistically distorted IMO, so it might as well be straight. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 20:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the ground supposed to be slanted? The third green pole from the left seems tilted left a bit. If these are actual features of the building, then I'll support. Looks nice. There is a small amount of negligible purple fringing. dllu(t,c)22:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dllu, the ground looks fine to me. A horizontal feature in the scene will only render as a horizontal line in the image when it is perpendicular to the camera. The rear wall is not perpendicular to the camera. It is more important to consider vertical lines, and only if they really are vertical and straight. Unfortunately, I have often found that "street furniture" such as poles and lamp posts are rarely as vertical as one might hope, and are often tapered. I'm not sure what the purpose of those thick green poles is, except to hold a small hazard lamp. I don't trust them as much as architectural verticals such as door frames. The image already has the lens-correction profiles in Lightroom, and a very small amount of vertical perspective correction (+3). I have tried tweaking other parameters, but just can't get the poles and the building to agree. I've removed some more purple fringing. -- Colin (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 21:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Earth, Moon and Lunar Module, AS11-44-6643.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earth, Moon and Lunar Module, AS11-44-6643.jpg
Info Earth, Moon and Lunar Module... and another planet (Mars or Venus?).
Support Nearly 46 years old picture from space. Please take that in consideration when judging the quality. -- Yann (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Temporary oppose for rules of the 5th day. @Yann: Please reply to the comment of the alternative unless you are in the hospital... --Laitche (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) I can support both. --Laitche (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Part of history. Maybe a crop of upper third, since no information there anyway, would bare sigth more on visible stuff. --Mile (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic photograph and one of the most impressive from the mission. I also do like the other earthrise photos from Apollo 11. --Ximonic (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on my talk page, I was away. I don't have any real objection about this version, but how do you know what is the right color balance? Regards, Yann (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I think the universe is black and the earth is kind of blue but in the original both are greenish, and the moon as well. --Laitche (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I have to go now so I can reply at tomorrow night, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2015 at 15:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of church in Palazzo Farnese (Caprarola).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of church in Palazzo Farnese (Caprarola).jpg
Support Very nice and unusual picture of the "manieriste" (late Renaissance) inside dome of the church of the Palazzo Farnese at Caprarola in Italy. Not to be confused with the Palazzo Farnese in Rome, now the french embassy to Italy. Not eccellentissimo technically speaking, but FP worthy nevertheless, IMO.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose Nice work but I cannot support with a crop like this. It is abrupt and somehow arbitrary. For this kind of shot I do actually expect a frame (bordre of the dome or something like that). Poco219:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Poco, white background is so disturbing, and so strong, it blind me. Any option to put dirty white at least, or something else. Or simply leave original. (maybe as atlernative) --Mile (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2015 at 21:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Koblenz - Panorama von Festung Ehrenbreitstein.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koblenz - Panorama von Festung Ehrenbreitstein.jpg
Support Very interesting and very impressive job. Very homogeneous, and I did not find any stitching issue. Excellent and useful document, with a good resolution. Maybe a bit "blue"? I'm not sure about the color balance, but I remain convinced it is a FP.--Jebulon (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)|}}[reply]
Oppose Nice photo and view, but wrong colour balance, the photo has been taken to late, the sun is in the back in the early morning only. --Schaengel (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the colour balance, but it't not wrong in general. IMO here is at most a moderate correction necessary. The small black line I'll correct soon, not a big deal. Schaengel: for sure a morning mood image is very often nice. But we have not bad light conditions here. Everythink is visible well and there are not disturbing shadows. The light is very strong so that the scenery is very distincted. So in my opinion it's not to late. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
InfoAlchemist-hp: all fixed now IMO. Colour balance should be now perfect. For reference of the colours you may compare the colours of the state flags which are placed on the "Deutsches Eck". They are all well-defined. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't have used a polarizer or other optical filters. I'll look after the blue-greyish again, but in my eyes the actual version hasn't really a problem with this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not convinced with this pano. Two aspects are distracting: there are strange artefacts on the sky, often appearing if you do relatively extreme highlight / shadow correction or if you do manual corrections (e.g. saturation) on one color channel (e.g. blue). But imho this artefacts can be easily fixed with a local denoising / unsharpening. I am also no big fan of excessive global NR, but local corrections on the sky are mandatory here. Second point: the light is far from being optimal. Most facades of the buildings are in unfortunate shadow whereas very bright sunlight comes from the side and touches the roofs and leads to near overexposed areas on it. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterized sky, oversharpened in the center. Nice subject, even better with slightly more space towards the bottom. — Julian H.✈ 21:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2015 at 21:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
CommentI moved brigthness slider in PS for -11 and its much better. Its overexposured now. Otherwise good photo. --Mile (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Mile that it appears over-exposed and thus the grass/hill is too light and the scene lacks contrast. Not sure what setting fixes it, though, and probably best to adjust the raw than any JPG. -- Colin (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 09:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Koblenz - Basilika St. Kastor Westfassade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koblenz - Basilika St. Kastor Westfassade.jpg
Why is sun light here the wrong time? Your advise on this candidate was exactly to take this image at morning sunset. So why is intense light for Koblenz Panorama okay but not for an building? I can assure that there is not falsification of the building colours. Schaengels arguments has obviously other motivations. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. very funny indeed is "wrong sun light". I guess correct sun light can only be captured by Schaengel himself.[reply]
It is in fact, I have put some vertical and horizontal lines to proof this. Please consider, that this building is really old and not everything is 100% straight. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent sharpness and an excellent image though I would like an earlier sun. Further the building seems to incline a little bit left. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An earlier sun would have the consequence of hard shadow which is often criticized other way. The little perspective correction will be corrected soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky is brighter near the roof and the trees, causing the appearance of a subtle "glow" which is distracting and especially noticeable at smaller sizes or thumbnails. This is probably the consequence of some kind of tone mapping or "details" slider in Adobe raw converter. I don't that is necessary here since the dynamic range in the scene is not that big and the photo is very sharp anyway. Dllu (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I can't detect the effect of glowing as a disturbing element. The image is not a HDR but has simply got an adjustment of the color curve. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is a thin cloud in the sky behind the left tower. It also somewhat distracted me when I saw the picture for the first time. At first glance it resembles a halo that may be caused by image processing. --Blutgretchen (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the thin cloud; I can see it around the right tower too, as well as near the trees. (I also checked the colours with GIMP to make sure my eyes aren't tricking me) Anyway, it is not a big deal at all, and it is not grounds for opposing. dllu(t,c)00:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I adjusted the brightness and contrast and used the threshold tool to more clearly show the effect: [12][13][14] As I said, it is not a big deal, just distracting to some people (like me). dllu(t,c)00:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the type of image that is just a good QI on its own, but the high resolution pushes it over the edge. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 05:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Réserve naturelle nationale du Bagnas 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Réserve naturelle nationale du Bagnas 05.jpg
