Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2015

File:ToB 2014 stage 8a - Scott Thwaites 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2015 at 22:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KTC - uploaded by KTC - nominated by KTC -- KTC (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that lean in ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is a very nicely captured moment, and pretty good composition. I took some cycling photos during the 2012 London Olympics and I know how difficult it is, they pass by in a flash but it helps to capture them at a corner where there is more visual interest and they slow down (slightly). Diliff (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, I know it's not an easy shot to get, but the high visibility clothing directly around/behind his head is really distracting in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Julian H.. I’ve been hesitating for some days now about this but the person behind the head is too distracting. I’d support if the background were evenly dark as around. --Kreuz schnabel 07:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 08:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Tringa stagnatilis 2 - Laem Pak Bia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 12:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 12:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 12:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Skopje - panorama from fortress.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 12:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but a 3MP panorama isn't going to wow anyone in 2015. Quite heavily distorted and random composition. -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but per Colin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dimcho H. Dimov (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. - Benh (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others. Yann (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others; banding visible and compositionally this is nothing special. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Milseburg (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Nice yet not outstanding. --Kreuz schnabel 07:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. No wow. Usual shot. -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abejas (Lasioglossum calceatum) en una Kniphofia caulescens, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 02.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 20:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bees (Lasioglossum calceatum) on a Kniphofia caulescens, Munich Botanical Garden, Germany. Poc o² 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The left side flower is blurred at the top. Not sure if it is due to motion blur or being outside of the focal plane, but it's a bit unfortunate. I think perhaps it would have been better to have photographed just a single flower in a bit more detail. Diliff (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David: I see your point. You mean something like this? Poc o² 00:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that image is slightly better. But now the bottom of the flower is out of focus. You didn't keep the plane of focus in line with the stem and I guess it was leaning slightly, so the top is either closer or further away from you. Diliff (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Car at Car Graveyard.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 10:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Abigor -- Abigor talk 10:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Abigor talk 10:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, it looks blurred to me. The exposure time looks reasonable but nothing is really sharp and a few areas suggest a diagonal camera shake. A few areas are also slightly overexposed. It's not very bad but for such a relatively simple subject, I'd expect more quality. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for FP. The image description page could do with better description and categories. I assume this image is from Chatillon car graveyard and so there are far better photo opportunities than just one rusted car. -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm also an owner of a carwreck image ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and Julian. --P e z i (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

File:Valletta Lower Barrakka gardens Malta 2014 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 16:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed—see blown highlights on fountain rim and water. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good lighting and composition. I would like to give it a try, despite some issues and unnecessary people in the picture (yet not so annoying ones like with previous photo full of tourists). -- Pofka (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration, perspective distortion, overexposure, and wanting composition (fence cut off on the right). Nice scene but technical quality too poor for me. --Kreuz schnabel 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image quality isn't FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture of a nice place; but never ever FP. --P e z i (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Le Capitole à Timgad.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 11:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by + uploaded by Hamza-sia - nominated by Ana al'ain (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ana al'ain (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hi Ana al'ain, I uploaded an edited version here, as you're the nominator you can use it as an alternative if you want. -- Christian Ferrer 13:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad vignetting in all corners, red hotpixel, strong noise in the sky, little sharpness in the corners, unnaturally edited sky and perspective distortion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hi Christian Ferrer - thank you for the edited version! It is really better with the bluer sky and the upright columns. Can you also correct the other problems Julian H. mentioned? It is my first attempt for a nomitation, so I don't know the process. How can I change the image? First I put it under this info. --Ana al'ain (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I did everything I could. It's a very pretty picture...but quality requirements are very high here. -- Christian Ferrer 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose exactly per Julian H., plus severe CA. --Kreuz schnabel 09:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Edited version, corrected issues that Julian H. mentioned in the measure of my ability. -- Christian Ferrer 16:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you did a really good job correcting what is correctable. Sadly, some things are correctable only with access to the unedited file and some are probably not correctable at all (especially the bottom corners). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems the clouds came out of the pillars. Yann (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Kann man sich drin verlieren, prima!--Finderhannes (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Um auf FPC abstimmen zu können brauchst du leider mindestens 50 Edits. --DXR (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose Good looking thumbnail but vignetting and noise in the sky (even though author seems to have hopelessly blurred it). Weird edge between the sky and the rest. Exposures blending ? Sky pasted over ? Cheap work, but looks like it was necessary to achieve the dramatic effect. - Benh (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better than above but still not a FP in my opinion. Oversharpening, blurred lower left corner, high noise level, etc. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with others. This one is way oversharpened (sharpening artifacts against the sky) and still shows poor detail. Of course, information not present in the original image cannot be regained by editing. Pity, it’s a really nice scene but a better gear was needed here. --Kreuz schnabel 09:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Lądek-Zdrój, Zakład przyrodoleczniczy Wojciech HDR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 13:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Code (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not really keen on the composition, with the water feature/basin and pot-plants at the bottom. Based on this photo I wonder if the same central view could have been achieved from a viewpoint further round, that wouldn't have these distractions at the bottom. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. The fact that the foreground isn't centered makes it more distracting. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great job! --rs-foto (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Church of St-Gervais-et-St-Protais Interior 1, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 01:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ranks with your best work in Britain. Love the raking light on the aisle floor. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I often read about the technical achievements of user:Diliff but they most of the time serve already beautiful, extremely well thought and composed pictures. Here I love the wide angle stretching. Enough to give us a feel of how big the place is, but not as far as to scream "distorsion" (in the sense non aesthetic). The side and subtle coloured lighting is also very beautiful and fortunate. In short : big wow ! (and in my head "how come I didn't get to shot this myself ??") - Benh (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Benh. Well, all I can say is: If it was always there, why didn't you visit? ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually never noticed that one. But the truth is I don't really go after churches... Also, I don't have that "eye" to notice when a scene can render great. It's pretty much like the "pont neuf" panorama, which I was in front of dozens of time, with all my gear set up and ready to fire up, but never thought it would render so nice. I once thought getting good gear would bring me great pics, but there seems to be something else. - Benh (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Correction. I entered that church once, but thought it wasn't worth a shot. This confirms my previous statement :) - Benh (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Come on Benh, I love coming back to your images (and Diliff's, too, but that is obvious...). If you don't have an eye, then 98% of people are blind ;-). I feel that I haven't taken one truly good image of my actual home town and sometimes a fresh location and the mindset of travelling just help to make something different. --DXR (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks DXR :) Now I really look like the guy who fished for contradiction. I agree with you too yet some people living in London can take good pics of their hometown :) (and even though my last trip was fruitless in term of good pics). - Benh (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The light often makes or breaks the photo Benh. Maybe it just wasn't lit up very nicely on the day you entered. There are plenty of churches in which the lighting just makes it very difficult to photograph well, such as this one. It was even more monochromatic yellow originally, that image you see on Commons is my attempt to desaturate it a bit but it's still very.... yellow. I still take the photo of course, but I'm not always happy with the results. Diliff (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm afraid it's my eyes... I saw it in white and gold. Think this disqualifies me as a reviewer on FPC :) - Benh (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Benh, anyone who saw that dress in white and gold should sell their photo gear and take up poetry instead. It most certainly disqualifies you. Quite remarkable how many visually incorrect people there are! -- Colin (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to admit, I felt the same way after seeing that dress. I really tried over and over to adjust my display and viewing conditions to see if I could recreate what others were seeing and I just couldn't. It was an incredibly poorly photographed dress though, grossly overexposed with an overly warm white balance, but even so, it was never even close to gold and white. :-) Diliff (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Depth of field is well handled to be sharp-enough from front to back. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, as always --DXR (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The right pillar is broken?--Claus (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a kind of furniture to me - Benh (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a "furniture", just a result of this, during the Mass of the Passion, 88 persons killed, 68 wounded.--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Church of St. Teresa Interior 3, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 09:37:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
technically perfect, but the distortion on both sides are too big and ugly, sorry --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd have to agree with you. It was not one of my most successful interiors. I didn't do the scene justice. Diliff (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The altar (and decorations around it, especially top) is captured perfectly here. That's why I've nominated this one. Certainly, not best Diliff interior picture, but without doubt best picture of this church in Commons. This church interior looks so dark in all other photos and this one has that warm gold gloss and lovely detail. There is another version taken from further, however I prefer this one altar-only over it. -- Pofka (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For "best picture of a topic/scope" we have com:VIC. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a suggestion, maybe I could crop this image so that the distortion is minimised. There isn't a lot of visual interest beyond the altar anyway. What do you think Pofka / Wladyslaw? Diliff (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Pofka nor Wladyslaw, but I was trying the same at home and think it's worth the try (and in the hope you provide an enlarged crop). - Benh (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really believe this photo has a chance to be FP. Not only because it is "best picture of a topic/scope", but because it is a really good capture of altar. As Diliff said, there really isn't a lot interesting before the altar (interior paintings requires restoration, IMO). Altar definitely is the main figure in this church. Previously I saw when some windows or doors became FP. Why altar alone can't? Try cropping it, Diliff, if that is really required. :) -- Pofka (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pofka. Wladyslaw, Colin, Benh, I've reprocessed the image from the original files. I've been able to crop it so that the altar comprises most of the frame, while maintaining the original resolution (actually the horizontal resolution of 6000px is the same, but the vertical res is actually higher now - 4764px vs 4388px previously - due to the aspect ratio change). I've also made some minor changes to the exposure too (slightly brighter, more neutral WB, less overexposure in bright areas) which I hope is a slight improvement. There is still some distortion on the top corners of the altar, but this is still an ultrawide view and can't really be helped. You can decide whether it's enough of a change to support, but I believe the changes are significant enough to justify a second look at least. ;-) Diliff (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just exactly what I was speaking about. Great. This altar alone is impressive enough. -- Pofka (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above Support now. Great. -- Colin (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reprocessing from the original RAWs gives it just enough to get over the line for me. Diliff (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per David. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support better, the arch were just too painful to look at. Not your best, but as mentioned elsewhere, the bar is so high... - Benh (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 07:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Chín Mây from An Bình, Vietnam.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 01:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by myself. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is Chín Mây, a lovely 80 y old Vietnamese. More in the file description. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs more contrast. Sky looks overexposed.--XRay ^talk 17:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! I've tried to address those two issues but I'm wondering if the sky is not turning a bit grey now? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Now this one I think is an FP—if you crop in a bit more of the top and bottom to square it up a bit. His posture, motion and facial expression are great. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I gave it a go but I'm not convinced—I kinda liked the idea of seeing a bit more of the boat? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polite support You met me halfway, and didn't take out anything that was good. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I just gave it another go but it's even harder to see that we're on a boat now. It's like if there was no more clue of the context/setting, which I found to be valuable? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, this is about what I would have done. We can still tell he's on a boat, and this draws more attention to his paddling. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unfavorable light, washed out colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to say that it's washed out but note that it doesn't look that wrong to me since the sky over here is often weird—for example, I rarely can see the blue sky during the day, and thus even though there doesn't seem to be any clouds around. It's like if the sky was never clear and that the whole atmosphere was always misty. This tends to provide some interesting/strange ambiances during the golden hours. Note also that I'm referring to the skies that I know from Da Nang, and am not sure if it's also the case for where I took this photo as I didn't stay long over there. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I have greatly lowered the highlights so it's also possible that it's washed out due to the post-processing :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intern of Church of San Francesco in Amelia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 20:09:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It has lovely color-play. I really like that warm light coming from the altar, however isn't its a bit too dark at parts? Benches are barely visible. I still like the view and will stay with neutral here and let others decide. Difficult to select between support and oppose. Lovely detail, composition, but colors are a bit lacking for me. -- Pofka (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In these photos you have to find a middle ground, both among the lights of the altar (very clear and the rest of the church dark) and between the roof and the base of the church, if I put more in evidence the benches I would not take well roof, or vice versa, a little bit of all, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 23:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Diliff approach works... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just a QI. Quite soft overall and the stained glass is blown. -- Colin (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks --LivioAndronico talk 12:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LivioAndronico: the gaussian blur (softness) ist still too much. Why??? Please rework it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. better or worse than before?--LivioAndronico talk 12:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neither both ... try to rework your image without "blur", for more sharpness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LivioAndronico, the overall softness is not fixed by cranking the sharpening/clarity filter over to the max, nor is a completely blown window recovered by reducing white so that the bright-outside is merely off-white. The adjustment you made is terrible. The original picture was only QI but now it wouldn't even merit that. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the first version Alchemist-hp,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Cold colors, and boring composition. I would get a bigger tripod if I were you (not a fan of the 5 years old point of view). Not an objective comment but I'm not too keen on your processing. Either NR is too strong or you do play too much with blur. - Benh (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support though the windows are very bright. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Spurzem --Llez (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, any church interior has wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The upper half of this image is quite empty. I propose to crop most of the ceiling, see two proposals for cropping in the image notes. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Uoaei1 ,thanks for review --LivioAndronico talk 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks much better now for me! --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vytautas The Great Church Interior, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 09:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A simple church interior with a low ceiling (almost feels like you are in a cave), but I found it quite beautiful in its simplicity inside. Diliff (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diliff always taking good pictures. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The exposure and fine detail are very good. -- Colin (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little different architecturally from the sanctuaries you usually shoot, but you handled it just as well. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Salems kyrka September 2014 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 13:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Salems church at lake Bornsjön, outside Stockholm. The church was inaugurated in 1176. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Using a DJI S1000? --The_Photographer (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its was taken from a helicopter.--ArildV (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for contrast, it’s too dark in most parts. Some red objects seem oversaturated. I guess it’s overprocessed. --Kreuzschnabel 10:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kreuzschnabel: Did you prefer the first version or something in between?--ArildV (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info New version uploaded.--ArildV (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 14:12:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The top of the tower and the trees on the right could be a little sharper, but I think these are minor issues. The composition is great. Very good work! --Code (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose The image has been deformed to put back the result of perspective, but the effects are to striking. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jan Arkesteijn. Perspective looks wrong, especially at the top of the tower → overcorrected? Otherwise a great image, of course. --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Arkesteijn, El Grafo - Perspective correction is in order, see the notes. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacek Halicki: forcing straight verticals is not always a good idea. It only works if you have something like a reasonably flat wall. As soon as you have three-dimensional features that tell the beholder that the image was actually taken at an angle (here: upward), the whole idea of being able to "correct" a perspective falls apart. In this case, I'm looking at the underside of the tower's roof, while from the (apparent) perspective I would expect to be able to see much less of the underside – maybe even a bit of the upper side and the tip. Or in other words: Imagine the tower as a cylinder and the roof as a cone. Then the cone would not be lying flat on the top of the cylinder. Its vertical axis would be angled (to the back and a bit to the right at the top) relative to the cone's vertical axis. If not bolted into place, it would just slide off and fall to the ground. Sorry, but that just looks very wrong.

