Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 11:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:28-090504-black-headed-bunting-at-first-layby.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:28-090504-black-headed-bunting-at-first-layby.jpg
Neutral good quality, background noise is negligible. DOF is a bit on the low side and the actual resolution on the bird could be higher. --Dschwen (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 01:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File: Lower Manhatten from ESB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File: Lower Manhatten from ESB.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It's very small, reading the guidelines before submitting might have helped. --MAURILBERT(discuter)03:42, 30 May 2010 (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 8 Jun 2010 at 20:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:bluebeardtongue.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:bluebeardtongue.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: most part of the subject it is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (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 31 May 2010 at 20:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Molybdenum crystaline fragment and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Molybdenum crystaline fragment and 1cm3 cube.jpg
Question Are we looking at the same image? I see no more "posterization" (by which I assume you mean color banding) than is pretty much inevitable in an 8-bits-per-channel image, and only a few direct reflections of the lights (about 0.1% of all pixels) exceed the dynamic range. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I mean. In this case I very much doubt it is inevitable as the tone difference between adjacent bands is quite large. I wonder if the original picture shows the same effect. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvesgaspar: "greys are posterized": yes, it is a conversion effect: from 16bit TIFF (my RAW format) to 8bit JPG. Only the background is additional "Gaussian blur" corrected. The background looks allways stained if I use focus stacking. I hope the info is helpfull for you. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still don't understand. The picture has only 5 tones of grey which have the approximate values: 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250. How can that be that a 8 bit image is not capable of a much better tone resolution? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean now, but you're surely exaggerating the situation. The histogram of the crystal itself is indeed multipeaked, with 5 major peaks at approximately 20, 95, 152, 203 and 248 and smaller ones around 62, 111 and 238 (and at 255 due to clipping). However, many of these peaks are quite broad and have substantial overlap; I assume they simply correspond to different parts of the surrounding scenery reflected by the crystal. (Incidentally, the histogram of the cube is even more clearly peaked, with four peaks around 26, 63, 96 and 126; the lowest mainly corresponds to the top face, the second to the darked part of the front face, the third combines the lighter part of the front face and the darker part of the side face, and the last comes from the lighter part of the side face.) There's nothing artificial about this, it's just a natural consequence of specular reflection combined with a setting with sharp color differences. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvesgaspar: if you are interested then I can linked you the 11 each original images (raw:Canon CR2 = 250MB, or JPG =20MB or 16 bit TIF = 1,5GB.) for the focus stacking job and for your comparison. Please mail me simple. This sample molybdenum looks like in real-life! You see simple a reality sample. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this case, blown highlights are called specular reflextions, normal for this type of subject and way out of dynamic range. Nice rendition of tones and texture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems to be unsharp, but it isn't. This molybdenum sample is a high reflective, glossy and greasy lustre item with no realy sharp edges. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overblown whites aren't really bad in this case - these reflections give it more of a realistic look to it, which is what we want. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ostrea edulis 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ostrea edulis 02.jpg
Oppose interesting subject, but the lighting and floating in blackness makes the picture confusing. Took me a while to realize that the blurry part is not the front face, but the inside back... --Dschwen (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not so pleasing (maybe this type of cross section would work better in an isometric view). Top has blown parts and the bottom is a little too dark. You might want to try this with multiple light sources and maybe a focus stack. ZooFari23:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks to me like a poor picture. Blurred underneath, and presented in such an odd angle that it's not immediately clear what it is. Unhelpful and technically bad. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 12:47:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wolfram evaporated crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wolfram evaporated crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg
2865
1384
159
189
5472
2988
This crystal tip seems to have a lighter "halo" around it.
Neutral for now. Composition-wise this is even better than the Molybdenum picture, but it looks like the focus stacking didn't work out quite as well: I see several parts that look slightly unsharp, and in one place there's a weird "halo" around the crystal. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sharper alternative is for me only an artificially alternative, not a reality. It is simple for everybody to sharpen it if needed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than only an artificially alternative. The higher sharpness emphasizes each detail somewhat more better and shows each elevation, every "crystel crumb" still more vividly. greetings -- Ra'ikeTC11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zarokê karker.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zarokê karker.jpg
Oppose - also badly off horizontal (needs rotating about 4°CW). Shame as it is otherwise an interesting pic - MPF (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - abri-caverne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - abri-caverne.jpg
Support A compelling image with considerable depth. The bright trash on lower left adds interest for information about use and abuse of the building. The clarity of the image allows close inspection of the construction technique as well as the damage and decay that the building has suffered. Informative, eye-catching, aesthetically and intellectually engaging. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I myself like this one better than the FP linked above, mostly because of the lighting and the fact that it goes all the way down the tunnel, but that's just my opinion. These factors also make the two images different enough from each other as I see it. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (1).jpg
Oppose bland lighting, maybe lightpainting but not as in "painter with easel" but "painter with ladder paint bucket". Subject is not presented in an interesting manner, and completely worn out nomination wise by redundant candidacies. It is frustrating that nothing we write here will stop the nomination flood. --Dschwen (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (2).jpg
Well, that category only has one picture which looks like light painting. The rest of them gives a pretty distorted image of what light painting is. --Dschwen (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC). P.S.: [1] --Dschwen (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 08:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Junniper Springs, FL panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junniper Springs, FL panorama.jpg
Oppose The image is not attractive or interesting, and I'm not seeing anything educational here. I haven't quite got the reason for this being nominated. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there's just TONS of natural springs in the world that have been turned into swimming pools. Completely uninteresting, to be sure, a place like this. No reason at all for it to be called the "jewel of the forest". I wonder why I even went there in the first place, or spent at least an hour waiting for people to jump so I could get a more interesting shot. --ianaré (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only one section of the picture has correct annotation - when I hover over items to left and right it again annotates the centre, and in some views the annotation does say "stitching error". SilkTork (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy scene. Swimmers mid-jump is a nice touch. Their shadows look perfectly consistent to me. Well done. --99of9 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 06:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Messier 81 HST.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Messier 81 HST.jpg
13766
4204
517
517
22620
15200
Süper BİR Galax i
Ayrıntılarıyla, kareografisiyle mükemmel.Dünya da bulunmayan eleman ve DİĞER Oluşum kriterlerinin yer aldığı BİR ortam.Tam BİR klasik.Aydınlanma çağını temsil eden BİR Örnek, Bir eser; NASA Click.
The info line above is nonsense. (fixed) Other than that it is just a generic galaxy image. I'm a bit tired of these types of nominations. --Dschwen (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. There is so much information here. I don't know about other images of Messier, but this is very detailed. SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually I'll support this one. It stands out by sheer resolution alone, and the big version is a good find by Cody. Plus it shows off the zoomviewer pretty good ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Flounder Bothus mancus in Kona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Flounder Bothus mancus in Kona.jpg
Info All frames are of the same fish taken few minutes apart. He changed colors to match his surroundings as I watched. In the last frame he buried himself in the sand. Almost nothing, but the eyes are seen.
Support Very interesting. It would be good to add the info above (about it being the same fish, etc) to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:44:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Przewalski's colt (head).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Przewalski's colt (head).jpg
Cats have a much broader face. A cat picture from the front still tells you a lot. However, a horse's head is long and narrow, so best shown from the side. --TheHighFinSpermWhale20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info High Fin Sperm Whale and Alvesgaspar, this file and the File:GunnarSønsteby.jpg are both portrait photographs. A portrait photograph points at the individualistic personality. This is the legitimacy of the necessary portrait photography. The portrait photography is an old genre of the photography and is also ok in the Featured Pictures. I think, it is wrong to say a portrait photograph has a poor angle and a too tight crop. I see in each animal an own personality, therefore I make also portrait photographs from animals. There are also portrait photographs from animals in the Featured Pictures like this. Alvesgaspar, you write: "face distorted". I used the lens Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm 2,8G ED. This high-quality macro- and portrait-lens (90 mm on my D300) makes no distortion. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not talking about artificial ditortion caused by optics but the geometric distortion consisting of closer objects look larger than distant objects. In this case, and due to the relatively short distance, the whole head seems too big relative to the rest of the body and the muzzle looks too large relative to the whole head. That is why a longer focal distance is usually a better choice for portraits. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a high-quality shot which I think is really not distorted. A 60mm lens is a good portrait lens. The composition is straight-forward and not bad...but for FP it is imho not outstanding enough. In this case a totally centred head might have a been a better choice, bcs then you get a symmetry (sth like this). Here are some animal portraits I like - this, this and also that Btw: The Emu portrait you linked also wouldn't have gotten (correct grammar?!) my support. Sorry.--AngMoKio (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 06:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Veronica spicata 1005.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veronica spicata 1005.jpg
Oppose - no location data, nor information whether natural or cultivated (looks to be probably cultivated). - MPF (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 07:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Maimbœuf church.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Maimbœuf church.jpg
Neutral Very good, beautiful picture (single shot, no HDR?), but the photographer is not on the axis of the nave and the picture is not centred. This is slightly disturbing. --Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Eusebius. Furthermore, I see a bad light in the rose window (CA ?), the crop is not symmetrical, and the pic is a bit tilted, or suffers of a little perspective distortion due to the position of the photographer (look at lines on the ground). Enough to oppose with regrets, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Solid good quality shot. But the off-center position and the HDR are putting me a bit off. Lighting looks dull and lacks contrast in the lower portion of the image. This seems like a pretty standard church shot. --Dschwen (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) P.S.: what software was used for the HDR/tone mapping? --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral That's an eye catching shot, and I think opposing based on slight centering off would be nitpicking, but I also feel it's disturbing on architectural subject, like good care wasn't taken while preparing it. Stained glasse is partly blown out, despite 3 (or more ?) exposures tones mapping. - Benh (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stained glass in Žilina - kraj Žilina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stained glass in Žilina - kraj Žilina.jpg
Oppose -- while its a technically proficient image good QI or VI, I prefer to see windows in situ giving context. The bold lines are they part of the window construction of just bars Gnangarra13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's generally possible with stained glass, unless you can get it right at the perfect moment around sunset. Stained glass tends to be much brighter than anything around it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I like very much this stained-glass but am not sure it deserves FP status. If it were larger!... Let's wait and see. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apikal4D.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apikal4D.gif
Oppose -- For now (according to rule #1 of my guidelines...), as it is not clear for me what's going on. I'll wait for a physical doctor to come and confirm this is close to the best one can achieve with such technology. Then, I may change my vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cango Caves-001.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cango Caves-001.JPG
Oppose I don't like the composition, centred on what seems to be the subject (which is static and yet unsharp - tripod and longer exposure needed here). I would have shown more of the left side of the stalagmit, instead of the darker parts on the right side. --Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charging Leopard-001.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charging Leopard-001.JPG
Comment I don't like the composition, maybe because it's vertical, maybe because it's too tight for me. Also the focus seems to be slightly ahead of the animal, I don't think that motion is the only reason for the relative lack of sharpness. I do not wish to vote though, it is a rare and impressive picture. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's categorized as a Panthera pardus and called a leopard (corresponding vernacular name) in the description, I'm not a specialist but it looks reasonably identified. --Eusebius (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although a zoo animal, the behaviour shown wouldn't be obtainable in the wild (other than extracted from the camera posthumously!). Which subspecies of Leopard is shown would be useful to know, but from the zoo's location, very likely African P. p. pardus. - MPF (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is a very interesting photo but it misses the point. There is no feeling of motion, due to the angle and too tight crop. At first sight it looks like the animal is sitted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 14:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Statue of Liberty, NY.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Statue of Liberty, NY.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 07:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cnidaria Luc Viatour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cnidaria Luc Viatour.jpg
Support beautiful colors and translucency, sharpness OK (though DOF is a bit low), noise in line with ISO settings. --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of above message : Yes, the "skin" of the jellyfish has a granular texture (sorry for answering in French) --ianaré (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info there is a white dead pixel, except this problem who is easy to correct the picture is beautiful, sharp, good colours and interesting composition. --Croucrou (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support He had no choice but pushing ISO setting very far, otherwise he would have had to use wide aperture, which would have shallowed DOF. I think that it's a very good compromise overall, and 2800 iso for a D3S probably is much like 400/800 on older cameras such as my venerable 400D... :) Based on that, I guess that's the best we can get today. I've tried same shot at f/2.8, iso1600, and few years ago and don't get this good results (otherwise would have been on commons for loooong already). Here we have two for the same price.- Benh (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The species is not identified. Cnidaria is an animal phylum with over 9000 species. I'd like to support once the species id is given. Might it not be obtained from the Pairi Daiza Park? --Cayambe (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 15:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of the Whale Galaxy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of the Whale Galaxy.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dendroica pensylvanica MN2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dendroica pensylvanica MN2.jpg
Oppose trevlig bild, men jag tycker skuggan stör tillräckligt för att bilden inte ska vara utvald /Ö22:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to google this means: nice picture, but I like shadow disturbing enough that the image should not be selected .--Elekhh (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Panorama des Hoechster Mainufers zwischen Bolongaropalast und Ochsenturm von Sueden-20100524.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Panorama des Hoechster Mainufers zwischen Bolongaropalast und Ochsenturm von Sueden-20100524.jpg
Oppose - OK, I can imagine what some might think after seeing my oppose... But the picture feels tilted (but I've checked, and it's not). Also, I just don't feel impressed if we remove the fact it's a huge panorama. Lighting, pale colours, a bit washed out sky... all contribute to no wow to me. Good quality picture ? I think yes. Would I hang this up in my room ? I don't think so. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The RAWs used to stitch the image were developed using a colour temperature of 5400 Kelvin which is the „sunny daytime“ standard and even was in the times of analogue photography. No further saturation was added to make the image come as close to the actual colours as possible. Of course colours like e.g. seen here might seem more picturesque than above, but do they reflect reality? I think not. Not trying to convince anyone – just an explanation of my approach to photography. --Mylius (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Swans are overexposed. Just joking (yeah, I'm not funny), I think it is a great photograph and I find it impressive in itself. Could you just have a look at the note I have left on the picture, and either confirm that the antennas look like that on the originals or correct it? No need to restitch the whole thing I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really envy you for your eyesight. ;-) Especially since I spent hours watching out for stitching errors. The left part of the left antenna actually is a bit skewed, but the more prominent part to the right was an stitching error I've corrected (although via manual retouche in Photoshop since this is a part so small Panorama Studio doesn't even recognize it). Thanks for the hint! --Mylius (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joaquim, u are the one who started discussion to raise bar for FP, and to make them exceptional again, and yet u support "not very exciting" images... hmmm ? ;) - Benh (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I rationally (the 'head') consider this picture to deserve FP status though emotionally (the 'guts') don't feel very excited. This means, of course, that I have full control of my body and mind... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this is exactly the difference between an FP (guts + mind) and a QI (mind). I could go over your history, and would find you sometime opposed because bells weren't ringing, but maybe the pictures then also deserved FP. I think this is the point: not being afraid to oppose when you just feel like so. - Benh (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gulf of Mexico Oil Slick.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gulf of Mexico Oil Slick.jpg
Oppose Interesting subject, but I really don't like the parallel lines in the sea and the added border lines (state/county limits?). --Eusebius (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBest is slot image. That satellite will not likely take another photo like that until after decades or perhaps never. That has a heavy weight. --すけ (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can easily believe it is the best picture of its kind, but it doesn't make it an FP for me. We have sat pictures of significantly better quality. Also, the same raw sat images could be better processed to form a better image, so I don't really have any second thoughts about my opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A neat picture, but it's not a particularly informative illustration of the oil spill itself. At the top of the Gulf, it is difficult to differentiate between what is oil and merely opaque water. There is also a deceptive large glare toward the bottom of the image, which is not part of the spill, according to this map for May 18, the day this satellite picture was taken. –Juliancolton | Talk02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (1).jpg