Support Great light and colors as before. Probably the best composition of the lot. The wooden poles in the middle provide an interesting foreground element. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and tranquil scene with a pleasing rule of thirds composition. No significant technical flaws although it could be sharper. Dllu (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proper version I like this composition. OK for me. I'd like to see this scenery in overcast day as well :) --Laitche (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 07:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Γενέσιο του Προδρόμου (1670) 7692.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Γενέσιο του Προδρόμου (1670) 7692.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2015 at 20:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Adorazione dei Magi by Gentile da Fabriano - Predella.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Adorazione dei Magi by Gentile da Fabriano - Predella.jpg
Support It's only part of the predella. This image does not show the adorazione dei Magi, therefore please give the picture a proper title. --Tremonist (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2015 at 20:00:01 (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 Jun 2015 at 21:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Technical quality is okay. I've added an English description. It's pretty cool to see such an old vehicle still in action (although I'm pretty sure this is a museum vehicle). Dllu (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case - good QI. Reducing the midtone brightness might help with the colours, but I think it'll still not quite be at FP-level. — Julian H.✈ 08:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 13:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Meister von Seitenstetten - Maria Verkündigung.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meister von Seitenstetten - Maria Verkündigung.JPG
Question Its is original crop or close-up ? I think that should by stated for paintings, since we had some problems by now with croping. --Mile (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Uoaei1: .. my signature looks like this, it always did on commons... no idea why. But it doesn't bother me. Not here, not the way it bothered me when they didn't wanted to link my name at Singpost. That was nasty. --Hafspajen 22:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2015 at 21:16:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Passeiertal von Kuens mit Blick nach Meran 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passeiertal von Kuens mit Blick nach Meran 2015.jpg
Neutral Cables are disturbing the picturesque impression for me too. The color balance look a bit strange to me. Is this image a stitching? Several cables on the bottom left are ending unexpected "in the air". --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it is no stitching, D7100 sensor resolution. I have only retouched a distracting cable going through the the upper part of the photo with no encyclopedic information content, see here. Further retouching of cables would be encyclopedically problematic.colors are IMHO OK and well balanced. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some "ghost cable" ending suddenly (see my note). The sky is to bright and looks partially overexposed. The colour balance is still bad. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong. The cables are ending under the roof of the house and are the power supply for it. Please look again thoroughly. I still see any problems with highlights or colors, sorry. Other reviewers like the colors thus imho a matter of personal taste - my taste but not your's useless to mention it twice in your comments. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2015 at 13:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balaenoptera physalus skeleton - Salinas del Carmen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaenoptera physalus skeleton - Salinas del Carmen.jpg
Regretful oppose Image definitely has wow. And I agree about the shadows. But the supports are unsharp and have CA in many spots. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review it may just have been a byproduct of looking at this image with my reading glasses on. However, the unsharpness remains and the whole thing still looks a little overprocessed to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 12:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Magiczna kraina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Magiczna kraina.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 12:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of the courtyard of the Great Mosque of Kairouan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of the courtyard of the Great Mosque of Kairouan.jpg
Oppose Poor processing or editing with clearly visible areas of the sky with diferente exposure. Furthermore perspective problems and improvable composition (e.g. I'd have included more of the column no the left). Poco215:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above comments on the sky. --KTC (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 13:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dolina Baryczy 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dolina Baryczy 1.jpg
Support yes, there are some dust spots, but you really have to looks for them to see them. Love the triangular but rounded shape of the group of trees. --El Grafo (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2015 at 16:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 09:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral Interior Dome 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Paul's Cathedral Interior Dome 3, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
CommentCupola (brown circle) has very HDR looking, low contrast, washed colors, you could put some manualy into that part. --Mile (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Support Better. --Mile (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't very contrasty in real life, but give me some time and I'll reprocess it for a bit more punch. I think it could be improved a bit. Diliff (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Throughout all those church interiors, we've been waiting excitedly for one of the really major ones. This did not disappoint. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel. It's funny though, I've been sitting on this dome photo for over a year, I've never felt it was one of my stronger candidates to be honest! Diliff (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 10:08:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support It is nice to see a photograph of a cultural buiding other than the more common for us westerners traditional christian architecture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: sorry, but wrong license, only: GFDL 1.2 only - Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 11:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:King's College London Chapel 2, London - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's College London Chapel 2, London - Diliff.jpg
Support and replace. For the sake of disclosure, I should mention that a very similar photo is already a FP. However, I think this version is a slight improvement in colour rendition (particularly the stained glass windows) but also in detail and overall quality. I guess the old version should be delisted if this one is promoted. Diliff (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 12:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gibão de couro.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gibão de couro.jpg
Support. @PetarM: That means JPEG overcompression more often than not, but in this picture I can't find any issues. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC
Oppose How this have this amount of support????? Do you open this image???? Do not even have the eye on focus... -- RTA14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 08:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Globen September 2014 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Globen September 2014 01.jpg