Tuning down the "perspective correction" to allow the verticals of the tower to slightly converge at the top would probably take care of that problem. (Note that it's perfectly normal to have lines converging in the distance.) --El Grafo (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jan Arkesteijn. Perspective straightening does not work on an extreme low-angle shot. So the tower appears to be viewed from the side while still showing the roof’s underside. This looks entirely askew. --Kreuz schnabel 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Arkesteijn, El Grafo, Kreuz schnabel - Look again. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have corrected the roof falling to the right, which indeed looks much better, but the main issue remains unresolved. You still have two different perspectives (camera positions) in one image. 1) one (true) perspective, where the camera is looking up under the roof. 2) one simulated perspective, where the camera is located further back and orientated horizontally, looking straight at the rest of the tower without looking up. That's why the roof still seems to slide off the tower (backwards, away from the camera). The only way to fix this is to step away from the illusion that one can change the perspective a picture of a 3D object like this was taken from in post processing and allow those verticals to converge at the top. --El Grafo (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Doña Isabel Cobos de Porc by Francisco Goya.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2015 at 00:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Francisco Goya - uploaded by Aavindraa - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --LivioAndronico talk 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LivioAndronico. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We can always count on great paintings around here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes, very good, more paintings --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Echafaudage Tour de la Lanterne La Rochelle.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 16:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evening light on the "Tour de la Lanterne" (lantern tower, 14th-century) an iconic monument of the harbor of La Rochelle, my native city. On January 1st, 2015, it was fully covered by a scaffolding for a restoration. Not an usual picture-- Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesing picture of a monument restoration. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More scaffoldings !--Jebulon (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, of course! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree. Hard to make scaffolding look good. Well done. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting and indeed unusual. Good light and quality. I personally think the crop is a bit unbalanced, perhaps the tower at the left is relevant, but from a FP perspective it tends to pull my view from the main subject. I tried a 16:9 Crop on the tower itself and I think it is more powerful, but of course your choice. --DXR (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your comment: I have other views without the "Tour Saint-Jean". But I've chosen this one because the Tour de la Lanterne is part of an urban landscape, and I wanted to show that it is not alone in the middle of nothing. I think it added something in the composition, as a justification of the not centered presentation. Matter of taste I suppose. Thanks for review and interesting comment anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that is reasonable and it's your decision. I Support because the image still is outstanding. --DXR (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evening light... but from behind which renders subjects flat, and a bit impressionistic at the top (maybe it was just too hot). Otherwise an interesting subject, enough to earn my support. - Benh (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Geranium wallichianum 'Buxton’s Blue’ 04.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 18:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Geranium wallichianum 'Buxton's Variety'. flowering period is from about June to September in partial shade. G. wallichianum originates from the Himalayas (from Afghanistan to Kashmir) in the mountains over large distances up to a height of 3500 meters. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too busy in the background—see my suggested crop. Support I still would have squared it up, but I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Other crop.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hafspajen 16:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Support --Hubertl (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and the seventh :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see too much Wow there and it doesn't look sharp to me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Jane Digby, Lady Ellenborough, by William Charles Ross.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2015 at 15:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Charles Ross, uploaded and nominated by Jan Arkesteijn -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The_Photographer (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't the lower part of the face and neck seem to have some weird bluish cast? Kruusamägi (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Kawah-Ijen Indonesia Ijen-Sulfur-Miner-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 15:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An indonesian sulfur miner of Ijen Volcano in Indonesia is carrying his 90-kg-load of sulfur from the floor of the volcano to the valley where he is getting paid. All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 18:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking portrait, good quality. --Kreuz schnabel 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very National Geographic-worthy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good picture (what will he get for his 90-kg-load?); I really like it -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every miner can do the trip maximum 2 times a day. They get a total of 13 $ for 180 kg Sulfur. Older miners only can shoulder 75 kg per walk. Sometimes they have no revenue because the crater is emitting poisonous gases and is closed for mining. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sky is a little overexposed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ^What??-- RTA 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could you pleas illuminate the shadow areas? His face is too dark for me. -- RTA 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This is a tanned indonesian worker with dark skin complexion. You can see every detail of his skin in 100% resolution. I don't think, that brightening is the right way to enhance this photo. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info You are wrong! Comment Check, and I could push further, but I'm too lazy for that, and this could be better, even without cheating... -- RTA 03:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question The link is not working and I don't understand why you think, that I am cheating. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not working? Ok, try this one, and I did not wrote that you are cheating, what I said was you could improve the image, without cheating, as using a hardcore edition mode at Photoshop. -- RTA 09:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I tried your proposal and raised the darks. However the result changed the mood of the photo so I decided not to upload another version. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for this excellent ethnographical document (I've seen a report about this on the french TV)--Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high EV. --P e z i (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Paestum BW 2013-05-17 15-01-57.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 17:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Tourists ruins this picture. If it would be possible to remove them (or you have another version without them), I think it would look better. The sky, lighting, building looks awesome but these tourists just automatically distracts you from the building. -- Pofka (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took intentionally this picture, the tourists make it possible to compare the size of the temple --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- KTC (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tourists stop it from being FP. There are plenty other clues to scale such as the fence (which is typically around waist height), the grass and trees. -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on Colin, not you :-) - Benh (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benh, yes I was aware of that photo when saying this, and by your smilie I think you are aware there's a world of a difference. If this photo had a photogenic couple staring at the monument, perhaps, or if it was so crowded with tourists that they were an interesting feature, but we've just got a random assortment of tourists looking every which way. Makes it look like the unfortunate photos everyone gets when going with a tour group, rather than a featured picture where the photographer has gone at a special time of day or captured a special moment, or simply avoided the crowd. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tourists at a tourist attraction? Imagine that ... People go to see these things from all over the world; they are part of their modern story. While they weren't necessary, they do not detract from it, either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to the tourists, but very nice atmosphere. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 13:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird artifacts all over the picture. Strange looking clouds. Harsh and flat light. Disturbing shadow on the bottom right. Tourists don't help either IMO. - Benh (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry I have to agree with Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, not an outstanding image. The main subject is not very rich in detail, and the tourists (white clothes mainly blown) are disturbing. Would be different if they all were looking at the building. --Kreuz schnabel 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the fact that the light is coming directly from behind is a problem here because it makes the columns blend together. As a result, the depth of the building is very undefined. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The tourist is not a issue here, actually is good, gives scale, but the columns are in a light that do not allow us to see correctly. (you could demolish the columns at the back :P). -- RTA 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good quality but not excellent. --Milseburg (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:RiP2013 GreenDay Mike Dirnt 0002.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 08:43:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sven0705 - uploaded by Sven0705 - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the way for Green Day! -- Pofka (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good composition and atmosphere. Pity his right hand is so unsharp. I’m not entirely sold on this. --Kreuz schnabel 10:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow overweighs minor technical concern. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a benchmark for festival photographers ... --rs-foto (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nicely done. I love the colors and the composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Vincent van Gogh - Dr Paul Gachet - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 07:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vincent van Gogh - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vincent Van is a Gogh! Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pity my name is not "Mr Google" because photographying in Musée d'Orsay is strongly forbidden. I'm very happy we have such an excellent picture of this painting under free license in "Commons", but I don't understand why it should be featured. Vincent with a FP star ? Mr.Google's tool with a FP star ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great scan of a famous painting. What more you want?--Claus (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Image:HH Ericus1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 23:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KaiBorgeest - uploaded by KaiBorgeest - nominated by KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing anything above QI here. Relatively low resolution, not exceptionally sharp, lighting is nothing special. -- Colin (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Might be FP-able without the background, and definitely has value showing the contrast of old and new, but that's it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too usual to be FP. -- Pofka (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papilio machaon - Swallowtail 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 09:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zeynel Cebeci - uploaded by Zeynel Cebeci - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 09:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 09:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. -- Pofka (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny that macros of butterflies often seem to come with bright colors all around, perhaps making the subdued tones that dominate this one more striking by contrast. Oh, and it's very well done technically. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some denoising marks on background, but nonetheless very good. --A.Savin 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 03:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 21:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Jesus Christ of Gian Lorenzo Bernini in San Sebastiano fuori le mura (Rome).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2015 at 20:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 20:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally good detail but the bright side of the face shows too many blown areas, leading to loss of detail at least in the hair section. This is not an easy shot to take I am sure. Chroma noise in background. --Kreuz schnabel 09:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would have to be superb to get a photo of a statue featured. Think of the care that goes into portraits. This is just a photo of a statue taken by a DSLR. What is the wow? -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colin said it all. - Benh (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am quite surprised at the support votes for this image, which doesn't even deserve a QI. It is an arbitrary crop of the full bust which properly shows Jesus' hand blessing, rather than just his fingertips. The only reason for this framing I can think of is that the lower part of the bust is even more badly lit than the upper. The image had been processed such that it has heavy posterisation (see the background and the shadows). The lighting on the face is very poor and wouldn't be accepted for a portrait. -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin --P e z i (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Yann (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality and light. --A.Savin 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think Colin has said it all, both here and on the FPC talk page. Diliff (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megaraptor claw cast with scale.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 17:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Duffymeg - uploaded by Duffymeg - nominated by IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IJReid (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally don't have a problem with images with scale depending on the subject, and have even upload image with ruler as scale myself. However for a FP in this case, the ruler is way too prominent, not really in a style that works well as scale, not horizontal, and either not long enough or too long (it should either be at least as long as the subject or just a small fraction). -- KTC (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KTC. The object might be striking, but the image, in the light of Featured Picture, is to common. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note KTC, I have now straightened the image as well as cropped it. How is the image too common Jan Arkesteijn? IJReid (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better, now that you have tidied it, but for a featured picture it misses the wow-effect. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it may be a better FPC for Wikipedia. -- KTC (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-135 final flyaround of ISS 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2015 at 05:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Final fly-around of the International Space Station by the Space Shuttle. Created by NASA - uploaded by Leebrandoncremer/Craigboy - nominated by Craigboy -- Craigboy (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Craigboy (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much wow, well detailed and exposed. --Kreuz schnabel 09:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not everyone of us could capture such picture due to its location (in fact probably nobody), however the quality and resolution of this one is quite low. If another object or view would be captured with such quality, I don't think it would have a chance here. -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imho this is a somewhat confused argument. I'm fine with opposing due to wow or stuff like that but your reason is a bit odd. Firstly, the quality is perfectly fine, shot with a slightly older pro DSLR. NASA need to rely on what the camera manufacturers offer in the rugged and reliable class and at the end of the day such cameras don't have 36 or 50 MP as of now. Also the entire point is that the image is in space, the fact that I can shoot the house next door in higher resolution is totally irrelevant, isn't it? --DXR (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we don't have to make every NASA photo FP just because it is taken in space. Zoom in the satellite. It is unsharp and some details are really poorly visible. I'm not telling that this picture is a crap, but I think the rules should be same for all and there shouldn't be exceptions just because they don't have better cameras up there. In my opinion, it should fit perfectly as valued image, not FP. -- Pofka (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The space station might not be highly detailed but I definitely cannot see anything unsharp or blurred in it. As for the wow factor, that’s a thing we all see different of course. Objects or places unfamiliar to us bring a wow factor along that biases us into featuring the image while others shake their heads, as I did in this nomination (buy any issue of any flying magazine, and you’ll get dozens of perfectly sharp in-flight shots, so this kind of pictures is not unfamiliar to me, so the image in question hadn’t enough wow in my eyes to compensate for the blurred wing.) Others, having a different approach from a different experience, granted the image lots of wow to support. That’s why we have majority votes here. --Kreuz schnabel 07:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of similar quality to other featured space images. It's not just some space image, it's an image of an extremely significant event (completion of USOS, final Space Shuttle mission).--Craigboy (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The technical quality of this shot is very nice. The lens is well sharp at 100% on the subject and the photograph hasn't been over-sharpened. Nikon's camera shines with no noise in the dark areas. The background has been brushed, not very nicely in some areas, to get rid of the compression artefacts. An issue which can be easily cleaned. Sting (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Building of the Salins de Frontignan 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:53:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info there is also this similar image but I dare not propose it as an alternative because it is a different image. -- Christian Ferrer 21:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support convincing composition --Hubertl (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
still Neutral – scene and composition are great but many of the poles appear partly overexposed (not blown but too bright), is this fixable? --Kreuz schnabel 09:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kreuzschnabel, thanks, yes it is. -- Christian Ferrer 12:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have a look at File:Building_of_the_Salins_de_Frontignan_01_ks.jpg – I just reduced the brightness and shifted the colours a bit, yet I get an impression of a somewhat "deeper" light. --Kreuz schnabel 13:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kreuzschnabel, Thank you very much, I'm always afraid to do too much, I have now almost did the same as your version but from the RAW file. -- Christian Ferrer 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support now for me. --Kreuz schnabel 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent composition, I like the perspective very much. The rest is excellent too. FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 06 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Tajines in a pottery shop in Morocco.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Colourful Image of several decorated Tajines in a pottery shop in Morocco--باسم (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Need WB and Overexposed correction --The_Photographer (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like it, even the blueish WB, and I find the exposition fine. A bit small, but I don't think extra pixels would bring something here. - Benh (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice... Love the colours. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lots of interest, and decent quality. As Benh said, a bit small, but detailed enough. Diliff (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice. It looks partially overexposed. Resolution very small. --XRay ^talk 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--لا روسا (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nothing special in this "tourist shop photograph" (no offence) ; I don't like the heavy blue sky reflects on the highly reflective pottery, it denatures their beauty. Sting (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

btw: no metadata, no color profile. Sting (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice suject. Interesing objects. Reflections don't bother me. Wow for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours, sharp enough. Although you lose some information, keep that in mind for the next, and why it is so small? "OE correction" hehhehehe, ai ai... -- RTA 18:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hafspajen 16:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 14:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Basilica of Saint Clotilde Pulpit, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 00:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination has no opposes but is just one support away from being featured with a few days remaining. Not telling anyone how they should vote, but if you were umm'ing and ahh'ing, now might be the time to lock your vote in. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like this picture. No wow IMHO. I think you have a lot of pictures better than this one.--Paris 16 (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pas probleme. I think the wow is the details of the pulpit and its interesting shape (reminds me of a rocket) but I guess others agree with you. It's easier to find wow in wide views of an entire church, there's a lot more for the eye. Diliff (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Ceiling bracket detail at chapel, Greenwich Hospital, London.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The last of my three noms from the inside of the chapel at Greenwich Hospital, London. -- Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and well chosen composition. Very pleasant sigth. --Mile (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not crazy about the composition to be honest. It doesn't seem 'naturally framed', as the top left corners are cut off. Diliff (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have too much to work with if I wanted this to be good. I actually cropped some more off the right yesterday before nominating because that had some distracting light there. There isn't much more on those upper left corners. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually Daniel, coincidentally I also visited the chapel and Painted Hall at Greenwich Hospital yesterday but unfortunately wasn't able to take any of the kind of quality photos you'd expect of me. The problem with visiting randomly is that you're at the mercy of whatever event is going on at the time - the chapel had choir singing practice for the entire afternoon until closure, taking over the front of one whole side aisle with quite a big group so although it was really beautiful singing, it wasn't really conducive to photography. I took a few photos of details such as this but nothing that I was happy with. The tonality was very different though, as the interior lighting was stronger and the light from outside was fairly dark and overcast. I won't link to any of my images of it here as I don't want to distract from your nomination but I'll post something on your talk page. And the Painted Hall was a bit busy with lots of volunteers buzzing around. I was specifically told not to use my tripod in there too, which is pretty much essential for high quality photography. I took a few hand-held panoramas to get an idea of what I could expect, but hand-held indoors usually results in stitching errors and mine were no exception so nothing I took was publishable on Commons. I'm hoping to visit another time and see if I have more luck with finding the two interiors a bit quieter. Apologies for spamming your nomination. ;-) Diliff (

talk) 23:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Looking forward to seeing your images. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Support Nice shot. Great eye for details. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything special about it. It looks like a random composed part of the ceiling. The cropping is too tight. Nice to illustrate an article but not an FP in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar to Benh. I do support the idea of taking and uploading "detail" photographs rather than "fit the entire interior into one huge photo" approach always. That the result will often not have wow or composition enough for FP is not a reason to refrain from such image making -- a comprehensive set of photos of a building is valuable and we can't expect all to be spectacular. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, good lighting, good sharpness. May be that there are similar photos but this one is very good too. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm afraid I have to oppose. The details are very stunning and I like the interplay of cold and warm colours, but I think it is let down by the awkward composition. I know it's difficult as there are no natural features that could act as a frame for it, but I think it needs more space on the top left corner to avoid cutting off the edges. It's a bit like cutting off the hand of Jesus. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange composition and perspective. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egyptian food Koshary.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A plate of the most famous Egyptian dish, known as Koshary. Its Also known in several other parts of the Arab World and the Middle East--باسم (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different, and interesting. --Mile (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Different and nice composition; not happy about the darker right part of the picture. But all in all thumbs up. --Pugilist (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the uneven lighting. I’d excuse this on a landscape scenery but it’s too large a flaw on a studio shot FPC. --Kreuz schnabel 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree about the lighting. If you have a raw file and can apply a gradient filter to lighten the right, that might help. Also, please save the file as sRGB since AdobeRGB is not suitable for web images (few people will see the right colours). -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--لا روسا (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Lighting is unfortunate but I really like the composition --· Favalli ⟡ 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Kreuzschnabel. And I don't think the composition is striking enough. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colorful. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light don't bother me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A graceful composition, the dark area do not irritates me, gives, I don't know, a mystery to the photo; however, the lack of sharpness... ok a kit lens (a kit lens in a D700 o.O), but this lens works better at lower f-stop, and in a flat image like that, DOF is not a issue, and maybe a better angle of view... -- RTA 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great subject/arrangement, but lighting is insufficient for a studio shot. --El Grafo (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:La Mary-restored.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 22:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown - original file downloaded from [[1]] and uploaded by Baute2010 and Galio, restored version by Ezarate - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Support Very small size. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
Oppose Could be a historical moment, a VI maybe, but as a photo, nothing here. -- RTA 18:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, La Mary is considered a cult film and all the actors are well known actors in Argentina and other countries, furthermore Carlos Monzón is a best known boxer in the world, it isn't a random photo Ezarateesteban 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, relevant for Argentinian film history. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¬¬ Could be a historical moment, but as a photo, nothing here. => Esto puede ser un momento histórico, pero la imagen en sí, no tiene nada que alegre los ojos.