Oppose - good technical quality, but not a terribly interesting looking place, just a load of rather dreary skyscrapers - MPF (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it is what it is ... though if you look closely, you'll see that there are in fact several architectural styles represented, from art deco style of the 1940s to modern designs. Not my type of vacation either, but people from all over the world do go there (and spend ridiculous sums of money). This is also the the biggest and most famous beach in the area. --ianaré (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture! Gives a good impression of what the place really is. Reflects the atmosphere of the spot also very well, as far I remember from a short visit over there some years ago (where I did not spend ridiculous sums of money at all...). Technically well done - except a few stitching flaws in the sky, which can easily be resolved - and good encyclopedic value. -- MJJR (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (2).jpg
Actually, I thought this one was more educational, as the perspective offers a broader and more detailed view of the buildings (Miami Beach is a pretty famous city, very popular with tourists - and this is the main beach). It also shows many more people, a mix of tourists and locals. Technically it is also much more challenging, due to the many movements to be expected during its realization. I do think the other is more aesthetically pleasing, which is why I nominated both. --ianaré (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I marked a stitching error. Furthermore I need to see some of the girls on the right in a higher resolution to be able to review the image. ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer that one, and like composition. I thought I was alone, but AngMoKio proved me wrong: I scrutinized the pic very closely, but spent a bit more time on right part. I think it was a bit challenging to take because of moving people. I feel the horizon is curved, but if so, I believe this improves the picture. Very nice overall ! - Benh (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the seaweed band caps off the composition. The only negative thing I can say is that the flag is flying the wrong way :-). --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, here it goes (applies to both pictures). First of all, both pictures are more or less symmetrical, which is aesthetically boring. This is a common flaw in landscape panoramas. The coloring is also uninteresting, with extensive areas of sand and sky and no warm tones (reds, yellows). Finally the distortion is disturbing. In particular, the horizon if very curved, especially in the second picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional to Alvesgaspar, the clientel on the beach are not of the most aesthetically attractive cross-section of humanity . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) I'm sure they would beg to differ. b) I'm surprised you missed out on an opportunity to support an image showing so many wild H. sapiens, in a group activity very representative of this species. --ianaré (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 21:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tyrannus tyrannus MN3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tyrannus tyrannus MN3.jpg
Oppose somehow the image is too normal. difficult to say what it exactly is. Probably a colorful bird would make it much more interesting. The other nominated image (above) is very good and a FP in my opinion. Amada44 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunlight was somewhat diffuse and the bird is not colorfull. Although I increased the color, the result still kind of plain. I like the composition though. --Cephas (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iditarod Ceremonial start in Anchorage, Alaska.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iditarod Ceremonial start in Anchorage, Alaska.jpg
Could you please all review according (among other things) to the technical guidelines? The image is beautiful but the noise is visible even on the 800px-wide thumbnail. This image wouldn't even get a QI status. --Eusebius (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean? Dogs by their inherent nature are noisy, though you can't actually hear it on a photo. There is also of course a lot of white spots from snow kicked up, is that what you're referring to? That apart, the lead dogs are clear and in decent focus. I can't see what your problem is. MPF (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an action shot, you can't compare it with a bowl of oranges for which you can choose conditions. Of course that one should try to avoid noise as much as possible but in some cases it's inevitable. Nevertheless the same guidelines says: "Given sufficient “wow factor” and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality". --Lošmi (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I know the mitigating circumstances, but the picture is still VERY noisy. Far too much for a Featured Picture. On the parts best in focus (which aren't so sharp btw), noise is prominent enough to hide the details of the picture, and it is not limited to the darker parts of the photograph. The picture is not exceptional enough for me to ignore that, and I have the very strong opinion that this picture should not be promoted. To quote the FP guidelines: "pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality", "[Noise] is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition". --Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't see what you mean. What does this "electronic noise" look like? I can't see anything "hiding the details of the picture" - MPF (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(indent reset) Open the picture at 100% and look at the top left corner (for instance). Over the background, you can see snow flakes (larger white spots), and a multitude of pixel-size coloured spots, making an orthogonal lattice (image of the photosite lattice on the sensor). Here it is really very bad, showing local patterns (coloured vertical or horizontal lines). On a better image, it could look more like the grain of a photographic film. If you look at the head of the first dog, you can see that the edge of the eyes, of the nostrils, of the teeth, the texture of the tongue... are somehow hidden by this noise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can see what you mean now, but don't think it is enough to have a serious adverse effect on the photo. Maybe some people are more sensitive to it than others? - MPF (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 18:58:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Walkway Over the Hudson 2010-05-31.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Walkway Over the Hudson 2010-05-31.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 17:39:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Scene from Troilus and Cressida - Angelica Kauffmann.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Scene from Troilus and Cressida - Angelica Kauffmann.jpg
The thumbnailer makes it a little darker at lower resolutions - due pretty much to how engravings make shades of grey using black ink and white paper - but this engraving does make heavy use of chiaroscuro, with Cressida in the light, scaling back to the problems awaiting her in the darkness Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Al-capone-cell.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Al-capone-cell.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The bottom of the furniture is cut off without reason. --99of9 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support in order to get rid of the strange oppose reason (FPX). In my opinion all essential parts of the cell are visible and the cut off parts of the furniture are likely not very interesting. bamse (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Agree with Bamse about the FPX template, I was going to do the same thing. Still, I would like to see the bottom of the furniture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thanks Bamse for the FPX removal; I am neutral about this picture, because its quality is not wonderful, yet I think it has a great educational value. About the legs of the furniture... I can imagine one has to snap a shot of this cell from a corridor, maybe through a window, and it's not feasible to have the whole furniture on one shot, unless using a wide angle, which in turn would've distorted the whole scene (just guessing). --MAURILBERT(discuter)13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, the FPX was probably too harsh. Sorry. But I strongly believe this is not featurable. If a static scene is not complete, why would you call it your finest? We expect high technical standards for static scenes, and our composition standards should be equally high. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ 99of9: I'm respectfully sorry, but what you expect in FPC is not necessarily what I expect in FPC. Your "We expect" is maybe excessive a little, I'm afraid. For example, in my opinion, a FP is not a QI++ (if it is, then the word "featured" is maybe not appropriate, if I can say that as a non English native speaker), and this one shows something very "special" enough to be featured, maybe... Furthermore, it looks like if the nominator or the creator were not members of this "we". Sorry if I'm wrong, nothing personal here, but that's what I think... --Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FP is not QI++, but the same standards do apply - unless there is a mitigating reason. For exemple the leopard pic, the focus is a little off, but the strong visual impact and difficulty of the shot is a mitigating reason for me. I don't see a mitigating reason here, this shot could be easily duplicated and made better. --ianaré (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 01:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antennae, Hubble images.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antennae, Hubble images.jpg
Two galaxies are squaring off in Corvus and here are the latest pictures. When two galaxies collide, however, the stars that compose them usually do not. This is because galaxies are mostly empty space and, however bright, stars only take up only a small amount of that space. During the slow, hundred million year collision, however, one galaxy can rip the other apart gravitationally, and dust and gas common to both galaxies does collide. In the above clash of the titans, dark dust pillars mark massive molecular clouds are being compressed during the galactic encounter, causing the rapid birth of millions of stars, some of which are gravitationally bound together in massive star clusters.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 04:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arothron hispidus is being cleaned by Hawaiian cleaner wrasses, Labroides phthirophagus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arothron hispidus is being cleaned by Hawaiian cleaner wrasses, Labroides phthirophagus.jpg
Could you please be more specific about low quality? The details of the very small cleaner fish are seen clearly. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find about everything unsharp. I am certain that I would be totally unable to take this picture, but I've obviously seen better underwater pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ditto to Eusebius; the centre is sharp enough, but there is bad spherical aberration out to the four corners which spoils the pic a bit - MPF (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is another candidate I think you should open another candidate page, but it's only my opinion and I often find local FP traditions curious. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that since only one picture of a given subject can be the finest, they ought not both be promoted. So if they both achieve the requirements, the one with less support is not promoted. --99of9 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second image is added as alternative and not as a separate nomination. Of course only one of them will be promoted. It is an usual practice with alternatives.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 15:19:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Astronaut-EVA.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Astronaut-EVA.jpg
OpposeBecause of no geocode. (a funny joke, isn't it ?). Nevertheless, noisy and unsharp at high resolution. Sorry for Mr Mc Candless.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFile:Astronaut-EVA edit2.jpg may be better. It's cropped a bit, though. However, looking through the EVA category, it does appear this one has particularly unusually good composition, so I do think that it's worth seriously considering some version of this. Support, therefore, as iconic and not easily replaceable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 18:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bordeaux place de la bourse with tram.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bordeaux place de la bourse with tram.JPG
Oppose. Tilted, technical deficits. Subject looks great and shows clear potential for an FP. But this is not it. --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There seems little reason to oppose this nomination for me. To say 'a daytime shot would have been nicer' hardly constitutes a reason. Still I suppose its largely personal preferences.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 05:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dent STS 1881.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dent STS 1881.jpg
Strong support Rare view, Very high scientific, educational and encyclopedic values, emotional testimony of very far ancestors (hmm not so far of some I know...). Perfect photographical technics (details, light, composition, background). It honors the FP project, IMHumbleO. Thanks ! Sure, that's not flooding !! --Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm reading about these 'guys' now, so of particular interest to me. The image is exceptionally well detailed imo. --ianaré (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's very nice at thumbnail and even full screen size, but looks strange to me at full size. I see some fringing beside contrasting light and dark features, and the texture seems odd in places (e.g. around the dark "z" on the upper surface). I suspect it's a bit overprocessed, which seems a shame. I can't bring myself to oppose it though.--Avenue (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so sharp, I see some noise and maybe some posterization. I second Avenue's remarks and I find quality not sufficient for a FP studio shot. --Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 20:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral I find it a little disturbing that the eyes are in the center of the image. I find that this doesn't make it a very good composition. Amada44 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michael Gäbler, the image is not grainy.. and the quality of the image should be judged, looking closely, trying to find the noise etc.. Ggia (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I may be wrong, but I think the background is noisy. All the images here are judged, looking closely, trying to find the noise etc... I think it's good. It's the rule in FPC, isn't it ? I may say too that for me, it's not focused enough. But I agree: it's only my opinion. Nothing personal here--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is well focused, at least the interesting parts of the image are focused. I don't see much noise either. I find more disturbing that the eyes that are in the center of the image, and I think that it is more fruitful comment about the discussion. Talking about noisy photographs, ie. looking closely to the images of Sebastião Salgado you will see a lot of noise (due to the use of Tri-X 400ASA black & white film). If the photographs of this photographer were in a free license and they we uploaded here.. and if one of them was a candidate as a featured picture we will comment that it is low quality according to FPC rule (because of the grain)? Ggia (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Zoo animal, and too much of a posed portrait to look realistic. Looks like those pics one sees of businessmen looking artificial with a plastic smile. Sorry! - MPF (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"natural habitat with wild fauna" - so this animal is unconstrained, free to leave the park if it wishes, even to go to Germany or France without hindrance, and gets all its food by its own hunting, not provided by man? I have my doubts!! From the literature I have, Lynx lynx is long extinct as a wild animal in the Netherlands. If it is reintroduced, where from, and how many generations ago? In general, reintroduced animal populations are required to show at least 2-3 generations of survival without human assistance before they can be considered wild again (e.g., in Britain, reintroduced Haliaeetus albicilla were only officially accepted as re-established in the wild 28 years after reintroduction commenced). If this animal doesn't meet those requirements, it is as far as I'm concerned, a zoo animal. - MPF (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 19:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rana clamitans MN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rana clamitans MN.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:36:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Przewalski's colt running.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Przewalski's colt running.jpg
Oppose - Poor framing. What is the subject: the horse or the trees? Reminds me of those family shots with the monument behind. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Alvesgaspar and Eusebius, please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory. Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image. This image point up the little Przewalski's colt in his large German lebensraum. This German lebensraum is not the initially habitat of the Przewalski's horses. This has been the steppe in Eurasia. In some years the Przewalski colt will be reintegrated in the steppe of Mongolia. The open countyside in the image is the habitat of the Przewalski's horses in the Wisentgehege Springe game park. The image indicate this with many pieces of horse dung on the meadow. The Przewalski's colt is very little in the large image, this emphasizes his smallness. The image shows on the left side the shadow of the colt and on the right side the open way to his mother. I like the frozen moving in this image: the colt seems to dance on one feet during he is running to his mother. Important is the contrast of the sunny colt and the shady wood. There is a way from the sunny meadow into the dark wood. This way into the dark wood may remember Germans to the Fairy tale Hänsel und Gretel. In bygone times such a way into dark woods had been menacing. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar explained what I meant by "poor composition": by looking at the picture, it is not clear why so much background is part of it (and also, the animal is strangely centred). "Poor framing" or "poor composition" is not "defamatory", it is a negative (and somehow subjective) value judgment over one's work. If you don't want your work to be evaluated in a negative way (which I can totally understand), then maybe you shouldn't submit it for reviewing. --Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my evaluation was too harsh by no offense was meant, of course. 'Poor' is very often used here when assessing pictures, instead of 'bad'. I personally prefer that the evaluations of my images are straight and clear because I learn more from them, but people are different. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, we three are working together for the good future of FP. You participate in the discussion Careless reviews. I myself support the FP mostly with images. I think you misapprehended my sentence „Please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory.” The word “poor” has different meanings in the English language. It is not only used in the meanings „not good“ and „meagre“. It is also used in the meanings „pitiful, pitiable“, „wretched“, „woefully“. Therefore the word „poor“ can be understood as a defamatory word. The adjective of the german translation “arm” is today used to offend or insult somebody with words like “armer Irrer” (= “poor foul”), “armes Schwein”, “arme Sau”. I think it would be better for the good future of FP to find another way to describe the lack of quality in images of FPC. I wrote: “Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image.” Maybe you can find in the English language a harmless word instead of "poor..." to describe the lack of quality in an image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... When using a word in a sentence, it is not required that all its meanings apply at the same time, let alone that all the meanings of its possible translations in another language hold. I didn't mean that the image needed better funding, if I need to clarify. The second meaning of "poor" in the Oxford English dictionary (just after the money-related sense) is "of a low or inferior standard or quality", which is exactly what is meant here. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose another high quality shot. But to me the composition seems a bit random. The background really is a bit distracting. I'd prefer a tighter crop, sth like this --AngMoKio (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 23:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Sunday at Home 1880 - Psalm 23.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Sunday at Home 1880 - Psalm 23.jpg
Note: This was scanned at 800 dpi. The original is about 6-8" wide, at full size, my monitor makes this about 6 FEET wide. This is great for reproduction of the work, but you may prefer a less extreme view for evaluating it as art. Dschwen's Javascript viewer, while not perfect (it tends to look very slightly blurred at lower zooms), will help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info An interesting bit of ephemera, representative, though better quality than the vast majority, of things you may have seen a lot if you were raised in the American fundamentalist evangelical tradition like I was. Unlike those, this is freely licensed, and (although I'm still seeking confirmation of this, initial enquiries have been positive in the identification) by a reasonably notable creator of such materials. Also illustrative of a Victorian publishing house, the Religious Tract Society, which we have precious little else from.