Info High resolution aerial view of Stockholm Globe Arena. The arena is currently the largest hemispherical building in the world. Ice Hockey World Championships have been played here 1989, 1995, 2012 and 2013 and the 2003 European Basketball Championship. The image was taken from a helicopter, with the doors removed for best results. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like how the sun gave this picture some kind of fog effect. It frequently happens when you take a picture during a sunny day. As a result, colors looks quite blank. I don't see it as FP. Still, Lithuanians loves the Globen arena! -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the contrast knob was turned up a little, but shadows are still lighter than I'd prefer (which the blacks slider would do a much better job at suppressing). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the black slider, but new version uploaded with even more black. I dont think I can adjust it more, without getting a over-processed and dark image. The air is not perfectly clear, it affects the quality of the raw file.--ArildV (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is not attractive but it's an amazing shot (very detailed) from the helicopter with no doors, FP for me. --Laitche (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, which helps us better understand how this project fits into an existing neighborhood. Plus the large sphere makes a nice formal contrast with the surrounding rectilinear buildings. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 10:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Marco Venezia portale nord con Nativitá.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Marco Venezia portale nord con Nativitá.jpg
Weak Oppose. Sharpness is acceptable at 50% and it is a good and clean representation of the subject. In other words, it's a good QI, but I'm not wowed. — Julian H.✈ 12:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject seems to be represented well, including the different kinds of stones the colours of which appear very natural. --Tremonist (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a different take and without perspective correction Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder
Comment Object "leaning backward" without perspective correction, therefore I tend to favour the corrected version (above). --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2015 at 15:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Waterbeheersing onderaan de dijk. Locatie, Noarderleech.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waterbeheersing onderaan de dijk. Locatie, Noarderleech.jpg
Oppose Sorry, I don't get the composition here (in other words, exactly the opposite of what Claus said). Given that it's quite dark and without a strong subject, I would look for a great composition and real simplicity. I personally don't see those things. — Julian H.✈ 09:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note: the above is blue in the picture (in the distance) the Wadden Sea with the account honor of the island of Ameland.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was the problem ; is it sea, or is it sky ? Should be wider, or it shouldt be at all. Its very annoying to guess what is it, feels like 5th element there. --Mile (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, almost abstract combination of forms. White balance looks a little off to me, but maybe that's because I wasn't there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2015 at 06:33:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Australian Open - Guillaume Rufin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Australian Open - Guillaume Rufin.jpg
Support I want to nominate this one, but there is some posterizing, very good shot. Yours is better in quality, a bit to high compo, he could wait a ball to come lower. But still top photo. --Mile (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a very strange serve, he's almost kneeling down on the court, his knees are so low! The light is also very harsh and it could be a bit brighter, overall... But a good capture. Agree with Mile, it's a shame the ball wasn't a bit lower so that it could be cropped a bit. Diliff (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy and grainy in the background, but this is totally forgivable since it's a sports shot requiring a very short exposure and a wide aperture. And here the photographer got what he wanted: a solid image of a great pose from the server, the other player waiting to return, and what would otherwise be a total waste of space at the top crowned by the ball. A perfect example of exceptions to !rules. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also wish the ball was lower, but I think the harsh light works here; contrast of blue and yellow colours adds to the composition. --Kadellar (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture of the tension of the game (and the serve-to-come). The ball is high up, but that makes it even more interesting from the perspective of a sports spectator. --Pugilist (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2015 at 18:32:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Browar w Radkowie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Browar w Radkowie.jpg
Comment Nice combo of nature and antinature. The light is very hard, could you put temperature slider for some 50-150° up if you have RAW. Some warmer tones would be appreciated. --Mile (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2015 at 18:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Augustów - Jezioro Białe (by Pudelek).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Augustów - Jezioro Białe (by Pudelek).jpg
Um? you mean forgot the description? No I mean that thing which looks like a hatch on the water? What is that one? --Laitche (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2015 at 19:45:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Colmano, Schwangau, Alemania, 2015-02-15, DD 15.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Colmano, Schwangau, Alemania, 2015-02-15, DD 15.JPG
Info Winter landscape of St Coloman church (de), located in Schwangau, Bavaria, southern Germany. St Coloman church is of baroque style and was constructed, the way it is today, in the 17th century in honor to Saint Coloman, replacing a chapel of the 15th century. The irish pilgrim is said to have taken a break at this spot in his pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1012. Poco219:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a problem of the processing?. I think that it can be like this for real. I am not sure what you expect me to do. Poco221:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
regretful Oppose as much as I want to support a picture of this marvellous church, I'm afraid I can't do so in this case. The lighting simply doesn't work for me here, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tend not to like taking winter pics on days like this either, but they inevitably occur. And when you don't have a lot of really bright colors to work with, something like this may actually work better when the sky is "a hazy shade of winter" Kudos to Paco for taking the risk here and avoiding the pitfalls. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, Laitche. It was a pretty big dust "snake" that I had accompanied me during a whole photo session :). I have uploaded a new version. Poco220:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "snake" was removed, Umm that exactly the same footprints (where the "snake" was) also should be removed... --Laitche (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC) I think that nobody notice unless you say it. --Laitche (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2015 at 16:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lüübnitsa.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lüübnitsa.JPG
Comment I agree with Laitche, more panoramic aspect ratio would be much more better for this kind of stuff. --Mile (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. Tilted cw.[reply]
Comment For one side there was this and for the other side the open water. If there would had been more reeds continuing then panoramic img would had been a rather good idea. But in this situation I considered this the best possible choice. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2015 at 15:23:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The brown-eared bulbul after playing with water.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The brown-eared bulbul after playing with water.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2015 at 11:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Negotiations about Iranian Nuclear Program - the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Other Officials of the P5+1 and Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Iran and EU in Lausanne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Negotiations about Iranian Nuclear Program - the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Other Officials of the P5+1 and Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Iran and EU in Lausanne.jpg