And this is a voting for a Featured picture, I'm not even close said that's random, but, this is not a appealing photo

One important thing, Ezarate, could pleas fix the date? This is important, because this is a historical moment, and the license have a direct relation with the date. -- RTA 04:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ezarateesteban 04:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

, but could be more precise? -- RTA 09:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was released on 8 August 1974 but I think it was filmed months before that date but I don,t know exactly the date Ezarateesteban 13:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version

Info Due to the comment did by ArionEstar I did a test doing a bigger size image but I think is too exagerated --Ezarateesteban 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's in the rules: an image (with the exception of SVG) must have more than 2 Mpx. And when the image has a good size, the level of details is bigger. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may be within the rules but where’s the wow? --Kreuz schnabel 08:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my argument below, please Ezarateesteban 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sesimbra March 2015-12a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 00:18:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The jetty of the port of Sesimbra, west coast of Portugal, at the end of a calm day. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment potentially a FP - but the way too centered lighthouse doesn't work for me here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO it'S too much water. I would choose another crop.--XRay ^talk 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I agree, thanks -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition/crop issue. --Mile (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting lighting and composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above, the composition is not that attractive for me, but it's a difficult subject to sell regardless of how you frame it. Diliff (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A narrow promontory under sky in the middle of a vast sea better really have something interesting on it to make FP, and this one does not. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trakai Island Castle Chapel, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 09:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 03:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very different from your usual work—probably the plainest religious-building interior you've photographed IIRC. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe plainest but with one of the richest and the most painful history. It might have been the last religious place for many castle defenders. -- Pofka (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a simple chapel, but it is the chapel of a very important castle in Lithuania, as Pofka mentions, and dates to the 14th or early 15th century. I don't think it's that plain though. There is a lot of character in the stones and bricks. :-) I find whitewashed churches much more plain. Diliff (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Daniel C. above. Yann (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Diliff (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very fine in detail as usual but I don’t approve of the distortion on the chandelier, the ceiling flange of which looks almost vertical in this projection. Too much of wide-angle for me. --Kreuzschnabel 09:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's actually much distortion of the chandelier. It's fairly typical of the view looking diagonally up at it. This is the original image of the chandelier taken with a 50mm lens (so there should be little distortion - it's not perspective corrected and 50mm is not wide angle). The chandelier in the panorama is slightly more vertically stretched as a result of the perspective correction, but it looks similar enough to me. Diliff (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 07:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Étang of Ingril, Frontignan 06.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 07:55:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 07:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great composition, but isn't it a little bit tilted cw? I would absolutely support otherwise. --Code (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I myself even thinking about it a long time, however it is a straight river bank, the right of the image is at a distance of aproximately 1.5 km and the left at 6km so it is a horizontal line taken in perspective. Of course I tried to correct that with the raw file, but when I did it all the buildings in the background were leaning to the left, and when all the verticals are leaning to the same direction the image is tilted. Here I did my best I think : all the verticals are straight and of more the real horizon (not the river bank) but the horizontal line just above the buidings seems straight. -- Christian Ferrer 09:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this image is tilted. I tried to straightened it. My result: yes it is possible without leaning buildings. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not tilted, the horizon is not the line land/lake (that this is a a bank in perspective), the horizon is the line sky/earth (perfectly straight here). -- Christian Ferrer 16:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry no wow for me: I see a lot of nothing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a bit as your comment -- Christian Ferrer 16:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touché!, well countered ;-) The image is nice, yes ... but still not FP for me, sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, no issues :) I was maybe a bit too optimistic with this image, there is however some potential with the sky reflection and the colors. A pity that I was not better photographer :) I think now to withdraw -- Christian Ferrer 20:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is only my opinion! Please wait for some another opinions too. It is also interesting for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a nice moody image. I think I can be improved with a little cheating like selectively brightening the bottom part of the image. As it is, the dark greenish bottom breaks the symmetry. Not sure what to think of the band of sand from a compositional point of view. It sure brings something into the frame, but I miss something. Can't decide. Neutral! - Benh (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Benh, you're right for the bottom part, I brighten it and it's better :). I know exactly we miss : a good framing! the transverse direction of the cloud breaks the dynamics of the image that normally goes from right to left (what brings the central band). I so wanted to highlight this cloud, it became disturbing IMO, in fact a kind of paradox :). -- Christian Ferrer 14:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I keep coming back to this. Alchemist-hp is right that it's a whole lot of nothing but for some reason I like it! -- KTC (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thanks for the support :) -- Christian Ferrer 12:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsjuder, Jan-Erik „Nag“ Romøren at Party.San Metal Open Air 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 07:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jonas Rogowski - uploaded by Jonas Rogowski - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly nice but not perfect enough for FP IMHO – it’s slightly overexposed (white parts of the face), and the abandoned guitar neck on the bottom right doesn’t add value. Not an outstanding image for me. --Kreuz schnabel 08:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. The expression got captured really nicely. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Luscinia cyane - Khao Yai.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 17:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 17:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 17:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a JJ Harrison, where is this guys ? -- RTA 18:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just love this bird color! -- Pofka (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry to spoil the party, but I find the branch behind very disturbing. --Kadellar (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Seljalandsfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 201-203 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 20:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sunset view from the back of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, Suðurland, Iceland. The waterfall of the river Seljalandsá drops 60 metres (200 ft) over the cliffs of the former coastline. All by me, Poc o² 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lucien (es·m·com) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is great. Not the processing. Oversaturated, shadow too heavily recovered on the right (strange that it's only on the right). Some blue fringing. Maybe this can be fixed - Benh (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh: I have finetuned the luminosity of the shadowed areas and reduced the frindge. I haven't touched the saturation because I believe that the picture is pretty realistic and I have applied the standard configuration that I have been using for years. Btw, I think that this one is probably the most solid FP candidate I had, ever. That makes me sadly believe that I will always get your opposing votes. It is fine to challenge other FP-experienced photographers, but if this picture is not an FP then I got lost... Poc o² 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A configuration doesn't work the same for all sources of picture. I still maintain the processing screwed up (a little) the otherwise great scene. Now for my voting scheme : you flood FPC with candidates and it doesn't appear to me that you apply a strict filtering before ur pic gets the candidate label (and ur very own "solid FP candidate" comment seems to confirm that). FPC has to be special, and I hope it remains so. Don't be surprised to get opposes from me as I'm the kind of demanding nitpicking guy (I try to remain "fair" though). As for why I oppose this one vs neutral the stair nom. which had issues as well, I consider they may have forbid you from getting ur tripod out which I consider a mitigating reason (but u didn't share), while a processing can be done again and again. No mitigating reason : much higher expectations. - Benh (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benh:::I think that you misunderstood my comment. This picture is probably one of my best pictures, ever, and will stay as my desktop image for a while. You cannot expect that I nominate only those pictures that, I believe, are the best picture have ever I shot. In that case I'd show up here every 2 years at most. I have made some numbers and checked all FPCs initiated by me in Commons and checked the result of them: 162 out of 289 were successful (56% success rate). It may be poor for you, but I'm satisfied with that. You may call that flooding, that's a tough word. Flooding would be 2 nominations per day but there are rules, that I agree with, to avoid that. I see it from a different point of view, out of my last 5 nominations 0% were successful and that is not normal, and no, I don't think that I have lowered the bar for FPCs. Regarding your comment about "mitigating reasons", that surprised me, especially after your statement in a recent nomination saying "only the result counts". Finally, I'd like to remind you again that comments like "cheap", "trivial", "randomed" are out of place when you judge the work of others (not the case in this nominations, but in others). I find that kind of comments unrespectful and discouraging. You can be a nitpicking guy but stay respectful Poc o² 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Benh meant is that if this is the best FP image you've ever taken (and was taken in August last year), why have you nominated so many inferior images recently? I know you probably have quite a large backlog of images that you haven't had time to process and upload and I can see this was uploaded just prior to nomination, but I think his point is still fair - it's probably better to nominate your best images as a priority. Anyway, of course it's your choice, but I have noticed that many of your nomination images have not been as consistently good recently. Diliff (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have a big backlog, that is getting smaller now due to missing equipment, but still go around 2000 pictures from December/January. Sometimes I also wait for contests like WLE or WLM. Poc o² 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Poco... yes the result counts. But I still do know when it's impossible to do otherwise (and I still don't know for the stairs, just out of curiosity). Regarding the result counts nom, it would be just a matter of waiting spring or summer, but I thought it was clear to all... And yes I may be a bit too sincere, and that's because I don't play game or whatever. None of my negative comments are free. If there's any (there must be some which has slipped), then I'm very sorry. - Benh (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually per Benh - from a technical point of view. Support-wise per others... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Awed The technical mistakes, such as they are, give it an otherworldly quality, like a sci-fi novel cover. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dэя-Бøяg 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very great wow factor. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Benh too, the processing is not as good as it could be. Maybe you're right that the saturation is accurate (it does seem a bit too much for me though), but there are haloes around the cave where the sky begins. How is this processed? Is it an exposure blend, or did you recover shadows and highlights? In any case, I agree with you, the wow of the scene makes up for these technical deficiencies. This image fixes the main complaint I had about your previous nomination of this waterfall: the cropped pool. Diliff (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --· Favalli ⟡ 01:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I first saw this my reaction was that Poco had leant on the saturation slider. But Googling for the subject shows it can often be lit spectacularly and colourfully, though there are plenty times also when the light is not good. Good catch. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I somewhat agree with the comments above. Perhaps a slight change in balance towards wow over quantity would be good. More images like this, please. --DXR (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stryn (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing colors and nature feeling, Wow Poco, nice shoot --The_Photographer (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 20:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Hafspajen 16:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Looks over processed to me. Seems good for my Imac screen saver, and I'm afraid it is not a compliment. I find it a bit "too much" and agressive, sorry (oversaturated ?). But it is just a matter of taste, and I understand the lot of supports.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Very nice composition but technicaly missed: the foreground, which takes 3/4 of the picture (no problem with that), is out of focus and too bright, turning it too proeminent, while the subject, the waterfall gets lost over the background. Also: you used Lightroom, so please correct CA. Sting (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit oversaturated imo, but very nice anyway. --Kadellar (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Egyptian Grains.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoSome Egyptian Grains: Top (orange)= lentil (Lens culinaris), Second (vinous)= bean, Third (brownish)= lentil, Forth (dark yellow)= maize, last one (light yellow)= wheat. This photo won the second prize at Wiki Loves Africa 2014. - created and uploaded by Dinapriv - nominated by لا روسا.--لا روسا (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--لا روسا (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea, well done! --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Will support as soon as the cyan chromatic aberration is fixed (visible on the outer edges, even in preview!) --Kreuz schnabel 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need a better description, this is essential, why on Earth you approved a winning contest with a bad description? I do not know the first grain, the rest a put in order there. And some one needs to fix the weird light hits the beans. And is delightful photo. -- RTA 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Now this is how to shoot food. But I would like to see the CA removed and the description improved. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Uoaei1. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a good photo but I would like if it could be fixed before we accept it at FP. The CA is really quite visible and there's also very visible JPG blocking (see kidney beans) which suggests a low quality output at some stage. The author is using Photoshop so there's no reason this can't be fixed. Additionally, it has been saved as AdobeRGB rather than sRGB, which is unsuitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like very much the idea but per above. Colin, just curious to know why AdobeRGB is less suitable than sRGB for web images ? (What's a "web" image ?). - Benh (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A "web image" is an image that is nearly always going to be viewed on a computer using a web browser or mobile app. I keep meaning to write a Commons guideline on it. AdobeRGB is really only good for sending an image directly to a professional printer or magazine, for everyone else it is very likely to result in many people seeing the wrong colours and an increased risk of banding in smooth colour gradients. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin... this is not a "web" image, this a image in the web, a web image are the ones cropped and lower the quality/size at FB, i.e., to became viral, images here must have a superb quality, and high resolution in order to have more uses than just web, having the possibility to be printed, that's why we do not accept "720p" or "480p" as FP, very suitable for web images, but not even close to be a printable image.

So ProPhoto should be the choice, and more, some day every device and web browser will see prophoto, and what you gonna do when that happen? You will magically change all images from your poor sRBG to ProPhoto?

Same s as DNG, part of the community only see all media here as made to Wikipedia, and is not even close to the why this exists. -- RTA 10:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTA our Commons images are largely used on the internet via the web. I'm not talking about "resized for web" which is another factor, just colourspace. No, thinking ProPhoto is a good choice is extremely naive. Even if we had displays and operating systems that supported this, it would be utterly stupid to try to squeeze that into 8-bit's of a JPG. You'd waste many of those 256 levels on colours the eye can't even see and have really terrible posterisation for the colours you can see. ProPhoto is really an intermediate format for use while manipulating images, to give one plenty flexibility to shift colours around without ever losing information, but it isn't really a destination. Sorry, but while we rely on JPG for photo image sharing, sRGB is really the only option. AdobeRGB is an extremely bad choice for sharing unless you know exactly what your recipient is capable of (hence only really for giving to a printer/magazine). I don't see Wikipedia as the only target, but 90% of the other target uses are going to be on the internet too. This is a dead argument anyway -- just Google and you'll see the same advice I give. Now, I really must write that guideline... -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin you also forgot that free means that we must be able to edit, and by your text you can see another good reason to use adobe/prophoto... so calling a "dead argument", is rude for nothing. -- RTA 13:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Em, you can edit JPGs but don't expect to be able to seriously manipulate the levels or colours or colour temperature or any other thing we take for granted from a raw file. If you want to take some kind for "upload the source code" angle to "free content" then you'd require us to upload the raw files, our Lightroom adjustment settings, our Hugin projects, etc, etc. We're judging JPGs here. It is simply incorrect to think that AdobeRGB or ProPhoto in JPG somehow has more colours and so more editable -- it has exactly 256 shades of red x 256 shades of green x 256 shades of blue just as with sRGB. Which isn't a whole lot to do anything much with edit-wise. It's just that the shade at #256 red is a deeper red in AdobeRGB than sRGB. But since you've only got a measly 256 levels, those levels are further apart. So you get posterisation. You've simply exchanged one problem (limited gamut) for another (quantisation error). And added another huge problem - incompatibility with nearly every viewer of your image. The limited gamut of sRGB isn't a huge problem as it corresponds fairly well to the gamut present in nearly all photographic subjects and to the limitations of many displays. Only once you start using a file format with sufficient bits (e.g., 16-bit TIFF or raw) does it make much sense to think of AdobeRGB or ProPhoto as a superior image colourspace and only then if your recipient is fully clued-up and has the relevant software/hardware to appreciate it. By all means upload 16-bit tiffs in AdobeRGB or ProPhoto in addition to JPGs but really for FP we should be judging JPGs that people actually see in the correct colours and without bands all over their sky. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raw never gonna happen, all raw formats are under a proprietary license, so DNG should be necessary to have here... and I even don't know why we do not insisted in implement it again. Anyway, I'm not enter deeper on this. PNGs made better results in most cases vs JPEGs, also TIFFs, but you are always trying to push JPEGs + sRGB, the worst one to see, and edit. V -- RTA 14:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely pragmatic that JPG+sRGB is chosen. Virtually nobody edits our photographs (other than cropping, denoising) and virtually nobody has a correctly-set-up calibrated wide-gamut monitor with which to review these AdobeRGB files in their glory. And the vast majority of our photographs are entirely within the sRGB colourspace anyway (this photograph here almost certainly) -- only deeply saturated colours give any issues. I'd much rather several million viewers saw correct skin tones (vs "skin that looks like a corpse" or "skin that looks like sunburn") on their browsers or tablets than a few hundred with specialist equipment saw a ski jacket in the absolutely correct Pantone shade of fuchsia. -- Colin (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral support when chromatic aberration is fixed. --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 13:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tried to fix chromatic aberration with G'MIC Ca correction. I don't know if this new version would be OK! Any comment? --— D Y O L F 77^[Talk] 12:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Change the positions of beans and the wheat for a harmonic colour composition. --Kreuz schnabel 10:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel, Rodrigo.Argenton, Colin, Benh, and Dyolf77: Done.--لا روسا (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry لا روسا, but the candidate has run out of time. The file-size is even smaller now and JPG artefacts quite visible -- please use a high-quality setting to save the file after converting from raw. -- Colin (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Quarzwerke, Werkzeughalle -- 2014 -- 4050.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2015 at 19:27:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too poor colors. Dark upper left corner. Composition doesn't work to be FP, sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. I like the colors and the composition. The image quality is very good as well. Das Bild wirkt irgendwie sehr platisch und gleichzeitig sehr abstrakt. Don't know how to say this in English. --Code (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The picture seems somehow very plastic and at the same time very abstract". That, at least, is what Google Translate comes up with, although I suspect "plastic" is not quite what you meant (But I'm not able right now to run upstairs and find other meanings in my German-English dictionary). Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "three-dimensional" is the word you’re looking for, or, if it’s not meant that literally, "vivid". --Kreuz schnabel 10:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious support I shouldn't like this, but I do. I think it's two things: the unexpectedly bright blues on these disused industrial objects, and the strong contrasts of the rusty orange and the deep blues. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The unusual and rather intense color scheme was the reason for the photo, russet, orange and blue.--XRay ^talk 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unusual and good. Yann (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Code. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture was taken in a place with many fascinating motifs. Both the objects and the colors emphasize the technical nature. Thanks to Tomer T for the nomination.--XRay ^talk 06:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d like it more without the bench, emphasizing the abstractness of the subject. Because I’ve got no idea what these discs are and what they’re good for, the picture works through the combination of colours and shapes. Then, the bench is nothing but distracting. Crop suggestion added. May be cropped even tighter, cutting the outer edges. --Kreuz schnabel 10:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a little help: I've updated the description: flanges. Forgotten in the description, only given as category. Thanks for your advice. --XRay ^talk 11:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Francesco Hayez 008.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2015 at 00:55:31