Question on the files page there is also a link to the original scan. I compared the original scan with the nominated version and I think that the contrast in the nomination is too high which results in lost details. And I think an important criteria of judging restorations is that details don't get lost. Correct me if I am wrong...I am for sure not an expert concerning restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scans rarely come out with accurate colours. Since I own the original, I adjusted it to get as near to that as possible. I've looked at it again, and discovered a way to make it slightly more like the original: Kronheim uses a reflective bronze-colour ink, which scans differently than it looks to the eye. Once I realised that, I could selectively desaturate red in that area, leading to the currently-uploading version, which, to my eyes, looks as identical to the original as you can get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 23:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The birth of the Mantid 0521.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The birth of the Mantid 0521.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose (formerly FPX!?) The original image is better, please have a look at it. The original is FP yet. I think we don't need two FP's of the same image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2010 (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: a better version of this picture is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 17:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leaf Scorpionfish in Kona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leaf Scorpionfish in Kona.jpg
Info Here's the story about the image. I was swimming over the coral reefs, when I suddenly noticed a strange leaf. The only thing that made me to stop and take another look was that the "leaf" was kind of out of place there. It took me about 10 minutes to realize I was looking at a fish. I've never seen such fish before, and never heard of him either. What was amazing that the fish really behaved as a dead leaf that got stacked in the corals, and is rocking back and forth by the will of the currents. The nominated image is a composite of four frames that IMO show not only the fish, but his behavior as well.
Oppose Always same dilemma with you Mila... I feel it's valuable, rather unique over here, and that one has to catch it. But I oppose mainly for quality reason. And the fact this is underwater is now no longer mitigating to me (it's possible to take good quality underwater pictures at little cost). - Benh (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quality is good. It is how the fish really looks. The blotches on the skin are natural, and the shape is not really sharp. Besides you really cannot judge all underwater photography the same. It is much easier to take underwater images, when diving because you could stand still. I was snorkeling in the strong currents. To take those images I should have been diving and working my legs and arms to stay under long enough to take the image. I could have uploaded a single image or the two last frames only, where the quality is better a bit, but I believed it was important to show how the shape of this amazing fish is changing. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the individual frames are good, but the four together don't look good; in particular the bottom right frame is disproportionately green-toned compared to the other three more blue/red-toned frames. I'd think it would be improved by some sort of border (e.g. a white line) separating the frames. - MPF (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the idea of the "main object" not to be seen good enough :) On the other hand I did get enough :), and that is why --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 16:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Full Opera by night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Full Opera by night.jpg
Comment Nice shot, unfortunately quite noisy in some areas. Why not chose an earlier time of the day to have more light thus being able to use a smaller iso? Did you do some selective noise-reduction? Some areas have heavy noise while others are more or less noise-free. Maybe some experts here can help you to get a better noise reduction, it would be worth a try. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - all the lights (most obvious with the small background lights top left) are double, presumably due to camera shake. Agree with AngMoKio, a daytime shot would be better. PS looks a shocking place for safety, do people wheel their prams up to the top of the roof, then let them roll back down into the water? 8-) - MPF (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but noisy in dark areas. Looks it was taken at 800 iso, and subsequently level adjusted. I wouldn't say it would be better at daytime, but here a tripod would have helped for sure - Benh (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 11:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paradisiac beach in Bretagne.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paradisiac beach in Bretagne.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 image quality is poor (unsharpness, chromatic noise, lack of detail) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (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 8 Jun 2010 at 10:31:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ferenc Ilyes (HUN), Artur Siodmiak (POL).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ferenc Ilyes (HUN), Artur Siodmiak (POL).jpg
With this kind of reasoning, FP nominations will continue to be dominated by endless rows of images of plants, stones, engravings, statues, and astronomical objects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surely you mean 'foul', not 'handball'? None of the players is touching the ball with a hand, but a foul (shove in the face) is being committed - MPF (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Snub-nosed Monkeys.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Snub-nosed Monkeys.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 11:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National.jpg
Oppose Many tiny disturbing things: the random cropped fence, the edge of the fort covering up the headland, the hand pointing into the upper-left corner (neighter the horizon nor the sea). --Elekhh (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 08:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Wörtherseestadion beim Endspiel im ÖFB-Cup 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wörtherseestadion beim Endspiel im ÖFB-Cup 2010.jpg
Oppose - Maybe a valuable picture but I don't see anything extraordinary mitigating the technical flaws and justifying the FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple in Alishan.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple in Alishan.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 sky is severely overexposed (all white) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (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 9 Jun 2010 at 00:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tursiops truncatus 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tursiops truncatus 01.jpg
Oppose It's not a bad picture by any means, and technically it's fine. I just don't find it that exceptional in terms of difficulty of capture, composition, and rarity - given the photographer probably sees this scene on a weekly basis (get the mangroves in the shot, or get it when he's leaping clear out, etc ...). I would be more likely to support if it were the work of a commoner. --ianaré (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to Mbz1, the noise isn't obvious to me. Wild and located, makes it much more valuable than pics from dolphinariums - MPF (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Agree with MPF that being in its natural habitat is a good thing, but the composition is just awkward. Is it an action shot or a still shot? –Juliancolton | Talk11:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:27:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral and thinking about an other vote. I've got a Question: I saw some kind of halo around the beak reminding me the result of oversharpening, additionally, the plumage on the shoulder is not only "a little bit soft" but noticeably blurry. Was the picture indeed oversharpened? And what's about the strange focal length of 1250mm shown on the Flickr page, could the softness come from a motion blur? Grand-Duc (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 16:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balaton Hungary Landscape.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaton Hungary Landscape.jpg
Comment - Very poor image quality: colour banding (sky), artifacts, lack of detail, oversharpening, oversaturation. If not me, someone else will probably FPX this picture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the oversaturation is part of the tone mapping effect and I'm sure there are lots of people who like that on Commons. As for the rest of the problems, I suspect they are all caused by overcompression. --Aqwis (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I have to agree that some people will appreciate this kind of Flickr kitsch and that a number of them won't even bother to open the picture in full size. Well, I'll keep trying anyway. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality: colour banding (sky), artifacts, lack of detail, oversharpening and oversaturation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (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 17 Jun 2010 at 00:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hubble Ultra Deep Field, Hubble images, 2003-2004.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hubble Ultra Deep Field, Hubble images, 2003-2004.jpg
Info Galaxies, galaxies everywhere - as far as the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope can see. This view of nearly 10,000 galaxies is the deepest visible-light image of the cosmos. Called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, this galaxy-studded view represents a "deep" core sample of the universe, cutting across billions of light-years.
The snapshot includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colours. The smallest, reddest galaxies, about 100, may be among the most distant known, existing when the universe was just 800 million years old. The nearest galaxies - the larger, brighter, well-defined spirals and ellipticals - thrived about 1 billion years ago, when the cosmos was 13 billion years old.
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 9 Jun 2010 at 22:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Children of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Children of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpg
Info Brother and sister in the street of Qala-i-Shada, Kabul, Afghanistan. An amazing picture by the same author of this other one, a serious competitor of POTY2009. Created and uploaded by Paulrudd, nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support I'm starting to think that this is sort of too easy, and that the hard conditions these people live in make them very photogenic. But that picture sure feels nice, and there a few from Afghanistan over here... Certainly less than panoramas and insects...:). Ack ianaré for lighting. Also friendly support since Paulrudd was my classmate in highschool ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think that the strongest points of this picture have nothing to do with poverty or exoticism. I'm referring especially to composition, lighting (this is a 'contre-jour') and the expression of the children -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed for lighting too. But I believe expressions of the children contribute to make this pic great, hence my comment. This does come from the conditions they live in; I don't mean exoticism but I meant poverty and hard conditions. Don't get me wrong though: Alexis (author's name) did large part of the job by framing and exposing it right in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you ask this as if it was shocking that I think so (sorry if I'm wrong). But I answer anyways : I can only assume, yes, but have good reasons, among them : Dirty clothes, one of the kid missing a shoe, skin looking like having hard time and Afghanistan having low HDI and low per capita income. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not shocked. I just sometimes have the feeling that people from western or "rich" countries (me included) easily think that people from other cultures are poor or even suffer. By western standards those kids might be poor and still I think that such a pic can trick you. That girls other shoe could just be around the corner because it took it off for what ever reason (I often see children that get rid of various pieces of clothing just for fun). The children's clothes might be dirty because they were playing in the dirt or the mother just gave them some old clothes because they were about to play outside. Even my mother had some older clothes for me when I went playing in the forest. Those kids look well fed and not unhappy, just interested in the photographer. Of course I might be wrong and those kids are really poor, even for Afghan standards, but I just think it is interesting how we (myself included) quickly come to the conclusion that people from far away countries and different cultures have to be poor or suffering. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this point of view an partly agree with it. I never said that these children are unhappy, but that they are poor and live in hard condition, and that I'm likely right given all element we have so far. (we could as well think as disguisement or whatever but this would go very far !). some hard conditions to me that explain the skin : not spending days in air conditioned building but spending days outside under hard sun, not having shower everyday with shampoo etc. And I don't always wait to have all elements before coming to a conclusion, otherwise, I wouldn't often have opinion... would I ? :)- Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I understand your point of view and the way you get to your conclusion. It was not my aim to question your vote or opinion. I just had some deeper thougts on how photos might trick us and felt the need to talk about it :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I showed this photo to my dad, who lived in Afghanistan for some time. He says "I believe these children are Azarahs, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan. Descendants of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan". --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'm really uncertain whether not only the exotically working and sweet children and the surrounding field make the photo unusual. Sorry, but I don't see anything, which makes this photo technical better than other photos with sweet children. --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ianaré. Although subjects are centered, the wall on the left gives some dynamism to the picture. It would be very different without the wall. --Cephas (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would consider this an average portrait. It is attractive and they are photogenic, but I find the crop too loose and the viewpoint too high, which prevent this photo from standing above others. IMO, not a good enough portrait for FP. As a side note, I'm wondering why you quoted the author and his work. I thought this was about judging individual photos. Were you trying to justify or inflate the value of this photo just because the author had a finalist at POTY2009? Really a bad move on your part, Alvesgaspar. - Keta (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I really don't believe the value of this photo needs to be inflated by the kind of expedient you are accusing me of using. My only purpose was to call the attention of the community to the talent of this creator (who should be persuaded to contribute to this forum). FPC reviewers are not stupid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't try to turn this into something else, this is not about reviewers but about the words you used. If that was your only intention, it wasn't the best place nor the best wording, and the more I read it the more it looks like what I said, that's the impression I get at least. - Keta (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have already explained what my intentions were and consider your insinuations inappropriate, so say the minimum. Yes, this forum is often used for raising and discussing side issues, as you should konw if you were more acquainted with it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral @Alvesgaspar it is an average portrait (but not a bad one). these kind of pictures are best shooted in black & white film. I partially agree with Keta comments.. Ggia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Alvesgaspar, but would like to comment on this. Why would this be best B&W ? This is subjective issue, but I personally think as B&W as (most of the time) a cheap and easy way to turn a regular picture into something that looks to "stand above others", since this unconsciously remind old times when photography was much more art and unaccessible than it is now - Benh (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor am I (!!), but I regard b&w as a relict of history which has no place in modern photography - colour is now possible, and removal of colour to make b&w is removal of data & information, and therefore unjustifiable - MPF (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I must object here strongly. A really good b/w picture doesn't work as a colour photo. For example this is a great work of art, but in colour it wouldn't work. Many really good portraits only really work in b/w - and I don't mean just to convert a colour pic to a greyscale pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained why I am voting neutral in that photo. And I said that I would prefer this photo shooted using b&w film (not digital)! Not converting a color photo to b&w. My pov is that b&w film, grain, analog capture works better in pictures/subjects like this one.. here. ie. I don't like much that the viewpoint too high (as Keta mentioned). BTW.. If you like the photo support it. Ggia (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did ;) but that has nothing to do with the picture itself and I was just giving my point of view as well. Again, I find it strange to rely on grain or whatever... but just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree that sometimes, B&W can be of good use, that's why I said that most of the time I feel that people use it as "art" label" rather than a way to really give another meaning to the picture. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I look to much down on people... - Benh (talk)
*Comment WOW!, this discussion about b&w is really ridiculous. Photography is not about either color or gray scales, they are elements of photography. It is foolish to state that b&w is a thing of the past, or to say that color is the only thing. While yes, a regular color photograph can be made "more interesting" by converting it to b&w, color could mask defficiencies on the photograph also. Reality is that some photographs work better in b&w and some work better in color. And get this, as much as the digital camp thinks that digital photography is better than analog, well, I have news for you, that is not necessarily true, from the potographic perspective. Digital photography, with all its good things, cannot compete with tonal graduations, dynamic range or many other valuable visual attributes of analog photography. To think that digital cameras produce better photographs is like saying that synthetic brushes create better paintings. The art resides on the eye, knowledge and experience of the photographer and not necessarily on his camera, or the painter´s brushes. A camera does not make a photographer, or creates a good photograph. Digital imagery, from cameras to computers, have only produced more people taking and manipulating pictures, and not necessarily better photographers. One thing is for sure, the mix of technology and photography has produced a lot of people who think that they are photographers... so far from the truth. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 20:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus LC0196.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus LC0196.jpg
Oppose It's a nice image, but not feature-worthy IMO. Number one, I'm not a huge fan of the lighting; the bird is in a shadow, which detracts from the details on the bird's already dark body against the bright lighting in the back. Second, the bird has a tag on its leg; I don't oppose images solely based on the fact that the bird is in captivity, but in this case, it's far too obvious and the tag makes the bird look too "un-nature like," if you get what I'm saying. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – An unlucky and unnaturally moment. The Bald eagle is in the shadow. The ring on his leg shows, that he's prisoner. --Steindy (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 11:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maffei 1 and 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maffei 1 and 2.jpg
InfoA mosaic of images from WISE in the constellation of Cassiopeia. This region contains a large star forming nebula within the Milky Way called IC 1805 (sometimes called the Heart Nebula), a portion of which is seen at the right of the image.