Oppose color noise visible even at small sizes (e.g. 1280×852), lamps on top kill the composition. Photographically speaking, this is just another shot of politicians posing for the cameras. Educational value may be there, but is not sufficient to make me go "Wow!". Might be worth a try to nominate it at en:WP:FPC, though. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2015 at 11:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Staircase of Palace Altemps.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Staircase of Palace Altemps.jpg
InfoPalazzo Altemps, formerly Palazzo Riario, is a historic building in Rome; It is located not far from Piazza Navona, Piazza Sant'Apollinare (Bridge). Currently it hosts one of the four seats of the National Roman Museum, just one of the palace Altemps. In 2013 the museum circuit of the Roman National Museum was the twenty most visited site Italian state. All by LivioAndronicotalk11:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. While shooting a staircase like this has become a bit of a cliché, this one is not only technically well done: There are a lot of interesting patterns and optical illusions going on. The rectangles painted on the ceiling nicely add to the abstractness of the scene. --El Grafo (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2015 at 19:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:15-06-12-Himmelsstürmer-Kassel-N3S 7924.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-06-12-Himmelsstürmer-Kassel-N3S 7924.jpg
Question I saw some of them in Germany, and was sure they are not so old. So i have question, arent they protected as artwork (copyrigthed by sculpturer) ? --Mile (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2015 at 20:03:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mustoja.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mustoja.jpg
Neutral Peaceful and nice capture. The reflexion is incredibly loyal to the reality (I almost had the impression that it is sharper), so that is the hightlight for me here. On the other side the compostion is not convincing me, I'd have probably tried to switch to portrait format and capture as much as possible of the reflexion, maybe even a portrait panorama. Poco215:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2015 at 13:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spechtensee gegen Nordosten 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spechtensee gegen Nordosten 01.JPG
Info@Pofka: New version uploaded, where I have brightened the dark parts on the left a little - but not too much to preserve these early morning lighting conditions. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't blame you at all for taking this picture. And with less clouds in the sky it might have worked. Unfortunately, the clouds create that large blown area at right which just calls that much more attention to the dark spots on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with KoH that the sharpness is not good, but the main problem I see here is the lighting, composition is good, but not striking. Poco217:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 02:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cochlearius chochlearius chick.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cochlearius chochlearius chick.jpg
Well, your prerrogative to oppose, but nature shots are a bit different than tourist attaction pictures that we see often around here. I challenge you to find more intimate pictures of boat billed heron chicks, and you can start here #REDIRECT[[15]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In some nature shots one has to maintain a distance that minimizes the stress that humans cause on wildlife. Chick pictures are extremely stressful on the mothers and I choose close enough for good enough and fast enough in order to dissapear from their life and still come out with something that is illustrative of their environment. Once one gets this close, for spotting the nests in thick mangroves is much more challenging than taking the picture itself, one could really come inches away from the nests and really be on top and take that great shot up close, but paradoxically, one would miss out of the "disturbing" elements that give an idea of how the birds hide their nests, not differentiating the wild picture from the zoo picture. In any case, I choose the least intrusive shot. Closer is not necessarily better. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don´t want to lecture but.... Photography Evaluation depends on many criteria, such as technical aspects, content, relevance, ethics, etc. One does not evaluate all photographs the same way. For example, you do not apply still photography criteria to sports or nature photography. There may be some overlaping criteria, such as exposure, composition, etc., but their uniqueness within a certain class of photography demands variable criteria. In this particular case, as far as the "distracting elements," they need to be addressed in order to properly determine the overall quality of the photograph. Mangroves have very thick foilage at the top and at the edges and visibility in these parts is next to nothing, depending on where you are with respect to the edge of the mangrove, visibility is next to nothing. In this image, for example, we can get a little bit of scale and an idea of visibility at the outer side of the mangrove #REDIRECT[[16]] you cannot see through on the left part of the image, and that particular outcropping of vegetation could not have been more than a yard and a hal thick. Once you get inside the canopy, visibility improves a a little, but still there is visual caos because of reflections and vegetation. See here #REDIRECT[[17]]. The thickest parts are on the canopy or the edges, and because of the cover they offer, that is where birds nest. In this picture #REDIRECT[[18]] we can appreciate that the nest is well hidden behind leaves and branches, and although we can see the bird, the nest is hidden from view. What I do when I spot a nest, is to look for view tunnels in the brush from where I can look into the nest without cutting a single branch, so obstructing branches are inevitable, like here, for example #REDIRECT[[19]]. The view tunnels are very narrow. I could actually reach the nest and touch the chicks if I wanted, but that would be a very disturbing intrusion, for the birds stress out a lot with human presence, so I maintain my distance. So the merit of this photograph resides not only on the technical quality such as exposure, composition and focus, but on the fact that is of a wildlife subject, in its undisturbed environment. It is not only the picture of a chick, but also of its environment. They go together. From the ethical point of view, the disturbing is also a consideration. Even getting to the distance from where I shoot can be questionable. Some well respected bird watching organizations for example, do not publish photographs of nests or chicks because of this unwelcome intrusion. I deal with that intrusion by maintaining a distance and not touching the surrounding vegetation, and getting out of there as soon as possible. In short, in mangroves, imposible to have clear views, however, the mangrove is part of the show... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject has very big wow of course, but at prewiew composition have not and the blurred leave in foreground right is disturbing. At full resolution the light on the bird is not the best. Valuable image, wow subject but no wow result despite the difficulty of making this kind of nature picture. -- ChristianFerrer19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the little bird, of course, but the picture has too many blurred areas. I'm not talking about the right part that doesn't disturb me so much, but more about the lower part of the foreground. The bird itself is lovely. --Tremonist (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2015 at 22:30:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Detail of mangrove roots.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Detail of mangrove roots.jpg
Oppose Over-processed and have this flash feeling, seems that the photo was not sharp enough, and them he increases "clarity" to "solve" (look the background). This is a still water, shutter speed should be slower to have a mesmerizing reflection, not this messy and distracting water, or be polarized allowing us to see the "riverbed". This stick at the left is also a distraction from the main subject. And the lack of a good description in FPC... come on! FP should be a planned photo, not a random one... -- RTA12:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2015 at 23:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stanford Oval May 2011 panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stanford Oval May 2011 panorama.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 09:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Casco viejo de Dubrovnik, Croacia, 2014-04-14, DD 04.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casco viejo de Dubrovnik, Croacia, 2014-04-14, DD 04.JPG