Info Reason to delist: I don't like this guy (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Claus (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please comment the reason for replacement - I am not sure what pic meets the real colours of this artwork more precise because they really differ -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Yann (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Hafspajen 21:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Delist and replace Definitely looks better! ///EuroCarGT 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Paris 16 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Kruusamägi (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Ximonic (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. KTC (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Titanium crystal-bars.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 14:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me. -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 07:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Our Alchemist is back !--Jebulon (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When I compare to File:Titan-crystal bar.JPG this one is a much weaker composition. There's useless space in the top left. The bars are longer than necessary to achieve their purpose illustrating the crystal bar. The magnification on each bar is thus so low I can't see any surface detail even at 100% (compared to other FP). In most scenarios where this image could be used (illustrating wiki or a book) the crystals would be too small to see in any quality. The only thing this photo offers that isn't offered by our existing FP is that there are two bars with different crystal structure, but this isn't explained. The dark grey surface has an awful lot of chroma noise. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done additional image describtion added. "... that there are two bars with different crystal structure, but this isn't explained." my explanation: why we can see two exact same perhaps oak trees? Right: they grow simply differently, a chance ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the cube as a scale is awesome. Hadn't seen that anywhere before. — Julian H.^✈ 19:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Le « temple de la montagne »Site de Vat Phou Champassak, Laos (2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 15:15:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created , uploaded by, - nominated by PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ
Support -- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be more focused. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye-catching, good color-play. -- Pofka (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced about the composition and the focus isn't sharp. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, clipped whites in an important part of the image, tight crop on top. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per opposers, sorry. --DXR (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wieliczka kolaż 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 22:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: This image is stitched from four views extracted from high-quality scans of a series of hand-colored copperplate maps of the town and salt mines of Wieliczka, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and one of Poland's major tourist attractions. It provides a detailed depiction of the life and work of men and horses employed in salt mining in the 17th century. You can see miners carving away blocks of rock salt, horse mills powering water pumps and lifts, brine boiling on the surface, men praying in front of an underground altar (sculpted from rock salt), and even one fellow relieving himself against a wall. Engravings by Willem Hondius — composite by Kpalion — uploaded by Kpalion — nominated by Kpalion — Kpalion^(talk) 22:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kpalion^(talk) 22:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is the source, it is to dark. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a mine, so it's dark, but I don't think there are any crushed blacks here. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ita140188 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting piece I think. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can bring my support for each of the 4 pictures but I do not see a very great interest to assemble these images, although the work seems well done. Because even if the subject is the same, elements do not match of an image to another (ladders, hoists....). -- Christian Ferrer 12:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)~[reply]
Strong support of course. It is a mine's collage, not a puzzles. D kuba (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2015 at 22:40:25 (UTC) -- Christian Ferrer 19:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haarlem, molen de Adriaan foto2 2015-01-04 09.37.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 09:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michielverbeek - uploaded by Michielverbeek - nominated by Michielverbeek -- Michielverbeek (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
still Neutral – rather noisy (why ISO 250?) and a bit oversharpened (visible e.g. on the small object in the sky which I recommend to retouch, see note) but beautiful light and atmosphere. --Kreuz schnabel 13:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced noise level of the sky and water. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Ivar (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me some of my favorite painters...--Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wooow! A perfect composition for a landscape, with a foreground object! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 03:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as painted from a flamish master --Hubertl (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 06 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Bull leaping minoan fresco archmus Heraklion.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:14:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by minoan painters - photographed, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More paintings ? This one is fabulous IMO, one of the art masterpieces of the western culture. From Knossos, Crete, typical wall fresco of the Minoan civilization, the cretan Bronze Age (around 1600 BCE). It shows young athletes playing by jumping over a bull, with an enthusiastic spectator. The "sport spirit" existed 3500 years ago. This is the original, on display at the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion. A reconstruction can be seen in the Knossos palace. -- Jebulon (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surely! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 03:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never though it would be FI. Jebulon are you sure it has correct WB? As far as I remember (and see in the various pictures) the fresco was warmer (and a little paler) colours. --C messier (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comment and question. The museum presentation is entirely new, since the end of 2014. The lighting is different (and better) too. Beware of the "various pictures", some are photographs of copies. I did not "push buttons" of the post-processing software very much, because in addition of the electric light, one have a very good natural light through the ceiling in this new room. So... Well, maybe I'm wrong, but this is my proposal. (what do you mean by "FI" ?)--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean as I remembered it from my visit a week before yours. I took a photo of it too, although it had some motion blur, but it had warmer colours, without postprocessing. Do you think its worth to upload it just to compare? FI = Featured Image --C messier (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do so if you want ! But "without postprocessing" does not necessarily mean "absolutely pure". The camera plays his own role too.IMO there is no objectivity with colors...--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, File:Τοιχογραφία Ταυροκαθάψια 6383.JPG. I agree that WB is (within same degree) a matter taste. --C messier (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Way much different, indeed. Do you think I should reduce saturation and/or contrast ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it is the WB which I think is wrong. Increasing saturation and (especially) contrast can make the photo more vivid, so I don't think it will be an improvement. --C messier (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote "reduce", not "increase" !!--Jebulon (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and I said, that IMHO, it wouldn't help. --C messier (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - C messier Better ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jebulon, IMHO original one is better. Don't think and the problem was saturation or contrast (at least not something worth mentioning). IHMO, only WB is a bit off towards the blue (light in the museum is warmer than Tungsten). --C messier (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - C messier OK, back to the previous version. Let's stop this unproductive discussion.--Jebulon (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Face fear…JUMP! Crisis Response Marines test insertion capabilities in Spain 150127-M-ZB219-053.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sgt. Paul Peterson - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor framing (helicopter cut by frame, right crop too tight while on the left is much empty space) --Kreuz schnabel 13:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition suboptimal. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like the other oponents --Milseburg (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, as per above comments. Yann (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a well composed and dynamic photograph. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cropping of the aircraft/helicopter is unfortunate but the composition is still good. --G Furtado (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like the framing, which focusses on the soldiers (the subject) rather than the helicopter. In any case, the rest of the photograph definitely makes up for it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate oppose I see your point about the framing, but I still think the helicopter shouldn't have been so tightly cropped. I'd let that go, however, if the sky weren't so dark that you have to look around for the blades. Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opposers. --P e z i (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yes, the composition is unbalanced with almost all the weight at the half right. A shot taken one second too early, missing the foremost soldier making one more step. At the contrary of others opinion, I think the slightly cropped Osprey helps, not giving too much importance to the machine and more to the men. Some little post-processing would also help for an even greater technical quality. Still a very strong picture for me. Sting (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Model healthy village Laos (11).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 11:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info create, uploaded and nominated by User:PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ -- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question What’s he doing? --Kreuz schnabel 13:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is smoking.--Paris 16 (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This man,(Akha Peoples), prepares his large water pipe called "Bang Yan" for smoking tobacco.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I really wish I could support a shot from Laos, but I don't really like the centered composition, harsh behind light and "high" point of view (I probably would have crouched down for a more dramatic composition). - Benh (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose centered composition, too tight crop, and only little wow; Sorry. --P e z i (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Hubertl (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I really get tired of these "I like it" reasons given. This is not Facebook – an FPC is not featured because of enough users "liking" it. The suitable approach for your review is not "do I like it" but "do I think it’s among the very best images Commons has to offer". This one isn’t, though I really do like it, I like its atmosphere and lighting, but then there’s a huge loss of detail (hair, ear, stockings) and an unfavourable upside-down perspective, making the man appear smaller than he is and hiding every surrounding. Though I like it, I think it could have been taken much better, that’s why I do not think it deserves to be featured. Oppose --Kreuz schnabel 09:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Na, @Kreuzschnabel: , möchtest du dir wieder einmal in deiner grenzenlosen Selbstüberschätzung ein zumindest temporäres Denkmal setzen? Kleiner Tipp: Ersetze hier einfach Musik durch Bild. Passt bestens zu dir. Zu deiner Beruhigung, du bist in gleichartiger Gesellschaft.--Hubertl (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cut this image to hide the misery of these poor people. The man who prepares his pipe, waiting for the rat (which will make its meals), cooks the misery blaze, which is his right. The photo is cropped and less sad to see. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing against the subject, however not visually outstanding. -- Christian Ferrer 12:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh, + shadow at left.--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anthus richardi - Laem Pak Bia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 15:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but I don't think it's amongst the "very best of" Commons. --A.Savin 21:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin, not outstanding wow to me. --DXR (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Savin and DXR, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multi plate pipe installation.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2015 at 23:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great idea and suitable wow, but the image is too noisy for me. Reworkable from RAW? --Kreuz schnabel 15:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is how it is... ;-) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose then, for technical shortcomings. Pity. --Kreuz schnabel 09:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe but eye catching -- Christian Ferrer 21:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Per Kreuzschnabel and also some CA, because a correct processing software was used but no technical or artistic reason given. Sting (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a photograph of a metal pipe installation. ;) and what does "but no technical or artistic reason given" mean? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry, missing part: "...but no technical or artistic reason given for keeping the noise." Because you "explained" this point to Kreuzschnabel with a laconic "It is how it is..." Sting (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, I´ll explain... pic taken at f8, why? needed dof. pic taken at 1/30 that corresponded to least hand held exposure by me, and fast enough to sort of not have moving people... so iso 1,600 was the corresponding setting in order to use such settings, thinking in the photo scene... if I reduced iso, longer exporuse time would result which I could not do without tripod... the range was large and large areas in deep shadow which are bound to be noisy, tunnels are dark by nature, and noise amid lots of texture and rythm don´t bother me too much, I wanted the general effect and one has to sacrifice some things. I did some adjustment, but after a while image becames unreal. I push it to just this side of normal or acceptable. Contrary to popular beliefs and expectations, neither noise nor grain are necessarily bad things, in fact, they can be good too. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014.07.18.-16-Schwarzbach Woellnau--Kleiner Blaupfeil-Maennchen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 18:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Hockei - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Code (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 03:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great sharpness and very pleasant colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clipped areas on subject. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo --Charles (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all, especially Tomer T for the nomination. --Hockei (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Leccinum variicolor LC0365.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 21:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mottled bolete (Leccinum variicolor); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good lighting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. -- Pofka (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors and ligth. --Mile (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hubertl (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice suject. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ A nice Christmas-y picture of a mushroom. Would be better if it didn't have the flash reflection, but I'm not sure what could have been done about that. 173.85.85.243 02:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment. Please log in for voting. --LC-de (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 06 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special atmosphere.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Goldcrest 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 23:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Europe's smallest bird - the goldcrest, Regulus regulus. All by me, -- Baresi F (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi F (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dэя-Бøяg 03:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail; high educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Safran-Weinviertel Niederreiter 2 Gramm 8285.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 05:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Two gram high quality red threads of saffron from Lower Austria. All by Hubertl, Focus stacking by Alchemist -- Hubertl (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Hubertl (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support … and 10. Very good image. Sorry Hubertl for not ignoring you as you pleaded here --Kreuz schnabel 13:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was I too harsh, in your opinion? ;-) Thanks, it seems, you are pretty relaxed.. --Hubertl (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 06 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Two scenes from Der Busant.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 08:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown, uploaded and nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality scan of an interesting tapestry, illustrating a popular folk story from the time which has since been almost forgotten.-- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avalokiteśvara in Construction in Da Nang, Vietnam.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 08:34:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by myself. This photo is showcasing four different phases of the construction: armature installation, draft cementing, sculpting, and painting. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not the usual type of photos that I shoot but I thought of the building lovers over here who might appreciate it. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Never been a fan of pictures in which buildings, monuments or other things/places are covered up, especially with such restoration (or what is it?) constructions. It is even much bigger problem for me than the poor lighting. -- Pofka (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Construction doesn't mean restoration. They are building it up from scratch. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support In my opinion there's nothing wrong about showing the world in its current state. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @Frank Schulenburg: Nothing being wrong about that, on the other hand, does not necessarily mean the image in question is among our finest. This one isn’t IMHO. Sunlit side of the statue is blown, contrast in the rest is rather poor, level of detail is by no means outstanding. Not a bad pic but still well below FP threshold for me. --Kreuz schnabel 09:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is fascinating and the sharpness and resolution are really good. Really interesting to see all the phases of construction, as you said. Sadly, some areas are clipped and the image would benefit from some editing to improve the contrast. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so much bothered by the idea of it being under renovation, but here it isn't photographed creatively enough to add something to the image. Worse than that, though, is the lighting as noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the second one referring to it being under renovation when this photo shows a statue being built from the ground up. Are my file name and description that bad? Isn't it obvious enough when looking at the photo in full size? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Daniel acks the idea behind the photo but doesn't find the execution to render as great as you intend it to. - Benh (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. OK, so I mistyped—it's being built, not rebuilt. But that doesn't substantively change my opposition. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mulberry Street NYC c1900 LOC 3g04637u edit.jpg (delist), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 09:13:58

Info The right one is better (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Claus (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Yann (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it allowed to vote for delisting in such a nomination? — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, as that would make it hard to count the votes. If, for example, this nomination were to get 7 keep votes, 7 delist votes, and 7 D&R votes, what would the outcome be? We just don't have any rule saying what to do in that circumstance. It's best to demarcate something as either a straight delist nom or a D&R norm, and if people want the other action to be taken, start a new nom after the current one is over. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, makes sense. — Julian H.^✈ 19:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. KTC (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moravskoslezské Beskydy - zima 2014 (by Pudelek) 04.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 09:51:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you crop off the extreme left? The dark tree trunk is distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done ;) --Pudelek (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 22:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@David C. S.: Please use only the standard support/oppose/neutral templates; otherwise the bot can't count the votes. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A winter I want to walk out to. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but no wow, bad crop, foreground in the shadow. A simply not featured image for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great timing, but very poor composition with no clear guideline to me. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I think this image could benefit from a wider ratio (2:3, 3:5). --Kadellar (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noctem - Asaco Metal Fest 2013 - 28.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 13:26:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Spanish metal band Noctem at Asaco Metal Fest 2013, Parla, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The harsh shadows and that black speaker spoil this. -- Colin (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Details of the "Atlantis ring" and ocular lenses checkered black and white circle are bluffing. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank for the comments. --Kadellar (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agustín Salinas y Teruel - School Festival at Ipiranga - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 18:02:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info School Festival at Ipiranga, by Agustín Salinas y Teruel. Created by Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by Dcoetzee (Bot) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I heard "more paintings"? -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Búlandshöfði, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-14, DD 080.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 20:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic view of the north coast of the Snæfellsnes peninsula, situated to the west of Borgarfjörður, in western Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 20:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't get enough of the Iceland's nature beauty. I hope one day I will have a chance to visit it. -- Pofka (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and per Pofka regarding the "one day" part. :) — Julian H.^✈ 16:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps as I Scot I don't find this landscape as unusual as some. The overcast weather is certainly familiar (though I see a little bit of sunshine) I like the waves and wide format, but overall the overcast/dull lighting conditions in most of the picture don't strike me as exceptional enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a beautiful shot and yes, the waves are a good feature of it, but it's not unusual enough for me either so it has to be pretty good otherwise... and I think it's not. The weather didn't help for the lighting ~~but he sky was screwed up a little: it's a bit overexposed. I can see from the history that the details were once there, so it's only a matter of getting them back.~~ It's up to you of course, but from my point of view, it's an oppose. - Benh (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...of course. I cannot see any loss of detail, though, from the initial version to the current one. Poc o² 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my annotation. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the "details" on another monitor... Need to check my calibration again. Sorry for the issue. - Benh (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had a few looks at this one. I agree it is not perfect, but for me it has wow enough and is a successful landscape image. --DXR (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's possible to capture beautiful greenery on a cloudy day, but I'm just not seeing it here, unfortunately. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so lucky compo, weather/ligth. --Mile (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 19:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Kłodzko, kościół Matki Bożej Różańcowej.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 16:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure why you have left so much black round it. But this is just a decent photo of an unexceptional stained glass window. Just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cutted this picture. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see anything that wrong with this ... how can you not leave some black around a semicircular stained-glass window? Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Case, "I don't see anything that wrong with this" is the definition of a QI, no more. FP needs wow! Either subject wow or photographic wow and preferably both. See Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Windows_.26_doors for examples of featured stained glass. The world is full of stained glass windows, and FP needs more than a competent rendering of an ordinary example. -- Colin (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those other images are of entire stained glass windows, not portions as this one is. That's what I like about it. I don't see why we can't have a nice one at small scale. And yes, I'm wowed by it. I would not have indicated my support if I didn't feel that way—as I think one could deduce from my oppose votes explicitly saying an image has no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jacek, it's not even symmetric, sorry. I agree with Colin, QI but not FP. --Kadellar (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadellar I improved symetry. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been nominated and I like, what else? --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Σπάρτακος, the Featured Pictures are those judged against strict rules to be among the finest on Commons. "I like" really isn't a factor at all. It isn't even a factor for QI, which must meed certain quality standards. Keep "I like" for Flickr/Facebook or your own personal favourites collection. You ask "what else?". A lot else. Please, if you aren't prepared to research whether this image is among our finest, then don't vote. It just devalues FP to become images some people like. If you want to show some appreciation, then send a message to the photographer. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin"I Like" means many things. I like the colors, I like the composition, I like the light etc .... Who are you? The "God" of photography? everything is chosen by you? If so, buy commons and do as you think. Until then I will do the same,keep this opinions for you. Greetings.--Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I as who are you who is above criticism? This is a forum where we decide the best pictures on Commons. Nobody cares what images you Favourite or Like on Flickr of Facebook and your opinion there affects nothing. If you judge this image to be FP then there are perhaps 1000 other stained glass windows images that are equally as good and worth of FP. How about a grown-up discussion on what makes a FP stained glass window, rather than acting like a teenager who's been told by his dad that his taste in music is poor. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jacek Halicki, Daniel Case, Tremonist, Σπάρτακος, could you please examine Category:Stained glass windows. Click on the "Good pictures" button and look at the hundreds of QI images. Can you please explain how this small image of a small window is superior to those hundreds of other windows that are just QI. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the criticism: It's a good QI, but looking at other stained glass FPs, this is not among the finest. — Julian H.^✈ 12:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 07.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 16:37:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have File:2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 01.jpg featured and this is the same tower photographed a few minutes before, and a few steps to the right. They're almost mirror-images. Which one is the "finest"? -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a mirror image, but the image captured from the other side, compare descriptions of images. Since the VI can nominate photographs of the same object from different directions, I thought that the FP can be. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were mirror images. You took and uploaded seven images within a few minutes of each other of the same subject in the same light. Are you going to nominate them all at FP? Most of us take photographs from different angles, different aspects, in the same photo shoot, but then decide which is the best. A cathedral or castle may merit photographs from all sides at FP, but a round tower? -- Colin (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One by one: I did six pictures and nominated two in my opinion the best, made from different directions. Photos were quickly because it was cold and I do not understand why it matters. The tower is round, but no shelter. More images of this series I'm not going to nominate, because it would not make sense. I'm not a Soviet general decorate medals to the FP, but I think that the photos that were nominated deserve these awards. If you are not allowed to nominate two images of the same object taken from different angles at any time I can withdraw the nomination. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does look like a mirror version of the other FP. Not enough better or worse (or even just "different") to justify another star to me. - Benh (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Montpellier 02.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 19:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this kind of image --LivioAndronico talk 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. — Julian H.^✈ 22:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I can see the point of the author here, I don't think it's the best execution for this kind of shots. Composition is unbalanced (no "strong" line like a diagonal, vertical or rule of third comes out of it), and a more appropriate combination of lighting and cloud pattern could make it far more dramatic. Here's my own take at this kind of shot to support my points. Still not sure I would submit it here though. - Benh (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination convinced, thanks for supports -- Christian Ferrer 21:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was I that convincing ?? It was only one subjective opinion, and your picture was on its way to become FP... - Benh (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(7-1-0) would be a promote if that's how voting ended, but if you really wanted to withdrawn, I guess you could... -- KTC (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rule I set for myself and only my opinion : if I am convinced by the arguments of an opposition, I withdraw, what is logical. Thank you. -- Christian Ferrer 06:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is noble of you, but I wasn't that convinced by Benh's argument personally. I don't think his image's composition is better. The right side of his image is angled so strongly (I measured the corner of the tallest part as 65°) that the building almost feels like it's entering the frame sideways. I think if the angle of lean is more than 45 degrees inwards, it is too much. These compositions are always difficult, but I think you did the best you could, if getting further back was not an option. Diliff (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cardona March 2015-6a.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2015 at 23:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View from the Castle of Cardona (Catalonia, Spain), to north, with the Pyrenees in the background. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Halo around the mountains. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull lighting, not much composition-wise. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with KoH, and I would have liked to have seen more of the land below the frame. It would have benefited from a composition using the rule of thirds (one third sky, two thirds land). Diliff (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with above. I think it's technically quite good. Composition wise, I'd wish for more and would like to see more what's below rather than the empty sky. The lighting is ok but not awesome - causing the colors and ground features lack some power. --Ximonic (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roca de la Ley, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 036-039 PAN.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 19:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic view of Lögberg (icelandic for Law Rock), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. The Lögberg was the place on which the Lawspeaker (lögsögumaður) took his seat as the presiding official of the assembly of the Althing, the national parliament, from 930 until 1262 (when Iceland took allegiance to Norway). Speeches and announcements were made from the spot and anyone attending could make their argument from the Lögberg. All by me, Poc o² 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In a way I actually do like the picture itself: it's informative and has an interesting natural topic with very pleasant light situation. But I can't get away with the fact that the composition makes me feel uneasy mostly because of the road on the right side. As I'm viewing the entire picture at once it's difficult for me to find a balance for the road in the picture. I think, cropping the road wouldn't be good either because the natural features in the background would cut oddly. --Ximonic (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition. Perhaps the rock could be made interesting, but any subtle compositional details are lost in a 180-degree panorama. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above, it's compositionally very weak, and the subject is fairly unidentifiable at thumbnail view / sized to fit screen. It's only when viewed at 100% that it's possible for me to understand what it is I'm looking at. I'm not suggesting that we should judge it at thumbnail view, I'm just saying if it's uninteresting or unidentifiable at thumbnail view, it's a good sign that it's compositionally weak. Diliff (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I can live with opposes, but planting the FPX template here (for the first time in any of my noms) is offensive. I do know the guidelines, thank you, Daniel. Poc o² 19:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crown of Thorns Starfish at Malapascuas Island.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 17:43:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Matt Kieffer - uploaded by Unbuttered Parsnip - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceptional images may sometimes not be of extremely high quality. Here's a rare sea star, which we know only a few specimens reassembled by trawlers. This is the first time it was photographed in its natural environment. We are fortunate that this image is poured into COMMONS. Thanks to the work of Wikipedians that encourage underwater photographers to submit their images. They deserve our gratitude.-- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique picture of an extremely rare animal, with satisfactory technical quality (all the more given the conditions of light and depth), and beautiful aesthetics. Such pictures are precious treasures for Wiki projects. FredD (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It falls short on technical side. How sad it was shot with a Sony DSC-TX7... but I'm convinced by the explanations of Archaeodontosaurus. - Benh (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support anyway, rare stuff, with Plasma all over ? --Mile (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also it has beautiful colors. And I also support the Mile's version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I totally agree with the nominator. Outstanding and unique educational and scientific value. As FredD said Such pictures are precious treasures for Wiki projects. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong white balance, easily corrected. Yann (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Hafspajen 16:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I support the other, better WB. --Kadellar (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version