Oppose - awkward image dimensions, and parts of Heart Nebula cropped off. Why is it 1.6 by 4.5 degrees? Couldn't it have been made e.g. 2 by 4 degrees, removing low relevance plain starfield from the left, and increasing the height to bring in the rest of the nebula? - MPF (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I strongly disagree that it's "nothing special", but the image resolution is far too high for the level of detail present in the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 12:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Provisional Support but would like to see the information expanded (date & place of manufacture; whether film or digital, etc., etc. - no doubt a camera buff can tell immediately at a glance, but I can't, and I'd guess many others can't either) - MPF (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose standard product shot, unfortunately with a dusty subject. But I don't see anything extraordinary here either. --Dschwen (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sonnenblume Helianthus 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sonnenblume Helianthus 2.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 23:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:papaver alpinum bud.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:papaver alpinum bud.jpg
Neutral I find it unfortunate that the DOF is so reduced that only the top of the stem and "back" of the bud are sharp, and the hair on the foremost part of the bud are already even so slightly blurry. --MAURILBERT(discuter)00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heart and Soul nebulae.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heart and Soul nebulae.jpg
Question -- This is a false colour depiction of an infrared original (one of many possible, I imagine). What is the meaning of the colours? In my opinion 'being beautiful' shouldn't be enough to promote pictures with scientific content, like this one. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 19:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Living statue, Miami Beach, FL.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Living statue, Miami Beach, FL.jpg
the alternative was a busy sidewalk. In any case, I think it actually adds to the composition. Maybe I can change it though. --ianaré (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It wasn't until the third time that I skimmed through the list of candidates that I noticed that it was actually a person. Anyway, its a support from me. I wish that the clothing wasn't cut off at the left, but it's not a big deal in my view. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Neither the theme nor the image quality justifies, in my opinion, FP status. Maybe a picture of the whole woman, I'm not sure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find it attractive, but it's a good shot. The background works, and I think it's arresting enough to be an FP. --Avenue (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NASA Space Shuttle Atlantis landing (STS-110) (19 April 2002).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NASA Space Shuttle Atlantis landing (STS-110) (19 April 2002).jpg
Oppose I think that the composition could be better - the birds are distracting from the main subject, and so is the grass. There also seems to be a tilt. In addition, the sky is quite noisy. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The noise isn't that bad, and I think the birds are interesting, and I like the composition. The tilt is unmissable though. I will have another version ready in a minute. --TheHighFinSpermWhale04:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh. It could be a dramatic shot with the larger bird in contrast to the shuttle, but the smaller bird is a distraction. Jonathunder (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 21:33:22 (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 10 Jun 2010 at 21:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - I understand the dilemma: either you preserve the shadow and end up with an unbalanced composition; or you sacrifice the shadow and give some more space ahead of the horse, making the composition more natural. I think I prefer the 2nd option. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 13:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hofkirche bei Nacht (Dresden).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hofkirche bei Nacht (Dresden).jpg
Oppose I think a wider angle would be a better composition. Those cut-off trees and this cut-off orange thing in the lower left corner are disturbing. And maybe it is also better to take this picture in daytime, because then you don't have those annoying lights in the view. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Composition. Even with improved composition it would still be a fairly ordinary shot. No reason to do it at night either. --Dschwen (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I think that oppose opinions are non relevant here, useable for comments every picture you won't to promote, and because I like this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying Screw you opposers, your opinions are not relevant, I'll rather support without giving any reasons at all? How is crappy composition not relevant? Sounds awfully like this nom is used as a soap box for a fairly general debate about FPC. --Dschwen (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multilingual distractions by Dschwen, Jebulon, and others
Comment
You voted and explained why. I voted and explained why. Full point. I don't care with your "bad guy" game, like others I understand that it's only a game and a "posture", and I'm absolutely not afraid, just only bored a bit with this "soap opera". Oh yes, I know its easier (and maybe more funny) than to be kind. I don't want to continue this "discussion". Furthermore, your comment ...art...?! is unacceptable. But:
Enough foreground. To me, trees and light add.
I like the original angle and composition. I disagree with the general opinion about "non day-light" pictures, because it sounds "fundamentalist" to me (yes I have read the guidelines, I disagree with this special point)
In my opinion, nobody (even you) can say that another shot would still be a fairly ordinary shot. I don't know the English words for "procès d'intention", but it's exactly what you do. It IS contemptuous, and I have here an answer to a question asked somewhere else about patronizing (a formal answer in QIC page is now useless, thank you). I think the choice of the photographer is a sufficient reason to do it at night, even you may (and have the right to) dislike it.--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry, but you have to support here what I "basically say" (so do I with you). If not, leave.
According to the (ancient and new) rules, I have no to explain why I support, but I do.
Without giving reasons at all. The reason was and is: I like this picture. It's enough.
J'adore me péter par écrit en Anglais avec quelqu'un, je trouve ça marrant !
Be happy, summer is coming soon ! (in the northern hemisphere of course). Drink fresh, make love, life is beautiful, in Dresden by night too !!--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, péter is a very fitting term, I must say. Anyhow, don't get all worked up if someone calls you up on calling other peoples opinions non relevant. --Dschwen (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNobody is playing bad guy here. We are just giving our own opinions to the nominations. The aim of FPC is on the one hand to promote very good pictures, but in my opinion the most important aim of FPC is that people improve their photo skills - and no one learns anything when you just "play nice guy" and always tell people how great their pictures are. (If you have the time you should have a look on the FPC on the German wikipedia) --AngMoKio (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I’m with Dschwen on this one, FPC is an open forum and all opinions (and votes) are considered equally relevant here. As for the flatulent comment (se péter en Anglais), it has two main components: (i) it is a vulgarity, considered by many (I included) as bad manners but occasionally used by some when short of logical arguments and moderately tolerated here; (ii) it is an attempt of using this forum to 'make a point' (the so-called POV, in Wikipedia’s jargon) and considered by many users as a serious fault . I don’t give a s* (sorry) damn for this peccadillo though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPatronizing n°2 ? Please don't give me lessons about french slang. Here, "se péter" is not flatulent, but means " to have a (hard) quarrel with somebody ". Not to be confused with "il se la pète" which means "he is patronizing a lot". "Péter la gueule" is litteraly "to break the face", and generally, "péter" is "to break". But OK, it's slang and not very elegant. And no, FPC is not an open forum : it's impossible to have a divergent opinion without to be harshly humiliated. --Jebulon (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Let me start with the minor issue. Because I'm no expert in French slang, I went to the 'Larousse de Poche' where I found 'Pet' = Gaz qui sort du fondement avec bruit; 'Péter = faire un pet, se briser (fam.). The same meaning can be found by other users in other dictionaries, as Dschwen did. Now for the serious issue. Nobody here is trying to humiliate nobody and the object of all opinions are the pictures, not the creators or the nominators. Yes, the evaluations are often direct and harsh, though their tone have somehow softened in the last times. Most users understand and accept the criticisms and find them to be a valuable way of improving on their work (that is clearly my case). Very few, who don't accept the evaluations, consider the reviewers not competent enough to asses their pictures or the guidelines to be flawed, react negatively, sometimes with violent personal attacks. Fortunately they are a very small minority. There are no VIP or leaders here. The influence of each user's opinions is usually a function of the quality and consistence of his/her work here (as a reviewer, a creator, an organizer or a general contributor) and is not dictated (obviously) by his will, the loudness of his voice or the length of his comments. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a multilingual project. So you either are at the mercy of "google translate", or the foreign language skills of the people who read your comments, or your own proficiency in a foreign language should you choose to use it. Ich haette auch nix dagegen hier in meiner Muttersprache zu diskutieren, aber es bringt einfach nix rumzulamentieren darueber, dass Englisch hier der de facto standard ist. Alle varienten, die ich oben aufgefuehrt habe haben ihr Fuer und Wider. So und jetzt noch ein schlecht zu uebersetzendes Wort: Popelnase! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 22:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Niobium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niobium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 19:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:River Thames and the London Eye-31May2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:River Thames and the London Eye-31May2008.jpg
Oppose. Ok, I'm the last one who always wants to see clear blue sky in all pictures, but this light situation is detrimental to the subject. Most interesting parts are just underexposed. Also, boring 50:50 composition. --Dschwen (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing distinguishing this from a million tourist pics on Flickr or elsewhere, unless the idea is to show how the sky "in its typical English color, that of a rancid dishrag", as Douglas Adams once put it, can make a striking view mundane. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, however the light is questionable. There are hundreds of images of the Thames at this point on commons, some probably with a better light and composition (there is a little too much river and a little too much land, although I won't argue with it being centred and have never understood why this is detrimental to a photograph).89.243.246.8911:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 02:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Decent enough quality for a highly educational photo of a historic subject. Yeah it's a little blurry, but the detail around the cabin is nice and the composition is good. Steven Walling20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 23:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Highway 401 Night Lapse Busy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Highway 401 Night Lapse Busy.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 06:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schwarzenfels, Sinntal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schwarzenfels, Sinntal.jpg
Support - Beautiful. With all due respect to Ianare, with whom I often agree, I can't possibly fault the image for having a tree in the rural country. –Juliancolton | Talk15:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see it with either the entire tree shown or with a slightly different angle where it isn't visible. Though I was overly harsh perhaps. --ianaré (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not FP quality (elements cropped out et cetera) and it's oversharp. Pretty, but doesn't do a great job of balancing the desire for a wide perspective with a strong educational focus on the subject, in my opinion. Steven Walling20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 19:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clarendon Building, Oxford, England - May 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clarendon Building, Oxford, England - May 2010.jpg
Info created and uploaded by Diliff, nominated by Maedin
Oppose Several stitching error on upper and bottom left sides of the building, plus only half bike visible on left... but really an excellent picture otherwise and this is a clear conditional support. Also sharp on left and right borders despite the projection used. - Benh (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other half of the bike is actually hidden behind one of the pillars of the fence, if you were referring to it being a stitching error. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks, guys, how did I miss those?! David is away until Monday so I'll ask him to fix the errors then. Will re-nominate next week. Maedin\talk05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 20:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 21:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Ignatz-Bubis-Bruecke am Mittag-20100424.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Ignatz-Bubis-Bruecke am Mittag-20100424.jpg
Support Technically very good, natural colours, interesting place and camera location... if only there were no cranes :-( :-) --Cayambe (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The cranes will be a dominant part of Frankfurt skyline for the next few years, therefore I intentionally didn't retouche them for documentary reasons. As a part of the old town is going to be reconstructed in front of the cathedral, this image depicts a state of history never to return. --Mylius (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 18:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stilke Hermann Anton - Joan of Arc's Death at the Stake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stilke Hermann Anton - Joan of Arc's Death at the Stake.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, No strong mitigating reasons for the low resolution (1.5MP, therefore way below the minimum 2MP) --Dschwen (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, there is a difference between good faith and closing both eyes. Take a look at that guy's voting record. It is quite striking, especially in light of the careless review section on the FPC talk page. --Dschwen (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Dschwen, we decided not to make Alvesgaspar's guidelines a rule. Also, he's obviously an inexperienced user who has not read that page. Unless you want to close FPC to non-experienced users, we are bound to get a few votes that disagree with the hivemind's rules once in a while. Instead of assuming bad faith, educate him. He's obviously not a malicious user, and if you think he is, you take FPC too seriously. --Aqwis (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, a) chill! b) read again what people wrote. c) realize that nowhere neither Alvesgaspar nor me said that LAR is a malicious user, d) easy on terms like hivemind please. --Dschwen (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those few votes defying the hive mind’s rules could indeed represent an enrichment to our forum if they had some constructive purpose behind and were explained to us all (in Spanish, if necessary). Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case with this particular user, who never produced any kind of explanation for his (apparently contestant) votes. A quick look at his talk pages and edit story strongly confirms this is not a common user, in the sense that he never established any kind of dialogue with others. Assuming good faith is a golden rule, I agree. But I also endorse Daniel’s opinion that we shouldn’t keep our eyes closed. All regulars here will confirm that I have always defended that this forum should be inclusive and that a newbie’s vote has exactly the same value and importance as a vet’s. But I’m not naïve either and consider that any attempt to use FPC to make some obscure point should be stopped. Yes, it is possible that I’m being unfair and that this user is just a child, or someone too shy to communicate. Please go ahead and put a message in Spanish in his talk page (I don't speak Spanish). I’ll be glad to retract and apologize if it is proven that I’m wrong. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alvesgaspar accused him of being a borderline troll. A troll is a malicious user. I do agree that he should probably explain his votes; however, it's better to put a message on his talk page before accusing him of being a "borderline troll". --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Aqwis -- Please be more precise in what you say. I didn't accuse him of being a "borderline troll". I said that his vote was dangerously close to a trolling action (the FPX template was deleted, BTW) and asked him to explain. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 13:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ترجمان يأكلان.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ترجمان يأكلان.png
Oppose -- I'm afraid being old is not enough for FP status. Nothing extraordinary that I see either in the theme or picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's a 120-yo photo, its quality surpass some of your 2MP pictures that you yourself have uploaded using recent technologies. Maybe nothing may seem extraordinary to you, but it should be noted that it's rather rare to find historical photos from the 19th century about cuisine traditions in the Levant.--Banzoo (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photography, and a photograph, can be a social document of great value. Photographs, with time, become windows into the past, bringing into today events, depictions of people or places that can be rich documents of knowledge. Whether we recognize their value or not does not diminish their value, but rather, points more to our lack of sensitivity or lack of knowledge. This picture, from the photographic perspective alone, and considering the time it was taken, tells us about a competent photographer that while the subjects seemed too posed, took care to record important cultural elements into account and preserved them for us, with very good photographic technique and equipment available at that time. Photography has changed with time and technology, but there are core elements within the media that remain stable, such as photography as a recorder of reality, conditions, etc., and in this case, this photograph is a frozen moment from the past. Even in its time, considering that most people were unable to withness different ethnic groups, this picture surely served as the television of their time, allowing people to see people from far off places, etc. If I analize this photograph from a perspective that does not take into account history and the notion of photography as a social document, well, some people may consider it bad. In my personal point of view, this picture is featurable because a) It is a good photograph from its time, b) good composition; c)good photographic technique; d) good darkroom technique; and most important, e) a valuable historical document. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. It looks like parts are overexposed (ie right man's hand), If it's from the import process then it should be fixed first. --ianaré (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – ditto to Alvesgaspar. And bad crop at the top right, with part of that whatever-it-is the man is looking at, cut off. - MPF (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for sale, so we can't know ;-) . . . but I wouldn't automatically make it a Featured Picture just because it is famous . . . I've never cared for it myself, so would probably vote against featuring it, but not just because the paint is cracked . . . so there you are ;-)) MPF (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 14:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nicrophorus vespilloides in dead rodent.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nicrophorus vespilloides in dead rodent.jpg
Oppose Interesting shot yes, but the lighting ruins it. Also a wider crop with the whole rodent would give a much more interesting scene imo. --mathiasK14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysaora Colorata.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysaora Colorata.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: subject is not complete, tentacles have been cropped. There is also too much noise (ISO 1600 !) and much of the animal is OOF. --ianaré (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (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 18 Jun 2010 at 10:36:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tu-154-crash-in-smolensk-20100410-08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tu-154-crash-in-smolensk-20100410-08.jpg
Oppose A valuable and useful image... but technical issues are too apparent for FP: noise and blown highlights. --Cayambe (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2010 (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: quality and composition problems as outlined above --ianaré (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2010 (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 13 Jun 2010 at 18:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2009-01-21 Eibsee.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2009-01-21 Eibsee.JPG
Oppose Somehow the picture exudes the peculiar charm of an handy cam. Nonetheless the mood is nice but it has a composition which isn't convincing me. • Richard • [®] • 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The band of noise is a twig or a grass in front of the bird. Common Blackbird is indeed a common bird and a better picture than this can be done. Sorry. --Cephas (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 03:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral & Info I've just seen this here, first of all thanks for the nomination! I would'nt have nominate this pic mostly because of the problem with the left forefood that Richard allready mentioned. No he is'nt wearing a ghost prosthesis. This pic is the first focus stack test of a living insect by myself and the "ghostfood" is cause of a leaf between my lens and the bug that I've seen to late. In fact at home at the desktop. :-( I like the result pretty much for the first try, but a FP? So thanks again and we will see. Best regards mathiasK03:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 03:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dew on spider web Luc Viatour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dew on spider web Luc Viatour.jpg