Info Early morning view of the Old Town of Dubrovnik and its city walls, an UNESCO Heritage Site since 1979. The former Republic of Ragusa was a maritime republic centered on the city of Dubrovnik (Ragusa in Italian and Latin) in Dalmatia (today in southernmost modern Croatia), that existed from 1358 (end of the sovereignty of Venice) to 1808 (conquered by Napoleon's French Empire). It reached its commercial peak in the 15th and the 16th centuries, under the protection of the Ottoman Empire. It had a population of about 30,000 people, of whom 5,000 lived within the city walls. Poco209:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A well-done panoramic, although I cna't shake the feeling that either more or less could have been better, especially since we've already featured this one by Paco as well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 11:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Château de Rochefort-en-Terre (Vierge - détail).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Château de Rochefort-en-Terre (Vierge - détail).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 11:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:King's College London Chapel 3, London - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's College London Chapel 3, London - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 09:44:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 59.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museo Príncipe Felipe, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 59.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 06:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Siegestor Munich at Dusk 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Siegestor Munich at Dusk 2.JPG
Oppose I cannot say why but the lions on the top are more distorted here than in the candidate above. I'd support this version if that issue is fixed Poco216:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 10:01:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Takhtejamshid111.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Takhtejamshid111.JPG
Oppose I agree with Kadellar, I think the main limitation here is the camera quality. I'd have also tried to get rid of the column in the back photographing the subject from a different angle Poco215:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2015 at 08:52:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset at Noronhas' beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset at Noronhas' beach.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The nominating guidelines say "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Comment I was just about to contest the fpx and support out of principle. While the guideliness do state as Colin says, guidelines are not rules, and in any case, the same logic could be applied to just about any recurring theme here, church interiors for example. I think that the fpx should be applied to violations of rules or other issues that prevent the image use. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tomascastelazo, in general, I'm inclined to agree about FPX. But I was concerned that this is the second low-resolution sunset photo on the FPC page and a trend may be starting to just nominate any pretty sunset. They'll always garner a handful of supports, as so many people don't actually look at the category to see that if this is featurable then so are about 10,000 other photos. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin I understand the idea, but junk is nominated all the time and the system of support/oppose is the mechanism to give images a pass anyway, and regarless of merit! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2015 at 21:56:17 (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 Jun 2015 at 18:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amiens Cathedral Ambulatory, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amiens Cathedral Ambulatory, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg
Oppose I know that there is a lot of time and talent in creating some of these photographs, but the distortion of the arches is unacceptable. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect nothing less than an oppose from you by now. I suppose I should take it as a badge of honour or something. Diliff (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Too much to like to let the distortion bother me that much. What's with the U.S. and Australian flags in the back, BTW? Does this have something to do with the wars? Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the reasons for the flags but I'm guessing it's First World War related. Possibly the Battle of Amiens as there was Australian, British and American involvement. But why not a Canadian flag too, since they had four times as many divisions participating as the U.S. did. perhaps the Canadian flag is on the obscured side? Who knows... I'm just guessing. Diliff (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Daniel Case, one can see a british flag too. Please see here:Battle of Amiens (1918). In all the cathedrals of northern France, one can find a memorial plate to the deaths of british, and british empire or dominions troops, always the same. @ Diliff, don't worry about Tomas' opposes, I find here some silver lining: your picture will stay here longer, and admirated by more visitors, as not affected by the 10 days rule ! Yes, the distortion is disturbing a little, but the stained glass windows are axcellent, and the peaceful light really good. The "deformed" pillars are not very visible.--Jebulon (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: It would be nice for you to keep your advise to David as to how to deal with my vote in his nomination, or at least do it privately if you are concerned about his emotional well being. Funny thing that you patronize him (some people call it ass kissing) but you did not afford me the courtesy of answering my polite questions on your oppose in one of my nominations. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need of an answer, of course. A precision: I did not comment any vote here. I just noticed the factual consequences of a vote.--Jebulon (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2015 at 18:20:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wat Chedi Luang Assembly Hall, Chiang Mai, Thailand - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wat Chedi Luang Assembly Hall, Chiang Mai, Thailand - Diliff.jpg
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Although this photo of Wat Chedi Luang in Chiang Mai, Thailand is not one of my high resolution stitched interiors taken on a tripod (I didn't have the opportunity to use a tripod and I think it would probably be a bit disrespectful during a ceremony anyway), I think it has quite a lot of charm and is a well-composed and intimate portrait of a Theravada Buddhist ceremony. It was taken hand-held in very poor lighting (1/15th of a second at f/3.5 and ISO 2000). This is not an excuse, just an explanation, and I hope you can appreciate the compositional aspects of it if not the technical superiority, but please judge it as you want. :-) -- Diliff (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It can be resolved as handheld made. Hard task, maybe better described if you say i was more than one stop bellow limit (according to 1/f rule), f ans ISO itself are irrelevant. Not long ago, i put image with 2.5 stops bellow limit, which was very good, nobody show up, perhaps nobody did understand hardness to achieve it. All i get was minus and advice "Why dont you use tripod... you could ask for permission". I dont expect all could understand, but obviously even those who get the situation didnt say any word. --Mile (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Camera settings are not irrelevant here, they show that there was little I could do to adjust the settings for a better image because I was at the limit for aperture, shutter speed and ISO. I know it's not always possible to ask permission to use a tripod, and I wouldn't insist you must use one. I don't know that a tripod would be better in any case. These people were chanting, they were not completely still. A tripod would keep the building sharp, but it would completely fail to keep the monks sharp, only a fast shutter speed would do that, but a fast shutter speed was simply impossible in this room. Diliff (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the first time I'm opposing your picture, but this one undoubtedly has problems. These blurred triangles at the top are just too distracting. Cropping them would result in losing of a part of the altar, so I guess fixing this picture issues are impossible. -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just don't think the flags at the top are such an issue though. They are part of the building interior, yes they are out of focus but they are not so important that they must be sharp. I agree with you that cropping it is not the answer. I could use Photoshop to remove them perhaps, but I'm not sure it's needed. I'll have a think about it. Diliff (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would look much better without them. If that is possible - try to remove them with photoshop. But is that really possible? Some of these flags are way too long and covers some parts of the altar fragments... -- Pofka (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's no need to give the top foreground so much weight; most probably, the perspective would just have been impossible from a different position. What the picture mainly shows, the altar with the monks in front, is really impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And not the first time I've opposed one of David's images, although I think this is the first time I've done so where you nominated it yourself. The flags on top might not be a problem if they were the only issue. But frankly the monks, the putative subject of the image, are kind of dark and static, allowing the banners to distract from them. Perhaps if the image had been cropped to them ... but then you would have had to lose a lot of the backdrop. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this image could be achieved any other way to be honest. I could possibly have gotten a little bit closer to them which would have given me a view that avoided the flags completely, but the aperture was already very wide, I couldn't increase the exposure without the monks becoming motion blurred. I don't think the monks feel static though, they are very much 'alive'. Dark perhaps, but that's the point. It's a dark and intimate environment. There are a few beams of light reaching them from the outside but they are largely unlit. The two candles are bright enough to light the faces of the monks near them which gives you an idea of the luminosity of the room. I suppose I have a difference understanding of the scene, having been there. They were chanting at the time. I took a large number of photos of this scene because it was at the very edge of hand-holdability and most of the frames were a bit blurred, either from hand-shake or because the monks had moved slightly. The fact that I was able to capture everything reasonably sharply is a minor miracle in itself IMO. It just doesn't feel static at all to me. But I respect your oppose, I certainly wouldn't say you support all my images blindly either and I understand that some subjects are just inherently difficult to capture to FP level. Diliff (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the first Laitche. :-) I've had many fail before. Sometimes I nominate images that I think are more challenging (like this one) simply because I get a bit bored of nominating churches. And I think others get bored too. But I still think this one is better than some church interiors that have passed. Diliff (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are forgetting that how you are talented! I think this work is not enough for your talent and the result is not all. I believe that you can still enjoy for every thing (yes, I got a bit bored of churches too...), church interiors are only the part of you :) --Laitche (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the comments about the top crop. Furthermore, it is also a pity that the monks, are mostly in shadow resulting in an unbalanced picture to me. Poco216:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2015 at 16:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ema no Pantanal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ema no Pantanal.jpg
Strong oppose I think that every time that ArionEstar do a s* not helpful nomination like that, he should be not allowed to do again for weeks, because this is quite often, and he was already warned about it... -- RTA05:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Poor quality. - Laitche (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2015 at 18:32:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Late evening shot of a wind tower in Souq Waqif, a souq in the Mushayrib district of Doha, capital of Qatar. Transliterated to "the standing market," Souq Waqif, is a former livestock market from end of 19th century / beginning of the 20th century, and has become today a popular place with all kind of shops, restaurants and Shisha lounges. Poco218:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Daniel (perharps fixable) but I also struggling to find wow here. Do you have a blue hour shot?--ArildV (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I have uploaded a new version to improve the noise issue, but otherwise there is no much room for improvement. I don't have a shot during the blue hour. Poco218:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2015 at 14:00:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Saturn in Fori Imperiali at Night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Saturn in Fori Imperiali at Night.jpg
I added some notes plus both sides of distant pillar on the left and closed pillar on the left, left sides of the pillars are purple and the right sides are green, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 20:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Detail, Kollhoff Tower and BahnTower, Potzdamer Platz, Berlin, Germany-3380.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Detail, Kollhoff Tower and BahnTower, Potzdamer Platz, Berlin, Germany-3380.jpg
Comment Thanks for your review, Laitche. After the nomination I received an email from a fellow wikimedian poiting out some minor pincushion and vertical distortion effects. A few minutes after your support I uploaded a new slightly corrected version, which also have a very slightly different crop. You may want to check that you are still OK with the new version as it was another version you have voted on. Thanks! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good original composition and contrast between brick and glass construction. Makes a nice change from central entire-building photos of architecture. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 16:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support A pretty good use of UWA lens turning an ordinary subject into something great. Good timing as well for the lighting. - Benh (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2015 at 20:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern great egret 2015-06-17.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern great egret 2015-06-17.jpg
@Mile：Thanks for the suggestion I've executed -EV on highlights white and uploaded new version, I tried some crop but I prefer this. --Laitche (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In any case, nothing is unbalanced with the current version. It's very well done. I am always impressed when I see this species by the contrast between the terrible and ruthless eyes of this predator about to pounce on its prey, with white and silky feathers. -- ChristianFerrer18:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 16:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NymphaeaOdorata2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NymphaeaOdorata2015.jpg
Support -- This image offers a superb technical view of the species, and it readily illustrates the unopened blossom, the plant's leaves, and the flower's petals, sepals, and stamens.SanctuaryX (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a pleasant picture to look at and a reasonably good composition. However, the petals are a bit overexposed and I think the crop is too tight below. Sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Slaunger, it is a good capture of a flower and technically not bad for a camera phone. Compositionally, both bud and open flower face out of the photo, which is a little awkward. Most flowers make pretty photos but this isn't exceptional enough for FP imo. Perhaps VP or QI. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2015 at 18:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antiguo Mercado de la Victoria, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antiguo Mercado de la Victoria, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 01.JPG
Oppose Random crop. Circular pattern croped to rectangle. They do that, but then they use upper or bottom part, not centre. It could be more exposured. --Mile (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 08:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Biebrza in Wroceń.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Biebrza in Wroceń.JPG
Neutral I can see what you were trying to do, but unfortunately the structures in front distract from it. However, I'm not real comfortable opposing since I don't know the area and can't say that you really had anywhere else to attempt this from. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 12:10:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mroźny poranek.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mroźny poranek.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2015 at 14:29:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schwäbisch Hall - Rathaus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schwäbisch Hall - Rathaus.jpg