Comment worth to save...could you see if this one is better, green level lowered. --Mile (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also support the Mile's version. @Yann: It's better? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Yann (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this one is more natural. --Mile (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is not that good, but value is important here. --Kadellar (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

The chosen alternative is: File:Crown of Thorns Starfish at Malapascuas Island v. II.jpg

File:Soldiers of 2 Royal Anglian Silhouetted in Afghanistan MOD 45157880.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2015 at 00:30:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cpl Daniel Wiepen - uploaded by Fae - nominated by Chase me ladies -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recruiting-poster perfect! Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I don't like guns and the occupation in afghanistan, the picture is very beautiful --LivioAndronico talk 09:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is some kind of an advertising image and has nothing to do with reality. The depicted scene is completely designed and incompatible with military behaviour. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your comment that it is at odds with military behaviour, and I think others who have been in the military would agree with me. It looks like it's been taken just outside a military base - probably Camp Bastion - and that the soldier is using the sight on his rifle to scan the horizon during a pause in the patrol. You can see that he is kneeling by the razor wire & grass outside a base. The metadata shows that it was taken just after sunset in Afghanistan. There the possibility that the photographer has taken time to set up the shot and asked the soldiers to stay where they are, but that's unlikely, and in any case that is not a reason to vote against it - it is a reason to vote for it, as it was clearly taken by a professional photographer out in the field. I also do not believe it is advertising any more than a 'good photo' of anything can be taken as advertising. It would be nonsense to suggest that we should only accept blurry or bloody photographs of warzones. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Neutral~~ the photo is not localized. Is actually taken in Afghanistan? if not it's an advertising--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, it has been: see the caption: "Soldiers of C Company 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment are silhouetted against the setting sun during operations in Afghanistan in June 2014." If you search for the author's name you will see that he was based in Afghanistan for much of that year and took many other photographs which could only have been taken there. The metadata also matches the time of sunset in Afghanistan during 11 June 2014. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support.- Thank you. for this précision --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1. No wow. --P e z i (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC), this one was and is much better: , our POTY 2014 candidate at place 11.[reply]
Support. Regardless of any opinions on the propaganda of millitary images, this one is undeniably well taken. Diliff (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others above. Yann (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. @Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: I was in the military and I was in Afghanistan, privately. Just because you asked..--Hubertl (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support per Diliff, though I'm not overly fond of the (probably intended & possibly even artificially introduced) vignetting at smaller sizes. --El Grafo (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pinhole effect ? Its too much for vignetting. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I support if the vignetting effect is removed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artificial vignetting for dramatic effect. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some graphic interest but not enough outstanding -- Christian Ferrer 11:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Christian --LC-de (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sympetrum vulgatum LC0368.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2015 at 21:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Female Common Darter (Sympetrum vulgatum); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good quality, nice detail, but this creature's wings looks blown/blurred here. Way too transparent for me, especially upper one. I don't think they really are like that. Probably a little bit incorrect focusing or something. -- Pofka (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better detail than many similar images, and I think if the wing would be sharper, it would hide a part of the body. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail. Cropping a bit tight top right for my taste. I don't agree at all with comment suggesting 'incorrect focusing'. --Charles (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 01:29:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steinway & Son - uploaded by Fanoftheworld - nominated by Nobelpeopleuploader -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still Support. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 12:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Third nom after two previous declines. What's new ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please judge the photo and not the number of nominations. The quality of the photo is much higher this time. At the first nomination it was 1.29 MB, which was too low, so it was withdrawn by the nominator. At the second nomination it was 4.47 MB big and supported by all who participated in the election, but unfortunately too few participated in the election. Therefore this third nomination is like the second nomination - but I hope more will participate this time. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it looks like some hopeless attempt to get it promoted. - Benh (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please judge the photo and not the nominator. The quality of the photo is much higher this time. At the first nomination it was 1.29 MB, which was too low, so it was withdrawn by the nominator. At the second nomination it was 4.47 MB big and supported by all who participated in the election, but unfortunately too few participated in the election. Therefore this third nomination is like the second nomination - but I hope more will participate this time. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes much higher, but still looks like an upscale. And can't really tell if artifacts are from bad compression or from artifacts so I maintain my oppose, until someone proves me wrong. Have tried to check on a quick googling, but nothing to prove either point. - Benh (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quite poor sharpness for a studio shot of such a high-class product. The sharpness and level of detail might be sufficient on an outdoor scenery shot but isn’t here. Also, there are certain traces of noise visible on the black surface. Nice shot but in this case I expect a distinctly higher quality. Steinway’s art director would most certainly not be satisfied with this file to be printed on their glossy brochures. It’s simply not "crisp" enough. --Kreuz schnabel 05:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think the photo doesn't have sharpness and a great level of detail. Would you please specify what you mean by "certain traces of noise visible on the black surface"?, because I am almost sure you are wrong. You are aware that this photo shows a piano with a "satin lustre lacquer finish" (and NOT the usual "high polish polyester finish")??? --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added some annotations regarding the noise traces. I am quite aware this is not a polished shiny surface because it’s got a somewhat "brushed" look, maybe I am mistaken here. Then there’s the sharpness/resolution issue. Of course there is some detail but it’s still not sharp enough for a studio shot. The brass screws, the Steinway logo, they’re just not perfectly in focus. Have a look at this image of me which is being discussed on QIC. It has been taken outside, no tripod, handheld camera at a 35-mm-equivalent focal length of 104 mm. Still you see every surface detail on the statue crisp sharp, the level of detail is way better than in this studio shot, at comparable resolutions (16.1 resp. 14.6 mpix). By the way, there’s some bad cutout at the bottom, see notes. Things visible in the reflection that certainly are not part of the piano. --Kreuz schnabel 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing featurable here. Simple piano shot with removed background. -- Pofka (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the idea of a studio photo. There is no noise. It is a straightforward photo. You can find many of these "simple" (as you called it) shots as featured pictures, just look at Commons:Featured pictures/Plants. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sea anemone baja california.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 02:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support! --Brateevsky {talk} 12:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support So unusual. Immediately caught my eye. -- Pofka (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Almost an oppose, because of the bad quality. I don't know the shooting conditions, but I'm not convinced it was necessary to stop down this much if a tripod wasn't an option or available. Beautiful colours though - Benh (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 22:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Anonimski (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:St Cuthbert's Church Philbeach Gardens Reredos, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 11:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Please view at full size, it unfortunately looks unimpressive at thumbnail size but the carved wooden rederos details are a feast for the eyes. The amazing thing is, this is not a grand English cathedral, it's just a local parish church in London, and not particularly well known at that. -- Diliff (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support First thought when seeing this picture: "It simply looks like a 100 years old bottle of wine!". Such impressive wooden altar... -- Pofka (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the details are incredible. - Benh (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful --Baresi F ([[User talk:Baresi franco|talk
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tu solus Dominus, Diliff. Many symbols, many stories, and a wonderful woodcarving. One can stay here for hours, saying "oh, did you notice this ? Do you see that ? And here, and here ?". Really a treasure, worth to be known. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing woodcarving, stupidly sharp. --DXR (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I went up to the 85mm f/1.8 lens at f/10 to maximise detail on this one. The one downside is the much more limited DOF (as you can see by the foreground quickly going OOF), but I think it was worth it. The view from further back taken with the 50mm lens is not nearly as detailed. The composition in that image is also not great, but it was an awkward position to shoot from as I couldn't get any higher, vertically, because the rood screen would interfere, and I couldn't get further back because then the front seats would get in the way. Diliff (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, I really sup'ed this as an artwork, not as a church interior. Yeah, the 85mms are mighty tools. I tried something comparable some time ago, but it just looks shabby in comparison. Perhaps I missed the focus a bit. --DXR (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Love it — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Triglav y Valle de Vrata (14202569306) (2).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 14:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Javier Sanchez Portero - uploaded by Sporti - nominated by Yerpo -- — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be even better if the central mountain were not entirely in shadow but outstanding as it is too. --Kreuz schnabel 14:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some CA, bad artifacts in the areas where the clipping was fixed, dust spots in the sky. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work, shows perfectly the typical scenery of the center of the Julian alps. --Hubertl (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian H. An FP-image must be perfect! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tytuvėnai Monastery Church Interior, Tytuvėnai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 16:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never before saw this church decorated like that. Some important mass must have been held at that time or something. -- Pofka (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, Pofka? I hadn't seen it before either until I visited Lithania. I saw maybe 3 or 4 churches decorated in this way (this one was in Šiluva, I took only a hand-held pano very quickly, because a service was about to begin and I couldn't photograph it properly, so it has stitching faults and can't really be used on Wiki), so I thought it was a special Lithuanian thing. ;-) Since then, I have a few other Eastern European churches with similar decorations but I don't know exactly what the significance is or what it is called. Diliff (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why they were decorated like that in your pictures as well. At first, I thought that it might be connected with the wedding ceremonies or something, but that is not quite likely as there are way too much churches looking like that at the same time (St. Anne's Church in Vilnius is a frequent site of weddings, however I doubt that Tytuvėnai is frequently used for that as well). As I understand, you took all these pictures in a very short duration. Due to that, I think it is possible that some important Catholic events or days commemorations were taking place. I believe there should have been some advertisement sheets about it somewhere. Though, I'm surprised that you saw other Eastern European churches decorated in the same way (at similar period?) because Lithuania and Poland are the only Catholic countries in the region. Belarus, Ukraine, Russia are Orthodox, Latvia, Estonia are Lutheran (and Orthodox due to the Russian minorities as well). All these decorated churches and monasteries in your pictures are Catholic, so if the other churches you saw in the another Eastern Europe countries were Catholic as well, I think it must have been some religiously important days/period. It seems my religious knowledge isn't high enough to sort it out. =D -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, it was a Polish church I saw. I can't recall where it was, maybe Commons or maybe Flickr. I searched for "Polish church interior" on Flickr and found four churches with the same decorations, but no explanation about why. We can just call it a Polish-Lithuanian tradition for now. :-) Diliff (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These pictures in Flickr are taken at completely different dates: July 12, June 1, May 22, August 14 and yours photos are from September. That's really difficult to identify the exact decorating reason. Maybe some other more religious person will tell us why. =) -- Pofka (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks again for the nomination. Eventually you will get through all my Lithuanian photos! The ones worth nominating anyway. Again, not a perfect interior for me, but I think the beauty of the interior is enough. Diliff (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is my aim for now. =D Later I'm planning to move on your Latvian churches. Some of them looks just terrific in your shots as well. It looks even better in your shots than in reality as I previously had a chance to visit some of these and they weren't that impressive. Maybe that's because I'm used to the luxurious Catholic churches in Vilnius, which is a complete opposition of Lutheranism. =D -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all the different architectural styles really, but I must admit, the Lithuanian churches were much more impressive overall. ;-) I was a bit disappointed with the Lutheran churches in Latvia. Riga Cathedral and St Peter's were quite big, but also cold, uninviting and not so interesting inside. And unlike in Lithuania, they almost all required 'donations' (it's not a donation if you insist!) to visit. Diliff (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought just the same when I saw huge Riga Cathedral for the first time, however its interior was quite empty and disappointing. Though that's how Lutheranism exactly works. They want to keep everything simple when the Catholics wants to show God's greatness and humans weakness with the luxurious interiors full of saints frescoes. There are so many luxurious churches in Lithuania (especially in Vilnius and Kaunas) because this territory was the heart of the huge Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Many nobles financed expensive constructions of monasteries and churches there and that is why there are so many of them, compared with Latvia and Estonia. Latvia, Estonia always were quite tiny and military-based territories (that's why they have many castles). Klaipėda often was captured by other states and because of that there really is no such Catholic objects. It even reminds Riga a bit but sadly its main huge Lutheran church with vast tower haven't survived the World War II when it was completely exploded and the restoration project is kind of stuck to this day. Actually, I'm surprised how these churches in Vilnius nowadays are able to survive and even reconstruct themselves. There are way too many of them for a 0.5 million inhabitants city of nowadays and relying solely on donations should be just impossible. Though, I'm happy they are able to keep our heritage in a good condition. =) -- Pofka (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to hear your point of view as a local. There was only one church that was in quite bad condition inside. I was always seeing the roof and towers when I was walking around, so went down some small streets and found its entrance in a courtyard. I can't remember the name of it, I never stayed to take a photo of it because there wasn't too much to see and it felt like a construction site! Maybe I should have taken a photo so we could have a high quality 'before' picture to match a new restored picture if it ever happens. Ah yes, on Google Maps, it's called "Bazilijonų bažnyčia", near the Church of St Theresa. Do you know it? Diliff (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The restoration works are under-way in the Trinity church and that is why it looks like a construction site. =) As far as I remember, it was stuck for a while because the church belongs to Uniate monastery and there were discussions between the monastery and the city municipality on how much each side should invest. They already reached an agreement and the restoration works began in September (I guess just in the time of your visit to Lithuania). It was in a poor condition due to the barbaric Lithuania occupations. Many Catholic churches were despoiled, converted into warehouses or even stables (including the Vilnius Cathedral). Russia even recolored some of them later into more poorly visible colors (light yellow, white) to distinguish the Orthodox churches. Some were even demolished. Many churches in Vilnius currently are recolored back to their historic colors (pink, red). Kaunas cathedral interior (perfectly captured in your photo after the restoration) previously was converted into Orthodox church by destroying its historic Catholic interior. The Grand Dukes Palace was completely abandoned and at times it even was the shelter to the homeless people, later it was used in other ways and even was almost completely demolished by trying to delete the glorious Grand Duchy history from the people's minds. Another heavily damaged object is the Sapieha Palace in Antakalnis (Vilnius). It is a huge baroque palace complex previously built by one of the wealthiest Grand Duchy families, however the Russians transformed it into hospital and damaged its luxurious interiors and even the exterior (all the frescoes were painted over, huge windows, halls were reduced). Some complex buildings served as psychiatry. Gladly, it remained standing and is under-reconstruction as well. It doesn't look that ugly anymore, yet there is a lot of work to be done. St. Peter and St. Paul's church is considered as a part of this complex. Another luxurious palace from the Grand Duchy history - Slushko Palace was converted into even crazier object - a jail. Sadly, it is not under-reconstruction yet as all the financing is focused on the Sapieha and the Grand Dukes palaces. Vilnius historical heritage will probably look quite different after the following decade. =) -- Pofka (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support -- David C. S. 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like the church trying to be the Golden Gate Bridge. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know why it is so, but the distorsion of the lamp in foreground up is to strong IMO. It should be a globe (see the same in background) and not an olive. In general I find all the distortions too strong. (For the reason of the red decorations, I don't know, it does not work with any catholic liturgical feast around the beginning of september. Maybe a celebration for a local martyr ? See en:Liturgical colours for more explanations)--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although there is some color noise and color clipping on the red decorations, it remains in the finest of Commons IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nikhil (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked the colours... -- RTA 05:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks almost festive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good pictures of Lithuania! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Jožef Tominc - Pietro Stanislao Parisi z družino.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 17:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Giuseppe Tominz/Jožef Tominc - uploaded by Sporti - nominated by Sporti -- Sporti (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sporti (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:طائر رقطية.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 16:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Clear Photo for a perched Laughing Dove at Ramat Gan Safari, Ramat Gan, Israel. Its one of the most common city birds in the Levant, 2^nd only to the House Sparrowباسم (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't create the nomination pages manually but use the workflow that is described at Commons:Featured picture candidates. Otherwise, the result doesn't use the standardized format and templates. — Julian H.^✈ 11:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Missing location and, more importantly, species. Nice image, though, good composition and bokeh and sharp where it needs to be. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture.--لا روسا (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Kleuske. Note taken Julian. Thank you bothباسم (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per earlier comments. Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop doesn't look quite right to me. Bird is too far to the right in the image. --Charles (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cañón Silfra, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 055.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 20:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Snorkeling in the Silfra canyon, a continental drift between the tectonic plates (North American and Eurasian), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. Poc o² 20:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- David C. S. 21:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vibrant colors. -- Pofka (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A reminder that Icelandic tourism isn't just about chasing waterfalls. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing composition and decent quality. --Kreuz schnabel 06:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice one Poco, this was one of my favourite images from 'the list'. Diliff (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral great image below the horizon, fantastic quality, annoying clipping in the clouds. I wouldn't mind a little bit of clipping here, as it's at the very edge of the frame, but the area is quite large. — Julian H.^✈ 11:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice composition. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, but I think it can be improved by cropping a bit of the left so the river lies in the middle. Agree with Julian on the clouds issue. - Benh (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite stunning, clouds are not distracting. --DXR (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as others. Beyond that: I like it! ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nice but not a fantastic shot: the look gets a path at the middle but is closed at 3/4 of the way. And the lens quality of the left border is so-so (lack of sharpness). Sting (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic discussion of lens problems relating to this and other images