Oppose I'm very sorry and it's a pitty. But the background is very noisy, most of the pic is OoF, there are some spots...--Jebulon (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I'm sorry, but I can't understand the oppose. I find it's a very fine and nice photo with wonderful reflections in the drips. --Steindy (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Well, I wouldn't like to patronize but did you care to read the guidelines? To 'look nice' is not enough for reaching FP status! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An explanation of my vote : IT IS an extraordinary picture. Yes the reflections in the droplets are wonderful, and the landscape too, I agree. As others, I am perfectly able to feel the "wow" effect, and it's the case here. But I'm disappointed by my very careful review. At high resolution, you could see what I mean. And I'm terribly sorry, because I'm sure I do not have the capacity to take such a picture.--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon, and for double web lines towards lower left. Looks very nice in thumbnail, but not FP quality, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 18:05:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great Barracuda, corals, sea urchin and Caustic (optics) in Kona, Hawaii 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Barracuda, corals, sea urchin and Caustic (optics) in Kona, Hawaii 2009.jpg
What is the problem with the quality? Not only caustic, but the barracuda are depicted quite well. Besides underwater image, shallow water, shiny camera in my hand, and barracauda are metigating factors. Please trust me on that.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know better than that. Or you should by now, anyway. It is not enough for a picture to have good quality or encyclopaedic value to become FP. It must be extraordinary in some way. And the present one is not. Featured pictures are the best Commons has to offer. 'Quite well' is not good enough and the camera, or the shooting conditions, are not supposed to be mitigating factors. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this pic is or is not a FP (according to opinions of few VIP here), but wait a moment, Mbz1, and somebody will say "oaoaoh, yes, but, indeed, the "caustic" is well shown, but the barracuda is disturbing..."...--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ha-ha-ha. I'd say The High Fin Sperm Whale maybe missed on the scope of the nomination, and I am not even going to comment on alves review. It speaks for itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what ? I came here this night (it's night now in France) to nominate another view, but after reading this review, I've given up. IMO, that's not the end, that's not the beginning of the end, but, maybe, that's the end of the beginning, when unhappy-fews (newbies) are giving up... I've decided to let them play together for the time, because every time I come here, I leave with something like a feel of disgust and anger.--Jebulon (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, honestly, I am about to give up myself, but I would ask you not to. The thing is that FPC is a great place to share one images. I'm taking pictures to share them with as many people as possible, that's what keeps me going in spite of everything, but I kind of starting to understand what Tomas meant.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In you first review you said "The quality isn't bad", now you said "low quality". The image is 2 mega pixels, and no it is not easy to get such shots in the nature with such patterns of caustics, with corals and barracuda for more wow. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelé 1960.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelé 1960.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 07:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zygaena lonicerae caterpillar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zygaena lonicerae caterpillar.jpg
Neutral Looks very good in thumbnail, but oversharpened and poor details in full view. For photoprint maybe ok but for studying purposes it's insufficient. • Richard • [®] • 12:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one. More than good quality iMO. Furthermore, I have a Question: is an oppose review explained only by letters "BBB" (what is a "bug", here ?) sufficient ? Isn't it too badly depreciative and contemptuous for the nominator ? My English is not very good...--Jebulon (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears I'm being a victim of my own process... Good sign. But no need for fundamentalisms. The level of the present insect ('bug') bar can be easily preceived by quicky browsing the FP gallery. No, I'm not being depreciative or contemptuous. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You, Alvesgaspar, a victim ??? ...Anyway, thanks for answering. No worries. And I'm very sorry to be an idiot : a quickly browsing was not enough to me for perceiving easily the bad level of this image. I'll try to improve.--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really, really sorry, cause the composition is so good and nice that it really hurts me to oppose! But as Richard allready said, the full view not so nice anymore. Its a pitty that nearly all of your pics are so heavy sharped. greetings mathiasK14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 15:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:La rocca malatestiana di Cesena.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:La rocca malatestiana di Cesena.jpg
Oppose try to get a composition without the tree on the righ, this way the tree is a bit disturbing. Without the tree it would be a nice shot --AngMoKio (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 04:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpg
Comment -- This is obviously a false colour depiction of the surface but no sufficient explanation is given, either in the image file or in the nomination. Still the value of this kind of images depends very much on it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sea is not black and the oil is not white in daylight. Thus, this must be some kind of infrared (IR) image with light warm areas (the oil) and dark colder areas (the sea). This is because the quantity of IR radiation emitted by any body is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law). This property allows IR satellite imagery to be used for mapping the temperature of the surface. Concerning the present case it is a well known fact that spilled oil is usually warmer than the water because it heats faster with the sun's radiation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the full description from NASA. They explain how the smooth surface of the slick can lead to brighter reflections than rough sea water (at least in the sunglint area, explained further here), but they don't say whether this image is intended to approximate natural colours. It doesn't look far off to me (comparing against this "photo-like" image), although it appears very different to this image from a few days before, which is not affected by sunglint. Here is a false colour image highlighting the slick. --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the explanation makes sense and I was wrong. Anyway, I think that we should be more carefull in chosing and preparing images to be nominated to FPC. I'm also a bit annoyed by this continuous spamming of NASA pictures. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tantalum single crystal and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tantalum single crystal and 1cm3 cube.jpg
Oppose I was not to review this kind of images, because I do not find this recurrent thema very interesting (only my personnal opinion), but a support of course sounds strange to me. Why "of course" ? It's for me the occasion to say this. Maybe the technical method used to obtain this metallic sample is rare or hard to use. Maybe the subject or the object are rare. Maybe it has a high educationnal value, but I'm sorry, and I know here that I'm not politically correct, and that I will maybe break a taboo, but I have to oppose because of two reasons : I do not see a real difficulty to take such studio pictures (ware it so difficult, we wouldn't have always two (sometimes three) current nominations of metallic samples here). Furthermore, may I say that I don't feel here any "wow" effect, as usually said here ? If I have an "of course" to say, it is : of course, the work of the scientist and photographer is very conscientious and has (as far as I'm able to judge) a real scientific value, and is very respectable. But I think that, maybe, and respectfully, all of these productions are not FP. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, :-( OK, your opinion. But try to think about the following: you can say it for all the macros, panos and so on images. My images have a high resolution, the not simple focus stacking technique, the composition, the rare samples and the high value and education. I take photo for the wikipedia projects. What's missing else??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jebulon. This picture has a thought-out composition and a very good lighting. Also focus stacking is not the easiest thing. Are you really sure it is so easy? --AngMoKio (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some technical issues : I see something "brown", is it the natural color of the metal, or a disturbing reflection of the labo ? Furthermore, it seems to me that the "vertical parallelepiped" sample is too close of the "cubic" one. Would be better if a little of the background could be seeable between them. Then the composition looks not very good IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tantalum rod is a round and high reflective mirrow. The "brown" area is a reflection. "vertical parallelepiped" sample is too close of the "cubic" --> yes, but I saw it first after my fifth stacking session. It was enough work for me for this sample. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info It looks like this one is going to go through ... There is a new category under objects : Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals. Please place there, thanks. --ianaré (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 19:53:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Historical Panorama of BeirutCommons:Featured picture candidates/Historical Panorama of Beirut
Oppose the clone-job in the left seam misrepresents the mountain skyline. And is therefore misleading. See this image (look straight above the construction crane, the right slope is not nearly as steep as in the faked image above. I'm very skeptical of of this type of image manipulation, especially when real image content is created (rather than dust spots remove in plain blue sky). --Dschwen (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. But I wouldn't go as far as calling it 'creating content', it's considered as some type of interpolation (the same as stitching, cleaning dirt and removing stains). The slope was suggested by the stitching procedure which is based on complex mathematical procedure, and by simply comparing the edges of the photographs. Concerning the file, I do not believe, the slope is the one you believe to be above the crane, I suspect it's somewhere behind the left building. Anyway, would you support the original instead? --Banzoo (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure this is the slope, check the shape of the adjacent mountains, they fit perfectly. And please do not argue with complex mathematical procedures. I know how stitching works. That clone job has nothing to do with that. It was just guesswork. --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the heal function is considered as well as a type of guesswork. It's a type of interpolation, there is no single solution. However, this guess was based on the slopes of the stitched work. You are welcome to provide another solution. Also, I would like to have your opinion on the un-retouched, only stitched work. Thanks! --Banzoo (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- This is indeed an interesting and valuable picture but I'm not convinced that either of the versions deserves the FP status. I would prefer the original anyway. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I strongly oppose this sort of digital "restoration" being put up a "one of the finest images" on Wiki Commons. How can that possibly be so?
I oppose the level of manipulation that has taken place. While I do not oppose filling in the tear with a suitable background tone, in modern restoration practices (paintings, monuments etc), the "interventions" must be apparent to the naked eye. If you have added a strip where the photo is torn, then a slight difference in texture or tonality ought to be left specifically to inform the viewer that this part is a reconstruction.
It is incomprehensible to me that a black and white version should be preferred and put up for assessment, in preference to the sepia colour of the original! Please take it away, and put up the much more attractive sepia version.
Re Black and White versions. My opinion is that black and white versions are often useful accessories. A much smaller version of the B&W, one which does not jam your browser when you try to load it, is always a useful thing to have, for articles where pics are presented as thumbnails, and a viewer might want to quickly check out the picture in a larger size without any trouble. If that larger size goes beyond the edges of the screen, its a nuisance for rapid viewing.
If I knew Commons would not encourage restoration I wouldn't spend much time and effort trying to partially restore and cleaning dirt and stains from this gargantuan panorama (100+ MPixels). But I beg to differ; a quick look at the featured pictures under the History category reveals that restoration was part of a large group of pictures. For instance, you may notice the difference between this original and the restored one. Note that the restored one always link to the original, so that users can be aware of the restoration process.--Banzoo (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The restoration of this image is well done, it doesn't add to nor remove any detail from the original image, (for example there is no mountain that weren't in the original one). Honestly I prefer looking at the restored one than the old one. Restoration is always good, the picture is historical and not political, so it should bring the viewer as close as possible to the environment at that time. Otherwise why the hell would go to the louvre museum to see Monalisa (which was darkened by restorartion) and other paintings. SuperAriel 4:59pm 13 June 2010 (EDT)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 05:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Victory Monument Chicago.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Victory Monument Chicago.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:790106-0203 Voyager 58M to 31M reduced.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:790106-0203 Voyager 58M to 31M reduced.gif
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 16:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall gateway by night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall gateway by night.jpg
Oppose - would look better in daylight or at least less dark. Blurry people don't help, and certainly not that brightly lit building behind right. This pic is nicer to my mind. - MPF (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind if we can't see the monument. Let's assume that what we want to know is how the lighting engineers have positioned the lights (a day photograph could not tell that as well). I wish we had some info about what is taking place in the middle of the picture. Is it an exhibition ? I wish we would be told the names of the main buildings shown : those 3 buildings in the background and the name of the building or stairs where the photographer is standing. The picture should be inserted into a night-related category (don't we have anything like night views of Taiwan, or night views of Taipei ?). Teofilo (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 22:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Green turtle in Kona 2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green turtle in Kona 2008.jpg
It is different. She swims towards me. none of the three images that are FP now have the same view. They all were taken from the side. This view is rather rare. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC). It is also showing underneeth, as no other image does.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my encounters with sea turtles, I have seen their undersides a few times, though usually on my way up (ie decompression stop). Then again, one generally looks at the sea floor. In any case, the image is good and not identical to other FPs, this is why I did not oppose. Aesthetically, I find the others to be better (notably this one), this is why I didn't support. If it was a different species ... --ianaré (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image you refer to is only 2 mega pixels. No matter how many green turtle images are featured, there never will be as many as the images of same bees, dragonflies and so on, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If a million bug and flower pictures can be FP, this can definitely be. It is a good, solid photograph with encyclopaedic value. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could you please add more info about the picture ? When was the picture taken (you probably wrote it somewhere, but I can't find it in the |date= field of the information template) ? Where ? Would it be possible to use Commons:Geotagging or how far from the coast ? or how shallow is the water ? The link to w:Kona is a disambiguation page. The picture should be inserted in a location category. Any idea whether this is a baby turtle or a mom or a dad ? I can't find a dictionary or a glossary explaining what "manual cloning" means en:Cloning (disambiguation) has no photography related link. Where has the camera EXIF gone ? Or was that an argentic photo ? Teofilo (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the info you requested including Commons:Geotagging. I do not know the sex of the turtle, but they was not a baby. EXIF data was gone in the process of cloning. Original image is lost, that's why I cannot add the info. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK if I add "English: Green turtle, Chelonia mydas in Keauhou bay, w:Kona District, Hawaii" in the description ? This is because your geotagging provides me with [this map. But only you can tell if the geotagging was so precise that the location is exactly that bay rather than some other nearby area. Anyway, my vote is Support. Teofilo (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are a lot of FP, and this one is very very good. If there is more than one picture of the same topic there can be a period of time between the dates of presentation in the main page. Kooritza (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 05:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Benjamin Franklin - Join or Die.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Benjamin Franklin - Join or Die.jpg
Info Obviously, I'm not nominating this for its artistic merit: This image was a rallying point for the American Revolution, as well as - well, have a read of en:Join, or Die for the whole story. =) I estimate the original size at between 3-6", probably towards the lower end. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image was used in Insurgents flags too, if I'm not wrong. But where does this print come from, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I just read the article, and I've got the answer now, sorry !--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 07:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral at dusk (reduced grain), corrected perspective.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral at dusk (reduced grain), corrected perspective.jpg
Support, I think this is a very good shot of the subject. My only regret is that the altar and cross are almost hidden in darkness ; yet this is part of the design of the cathedral, and not a shortcoming of this picture. --MAURILBERT(discuter)13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is more than good, for this picture featured in the english wikipedia. A day shot would not have shown better details, for example the very nice light through the stained glass windows above. --Jebulon (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No information template (I am considering to vote "oppose" for that reason). No creator templates for the architects (requires an analysis of each work done by each architect and finding out how many architects did the features that are seen on this view). Perhaps a creator template for the stained glass artist would not be superfluous either. Could it be possible to mention in simple words the location of the photographer (taken from South ? North ? West ? East? ) in addition to the Geotagging ? I can't find out the date when the pic was taken (was that 70 years ago ?). Where has the camera EXIF gone ? Or was it an argentic picture ? But it is a beautiful picture, if that's what you want to hear. Teofilo (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 08:46:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Nice spider! Good details on it, but composition and backround (the leaf down left and the white areas above) are not so nice. bg mathiasK14:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:03193u Vauxhall Johnson, Mary Robinson, and so on 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:03193u Vauxhall Johnson, Mary Robinson, and so on 6.jpg
693
3838
1497
792
8799
6190
James Boswell, Samuel Johnson, and Oliver Goldsmith
This allows at least some of the details to be made out. The original is extremely large, and at this size you can, for example, just make out Samuel Johnson, James Boswell, and the like, which you could not in the smaller. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a FP, IMO. Please notice that annotations are not the exactly the same here and on the file page. A visit to this file page would be very interesting because of the very well-documented explanations. High (english) historical value.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral bad file name. Unless the purpose of "03193u" is convincingly explained, I find it "noisy". The true title of the artwork should be provided. In that case it seems to be Vaux-Hall with a hyphen. So the File should be called [[:File:Vaux-Hall.jpg]] or [[:File:Vaux-Hall by Thomas Rowlandson.jpg]] or [[:File:Thomas Rowlandson - Vaux-Hall.jpg]](in a similar fashion with File:George Romney - Portrait de l'artiste.jpg) . A Creator template should be used. The date information should be provided in a less ambiguous manner, mentionning that 28 June 1785 is not the date when the event took place or the date when the painting was completed but the publishing date. Category:Engravings is a crowded category and no file should be included directly into it. Instead it should be included into a more detailed "by century" or even "by decade" or "by year" category and a "by country" category. Perhaps a template adapted from {{Painting}} should be created for engravings. I not sure if one should understand that it was "drawn by" Rowlandson, as a painting was mentioned. Should we no write "painted by" instead ? Teofilo (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Teofilo. One obvious effect of the filename's 0- prefix is to place it at the top of any category page it is in, making it more conspicuous, very sneaky . . . On the pic itself, yes, high quality and so on, but it doesn't have the 'wow' factor that makes a pic special. The subject matter I find decidedly boring. MPF (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I've actually been meaning to move it for some time, but it's used enough places that it's going to be slightly disruptive. Long story short, that was the filename on my computer; the 03193u is the Library of Congress file name, which makes it a little easier for me to find the right page again when it comes time to link the image. Unfortunately, when I sent my work to Durova, she uploaded without changing the name, and there was no easy way to move files until fairly recently. It's moved now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort to change for a better name. I still disagree with your keeping of "Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary Robinson, et al." within the file name. I think File names should not be more complicated than "<artist name> - <artwork title>". For example, I find the dates too noisy in File:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498).jpg but I am glad that it is not named [[:File:Leonardo da Vinci - The Last Supper - Jesus, Peter, John et al.jpg]]. Anyway your effort is probably worth that I change my "oppose" into "neutral". Teofilo (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, even with the tilt fixed, the exposure is too much in the upper left area, and the composition isn't the best in my opinion. It's a nice photo, though. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 02:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg
Well it looks beautiful. I am no expert on this kind of litterature or printing process, so in case my vote might have any value, it is Support. For my curiosity, is that really taken from a book with a page number ? I would have thought this kind of picture would be selled as a single poster so that people can hang it on the wall or if it is very small (I forgot to ask you to write down the actual size) use it as a bookmark in a prayer book. Teofilo (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a collected volume of a weekly magazine. It wouldn't surprise me if the original publication had people cut it out. As for size - I scanned it at 800dpi, so, including the small border I included as the sides are not perfectly straight, it's about 6.5" x 8.5", or 16cm x 22.5 cm. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 22:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Minaret mosquee paris orage.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Minaret mosquee paris orage.jpg
Oppose composition doesn't convince me. The slightly off-center minaret is not a good idea, through that the composition seems random. Also the tree doesn't really fit in. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC) You're right, but... was taken from the balcony of my flat... No other choice...--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition and the light, but camera shake is easily visible (look at full res on the spike at the top). --TheHighFinSpermWhale 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC) You're right too... Well, the light was really very nice...--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 02:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moraine Lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moraine Lake.jpg
Oppose Waaay oversaturated. That kind of photo manipulation interferes with real educational value, and isn't really an acceptable style for featured-level work on Commons. Steven Walling06:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, it doesn't really have the typical Flickr HDR look, apart from the dark border on the mountains, but it is definitely oversaturated.--Aqwis (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Steven Walling & mathias. Shame, because it could have been a useful photo if it hadn't been mucked about with. Tried to see if I could repair it in photoshop, but it didn't work. - MPF (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 05:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sandstorm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandstorm.jpg
Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar; slightly off-level (needs rotating slightly CCW), and rather sordid set of military hardware in the foreground makes it less attractive than a pic with natural landscape ahead of a sandstorm - MPF (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carina Nebula shows star birth in the extreme.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carina Nebula shows star birth in the extreme.jpg
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 17 Jun 2010 at 07:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Many of my astronomy-related nominations aren't always well received, so I'm going out on a limb with this one, hoping that the unique circumstances of the photo make up for any other small shortcomings. Besides this being a rather unique vantage point of a launching space shuttle, I believe the image is further enhanced by the fact that the shuttle (albeit small and blurry) plus the ground site are both in view, the dramatic shadow of the plume over the ocean, the two cloud layers and the Strike Eagle in the foreground. Anrie (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For wowness and educational value (I didn’t know a shuttle liftoff wasn’t vertical). A pity the quality isn’t better, but it’s a rather unique photo. Ditithe penguin — 09:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - interesting pic, but needs nearly 5°CW rotation to make the horizon level; though rotating that much would make the crop very tight, so won't be easily done. - MPF (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A rare picture and an 'inspired' composition, quality good enough. I prefer to see the aircraft levelled rather than the horizon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very high educational value compensates for the technical issues, and the overall composition works despite the horizon line at an angle. Jonathunder (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flying Falcon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flying Falcon.jpg
Oppose - zoo animal, with ugly straps trailing from feet. Also filename needs correcting, it's a Red Kite Milvus milvus, not a falcon. - MPF (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 23:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Khajoo-Bridge.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Khajoo-Bridge.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Red eyed tree frog edit2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red eyed tree frog edit2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 06:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Interesting, and nice colours, but the blurry grass blade in front of the stump is distracting. The composition seems unnecessarily wide too. --Avenue (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 13:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haifa BW 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haifa BW 4.JPG
Neutral Nice pano, but I'm not so happy with the composition (the croped Bahá'í Garden) and the sharpness. Could it be that the fokuspoint was set too close in the foreground? Cause this is nicely sharp and the city looks a little blurry. bg mathiasK15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 10:35:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - No explanation of anything (what are the green rings in the air? what are the red and blue-green glows?), and also people are blurred. - MPF (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow you two are a piece of work. Blurred people on a long exposure shot ? How strange !! - BTW this effect is commonly used in night shots, to contrast with the immobility of the scene, as here. Nice composition : good framing & some lead-in is present, the blurred foreground adds depth to the image. It could be cropped, though I prefer it there (also dimensions make it suitable for desktop wallpaper). Quality is good for a night shot. -- ianaré (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the blurred people are an issue (they could have been asked to hold steady for the photo!), but the lack of information is much more why I opposed. The info won't be easily available either, as the photographer isn't a Commons contributor who can be asked for more detail - MPF (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, but I think it needs an explication about the blue and red glows and why there are some green rings. --Llorenzi (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The description given is simply inadequate. There has been inconclusive speculation about what we're seeing on the image's talk page for more than a year. I agree with Ianare about the blurred people and foreground, and the good general image quality. I would support if a convincing description of the interesting lighting effects was given. --Avenue (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:35:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ampulex compressa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ampulex compressa.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Sorry, nice capture but way below 2mpx size minimum (only 1,7 mpx) --mathiasK07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 21:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dolomite-Magnésite- Navarre.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dolomite-Magnésite- Navarre.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 18:29:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suzuka 300km Endurance - Qualifying 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suzuka 300km Endurance - Qualifying 2010.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 23:50:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:" Fontana de Trevi ".jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:" Fontana de Trevi ".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 image quality is very poor -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2010 (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 18 Jun 2010 at 20:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anax imperator exuvia2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anax imperator exuvia2.jpg
Oppose per Alves, the composition would be better when the branch on the left side would'nt be there and maybe with a slightly other point of view to show more from the exuvia sharp. As it is now, the DOF is to low. --mathiasK17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 20:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chestnutbandedplover.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chestnutbandedplover.jpg
Comment - strong blue cast. I'll edit it to correct the colour balance, and then re-think whether to support. - MPF (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done. This may not be the best possible edit, if anyone else can do better, please give it another go from the first upload - MPF (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to get it white, but couldn't without also losing the sandy upperpart colour. As mentioned above, anyone who can edit the original blue version better is very welcome to give it a go - MPF (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anand Karthik Sarma is an author, not Prashanthns (uploader) - change it, pls. Source: Photograph by Anand Karthik Sarma (rudolfsarma AT yahoo.com)Przykuta → [edit]15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment beyond the geotagging, which is fine, the picture should be inserted into a location-related category. The exact location should be mentioned in English in the |description= field of the information template too. It should not be inside Category:Nests as there is a subcategory : Category:Bird nests. It should also be included into a suitable subcategory of Category:Eggs. As a bird displaying "threat display" it might be suitable for inclusion into a subcategory of Category:Animal behavior. Do we have any idea whether it is a male or a female (I mean the parent, not the baby inside the egg) ? Where has the EXIF gone ? I miss the picture date. Especially I wish I knew in which season this is : spring? summer? autumn? winter? (I am close to voting "oppose" because of the absence of any date). The File name is a bad name (it should be renamed with a space between "Chestnutbanded" and "Plover". Teofilo (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I humbly withdraw the nom from FP. A very hasty nom on my part, perhaps. Another time maybe....Thanks Teofilo for the comments. I have made all the cat changes. Regarding EXIF I am not sure what happened. I'll try and figure out a way of uploading the EXIF data from my computer, if that is possible with the date. Thanks again! Prashanthns (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 15:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kirche Wirdum 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kirche Wirdum 2010.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten.
Oppose It' really very nice, a high quality picture, but I don't see anything which may permit to consider this image as a "Featured picture".--Jebulon (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry imo the composition isn't very interisting (cut tree on the right side, bicycle is laying around, cut bench on the left side, trees on the left side too close to the border) and the church, especially the gable, looks heavily distorted. --mathiasK09:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the description page looks fine (good category, geotagging, image description). I would prefer you would take 4 ugly pictures (North South East West) of that building rather than only one beautiful picture, but I have to admit that this picture is beautiful. Teofilo (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 13:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Girl on Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Girl on Beach.jpg
Oppose Nice picture with a nice composition but I don't see the reason to promote it as one of the best pictures on commons. bg mathiasK16:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Encyclopedic value or not, we just don't have many 'people pictures'. Especially ones which capture moments.
Neutral really a nice composition. But somehow i am still missing sth..i am not sure what it is. maybe the picture should be a bit brighter and maybe a bit of the front part of the girl should be visible. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great clean action shot with really nice composition. The lighting is a little dull, but I think I would still support if only the watermark was removed (noting the authors terms "Except for clearly identified derivative works, removal of my copyright notice or watermark by manipulation or cropping is not permitted."). Finally, it would be nice if the uploader could categorize it better. --99of9 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Alves did a good job, the picture looks much better now and yes, we have not enough FP from persons like this one here. Need to think about and maybe I will support cause the composition is really nice. --mathiasK10:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - attribution removed from image, license on image has been changed from cc-by-2.0 at source to cc-by-3.0 here Gnangarra00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 15:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Greetsieler Zwillingsmühlen 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Greetsieler Zwillingsmühlen 2010.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The twin mills (Greetsieler Zwillingsmühlen) of Greetsiel, East Frisia, Germany, seen form west in the evening.
Comment There are three dust spots in the sky, two at the upper right and one other at the left of the red hub. I'm willing to support once they are removed. --Cayambe (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a new version without dust spots. Please check if I removed all. If you find someones please mark me them with the Image Annotator. Thanks --kaʁstnDisk/Cat19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Missing the wow! Lighting could be better. I've been there and know that this image does not do justice to the impressive lighting these mills can have. -- H00521:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's right, the picture was taken in the evening. Of course the lightning isn't like a midday photo. But imo the atmosphere is better than a 12'clock shot. And a wow by landscape photos is always not easy ;) --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 13:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kanitz-Kyawsche Gruft in Hainewalde HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kanitz-Kyawsche Gruft in Hainewalde HDR.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 08:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Supermarine Spitfire Mk XVI NR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Supermarine Spitfire Mk XVI NR.jpg
Neutral This is a very nicely captured picture, with an excellent composition. However, there is too much CA imo: violet fringe at left, violet and green fringes at right. Sorry for not supporting. --Cayambe (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Minor CA is acceptable, but the composition doesn't sit well with me. An FP should make me feel comfortable looking at the image; this particular photo instead gives me the feeling that the craft is about to fly right off the file. In other words, the framing is not ideal for me. –Juliancolton | Talk02:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 17:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mangga Dua Jakarta's Chinatown.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mangga Dua Jakarta's Chinatown.jpg
Comment, how the hell is this flickr kitsch? It's not HDR and the colours are perfectly natural. The perspective is due to the use of an ultra-wide lens. No, I won't support it; it's just not interesting enough in my opinion, and the vignetted corners don't look very good. But you can't just slap the label "flickr kitsch" onto everything you don't like. --Aqwis (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The colours are perfectly natural?? Is that a joke? In my opinion it don't need to be HDR to be Oversatured (what this pic is) Flickr (thats where the pic came from) Kitsch (thats what the pic look for me). But that is just my opinion, that dont need to be true as User:Lošmi allready showed.
Newsflash, strong colours exist in reality. The only oversaturated part of the picture is possibly the sky, but that might be because the picture is a little bit underexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? Strong colours in real life? Can't believe! I allways think and see b/w. As a compromiss: In future I will be more carefull with the using of Oversatured Flickr Kitsch. I promise! bg mathiasK15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 21:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago night pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago night pano.jpg
6472
2938
467
1380
23396
4452
stitching
20282
2961
512
1224
23396
4452
stitching
22128
2181
1245
935
23396
4452
out of focus
Info at approx. 100 megapixels, large range of light intensities and color temperatures, long exposure times, the technically most difficult panoramic shot I've taken so far. It shows a few buildings displaying messages to congratulate the Stanley Cup win of the Chicago Hockey team Blackhawks. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Comment Fantastic work, wow! But I'd like to see less water and more sky. Do you have some of the latter left to add? -- H00523:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the stitching on the water is ok though you can easily find if you look and there are few points it occurs, I highlighted two but hey its water which moves considering the time need to compose each shot its not an issue as they dont disrupt any reflection. I would like to see the right edge cropped as that last frame is totally out of focus Gnangarra11:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these are minor stitching problems. the most important part is the urban landscape, not the water where in general the water in the photo can be blurry etc. Ggia (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 21:57:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La proue de l'épave.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La proue de l'épave.JPG
Oppose sorry to oppose also this one but this piece of wood is right in the middle of the pic which makes it a quite boring composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Subject is interesting, but can't you work out a more aesthetic picture - better composition - with it? (maybe a low level angle in early morning or evening with reflection in water) --Cephas (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shame! I would really like to support but the composition needs some improvement. can you give it an other try? Amada44 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 01:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 04:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Delphinus delphis 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Delphinus delphis 02.jpg
Comment - This Dolphin frescoe at Knossos is a replica of a minoan frescoe. The original was found fragmentary in Knossos, restored by the Artist Piet de Jong between 1922 and 1930, and is now in the Heraklion Archaeological Museum.Llez (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:19:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jellyfish aqurium.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jellyfish aqurium.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 18:56:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kraftwerk Walheim 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kraftwerk Walheim 2010.jpg
Oppose sorry, solid shot. but the the sharpness is far away from featured status and I see nothing extraordinary here what will price this picture as one of the best on commons. --mathiasK09:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 040925-N-0295M-066 Kent Shockley and his jet truck ShockWave, race Gene Soucy^rsquo,s Showcat biplane.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 040925-N-0295M-066 Kent Shockley and his jet truck ShockWave, race Gene Soucy^rsquo,s Showcat biplane.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 21:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jennette McCurdy at the Kids' Choice Awards.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jennette McCurdy at the Kids' Choice Awards.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 14:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg
Info created and uploaded by Diliff, nominated by Maedin
Unfortunately, after further review, I must Oppose as per my above comment. This anomaly is really quite distracting and unfortunate. –Juliancolton | Talk16:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - don't care for the fish-eye effect on the shape of th--Karel (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)e roof (straight frames appearing curved), and also ditto to Juliancolton on the hanging basket - MPF (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to avoid that would be to use a rectilinear projection, in which case the sides would look horribly dragged-out. --Aqwis (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like much of it and I'm fine with the wide-angle effects, but I don't like the dark hanging basket and some other distracting detail. Jonathunder (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 14:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Quality is not sufficient for this shot to be featured. Not really sharp, esp. considering it's a static, well lit subject in a location allowing the use of a tripod if requested. --MAURILBERT(discuter)17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:56:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caserma NATO sul monte Palon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caserma NATO sul monte Palon.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality (noise, lack of detail, colouring) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (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 30 Jun 2010 at 01:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Dandelion Ripe 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Dandelion Ripe 1.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It's really, really blurry.