Just to mention, sky was such because of gray clouds. With some strong ligths behind it become such. But WB is not missed. --Mile (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It isn't your fault, but the building lighting is not really helping much here (too poor and with flaws) Poco216:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2015 at 18:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Jaskinia Niedźwiedzia w Kletnie, szata naciekowa 26.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Jaskinia Niedźwiedzia w Kletnie, szata naciekowa 26.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 14:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dobbertiner See 2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dobbertiner See 2008.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 18:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio machaon larva.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papilio machaon larva.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 14:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Strandkörbe in Juliusruh bei Sonnenaufgang.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strandkörbe in Juliusruh bei Sonnenaufgang.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2015 at 19:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I really like some colors in it, but I think it should be better kept as QP because of: cables, angle, quality isn't very impressive (f.e. statue on top details are barely visible when zoomed-in).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pofka (talk • contribs) --LivioAndronicotalk10:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2015 at 13:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ágnes Szávay at the 2009 French Open 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ágnes Szávay at the 2009 French Open 1.jpg
Comment The ball is sharp on the picture below because it is in its maximum altitude, which is too far from the player. A blurry ball shows us movement, and that's sport, it is interesting and useful. I Oppose because of jpeg artifacts. It is slightly tilted. --Kadellar (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 16:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemenweide aan rand van boomwal. Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemenweide aan rand van boomwal. Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 11:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Unfortunately the box "Delete CAs" is activated, and when I delete the fringe with lightroom, that creates a halo (contour) around the trees. I'm afraid to not be able to do more than I already did. Christian
Unfortunately the box "Delete CAs" is activated, and when I delete the fringe with lightroom, that creates a halo (contour) around the trees. I'm afraid to not be able to do more than I already did. Christian
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2015 at 07:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stortjärnen June 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stortjärnen June 2015.jpg
Thank you for review. I strongly disagree, foreground is already lighted up. More correction will create a more washed-out and less dynamic images in my opinion. No details is lost, except for small shadows under the bushes.--ArildV (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, that more correction on this would be fairly bad idea. It's just that if there would had been something next to you, that would had reflected sunlight back to what is one the frontal part of the image (or added more light, like car headlights), then that might had resulted in a rather interesting image. But as there wasn't something like this, then this image seems too dark for me and therefor has no wow (hut is just too dark to draw attention and it ruins the sense of composition as the image doesn't feel balanced). I just don't see any way to improve it. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This picture definitely has some kind of horror emotion. Though, I think it is too dark for a FP. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 02:13:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus acutus albino.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus acutus albino.jpg
Support Well, the name should not be the criteria to judge the picture. I think that it could be a bit brigther but still this one deserves the star to me for the good quality. Poco215:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image seems to be getting darker towards the edges, especially on the left side. Is that vignette? Seems like it could be corrected. — Julian H.✈ 07:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2015 at 14:45:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leonardo da Vinci - presumed self-portrait - lossless.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leonardo da Vinci - presumed self-portrait - lossless.png
I find one of the most impressive things about the image is the way you can really see his pencil-work, changing the contrast could potentially obscure some of the shading. This may not be an ideal image for low-resolution viewing, which is why I haven't nominated it on Wikipedia. CFCF (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is lossless, I would have uploaded a tiff aswell, but that has no compression at all which would give a filesize over 200mb. Jpg is a lossy format, and with an image of this resolution even with as little jpeg-style compression as possible you can see the difference very clearly. CFCF (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2015 at 20:39:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NoonDayRestWomanAlfredTPalmer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NoonDayRestWomanAlfredTPalmer.jpg
Neutral A beautiful lady, good picture of a style, propaganda, glamour, etc., but the lighting is off. It is a broad face lighting and it should have been a short face lighting, more in tune with the practices of the day. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no one way portrais should be like. There are styles and within styles there is the photographer´s execution within that style. George Hurrell was the master of this style. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2015 at 19:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Buckingham, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 192.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Buckingham, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 192.JPG
You mean putting the welsh guard in front of the gate? I don't think he would have listened to me if I had asked him to do so. :) Poco209:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 05:44:18 (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 Jun 2015 at 21:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zhou Fang. Court Ladies Playing Double-sixes. Freer. Detail.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zhou Fang. Court Ladies Playing Double-sixes. Freer. Detail.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2015 at 20:50:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Zgromadzenie Sióstr św. Elżbiety w Nysie 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Zgromadzenie Sióstr św. Elżbiety w Nysie 05.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2015 at 13:20:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jean-Léon Gérôme - Head of a Woman.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jean-Léon Gérôme - Head of a Woman.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2015 at 23:11:26 (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 Jun 2015 at 11:41:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galloway kvæg i Kasted Mose.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galloway kvæg i Kasted Mose.jpg
Support as per Laitche, the small DoF is here a deliberate choice witch explain the not sharp areas mentioned by Tremonist, here the subject is well in focus and even highlighted by this choice IMO. Resolution, light, compo... all works for me. -- ChristianFerrer08:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2015 at 12:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorâmica do Parque da Cidade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorâmica do Parque da Cidade.jpg
Oppose Strong compression artifacts throughout the image, which is a bigger problem becasue the resolution isn't very impressive. — Julian H.✈ 07:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Info all by -- Halavar (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Halavar (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment The perspective was done and checked in the QI and FP on Polish Wikipedia. --Halavar (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Just a QI for me, sorry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Question What had been better light for you here, King of Hearts? The creek and mountain are in sunlight, the trees at the left are partly in shadow which is imho a good contrast to the bright and snowy mountain. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done @Jkadavoor: @Vengolis: I uploaded a sharpened version, feel free to revert if it's not good. -- Christian Ferrer 07:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
--Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Biplab Anand (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
_-_interior.jpg)
But at least I got this little gem out of it. 