Are you sure about the lack of sharnpess? For the edge of a 12 MPix wide angle shot, that's great sharpness. To be honest, it would even be fine for that area to be out of focus imo. — Julian H.^✈ 07:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He's kind of right. The borders, particularly the left one, are not that sharp. It's something that I've observed on many of Poco's photos taken with the 24-105mm f/4L lens, and it's also something that happened on my 24-105mm lens. But yeah, I think the problem is not too bad in this photo. In other photos taken with the lens it is much more of a problem. Diliff (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some pictures get promoted here being much softer in the centre (centre!) of the image. I see it quite sharp. Support ¡Muy bonita! --Kadellar (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Knowing the image passed through Lightroom, that issue at the left could have been corrected. The 24-105mm is an excellent lens for its versatility but crap for its optical quality (except around 70mm) imo, even more for landscape or FPC where quality at 100% matters.

Out of focus borders? It would be ok (= natural) if their distance were closer than the divers, but here it's clearly a lack of sharpness due to the lens.

"...it's more than good enough for FP for me...": that's the "problem" with the FPC page as it depends on the greatly different levels of appreciation of the voters. Imho FP shouldn't be "good enough" but among the best on the composition and technically, something special, because there's also QI. Sting (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, the 24-105mm f/4L is not the best optically, but it is usually acceptable. What I found in my experience with the lens is that it occasionally will severely blur one side of the image. It was very difficult to replicate the problem every time, which makes me think it is related to the image stabilisation. A perfect example of how bad it can be is one of Poco's recent nominations. This is well outside of what would be considered acceptable corner sharpness and is a fault with the lens IMO. Although this image's edge sharpness is a lot better than that one I linked to, it is a manifestation of the same problem, I think. Diliff (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The linked example doesn't look like a sharpness problem to me though, it's almost exclusively vertical, the vertical lines are quite sharp even on the left side. In some areas, you can even discern two reproductions of some detail on top of each other. I can't think of a way that a lens can do such a thing and would therefore expect that to be camera shake. — Julian H.^✈ 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the image isn't sharp, then it is a sharpness problem, regardless of what is the actual cause of it. That's what I was saying earlier though, I believe it is the image stabilisation of the lens that is causing the problem rather than camera shake. If it was camera shake, the entire image would be blurry equally, not just the left side. But when IS shifts the lens elements, it does so in three dimensions. This the only way you could get motion blur only on one side. I suspect the IS has pivoted one of the lens elements such that the middle and right side remained relatively stable, but the left side shifted considerably. Diliff (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean it's not a sharpness problem, I meant it's not a lens sharpness problem. Rotational camera shake can easily cause blurryness in a part of the frame. If the IS corrects the translation of the camera shake, what is left is the rotation. So if you rotate around your right hand, the result can look somewhat like this. — Julian H.^✈ 23:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Julian! You should change monitor or wear glasses (no offence)! That Montenegro picture is an optical quality masterpiece! @ Poco a poco: I'm not happy with my 24-105 but in your case you should process Canon because you got a lemon! In that image, the left 2/3 are totally unusable. No post-processing will recover it. I hate advertisement (and the company) selling you at gold price the heaven while they push you into hell. Imagine showing that photograph to your Montenegro's gov client: you'll get burned on public place at once, with some oil to help. If you allow me a friendly advice: next time you change your camera, sell that lens together as a bundle, as fast as possible and get an other one if you want it again (I'm already sorry for the buyer). Sting (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've got a similar and even worse problem on a fixed lens, a TS-E (sold at gold price, remember?): setting it at 0°, one side is blurred, more than in the Montenegros's one. Setting it at 1/4 or 1/3 of a degree, it's perfect. I know it and I can change these settings on that lens, so that's ok for me, but not acceptable as a customer. That 24-105 may have a lens paralellism problem.

Julian, perhaps but remember the blur direction seems vertical so a horizontal rotation around the right hand couldn't cause that. Also, I can confirm that I've had similar problems with my Canon 24-105mm and there was no camera movement/shake at the time. It is the lens itself malfunctioning IMO. Sting, you don't have to worry about Poco's lens now though, he sadly had all his camera gear stolen in Argentina a few months ago, and these photos were from August 2014. I hope for the sake of the photos that he doesn't get the 24-105mm again though. Sigma make a lens with exactly the same focal length range and their lens is supposed to be sharper. If I had the chance again, I would buy the Sigma. Diliff (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry for Poco a poco. Harsh and sad times. Sting (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical is the only blur direction that could be caused by a rotation around the direction of light. — Julian H.^✈ 13:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really what you mean by that. Vertical blur usually occurs when the camera rotates around a horizontal axis vertically, perpendicular to the direction of the camera. I originally understood "rotate around your right hand" to mean a horizontal rotation around the vertical axis, but I now think you mean a vertical rotation around the optical axis of the lens. Horizontal blur usually occurs when the camera rotates around a vertical axis horizontally, perpendicular to the direction of the camera. Are you saying that you think Poco twisted the camera along the axis of the lens as he took the photo, pivoting around his right hand so much that he had blur only on one side of the frame?? I suppose it's possible, but that would be very difficult to achieve unless you were trying to do it deliberately. I can't imagine Poco could do it by accident as it would require quite a significant movement in 1/80th of a second. I think it's far more likely that the IS shifted the lens element incorrectly in that moment than Poco physically rotating the entire camera. Diliff (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. And yes, it's not the most common kind of camera shake. But the image is rotated. A vertical blur on the left and none on the right means a rotation along the optical axis, no matter how you look at it. And I can't come up with a way that an IS can rotate the image, ever. I don't think that's possible. At least not with spherical lenses. — Julian H.^✈ 15:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it appears to be vertical blur and the most logical explanation for that is a rotation along the optical axis, but it would require an extreme rotational movement in a fairly awkward way and I'm still not convinced that's what actually happened here. This fault occurred in my 24-105mm lens fairly regularly and I am positive that I didn't rotate it, and to the best of my knowledge, it only happened when IS was enabled. It has never happened in any of my photos with any other lens. In any case, it could be that the perceived vertical blur is a red herring and not what we think it is. Diliff (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe it's extreme coma. I've never really seen coma half as strong as this, but I hadn't thought of that before and I guess that would be an optical way of achieving verticals in a part of the frame. — Julian H.^✈ 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen motion blur resulting from a rotation around the optical axis as strong as that either... Perhaps Poco can give us some comments about it. I've tried to mention it a few times in previous nominations but he hasn't commented on it so I'm not sure what his experience of the problem is, or even if he noticed it before, given his nomination of the image in question... I suppose we should collapse this discussion though as it's quite a digression from the nomination here. Diliff (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although all this is off-topic to this FPC I can just tell you that I haven't intentionally tried out any twist / rotation or similar things. My experience with that camera is that most of the time the quality was good and sometimes it wasn't. I cannot explain why, and I wouldn' call it a lemon, but is gone anywhow. Poc o² 21:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Poco. Well I have to say, I would consider the lens a lemon if even one of my photos turned out like the one taken in Montenegro (if it wasn't a user issue anyway). But thanks for your point of view. I guess we won't get to the bottom of the problem since the lens is gone. I'll collapse the off-topic discussion. Sorry about that. Diliff (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I guess it's possible you could squeeze out a bit more corner sharpness with a prime lens, but imho this is far away from the blurry goo the average kit lens might deliver here. I agree that a true vanishing point would be nice, but it's more than good enough for FP for me as it is. --El Grafo (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Moravskoslezské Beskydy - zima 2014 (by Pudelek) 06.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 12:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I didn't even bother to open it at full size... I just fail to catch what this picture tries to sell. Unfortunate lighting and not sure what u r aiming at. - Benh (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the idea, but the composition is a bit busy due to the placement of the horizon in the middle. Cropping the bottom would improve the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koettmannsdorf Unterschlossberg Stausee und Strassenbruecke 03032015 0234.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 23:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Hubertl -- Hubertl (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Bridge, crossing the river Drava seen from from Köttmannsdorf, South Carinthia. The mountain in front is the Rauth. This bridge was build in the middle of the 1960s, after a big flooding destroyed the old one
Support -- Hubertl (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nice quality but the left border, vertically half-cut pillar unfortunately "closes" the composition too much in my taste for the harmony of the scene. Sting (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This version is better now? Sting, Kadellar, Kreuz? Thanks for a additional review!--Hubertl (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now imho. Thank you Hubertl. Sting (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the most striking image not of a church interior or Icelandic waterfall I've seen here in a while. I'd be OK with cropping out that half of the pier but, really, it doesn't bother me that much. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, perfect day and good quality. --Code (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~still Neutral per Sting, will support as soon as the crop is done --Kreuz schnabel 05:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Support Perfectly balanced composition now. --Kreuz schnabel 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No church interior, but again something completely different.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ same as Kreuzschnabel. --Kadellar (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you for your assessment. Cropped version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 14:23, 06 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now, thanks. --Kadellar (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico talk 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
now Support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be sharper at 15 MP, but that's the price you pay for a flexible lens. The composition is really successful for me. --DXR (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I think the WB is a little too blue. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 17:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, it's a little on the soft side, but the composition makes me not care. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Semporna Sabah City-Mosque-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 06:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Semporna City Mosque after refurbishment. Visited almost by the Bajau people, it was decided to repaint it in the colours of the sea. All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distorted at all but otherwise nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What do you mean with "distorted at all"? The verticals are rectilinear. This was not a center shot, so there wont be parallel horizontals. I could apply perspective warp in PS but is this, what FPC wants? Isn't reality, that a building has more than a center view? Or is it a request of FPC, to have all buildings centered? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look to the right tower: very distorted at the top. The photo: either a good perspective or a centered composition will be better. Your smal angle are more irritating than a good view. It looks simply bad distorted for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added an edit version as attempt. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- - Done Ok, I applied total perspective correction direct to the RAW and a tighter crop. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, now Support :-) it looks much better now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty strange colors. --Hubertl (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange but catchy. -- Pofka (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 10:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good with similar background color. --Mile (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Parabuteo unicinctus - 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 13:43:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Harris's Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus) in the Community of Madrid, Spain. Michael Gäbler did good back in 2011 and 2012, but I think this picture is better now than the two existing FP of Parabuteo unicinctus, at least there is better light. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per LivioAndronico. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Motion blur on the beak tip … Support Okay, I stand defeated ;-) --Kreuz schnabel 17:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 20:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Charles (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all for your support. --Kadellar (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Christiansborg Slot Copenhagen 2014 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 04:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Julian Herzog - uploaded by Julian Herzog - nominated by Nikhil
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for the nomination. — Julian H.^✈ 22:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely taken, although I think the aperture of f/10 on a crop format camera unnecessarily softened the details. Somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8 would have given greater sharpness with no loss of DOF. Diliff (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the hint, I agree generally. I often have sharpness problems with this lens below f/8, made a test once and found that it was sharpest around f/10-f/13 overall. I might have become slightly paranoid about the open-aperture performance of the lens because I had a few really bad shots in the past where the left corners were useless. You're probably right that f/8 would be better here. In either case, I've changed lenses now, so that should be a problem of the past. :) — Julian H.^✈ 14:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm usually against the noon light, but I think that it still fine here. Nice architectural shot otherwise. - Benh (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Ålesund in May 2013.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 15:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Miyagawa - uploaded by Miyagawa - nominated by Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom, and created by my own fair hand (although with my old camera) -- Miyagawa (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral How sad it was taken with wrong settings, resulting in lack of sharpness. The light could be better also. But it's a very beautiful view, and to me, it's an unusual sight. I can't oppose. And I'm pretty sure that it can be saved with careful sharpening. - Benh (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place and point of view but too much harsh light with a lot of clipped areas. -- Christian Ferrer 05:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catamaran's capstans.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 19:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Capstans on mundomarino excursiones' catamaran out of Port Dénia, Spain. Created by KTC - uploaded by KTC - nominated by KTC -- KTC (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might be interesting if it were just the capstan; however as it is it's too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sheet has not been put correctly on winch for yacht in harbour. --Charles (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't moored. It was sailing out of the harbour on a tour of the nearby coast. I was a paying passenger. -- KTC (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

even worse - sloppy seamanship by the crew... --Charles (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of us ignorant landlubbers, what's the issue with it? Diliff (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that a FP candidate of sailing equipment show the equipment being used properly. A winch (it's a winch not a capstan) is dangerous if not used properly, also a yacht skipper should not leave sheets (ropes) lying around on the deck - you can see a red sheet or halyard in the background. Also, should FP be advertising a commercial enterprise (Mundomarino's boat trips). FP of a winch should specify type and use (e.g. main halyard or whatever)? --Charles (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or... just playing Devil's Advocate here... photos should show reality, even if they don't show best practice. I don't see this image as being intended for a technical how-to guide to sailing, but even if it were to be used that way, the onus would be on the re-user to determine whether it's best practice and suitable for that intended use. I also don't see this being advertising for a commercial enterprise at all and there is absolutely nothing in the image that identifies the company or encourages people to use its services, only a reference to it in the file description. In any case, using that logic, perhaps we shouldn't feature photos of a city in case it inadvertently encourages tourism? We wouldn't want any commercial enterprise to benefit from an image in any way, shape or form, would we? ;-) It seems clear that you are knowledgeable about sailing and perhaps you're right that it would be nice to have more information about what kind of winch it is, but I don't think it's absolutely essential for the image to be useful in some way. Diliff (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of FP of commercial products, whether that be car, planes or whatever, or scenes featuring giant advertisment of particular organisation such as logo on their HQ buildings. This particular photo isn't exactly much advertising given you don't see logos or names etc. Their name is in the description because it gives context to what it's part of. As you can tell, I have no knowledge of watercraft other than being able to say which way's port and starboard. I thought it looked nice, so I took a photo. If I could describe the catamran in more specific terms than "it's a catamaran that has sails and motor", I probably wouldn't need the organisation name to give context in the description. If you can help with more accurate categorisation and filename, please do. Thanks for your comments anyhow. -- KTC (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Borring. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- KTC (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goosenecks State Park, Utah, Image of the Day DVIDS860656.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 23:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA Space Imaging - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ras67 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More aerial views! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