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 30 Jun 2010 at 01:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erysimum rhaeticum.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erysimum rhaeticum.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Noisy, not sharp, dull light and/or underexposed. --ianaré (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (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 22 Jun 2010 at 09:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2010 FIFA World Cup Fans .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2010 FIFA World Cup Fans .jpg
OpposeI guess that there was a third person, or something else, which has been removed from the photo (white part which can be seen through girl's hair). Also, her hair looks blurred on the right, and few cloning errors are obvious. --Lošmi (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're right with the cloning errors... but the white color you can see through her hair is also above her head. So looks like there is some kind of white structure there in the wall behind her... --Jeses (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lošmi is right, this picture has been modified and it is not stated in the description. It is unfortunate because it is a nice picture. --Cephas (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the name of the file important for a FP ? This pic was taken in may 2007, and I see two faces with the south-african flag, but nothing to do with the FIFA WC in 2010. Maybe are there fan of the Springboks rugby-union team, are fans of... South-Africa ? Furthermore, the little crop of the summit of the head of the left person is a pity, and was unnecessary for the compo, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture should be inserted into a subcategory of Category:Facepainting. Category:Supporters at FIFA World Cup 2010 sounds like the picture was taken in 2010 during the world cup, but this is a picture taken in 2007. Can't we have a more precise location ? Is it in a small village or a big city ? Any information about the make-up artist ? Was the picture taken in a public place or at a photographer's studio, or in any other private place ? Was that during a public event involving many people ? How can we be sure that they are soccer fans, or only models pretending to be soccer fans ? Are they models paid for that job ? Have they been interviewed ? Are they supporters with an experience of buying a ticket to see their national team ? The informative value of this picture remains a bit fuzzy. The author information is not precise enough. Who is the person who pressed the shutter Audrey Scales or Patrick Scales ? We need a permission E-mail, as the uploader is not necessarily the author. We need a confirmation that the author and the uploader agree with each other about the decision to release the picture as a free licenced picture. Teofilo (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the author: The picture was taken in South Africa 2007. It was shot in the open against a wall and has not been modified. The people on this photo are no paid models, but true supporters of the Bafana Bafana team and proudly South Africans. The young lady on the left side later took part in the opening ceremony in soccer city Johannesburg 2010 as a Capoeira Artist and in the closing ceremony as a dancer with Shakira. Octagon (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 21:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brooms mexico.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooms mexico.jpg
Support COMPOSITION! Really nice piece of photographic technic and a prime example for photographic texture. Great! --mathiasK10:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but I dislike how the left is cropped. Would be closer to best work on Commons if the composition was more balanced in that way. Steven Walling02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am close to nominating this picture for deletion as an out of COM:SCOPE artistic photo without informative purpose. We would need some info about the manufacturer, or the materials used : to which biological species do the vegetal materials belong ? Where is the picture located ? In a shop ? In which city or village in Mexico ? Teofilo (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of scope? It's a detailed picture of a common subject that could definitely be of educational value. Hardly out of scope. Being beautiful or artistic doesn't mean it's not edifying, and the artistic elements of composition in no way obscure the subject and its qualities. Steven Walling20:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are unable to write a caption for this picture in a Wikipedia article. Are these brooms still used in Mexico today, or some brooms in a museum showing how brooms were manufactured a hundred years ago ? We are unable to provide reliable information about these brooms. Teofilo (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is always better to have more than less info about a picture it is still not necessary that a picture has encyclopaedic value or that it is helpful for a wikipedia article. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it and we could use it as a depiction of DOF. However, it could be nice to see a little more on the left side. Maybe I´ll nevertheless support later on. Nikopol (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea its good but for me the subject should have been shot from a level perspective reather than an elevated perspective that would remove the distraction of the handles in the foreground Gnangarra01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange crop, pretty shallow DOF for my taste. Also, I whould have shot from a slightly lower altitude, I feel like there's too much angle, which breaks the possible perspective effect. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the composition, though I agree more info should be given, the city and to verify these are new brooms in a shop. Name of plant used would also be very useful. --ianaré (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 17:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old Japanese Train in Alishan.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Japanese Train in Alishan.JPG
Good points - I've added the geotag and made the image straight. I've also slightly adjusted the levels and saturation. Laurent (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Green sky? Strange! . Seriously: 7,8% of the pixels have a value of 255 for the blue channel, this a stronge indication for clipping. It's not your fault, it's a limitation of today cameras and the jpeg format. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hardly within COM:SCOPE until someone finds out exactly which train model this is. Pictures of random old trains, unidentified old trains are hardly needed within Wikimedia projects. The picture should be kept, though, because it is highly probable that someone knowledgeable in Japanese trains will find out. But right now it is too soon to consider this picture as a featured picture Wikimedia should be proud of having. Teofilo (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not exactly an unidentified train - I put in the caption that it's the Japanese train on the Zhushan Line of Alishan (Taiwan). There's only one on that line so it could not be more identified than that :) I agree that it would be even better if the model was indicated though. I will try to find it out. Laurent (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the category to the same cat as all the other pics (16 of them!) of this engine . . . no doubt one of the other pics will already have this info on (ooops, they're not all the same engine, just similar, but different engine numbers ;-) MPF (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia says "Betrieben werden die Züge mit kleinen Stangendieselloks von Mitsubishi, die eigens für diesen Betrieb hergestellt wurden und teilweise mit Cummins-Dieselmotoren von ca. 750 PS ausgerüstet sind." : de:Alishan Forest Railway which seems to mean they are custom-made locomotives made by Mitsubishi, so that the category should be Category:Rolling stock by Mitsubishi ?? Teofilo (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On categories, it'd make more sense to put Category:Diesel locomotives of Alishan Forest Railway into Category:Rolling stock by Mitsubishi, rather than the individual photo(s) (assuming they're all Mitsubishi-made) - MPF (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think MPF's suggestion would make sense. I knew it was a Japanese train because I went there so I guess I heard it from someone or I read it somewhere. Laurent (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contrast between green and red is beautiful, therefore, for artistic purposes which have nothing to do on Wikimedia websites (my apologies to the Wikimedia donators for spilling their money here), the left part is necessary to the general harmony of the picture. Teofilo (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just happen to disagree with that: I can live with the colour, but the "modern" and quite common design of the tents (I don't know the specific work in English) does not really contribute to the harmony of the image. Also, it hides part of the train and is cropped in a definitely unsightly way. My opinion, anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 15:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bath from alexandra park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bath from alexandra park.jpg
Oppose -- Image quality (noise, lack od detail, washed out colours) and composition (out-of-focus) foreground) way below the present pano bar. Pretty obvious and clumsy clone job between the horizon and sky. Geometric distortion (buildings not vertical) quickly growing towards the margins. On the brim of FPX, really. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 20:20:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Marien ceiling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Marien ceiling.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2010 at 10:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment what geotag would one apply? Centre of the pic, or one of the corners? Centre would be more meaningful, but less easy to catch accurately from google earth than the corners. The centre is roughly 17°44'27"S 25°02'20"E. - MPF (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see nothing within the guidelines that makes this an FP the ~4000x3000 px image doesnt reveal any detail, the composition is lacking any impact this no different to any of the 1,000s of satelite photographs that are around. Gnangarra01:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm with Gnangarra on this one and don't understand what makes this picture extraordinary. Whas it some particular flood? And when did it occur? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure who I should believe, Gnagarra saying "doesnt reveal any detail" or the NASA writer saying "highly detailed true-color image". It is not as high a resolution as that of Google maps satellite views, which use Spot Image imagery. But the date is more precise, and it is a free file. Are we determined to highlight free contents? By the way the purpose is not to show the streets or the location of the hospital, but to show a floodplain and its eastern limit when it reaches a geological fault. This is also a highly educative content as the image is provided with a detailed, easy to understand description on the NASA website. In my opinion, the only thing missing on this view is "Here be lions" as used to be written on old maps. Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Another brick on the wall.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another brick on the wall.jpg
Neutral (for now) I can see what you try to show and I don't know why, but this one don't catches me as much as your brooms pictue. But defenitly a great pic with a really cool title! --mathiasK10:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now Support for the great educational value in photographic technic. After looking longer on it I like it even more than your brooms picture. mathiasK09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No particular educational value we are in Art. The artist could work in manual and not automatic. He showed he had a good camera. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC
Comment Pieter Kuiper and Jonathunder oppose the image based on their opinion, and I have absolutely no problem with that, as it is their opinion, and they are entitled to that. Whether or not I agree with their opinion is inmaterial, and will not try to argue against it. But with your statements and the high fin sperm whale I do take issue, for you are not expressing an opinion, but issuing qualifying statements about the image. Starting with your statement that the image has no educational value, how do you substantiate it? From what criteria do you issue such statement? If you were a photographer, and if you knew about principles of design as they apply to photography, you would then recognize the elements that I mentioned, such as color, rythm and texture, which is what this image illustrates, hence its educational value. What happens here is that if you do not know about graphic elements, you cannot recognize them when you come accross them. Hence your statements about the image not having an educational value. As to me working in automatic and not manual, well, that too is inmaterial for you do not know how I make a desicion about working in manual or automatic. What I will tell you is that I make my desicions based on the zone system. Read about it. As to the nice camera, well, what does that have to do with your oppose? So my request to you and to the sperm whale is to prove that this image has no educational value, since you so authoritatively stated so. I think the participants of FPC deserve the courtesy of an explanation of your judgement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. After doing some sorting, subcategorizing, diffusing tasks among heaps of bricks and brick walls yesterday and this morning, I discovered that this picture is one the few items we have as an illustration of the somewhat more rare "raking stretcher bond with bricks overlapping by one third of their length". So it's a keeper. The File name should be changed into something more informative. I suggest [[:File:Brick wall in León, Guanajuato, 2010-06-13.jpg]] Teofilo (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) - I am no longer so sure about the bond identification. It could be a header/spanish bond with specific dimensions. Teofilo (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)NeutralTeofilo (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ordinary to me. Even if it isn't ordinary, is a picture of a brick wall really a good choice for a featured picture no matter how good the picture looks? I have a problem with seeing a picture like this close to the magnificent featured pictures that I have seen. Featured pictures should impress people. When people see this, most of them will probably be like "It's just a brick wall." Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2010 at 15:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Curculionidae 01 (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Curculionidae 01 (MK).jpg
Support My first try with the new guidelines is a Mononychus punctumalbum on a closed blossom of a flower of the Iris family. Good to see are the holes which came from feeding from the blossom. -- mathiasK15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I believe it could be darkened a little bit. It seems somewhat greyish for the moment. I did such an adjustment locally, but I didn't dare upload the modified file over the existing one. --MAURILBERT(discuter)15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a slightly darker version. The difference is just marginal but i wont go any further cause I'm really pleased with the result now. bg mathiasK09:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Confusing?? I can see a blossom and a bug. What is confusing on this? If you mean that you can see a ~ 5mm big bug so large on your monitor, than your right, that is confusing but imo no reason to oppose. So when you oppose please use comprehensible reasons. Thanks --mathiasK14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was confusing. Where is the head of this bug? I cannot see it. I do not see a flower - I first thought that the bud was some stage of the insect. I am sorry for not being an entomologist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now you are also leaving messsages on my talk page... please, you nominated, you invite comments, I commented. If you do not like it, do not nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I dont see anything bad if I leave you a message on your talkpage if i cant understand your oppose. But OK, I will never ever do so. Promise! But I still dont understand your oppose when you don't see where the bug starts and the flower stops. Thats the point of macrophotography, to show the viewer a world he did`nt recognise allone. But OK. --mathiasK14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
InfoI did an a crop of the image and tried to get a better composition. I think that is the biggest problem of the image. Amada44 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a tighter croped version to show more of the flower and the weevil. But I dont want to crop more cause I still want to show the blossom with the holes from the snout. I dont rotate the image cause a closed Irisblossom mostly stands upright. But thanks a lot for the try! So, please purge cache and have a look again. Thanks, bg mathiasK08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a weird little critter! I think the composition would improve a lot if the bottom half of the image were cropped. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe, but than you only can see one tiny hole and not three. And the Irisflower is a strong part of the biotope from this weevil for feeding AND reproduction. Because the eggs where also put in this flower through nearly the same holes. And thats the reason why I want to show so much flower with the holes. bg mathiasK09:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks confusing to me to. Neither I can clearly see an insect, and neither the composition works for me. Sorry. --Lošmi (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 12:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boer goat with two kids.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boer goat with two kids.jpg
Oppose just shot, poor composition and background. What is the object? Photo with two young boers will be good. Too much objects on this. Przykuta → [edit]16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 05:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - nice pic. The extreme top right corner needs a spot of sky cloning in, though; will support when that's done. Oh, and someone should tell the monks to water the garden, some of the plants are wilting ;-) MPF (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT: sky cloned in now - MPF (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per MPF. Also, busy compsition, somehow too much going on for me (perhaps more DOF would help?). Lighting and technical quality nice, though. Nikopol (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees on the left make me want to see this from a different angle. Even if that's not possible, this is annoying enough to mean it's not featurable for me. --99of9 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 12:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ku pamięci - Łaziska Górne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ku pamięci - Łaziska Górne.jpg
We need both kinds of pictures. We need the kind of pictures providing details on how one candle looks like, and pictures showing the global visual effect of theses candles, when they are actually used. If people traditionally use many candles together, we need a picture showing many candles together. Teofilo (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the issue is that there are two large black areas in the two corners of the picture. Also, although the topic of the picture are the candles, it's not possible to see any one of them in full. They are all either hidden behind other candles or cut at the bottom of the picture. Laurent (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes night is darker than the day and we can't see as many details. But we need night pictures in order to report events that take place during the night. Teofilo (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yes we need, and some of them (the best) are often considered good enough to reach FP status, as you will easily confirm with a quick browsing of the FP galleries. As for all the others, do you really believe that they loose their potential encyclopaedic value just because they were not promoted and run the risk of being deleted?...? I don't object when someone tries to make a point in a place like FPC (though some users very much do). But this place has a culture of its own, as well as a set of guidelines, which should be chechek carefully before trying to change the present status, especially when the attempts are made by someone not very familiarized with the process (yes, I read the crusade in Village pump against POTD) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vai R06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vai R06.jpg
In fact, it's both: a beach snapshot on the one hand, and a view of a unique botanical phenomenon - the only natural palm forest of Europe, as pointed out above - on the other... -- MJJR (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Malheureusement, l'endroit est certainement spécial, mais la photo l'est moins, même s'il n'y a pas grand chose à reprocher... - Benh (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 00:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:An Astronaut's Snapshot of the Moon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:An Astronaut's Snapshot of the Moon.jpg
I'd be happy(probably few others around here as well) to go get some pictures but we would need some funding assistance from the foundation to cover travel costs :) Gnangarra08:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the photo is made of three photos pieced together, and this white line could be the intersection of two of the photos. Laurent (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Truly amazing content, and surprisingly good quality for a 1972 shot. Small stitching issues and crosshairs are mitigated by... well, the obvious. –Juliancolton | Talk00:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info How many degrees wide is that photo? More than 180°? On the right side of the picture the shadows point to a different direction than on the left side of the picture. ---donald- (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that the fringes could have been desaturated in order to avoid those unatural purple areas as it's a very easy post-processing operation. For the stitching, unfortunatelly... Sting (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - would like to support, but the number and badness of the stitching errors is just a bit too much. Would it be possible to get the individual section pics and re-stitch with more modern software? - MPF (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site seems to have the full set of Apollo 17 images but unfortunately they resized them all to a low resolution :( They have some highres panoramas as well but not the one we're interested in. nasa.org and nasaimage.org don't seem to have the full set of pictures either. Laurent (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:55:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brown Bear bathing.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brown Bear bathing.jpg
Oppose not enough of the bear is shown or not enough of a bear's natural environment is seen. Also not sure if this behavior would happen in the wild. --ianaré (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the picture, but I don't think that it would be a good choice for a feature picture because of the reasons stated above. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 14:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vicinity of Pigeon Point Lighthouse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vicinity of Pigeon Point Lighthouse.jpg
Neutral Very nice, but loss of detail (overexposition) on the octopus, which is a significant subject in the composition. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I don't really see the point of this - difficult shape for viewing (height 2× width); and what is the main subject, the dead octopus, or the lighthouse? I'd be inclined either to crop out the octopus to make a scenic coast shot, or else crop off the top to make an ecology photo of the dead octopus. Trying to fit both in doesn't work well. - MPF (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course matter of taste, but IMO remove an octopus and get a boring lighthouse, remove lighthouse, and get a boring octopus. Besides there is not only octopus there, but also w:sea anemones, and hermit crabs. I agree format is different, but it is practically not noticeable in the full resolution.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is of course matter of taste" . . . hope I don't have to taste the dead octopus ;-)) [Sorry, couldn't resist!!] MPF (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you really, and I mean really, would not like to taste the dead octopus, you'd better support the image . BTW was there something wrong with my English? Should I have used a different word?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is not per MPF. It is an usual revenge of a "spoiled child" - kuiper. I knew about this oppose was coming after I removed kuiper's message from my talk page. kuiper, it is about time you'd grow up.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it either way. Don't think it would be boring if the octopus was cropped out though. Think it would still have a lovely composition, a nice long shot. The design in the water lends interest itself. Stellarkid (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "subjects of interest" are not only the lighthouse, the octopus, sea anemones, and hermit crabs, but also the reefs, the very same reefs that were the reason of quite a few shipwrecks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 21:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 18:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Citrus paradisi (Grapefruit, pink) white bg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Citrus paradisi (Grapefruit, pink) white bg.jpg
Oppose not particularly stricking, detail in the fruit structure isnt overly clear any cross section should show seeds in whole not cut. The editing to adjust background to white appears to have drained colour from the fruits skin Gnangarra12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's incorrect about the color, the fruit was 100% masked from any changes to the background, it's identical in color, you can tell if you load both images up in your browser then switch back and forth between the tabs, or any other method of quickly switching between them to quickly visually tell the fruits color wasn't modified. — raeky(talk | edits)19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fruit is the seed pod of the plant, disection should be to reveal the internal structures of the fruit . Gnangarra00:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't ruby red considered "seedless" i.e. it doesn't produce viable seeds, those are pretty small seeds for a citrus and is what I would expect from a seedless var. — raeky(talk | edits)02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, don't like artificial white backgrounds, I'd rather see them on a 'real' surface, as long as the surface is reasonably unobtrusive. PS yes, the pips are abortive, unfilled. - MPF (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 15:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mulo sul monte Grappa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mulo sul monte Grappa.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 06:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2010 at 07:57:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Youngkitten.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Youngkitten.JPG
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 1 Jul 2010 at 02:35:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dendropsophus microcephalus - calling male (Cope, 1886).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dendropsophus microcephalus - calling male (Cope, 1886).jpg
Support We only have 25 featured amphibians, and none of them are calling. I love action shots, and this one is high quality with elegant composition. (disclosure: Brian is a friend of mine, and occasional contributor, who I would like to further encourage toward Commons.) -- 99of9 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was this frog actually in the jungle, or in a cage? And was actually in front of a black background, or was this done with an image editor? --TheHighFinSpermWhale03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of his photostream are taken in situ, and those that aren't are usually in a light-box with a white background, but I'm not sure. I will ask, but his last facebook status update was "Ready to venture into the Darien. lets hope we get some good frogs." so I doubt we'll get a timely reply :). --99of9 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 22:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F-22+F-117+F-4+F-15.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-22+F-117+F-4+F-15.jpg
Oppose Bof, c'est une image comme les autres, rien ne la distingue côté composition, symbolique ou qualité technique.--HAF 932 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.
Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 05:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quba 452.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quba 452.jpg
Neutral I find the clouds over exposed, and the 50/50 horizon too much of a distraction but concede that the location does give some value to image that cant be totally ignored Gnangarra12:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the sort of picture one is always tempted to take and think will work. Unfortunately with the sun at this angle you can never quite get rid of the blown cloud fringes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 05:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Unloading metal pipe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Unloading metal pipe.jpg
Neutral as long as the dustspots are there. When they are removed I give a strong Support cause this is a very interisting and perfect composed picture. mathiasK09:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far better IMO. I remove my opposition, but I don't support because I find the left part strangely unsharp, even near to the focus plane. --Eusebius (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - valuable pic of construction work in progress, not easy to get. Around here, getting a pic like this would be impossible due to site security / health & safety regulations - MPF (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 18:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AbingdonTornado.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AbingdonTornado.JPG
Support I know this is probably a long shot, but I thought it was worth nominating anyway. This is one of the best high(er) resolution photographs of tornadoes on all of Commons. The words in the bottom left will probably cause some opposes, but I think that (with the exception of the photographer's name) they add information to the picture that would not be conveyed by just the photo itself. -- Ks0stm(T•C•G)18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is the image description for this kind of information. Possibly the text could be cropped out or edited away if required. However image quality (mainly focus which appears to be on the grass in the foreground) is far away from featured picture standards in my opinion. bamse (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because the subject is out of focus (see the original un-cropped image which shows that the focus lies on the extreme foreground). bamse (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support this version over my previously nominated version...it's much better without the tilt and watermark. Ks0stm(T•C•G)21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 13:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pfefferminze natur peppermint.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pfefferminze natur peppermint.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 subject is not in focus
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 28 Jun 2010 at 12:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Burrowing Owl 4354.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burrowing Owl 4354.jpg
Oppose -- Inspiring composition! I was sure of my support until I opened the picture in full size and realized how unsharp it is... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do exaggerate a bit. The photo is not unsharp (just look at the definition on the talons), it's just not as sharp as it could be as it's wide open. If it had been at f/8, it would have been sharper, but the background wouldn't have been as clean. --Dori - Talk20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sooo unsharp. But at this "fir's postcard" size, I don't forgive (and also given hardware). Shame, because excellent otherwise. - Benh (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 15:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Lag jetzt aber nur an der Aufmerksamkeit. Du musst zugeben, dass das Bild im unteren Bereich wirklich absäuft und oben überbelichtet wirkt. Das Kontrastverhältnis scheint mir nicht zu stimmen. Es wirkt so als würde man geblendet in die Sonne schauen. Zudem vermisse ich schmerzlich etwas mehr Detail, da das Motiv dieses an sich zu bieten hätte. Wäre mal ein Fall für dezentes HDR und Stitching. --Niabot (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly there is no tripod allowed, therefore no HDR and no stitching. So I tried to take most out of the RAW File and the contrast may seem artificial. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only just . . . I wish they could find some less obtrusive method of lighting, without all those ugly hanging black wires ;-) MPF (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but image quality is not good enough. I also don't like the extensive out of focus parts. Alvesgaspar (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 03:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 20:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen amk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen amk.jpg
Could you please explain what is wrong with the composition? It seems an application of the classical "en:Rule of thirds". (You divide the "canvas" in nine more or less equal parts, and put the main object on one of the intersections.) MartinD (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - tourists. Would support if there was a bunch of re-enactment people dressed in iron age costumes instead ;-) MPF (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is a quite popular museum at the lake constance which mostly has visitors. So this pic documents the place as it mostly is. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if they don't hold re-enactment events from time to time. A photo of one would be much more worthy of featuring, as it would show the place as close to its original state as possible - MPF (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! Not the easiest shot but well done! Composition is fine and the tourist should to be there if it`s an used museum. OVerall really good, but where is the panning? --mathiasK14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 08:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Semperoper bi night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Semperoper bi night.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 12:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Soccer goalkeeper.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Soccer goalkeeper.jpg
Comment I do not believe the vignetting is unwanted - it could easily have been removed. It rather creates a tunnel effect, which supports the impression of speed and movement. -- H00510:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually do not support this USAF propaganda crap but this is military-free and a great shot. -- H00523:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Steven Walling et al. Where did they find a person who looks so much like Frankenstein's Monster?? MPF (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. To me it looks like the player (e.g. the expression on his face, his struggle to reach the ball) is the main subject of the image. A player should always keep his eye on the ball but the photographer isn't on the team. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fleeting action shots deserve some special consideration, they are much harder to get sharp than stationary subjects. This has an exciting mood, and the motion blur on the ball only gives it more activity. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unblurred ball is a little bit asked too much. :-) Really great picture, the composition, the way the keeper looks... --Ziko (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWolf (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Ja bym wam chętnie pokazał, pod hajrem i jak boniedydy, prawdziwą propagandę dla, psia kość, dosadnego porównania, i w te pędy skończyłyby się te nieprzytomne wydziwiania. Niektórym chyba przydałoby się z piętnaście lat życia w peerelowskim reżimie.[reply]
Oppose -- Nice picture but nothing extraordinary jsutifies FP status. BTW, there is obvious noise in the darker parts, e.g. the windows. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - interesting subject, and creative angles were probably required to get the shot, but the composition does not work for me here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 06:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor JSOH.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor JSOH.jpg
Neutral Neat photo, the postcombustion is cool (pun not intended :P), but I think it is a little too noisy and the crop is a little too tight. Ditithe penguin — 22:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find MPF's and Yann's reason for oppose unreasonable! This image was not taken by the US Air Force and therefore IMO is not military propaganda. It was taken by Rob Shenk at an Air Show. --JovianEye (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is mainly the frequency with which candidates broadly similar to this one appear as FPC - there are already more than plenty of them. Plus a semi-joke reference to some of the comments here - MPF (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 14:39:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Grattacielo Cesenatico 2009 - vista est.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Grattacielo Cesenatico 2009 - vista est.jpg
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 29 Jun 2010 at 14:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Burrowing Owl 4212.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burrowing Owl 4212.jpg
Oppose I enjoy your work Dori, but this one seems to have an unnatural lower crop and unfortunate shooting angle. --99of9 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 13:20:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Safari in Ngorongoro.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Safari in Ngorongoro.jpg
Question Could you please let us know what you find outstanding about this? Your contributions are usually wonderful, but this one completely bemuses me. --99of9 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but per 99of9. I can't share ur reason why this picture should be featuerd. Educational value is no part of the guidelines and using it in an article don't make the picture much better. Neither the quality nor the composition makes this pic outstanding enough to get featured imo. bg mathiasK15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 08:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baigneurs a Asnieres.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baigneurs a Asnieres.jpg
Provisional Support - nice pic - but is this version on en wiki even better? It is nearly nine megabytes compared to just one for this pic, and the colour reproduction is a bit brighter too, less greyish, 'washed-out' looking. - MPF (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. Anyway, like the others above, I think that this should be featured. Is it possible to replace this one with that image? Joe Chill 2 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should just move your support to the alternative below. We don't actually have to replace the file - some may prefer this version. --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 09:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Whiskey Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whiskey Beach.jpg
Oppose - something's gone very badly wrong with the sea, flat, featureless, whitish. Where are the ripples and the sea colour? - MPF (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're ironic, but I lose nothing in explaining (I find the reasons you raised unfair): It's because of long exposure (exif says 25sec) and you can obtain this sort of results by using ND filters and/or eventually polarizers (which bring additional 2 stops loss). Lighting from early morning probably helps as well. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Alvesgaspar, and the fact u lost ur polarizer there isn't special enough to me. You have much more impressive similar "surreal" pictures. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have seen too many images of this photographic affect of blurred moving water. How many FPs of this photographic effect does the wiki need? Snowmanradio (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Mars S. Jobling - uploaded by MJOBLING - nominated by Flawmore -- Flawmore (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Flawmore (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Background a bit noisy. --Eusebius (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Neutral good quality, background noise is negligible. DOF is a bit on the low side and the actual resolution on the bird could be higher. --Dschwen (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Question Are we looking at the same image? I see no more "posterization" (by which I assume you mean color banding) than is pretty much inevitable in an 8-bits-per-channel image, and only a few direct reflections of the lights (about 0.1% of all pixels) exceed the dynamic range. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is a particularly distracting peice of trash near the lower left..jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
I withdraw my nomination --патриот8790 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
_Luc_Viatour.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Strong support Rare view, Very high scientific, educational and encyclopedic values, emotional testimony of very far ancestors (hmm not so far of some I know...). Perfect photographical technics (details, light, composition, background). It honors the FP project, IMHumbleO. Thanks ! Sure, that's not flooding !! --Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC).jpg)
By the way the Wisentgehege Springe game park is no zoo, it is under the Habitats Directive a Natura 2000 natural habitat with wild fauna and flora. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
,_Artur_Siodmiak_(POL).jpg)
chromatic aberration and the overexposed sky, but I like the view, the scene and the sharpness --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
_(19_April_2002).jpg)
_(19_April_2002)_edit.jpg)
_edit_amk.jpg)
.jpg)
_in_Kona,_Hawaii_2009.jpg)
,_corrected_perspective.jpg)
Oversaturated Diti the penguin — 09:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Done - Watermark removed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
. Seriously: 7,8% of the pixels have a value of 255 for the blue channel, this a stronge indication for clipping. It's not your fault, it's a limitation of today cameras and the jpeg format. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-crop.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Artur_Siodmiak_(POL).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(19_April_2002).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_edit_amk.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_in_Kona,_Hawaii_2009.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_corrected_perspective.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![121 File:" Fontana de Trevi ".jpg](#File:"_Fontana_de_Trevi_".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_white_bg.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Artur_Siodmiak_(POL).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Artur_Siodmiak_(POL).jpg){kind=link}
,_Artur_Siodmiak_(POL).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Artur_Siodmiak_(POL).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_in_Amritsar,_India.jpg){kind=link}
_(19_April_2002).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(19_April_2002).jpg){kind=link}
_(19_April_2002).jpg,_not_feat){kind=link}
_(19_April_2002).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_edit_amk.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_edit_amk.jpg){kind=link}
_edit_amk.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_edit_amk.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){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_in_Kona,_Hawaii_2009.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_Kona,_Hawaii_2009.jpg){kind=link}
,_corrected_perspective.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_corrected_perspective.jpg){kind=link}
_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg){kind=link}
![23:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2010#c-Carlos5514-2010-06-16T23:50:00.000Z-File:"_Fontana_de_Trevi_".jpg){kind=link}
![09:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2010#c-Alvesgaspar-2010-06-17T09:05:00.000Z-File:"_Fontana_de_Trevi_".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_white_bg.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_white_bg.jpg){kind=link}
_white_bg.jpg)
_white_bg.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_white_bg.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
Confirmed sockpuppets of one another and have both been blocked for vote stacking and operating a rather large sockfarm. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