Request Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Keep This one has better colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
I withdraw my nomination Audience had word. --Mile (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
._Locatie,_Hortus_(Haren,_Groningen)_10.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Schiessent%C3%BCmpel_--_2015_--_6033.jpg)
_-_Wroc%C5%82aw_(Breslau).JPG)
_-_Dominsel.JPG)
.jpg)
Underexposed
,_2015-05-21.jpg)
.jpg)
Fixed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
Awesome! This put it in a frame and hang it in the office --LivioAndronico talk 20:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
_-_Interior.jpg)
_-_Interior_Diliff_edit.jpg)
,_Hohllay_--_2015_--_6097-101.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
--LivioAndronico talk 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)_-_edit.png)
Abstain as editor. --Laitche (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
_7692.jpg)
--LivioAndronico talk 09:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
_-_crop.jpg)
😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
OK 3-th version is good IMO -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Info New version uploaded. --Laitche (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Hortus_(Haren,_Groningen)_10.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Schiessentümpel_--_2015_--_6033.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Wrocław_(Breslau).JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dominsel.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_2015-05-21.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Hohllay_--_2015_--_6097-101.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_7692.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Schiessentümpel_--_2015_--_6020.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_interior.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Hortus_(Haren,_Groningen)_10.JPG){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Hortus_(Haren,_Groningen)_10.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Hortus_(Haren,_Groningen)_10.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[2]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-WIPw7Ooftzk/VW7TNVWkZpI/AAAAAAAABqs/5nDhG7XfU98/w1556-h875-no/Webysther_20150509172554_-_Esta%25C3%25A7%25C3%25A3o_da_Luz.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.estacaodaluz.org.br/sites/default/files/estacao-da-luz-em-sao-paulo-noite.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/07/f3/b6/a0/estacao-da-luz.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.google.com.br/imgres?imgurl=http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/05/21/e0/6f/estacao-da-luz.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tripadvisor.com.br/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g303631-d2350017-i86106223-Luz_Railway_Station-Sao_Paulo_State_of_Sao_Paulo.html&h=351&w=550&tbnid=ZywJVD_Z7fK9UM:&zoom=1&docid=0LW3xvTLMFai7M&ei=-thuVdPeJYiZgwSCgYHwCA&tbm=isch&ved=0CBwQMygAMAA&biw=952&bih=942){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.google.com.br/imgres?imgurl=http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/05/21/e0/6d/estacao-da-luz.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g303631-d2350017-i86106223-Luz_Railway_Station-Sao_Paulo_State_of_Sao_Paulo.html&h=383&w=550&tbnid=g9FOZnJKTATy-M:&zoom=1&docid=3--j1NDWN-WaCM&itg=1&ei=-thuVdPeJYiZgwSCgYHwCA&tbm=isch&ved=0CCMQMygHMAc&biw=952&bih=942){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Schiessent%C3%BCmpel_--_2015_--_6033.jpg){kind=link}
,_Schiessent%C3%BCmpel_--_2015_--_6033.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Schiessent%C3%BCmpel_--_2015_--_6033.jpg){kind=link}
,_Schiessentümpel_--_2015_--_6033.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Schiessentümpel_--_2015_--_6033.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Wroc%C5%82aw_(Breslau).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Wroc%C5%82aw_(Breslau).JPG){kind=link}
_-_Wrocław_(Breslau).JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Wrocław_(Breslau).JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_The_Alien.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dominsel.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dominsel.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Dominsel.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dominsel.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_2015-05-21.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_2015-05-21.jpg){kind=link}
,_2015-05-21.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_2015-05-21.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunbathing_crocs.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Interior.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
,_Hohllay_--_2015_--_6097-101.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Hohllay_--_2015_--_6097-101.jpg){kind=link}
,_Hohllay_--_2015_--_6097-101.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Hohllay_--_2015_--_6097-101.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[12]](http://i.imgur.com/RsxjXHG.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://i.imgur.com/XTyApPz.png){kind=link}
![[14]](http://i.imgur.com/lIHtzkW.png){kind=link}
_7692.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_7692.jpg){kind=link}
_7692.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_7692.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mangrove_in_La_Manzanilla.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reflexions_of_a_mangrove.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cochlearius_cochlearius_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cochlearius_cochlearius_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Schiessent%C3%BCmpel_--_2015_--_6020.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Schiessent%C3%BCmpel_--_2015_--_6020.jpg){kind=link}
,_Schiessent%C3%BCmpel_--_2015_--_6020.jpg)
,_Schiessentümpel_--_2015_--_6020.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
--LivioAndronico talk 10:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC),_Schiessentümpel_--_2015_--_6020.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