File:Peterborough Cathedral Sanctuary, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 14:17:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a real mystery to me there is not at least two of your images in the first three of the POTY contest. -- Christian Ferrer 15:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - People judge POTY at thumbnail size. Simple as that. The WOW in Diliff's church interiors is visible at full size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian Ferrer, Crisco also there are just too many of them, all of similar high quality. How to choose? In a jeweller's shop, one trick to make people buy is to take options away from them -- too many choices and they can't and don't decide. It wouldn't take long to decide which of my recent FP's you liked best as there are so few (and they are quite different) but which is your favourite Diliff cathedral? That could take hours! -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I voted for each of his images in the first round...I did not forced me, pictures are so beautiful. -- Christian Ferrer 17:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For POTY voters: Animals >>> Anything else. And I agree that unusualness in thumb is king as well. Consistently amazing work is not really rewarded by the concept. --DXR (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 16:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding any potential COI complaint. -- KTC (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misunderstanding KTC. Mea culpa. I don't think it will make or break the nomination though, thankfully. Diliff (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Benh (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:USS Essex (CV-9) - January 1960.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 23:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by US Navy - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nice and strong image but I think that in this case the B&W is a bad choice: the vessel gets lost in the image. Sting (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was taken in 1960.... -- KTC (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Color films were common 50 years ago. Good moment but wrong film type choice, or PoV if we keep the B&W. May be post-processing could correct this keeping the picture natural, trying to change the brightness and/or contrast of the sea. Sting (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colour photography were of course available in 1960, but to say they were common is quite misleading. Of course, that doesn't mean it's invalid to oppose based on contrast, brightness or whatever other technical reason, just take into account when the photo was taken. -- KTC (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There might not have been colour film with sufficient speed to shoot from a moving and vibrating vehicle in dim light. — Julian H.^✈ 17:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common enough for US Gov imo. Sting (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have, as a proposal, uploaded a version with brighter water. In the long term, this is probably better as a separate file, if we actually want to keep this, but for the moment I just added a new version. Is this better? — Julian H.^✈ 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, yes. Thx Julian. I didn't check the picture in detail but I won't oppose any more about the carrier that doesn't pop out of the picture. Sting (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice, I like B&W photos and this is great -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 16:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:What is Wikipedia Zero?.webm, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2015 at 23:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by VGrigas (WMF) - uploaded by VGrigas (WMF) - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 23:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 23:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the idea behind the dirt all over the video? — Julian H.^✈ 11:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I'd assume it's supposed to give it an old film look. Doesn't really work for me from an aesthetic POV, nor does it seem to make much sense for this kind of video. --El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose. I agree with you, and I think it's so prominent that it's a problem. — Julian H.^✈ 08:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The old film look destroys it. -- -donald- (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabrice Florin (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --LivioAndronico talk 07:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamadryas baboon.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2015 at 21:06:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by المُصوّر: مُعتز توفيق إغباريّة - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is this picture taken? --Hubertl (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At least CA to be removed (visible even in the preview on the edge of the shadow below the animal’s butt) --Kreuz schnabel 22:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the author talk page for informations and for a correction; and to offer my help if he wishes. -- Christian Ferrer 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because: a centered composition error. It il always better to have more room in from of view of the animal or person! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--لا روسا (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Hubertl: this picture was taken in Ramat Gan Safari, Ramat Gan, Israel.--لا روسا (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would strongly support if cropping adjusted (see oppose above) as this is a great composition and super quality. Also, please add Papio hamadryas and sex to description. --Charles (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too normal and I don't like monkeys. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denis Mukwege par Claude Truong-Ngoc novembre 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2015 at 21:10:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Doctor Denis Mukwege, specializes in the treatment of women who have been gang-raped by rebel forces in Congo.
Info created by Claude Truong-Ngoc - uploaded by Claude Truong-Ngoc - nominated by Torstein -- Torstein (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Torstein (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. Yann (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great portrait, but sorry: no focus point detected = blurred by 1/50s! And this image is noisy concealing by the B/W image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,per Alchemist-hp --LivioAndronico talk 21:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I don't like the man's very big nose and his tie knot is bad. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nobelpeopleuploader: "I don't like the man's very big nose and his tie knot is bad."?!? What?!? It's reason for oppose? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikimedia sites, like Commons, are the Wild West. Most of us here are amateurs. And it's normal here on Commons that people judge many other things than the pictures. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gather "it just started raining here" would be a suitable reason for you to oppose too … May I remember you that one basic Wikimedia principle has something to do with respecting others’ works? --Kreuz schnabel 20:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you asked about weather, because I actually opposed to a candidate because of weather - a cloud in front of the sun was making a part of the picture in shadow. Another user opposed before me also because of the shadow/weather. Another example is the user "Fotoriety"s opposing and comment "partly in shadow" on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower Bridge from Shad Thames.jpg. Anything else you would like to know? --Oldnewnew (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann. --· Favalli ⟡ 01:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support At such a high resolution, any blur is greatly magnified, so I don't see any issues in that department. Good portrait. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg (delist), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 00:40:55

Info There is a lot of noise [distracting/irrelevant elements] in this picture. Many lamp lights are reflected in the red surface of the car and the windows. The background is noisy in the up left corner with that big blue thing. The big blue thing is reflected in the windows in the left side of the car (and also on the floor). I think many men and boys like the photo because of the great car, but that is not a valid reason for having the photo listed as a featured picture. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have another opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please be a little more specific? --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look to the original. I think your noise are a true color or pattern at the wall. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you don't think these elements/noise are irrelevant to a plain photo of a car. I don't see lamp lights reflecting in the surface of the car and the blue light do anything good to the photo. --Nobelpeopleuploader

@Nobelpeopleuploader

Question Sorry, but I think you never saw a real camera RAW file and its properties? Otherwise you wouldn't talk nonsense here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alchemist-hp

Comment I don't think I understand your question and I don't see why your question is relevant to judging a photo... By the way "noise" and "irrelevant elements/reflections" are the same to me. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As do I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No better expo shot to replace this one. Also didn't find any noise cited by the nominator. Nikhil (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable or not replaceable is irrelevant when judging featured pictures. And regarding the noise: You didn't see the many reflecting lamp lights and the big blue thing in the left corners and in the left windows? --Nobelpeopleuploader

Sure, I agree with you regarding judging each FPC on its merit, but here you have nominated one for delist, which can be done if the pic doesn't satisfy the FPC standards any more. But this pic is still of high quality, has nice aesthetic feel to it and shows the subject in a way different to others in its category. As for the noise, I don't think what you said qualifies as noise IMHO. May be it could be glare, but considering that it was taken in an expo, surely there would be some reflections. Nikhil (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think these irrelevant elements/noise that I described in my nomination above are okay to have in featured pictures? You think the picture is "some of the finest on Commons." --Nobelpeopleuploader

Comment and clarification needed: some are wrong here. We have two images, the original: and its edit . The original nomination and its delist. The new edited nomination und here now the delist too. The FP status arn't corrected? Why? My opinion: I prefer the unedited original: delist this image here and replace it with the original true exhibition image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~First of all, I think we should remove the fp template from the original, because it was delisted, in what we nowadays would do as a delist and replace.~~Edit: I should learn to read Back then, the consensus was that the edited version is better, and we should respect that. Then anyone who thinks the original was better can start a delist and replace back to the original. — Julian H.^✈ 09:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any significant noise anywhere, and the LED screen on the top left doesn't worry me. It's not a studio shot, but when it comes to car show photos, this is probably as clean as those get. — Julian H.^✈ 09:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think these irrelevant elements/noise that I described in my nomination above are okay to have in featured pictures? You think the picture is "some of the finest on Commons." --Nobelpeopleuploader

As I said, I don't see anything that worries me. And yes, I think the picture is among the finest on Commons, otherwise I wouldn't vote "keep". Btw, I think something is wrong with your signatures. — Julian H.^✈ 09:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite an odd DL... The image is perfectly fine quality wise and has good EV. Is there a FPX for delisting? --DXR (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't think these elements/noise are irrelevant to a plain photo of a car. I don't see lamp lights reflecting in the surface of the car and the blue light do anything good to the photo, esspecially not a featured one which should be "some of the finest on Commons." --Nobelpeopleuploader

Have you ever been to a car show like the IAA? Shooting conditions are not easy there and normally there is an insane number of people standing around everything. We should take into account that this is not exactly the kind of car we see driving around every day. And no, I don't mind seeing the lights too much. --DXR (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That it is a car show is irrelevant. If it is difficult to take very good pictures at a car show, then you shouldn't take pictures at car shows. It is that simpel. (And by the way, it is very easy to go in to an Audi store and take much better pictures of cars). --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. KTC (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galanthus nivalis close-up aka.jpg (delist)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 01:09:51

Info It is too small. The file size is only 103 KB. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Kreuz schnabel 07:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked the author perhaps for a higher resolution. This iamge is still an FP-image for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Will reconsider if a higher resolution / quality image becomes available. -- KTC (talk) 07:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still sticking with delist I'm afraid, given the blown petals. -- KTC (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've uploaded a version with a higher resolution, but please keep in mind that this images is nearly 10 years old ;-) -- aka 08:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is nearly 10 years old, and it doesn't meet today's standards. That is why I am delisting. --Nobelpeopleuploader

Keep Current version is not bad enough to warrant delist imo. Keep in mind that not promoting today should not translate in delisting today... --DXR (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the reason for delisting given above. I would understand a problem with the resolution (which is now ok, was indeed quite small before) or any quality problems caused by the strong compression (banding, which is present, so this might be a valid reason). But the file size in itself surely isn't a reason for it being a bad photo? — Julian H.^✈ 09:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Delisting from FP does just mean it’s no longer considered one of our very best ones. Nothing to do with "bad photo". --Kreuzschnabel 11:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, ok, not the best choice of words from my side, but that's not the point. I was just questioning the choice of file size vs resolution and sharpness as an argument. — Julian H.^✈ 11:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist . Only flower is sharp, but not a plant stem (ru: стебель). --Brateevsky {talk} 10:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Size is barely OK, and I think that the focusing could have been done in a better way. This could perhaps be a "Valued picture" instead. - Anonimski (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A larger image has been uploaded. The background and composition are good. Shame the centre part of the flower is in shade and the outer petals are blown white. Perhaps if we had other featured images of this common flower I'd be more inclined to delist. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DXR, don't see a reason for delisting --LC-de (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. --Kadellar (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Large patches of white are blown out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --LivioAndronico talk 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Blown whites. --Kreuzschnabel 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kreuzschnabel, you voted twice, a mistake certainly....:) -- Christian Ferrer 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentOoops, thanks. Canceled the first one to keep the one with statement :-) --Kreuz schnabel 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the pure white do not affect the final image, having a better image with the same subject is not a reason to delist, and this is not the case... And this is a 2005 image, come on! -- RTA 05:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The age of a pic does not count in a delist discussion. The delisting procedure is explicitly made for images which do no longer comply with rising standards. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kreuzschnabel by your logic, and Nobelpeopleuploader, all images will not be FP in 10 years from now... I just pointed the age, because for a image that old, it is pretty good... -- RTA 14:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry but in 2005 it was already well possible to avoid overexposure. 4 mpix resolution was not a breathtaking resolution even then – in 2005 the Nikon D200 was released, offering 10 mpix. – The idea of FP is to outline the very best images Commons has to offer. Present tense. It is quite normal to delist images that no longer fall into this scope. --Kreuz schnabel 21:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , per Kreuzschnabel.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:P-38 Lightning head-on.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 10:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tech. Sgt. Ben Bloker - uploaded by User:Armb/User:Zzyzx11 - nominated by Anonimski -- Anonimski (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This image has been locally featured on several Wikipedias, and I thought that it's of high enough quality to be featured on Commons as well. - Anonimski (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice photo but the lighting leaves the plane dull and lacking detail -- and the image is very small due to the ancient digital camera that took it. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regretfully: Awesome image, the more I look at it, the more I like it. I actually enjoy the lighting, it makes the airplane appear both mysterious and dangerous to me - a bit like a shark attacking out of nowhere. But I agree that size and quality is considerably below today's FP standards. --El Grafo (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo, sadly. — Julian H.^✈ 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much clipping, likely due to the old camera. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Head of Boxer of Quirinal (Mys from Taranto).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 14:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 14:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 14:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor sharpness, chroma noise, bad background. --A.Savin 17:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is the worst problem here for sure. So disturbing. -- Pofka (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not do anything on whether the background is that, solutions? --LivioAndronico talk 22:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to hide the background with something (a piece of cloth, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could put more light in the subject, (some mobile lights works, flashes...), and them the background goes away, as this. -- RTA 04:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes RTA,but it is in a museum, if I take her to my house somebody arrest me --LivioAndronico talk 12:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"mobile light" imply mobile... -- RTA 13:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ops...I don't read mobile...anyway in the museums is impossible do it because there's very people and must ask a permission (often is negative). --LivioAndronico talk 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not impossible. Just bring in a small piece of white (or black) cloth. You need someone to hold the cloth while you take the picture. Nothing extraordinary. I have seen a tutorial about this on the web, but I can't find it back. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do it in a italian museum and I can beleive it,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 09:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try this technique !--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot with whom I was talking about. Next time I will be more observant and do not bother, even when you ask for suggestions. Arrivederci! -- RTA 04:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several issues: 1. DoF too shallow, hair is out of focus. 2. Poor crop, too much space on the top (suggestion added). 3. Black eye sockets look disgusting – you should have used a reflector to brighten the shady parts up. --Kreuzschnabel 10:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the eyes are just holes, not much to brighten there. — Julian H.^✈ 11:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Groene anijstrechterzwam (Clitocybe odora). Locatie, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 03.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 17:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Clitocybe odora (Clitocybe odora). Location, Hortus (Haren, Groningen). The anise funnel fungus is eating well and smells strongly of anise. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A relatively plain subject with no composition/environment/perspective to generate additional interest. — Julian H.^✈ 08:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad but not outstanding either. EV limited because the stem is not visible. --Kreuz schnabel 09:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The specimen is very good, the texture is well defined and the shapes are symmetrical and well-formed, well highlighted by the top view taken. In addition has soft sweeps of scars caused by insects or mollusks, very good I liked. A yes lighting seems appropriate for a area under tree, common for some species of fungi. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:BPMN portuguese sample.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 20:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nice portuguese sample that how work bpmn -- The_Photographer (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems specific to a pharmacy logistics system owner (when specific and owner loses some value), there are some codes that are not explained, there is no description in English or in Portuguese, do not think the xml text should be in this field . Obs .: there are some fields that not have responsible (are out of the area and one that is superimposed on a flowchart, I believe should not have this lay-out) and are Medic/Nurse conflict on the initial task description field.(IMO) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 13:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese description added. Area conflict is important here to show the process superpotition --The_Photographer (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 17:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review --The_Photographer (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why would we want this as FP on English-language Wikimedia? --Charles (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi @Charlesjsharp: , It's because Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia English. Commons is a multilanguage project. This argument might be valid in FP section of WP on English, however, certain things can not be explained generically excluding language. Wikimedia and its servers are in the United States and files are subject to the laws of that country. Most gringos are unaware of other countries, other languages. Thanks for your question--The_Photographer (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a genuine question. I'm surprised you choose to use the term gringo, implying I am 'unaware of other countries, other languages'. --Charles (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gringo is a friendly term used by Latin countries, to refer to foreigners, usually from the United States. I don't know if you remember the movie Get the Gringo (also known as How I Spent My Summer Vacation) with the Academy Award Winner Mel Gibson. I appreciate your question, this image would be totally useless for Wikipedia in English, you're right. I am not referring to you personally. The developed world, specifically the United States, its citizens are unaware that there is a world outside. Most do not know where it is located in my country, Venezuela, for example. I am not referring to an anti-American or anything like that spirit. I'm referring to a picture in another language, another culture that is not absolutely used in Wikipedia in English, could be of great value to other Wikipedias. I do not know if this is the case, however, I would like to know yours. I apologize if my comments seem offensive, but that was not the idea. A gringo hug. --The_Photographer (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Charles, I agree with The_Photographer the term gringo is not a derogatory term, is a general term used in colloquial conversations. In my country it is normal affective use for friends who are not Brazilian but reside in Brazil. Others take the term for their small business, "Gringo Bar" referring to themselves. The derogatory way exists, and depends on the context and rudeness of soul of the interlocutor. Like everything. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 21:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem gentlemen: I have actually visited (and enjoyed) Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, Mexico... --Charles (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if you have pictures of Venezuela, please, let me know in my talk --The_Photographer (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A little bit of an english description would really help me to review this. Doesn't have to be as long as the Portuguese one but I'd like to know a) what is the general content of the diagram and b) what software do I need to generate that picture from the XML code? --El Grafo (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for providing the source code! I've moved it from the description field to a separate section because I felt it was cluttering the {{Information}} box. It seems we don't have any guidelines or templates for this, but I've done it this way before and nobody has complained so far ;-) However, feel free to revert of course.[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment, I added some information on english and free(not like free beer) software used in file description. Please, feel you free to do any change. :) --The_Photographer (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Talvez você poderia fazer uma versão em inglês e outra em espanhol e depois nomeá-las tudo de uma vez. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unsuited image format. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Be..anyone: Well, you can use the sourcecode (see description page) and export it in any format of image like svg, png, gif, jpg, bpm, tiff.... --The_Photographer (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert if answers on a closed page confuse the bots. It looks like text, SVG might be remotely suited, or a HTML table. IOW, I love technical experiments, obscure formats, etc., but a table is not my idea of a featured picture—excluding one example on YouTube, a video how somebody created a Manga image as huge table, that's just crazy (but sadly no free license.) –Be..anyone (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Transport d'animaux exotiques, villa de Casale, Piazza Armerina, Sicile, Italie.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2015 at 15:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown, from Le Musée absolu, Phaidon, 10-2012 - uploaded by Yann - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Tomer for this nomination, but I think that it doesn't meet FP criterias. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, per Yann -- Colin (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the photographer is unconvinced, but didn't {{Withdraw}} it. It's a QI+VI with "historic merit", as COM:FPC puts it. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:255-CC-65-HC-223, front.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 12:09:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Space Park at the NYC World's Fair, 1964, created by NASA - uploaded by Dominic - nominated by Be..anyone -- Be..anyone (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Be..anyone (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The reproduction is very poor, lots of dust visible and the photo itself is very soft. Diliff (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Dust on photo. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first I really liked this picture, however when I zoomed in searching for these Diliff's dust spots mentioned I was surprised how much of these are there. The picture zoomed-in looks just horrible. Sadly, at the small resolution it looks quite awesome and I would support it, but that is not really possible with such poor detail quality. Pity. -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Per above -- Colin (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:2015-02-28 Close-ups of Salicaceae flowers, Weinviertel (Producer M. Stich).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 16:23:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

all by Hubertl -- Hubertl (talk) 16:23, 10. Mär. 2015 (UTC)
Info Close up of Salix blossoms, February 2015

Support--Hubertl (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the soft light and the dark background. --Kadellar (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect picture! Congratulations! --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Julian H.^✈ 09:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I won't ask for the species to be determined, since Willows are hybridizing like crazy anyway. --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RTA 04:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 09:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Image:Piletas.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 15:58:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pedro J Pacheco - uploaded by Pedro J Pacheco - nominated by User:Pedro J Pacheco -- Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request can you fix the noted image errors please? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done thanks. Fixed. Please check. I don´t know if the file is automaticaly updated here. --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support now. Thanks. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but agree with Alchemist, that must be fixed. --Kadellar (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnífica imagen --· Favalli ⟡ 00:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Más buenas fotos de Argentina. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The foreground and the background is out of focus, and nothing wow here, and actually, if someone here have searched "pools in salinas grande" could see that the colour is not even close to other photos away prettier [2], the salina is pure white, not grey, all this lines and nothing to see at the end, this should be take in another hour... ArionEstar for god, stop voting for any South America candidate... -- RTA 04:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? :) It was a hard work for me to find "pure white" salt around the pools in your googled samples. Next time I will try to go when snowy weather to make your dream come true ;) . About the focus, that´s indeed a real argument. Thanks --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you took this in raw, you can achieve the pure white just increasing the white, and the highlights. -- RTA 13:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - q.e.d. just a touch in highlights and in the white; and you used Lightroom, so, if press "auto" in correction of you lens you can fix the non level issue that are happening. Next time, avoid this hour of the they, the hard light in the right corners is not good at all, and if not able to use Google and find whites in the photos, do not be rude in a tentative to alleviate your on problems, solve than first and do not vent in others. -- RTA 15:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course not trying to be rude, pls forgive me if my words sound this way. I will try your way. Good advice at all. --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - "...nothing wow here..."?!? What?!? A photo of pools in a saline is very interesting and has wow yes, is not anywhere in the world that this is found. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Modified picture adding white level and a litle bit of lens correction. I was not able "to make it more white" without loosing details in the salt, but thank to your advice, picture looks better now. Thank you --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Rodrigo.Argenton: And "Más buenas fotos de Argentina" is just a request I did. It is not the reason for my support. ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, we all know... Arion... -- RTA 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, I love the idea but depth of field is just insufficient. The f/5 should have been something like f/11 or even f/16. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! This would give a little more DOF, not enough, in addition to that all the sharpness, that is already not that great, would be gone! Bracketing, or a T&S lens is the options. -- RTA 20:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. I think there is a contradiction between the subject (a perspective), and the choice of the depth of field. It is a pity, because this picture is really interesting and unusual for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I so wanted to support this image. I thought its only real problem was the bottom, and that could be solved by a well-placed crop. I looked at it in high-res and saw the DoF problems. Very well, there might have been nothing that could have been done about that.
But then I saw in the metadata that it was shot at ... f/5! That is a very fixable problem ... take the image over at f/11–13. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You are right people, no reason for this F5 in this kind of picture. Next time I should try better. Thank you all. --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of St. Teresa Ceiling, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 17:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I don't find the subject to be too interesting, to be honest. — Julian H.^✈ 09:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? Flowers are flowers, planes are planes, ceilings are ceilings. How can you make it more interesting? It is a great capture of the ceiling decorations (one of the finest in Wikipedia) and there really is nothing more to be done. It is technically perfect. I think your opposing reason is not suitable to be counted because it is way too abstract and without arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has to matter, clearly, as much as anything else in the photo. It has to be a great-looking image overall. It's not possible to take a FP of every subject imaginable, even if you capture the subject very well. So I understand if you disagree with me, but I don't follow what you mean with your rather fundamental criticism of my reasoning. — Julian H.^✈ 10:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should add: I don't mean "interesting" in an intellectual manner or anything like that, just visually. — Julian H.^✈ 10:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that your argument is way too abstract. For me, the church interior is way more interesting than planes or paintings, however I will not oppose the picture only because the subject is not very interesting FOR ME. Furthermore, POTY is always divided into the various categories: plants, landscapes and so on, so as the featured pictures. Don't compare church with planes or landscapes. This is just incomparable. The main question, at least for me: "Is this picture among the most valued pictures in its category?". I think in this way it is much more objective. -- Pofka (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparing this to other curches and even other church ceilings. — Julian H.^✈ 14:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then probably our tastes varies. Lets see what the others thinks. -- Pofka (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, I'm not sure exactly what issues you had with the image, but I've reprocessed it as I think the image was a bit dark and lifeless before. I suspect your opinion won't change but I invite you to have another look just in case. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at least, with the less dark appearance. — Julian H.^✈ 11:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diliff skills at its best. --Hubertl (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think this is my best ceiling (probably this one is better), but the details on the ceiling are interesting and it's a difficult and technical stitch. I might try to reprocess it so that it's slightly less dark though. Hopefully it will be considered an improvement and not complicate the nomination. Diliff (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've uploaded a new version which is a bit brighter and lively. Hopefully nobody has any issues with this edit. Diliff (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)) 22:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Spitfire and Hurricane in the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 15:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the Ministry of Defence, licensed under the OGL 2.0 - uploaded by Miyagawa - nominated by Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- Miyagawa (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, what a great setup for a photo, I would do a lot to be able take such a photo. The composition is good, although I would prefer it if the prop of the Hurricane wasn't cut off. But, as often with those MoD images, it's eihter downscaled and then scaled back up, or compressed beyond a reasonable level, giving ugly pixel patterns around sharp edges. As a result, it's not really sharp either. The backlit scenario gives it quite a moody feeling, not sure if that's good. Other photos from the same shoot have better light, but the other fundamental quality problems remain. — Julian H.^✈ 16:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lot of dust spots and per Julian. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian, and the tilted horizon doesn’t add value either. --Kreuz schnabel 17:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:JuanManueldeRosas.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 22:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fernando García del Molino - uploaded by Cambalachero and several retouchers- nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak support~~ I see that you increase the size of the image. However, it is not very sharp, although this always happens when the size of an image is digitally increased. Very well painted but per below. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom left is faded out. When black appears with blue streaks, that is a sign of a poor reproduction. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with KoH, my guess is the blue streaks are reflections on the painting's texture from daylight which has a cooler tone than the interior lighting of a museum. This suggests it has not been captured professionally in a controlled environment. Diliff (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cervus elaphus LC0367.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 14:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Red deer (Cervus elaphus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. How did you get so close ?? Even with a 400mm I struggle to get this magnification (but I'm very bad at deer "hunting"). - Benh (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaman magic ;-) No, it is a captive one. You can see the earmark as well. So although those deers are kept in huge compounds, they don't have to fear humans. --LC-de (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very distracting shadows around the face and the foreground tree/s.--Fotoriety (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow and lack of isolation from back ground. See also existing FPs such as File:RedDeerStag.jpg and File:Cervus elaphus Luc Viatour 5.jpg. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not a particularly good photo of a deer IMO, it just isn't separated from the background well enough. For a captive animal, we can do better, and have (as Colin mentioned). Diliff (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colin showed us that this one is not the very best we have on "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hainfelder Hütte Panorama Ost 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 14:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama from Hainfeld Hut (Lower Austria) eastwards. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 14:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing exceptional. Flat lighting and horizon in the middle make up for little wow. - Benh (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A crop of the sky would be much better. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Yann: I have cropped the sky according to your suggestion - looks much better indeed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tower Bridge from Shad Thames.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2015 at 23:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution (116MP) view of Tower Bridge taken from Shad Thames in the morning golden hour. -- Colin (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great resolution and great clarity! Nikhil (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good indeed. — Julian H.^✈ 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. Wouldn't mind seeing less popular non-London subjects in that kind of quality, though (I know, I'm guilty of the same...). --DXR (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support two niggles though : I think there's extra unnecessary room on the right, and lighting could be better (it's still a bit flat and harsh). - Benh (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Only because it crashed my browser (not Firefox's fault; the computer's graphics accelerator is getting old) so I can't look at it full-size as I would like. But what I can see looks great. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel use this. Or simply download the file. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, I have used the large image viewer and I like it now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution alone does not make up for a lack of compositional harmony, which results from one end of the bridge fully showing, while another end is cut out and partly in shadow. Also, the background CBD is poorly and haphazardly framed around the bridge towers. Finally, a bit more foreground would have better balanced the composition. Sorry, but i do applaud you for the technical feat.--Fotoriety (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fotoriety, there are limits to how flexible I can be wrt composition from this area of the river. If you look at other pictures from this side of the bridge/river, they all cut off the left part of the bridge -- there's usually a building or trees in the way. See this, this, this, and from the other side of the bridge, this, this and this. Some of these are also featured pictures. In summary: Tower Bridge is rarely shown complete, even from a distance. This one shows considerably more than the recent FP and imo has better arrangement of the City buildings in the backgruond. They aren't "haphazardly" framed -- I deliberately chose that exact spot so that the Walkie Talkie and Cheesegrater and Gherkin were clearly visible and not cropped. Any more foreground and the left corner gets a dark triangle in it (from the near bank), with a line leading the eye away from the bridge, which spoils the composition. This is an image of Tower Bridge with the City behind -- an image without that background (from much further down river say) would be completely different. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Per Fotoriety, the composition is a bit suboptimal. But excellent image nonetheless, with good lighting to boot. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this picture can't fascinate me. This really huge resolution (116 MP) makes sense if we would see a really sharp result. But the result is too soft in my opinion. Maybe it would be better for the sharpness to scale down here at 10'000 x 5'000 pixel. The shadow in the bottom doesn't disturb me, but the image itself hasn't a wow for me. It's for sure difficult to create a wow at this very famous and often used object. It's too good for a contra, but not good enough for a pro for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't disagree with your opinion on wow/shadow but sharpness? I see nothing wrong with the sharpness of this image: I can just about count all the rivets on the far side of the bridge and the downsize you suggested loses a lot of fine detail. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxiarchos228, can I just check you are viewing the original image directly rather than using the Flash zoom browser, which trashes image quality. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Skyscrapers behind are a bit disturbing though. Not your fault here. --Kadellar (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Colin's defence, it's really not possible to show the complete length of the bridge from almost any position along the edge of the Thames. Diliff (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I am not too happy with the light, and I think 0.5 EV less exposure would have done better, the colours already look a bit washed-out. But then, it’s a great level of detail and sharpness without oversharpening (which is getting rare). --Kreuz schnabel 11:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Too normal a shot. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which one of the 30 shots this image is made of are you talking about? --Kreuzschnabel 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The final result showed on the featured picture candidates list. --Oldnewnew (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is patently ridiculous because the full size image is judged in FPC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Voigtländer-Bessamatic-02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2015 at 17:06:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Bessamatic is an analogue 35mm camera made by Voigtländer in the 1960s, featuring a selenium meter and an interchangeable Synchro-Compur leaf shutter, which is mounted behind the lens. All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sehr schön, Uwe. High educational value, technically sound image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support Well done. Yann (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good work but two issues I don’t approve of: 1. looks slightly oversharpened to me, all the black engravings show white linings. 2. Fingerprints clearly visible around the flash shoe. --Kreuz schnabel 09:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! --Hubertl (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't think it's oversharpened, it's normal for engravings to have a shiny edge around them which are causing specular highlights and giving the appearance of oversharpening. I would say that it needs a bit of a clean though! Diliff (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent focus stacking. Fingerprints are a pity.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:2015 Chinese New Year Fashion Show, Sudirman Street, Yogyakarta, 2015-02-15 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 21:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Students from Yogyakarta State University put on a fashion show on Sudirman Street, Yogyakarta, to celebrate Chinese New Year. They are taking advantage of the car-free day policies. Created and uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I must admit, I do think this is the best of the set I shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom crop is rather awkward, and the choice of shutter speed is not the best. Either it should freeze motion entirely or it should convey a bit more movement. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see movement? I can see the first point, but the sharpness of her face etc. doesn't suggest any motion at all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't movement anywhere. This is an outstanding portrait. Focus is where is has to be, with great sharpness. There is very good light, amazing face expression, very good composition as well (eyes, neck and head follow rule of thirds, for example). Unfocused red fan and blurred enough background provide depth and context. I really don't think this could be any better. --Kadellar (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think King may have been referring to what looks like motion blur of the umbrella. I'm not sure if it's just regular out of focus or whether the umbrella is rotating. Either way, it's not a problem though! Diliff (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm referring to that. Regardless of whether it's focus or motion blur, foreground unsharpness is unappealing to me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice but not perfect: Red channel blown in several areas (see notes), crop could be better (distracting reddish thing at the top left, but the overexposed decoration is cut on the right), and I suspect sharpening artifacts on her teeth and lips --Kreuzschnabel 10:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about the red channel, though there shouldn't be any sharpening artefacts (if I recall correctly, sharpening was very light, only 10 in Lightroom). I did not crop the no right turn sign out because her earrings would have been too close to the edge and her face a bit too centered. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I believe that there was movement in the umbrella, probably unwittingly opened, but the foreground does not affect much the composition(IMO). I liked the composition, colors and especially the expression of model. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 13:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps could be a good idea to correct red channel issue (minimun), but not mandatory Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question should you have the permission of the girl to use her image as FP? --Charles (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Permission is not usually required for a portrait. There could potentially be issues regarding privacy but it's not a copyright concern and usually anyone in public has no expectation or right to privacy. Diliff (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either way, best practice suggests to use Template:Consent, so I've added it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice, super sharpness on the face. Diliff (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, almost support. The portrait itself is really successful I think, the red channel clipping is unfortunate but ok. The background is quite busy - hard to avoid here - and I think some editing could reduce the distractions a bit. — Julian H.^✈ 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't believe what I'm reading about privacy... Hope I don't have to stay home to prevent people from taking pictures of me and have them spread them out all over the internet. Not a fan of featuring picture of people without their consent. I don't like the lighting of the picture anyways, and don't think the sharpness does justice to the lady. But I recon the compo is great. - Benh (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on privacy

- Benh, this is the way it has always been with regard to privacy. If you feel like you need to stay at home to avoid people taking photos of you, then that's what you need to do. You can't stop anyone from taking photos of you, and neither should you. Public is public, private is private. The only difference is that now, one copy of a photo can multiply infinitely, which wasn't possible before the digital age. I don't think it justifies asking permission for every photo of a person though, it just means you have to adjust your expectations of privacy IMO. However, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be ethical in their photography. Of course they should, but if you are participating in a fashion show at a public performance, do you really think you have any expectation of privacy? Diliff (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - David, I still have the right to go out whenever I feel like so, and I still have the right of not being aimed at by anyone. I wouldn't like anybody to use any image of me for privacy reason, and well because I still have rights with my own image. If I'm caught on public exhibition, and I'm lost in the crowd and not the main subject of the picture, it's fine. If I take up this much space of the frame, then I have my word to say on it. You wouldn't want a FP of you ending up on first page of Wikipedia without your consent, do you? - Benh (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - When one is the performer, one generally doesn't end up lost in the crowd. As for public places, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is an official guideline. If you disagree with it, discussion can easily take place at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Judging by Commons:Country specific consent requirements, France is one of the more restrictive countries so you are right about yourself, but in most countries, it is only the publishing and use commercially that there are restrictions on. The point I was making is that you don't really have any intrinsic right to not be aimed at by anyone. Any rights that you have are local or national laws and not a 'human right'. Obviously the exact laws vary from country to country, but in most countries, generally speaking, you have no right to that kind of privacy or to tell someone that they can't photograph you. I'm fairly confident that it's the case in Indonesia too, but there's no information on the consent guidelines about it. Diliff (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - One shouldn't really have any expectation of privacy when they are a performer at a festival parade on a public street. -- KTC (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK Yes, no privacy when in a public place. But my image is still mine, and I wouldn't permit anyone use it at will. I do take photos of people from time to time, most of the time I would even ask them permission to shot alone. But I'd never publish it, whatever the bloody rules of the country is, simply because I wouldn't like this to happen to me. I bet we're more than a few to be in that case. - Benh (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe it's because you grew up in a country where the laws support this point of view though. I grew up in a country (and now live in another country where it is the same) where, for the most part, it is completely legal to take photos of people and publish them, but not use them commercially. And I have no problem with this. I have no idea why anyone would want to use an image of me commercially anyway though. It's such an unlikely situation that I can't imagine it, but if for example Coca Cola used an image of me to promote Coke, that would be a different story - that's commercial exploitation, not just publishing. If someone simply happened to take a photo of me and put it on Flickr or something, I wouldn't care. I'd be surprised, but not upset. How does it harm me? For the same reason, if someone used my photos on their personal web site, I don't really care. I mainly care about commercial exploitation of my images because I think if a company is going to profit from my work, they should compensate for that, but that's another side issue. What exactly are you so concerned about? Realistically, what is the worst thing that could happen if someone took a photo of you in public and published it non-commercially without your permission? Diliff (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't care, I do. It may harm me because I like to control what image I give to other people. And any photo put to Commons, and FPed, is very likely yo see its exposition amplified. Many people don't read copyrights or banners, who knows how it's going to be used? I act more carefully when dealing with living beings, instead of objects. Anyways, have been digressing enough. Was just my point of view. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "Realistically, what is the worst thing that could happen if someone took a photo of you in public and published it non-commercially without your permission? Diliff" - I think everybody here know it. :) J e e 03:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Without a model release (which practically 0% of Commons images have) this image can only be used "editorially" and not "commercially" (by which I mean, to promote something). People's ethical position wrt street/candid photography varies enormously (though this appears to be a performance) and I respect that. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'm not fond of the kistch touch and the distrcating unfocused foreground. Also agree with Benh on the too detailed little imperfections of the face. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kitsch? (And a note on the sharpness: the Lightroom clarity filter is actually -15 ~~or -20~~ here; make of that what you will) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do see your point. Pushing clarity on the down side achieves same smooth dreamy effect some wedding photographers get with hard filter. But -15 is far from enough to hide the imperfections. I think you did well to go easy on that slider, that would have ruined it. - Benh (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others.--Hubertl (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Copenhagen Opera House 2014 05.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 12:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me. — Julian H.^✈ 12:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like this architecture, I think it looks best at this time of day and the smooth water and lack of people present it in a clean way. — Julian H.^✈ 12:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Great quality picture, but I'm not sure about the blue at the top. Would it look better if a patch of sky ran right across the top of the image? --Charles (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you can see here that the tower is quite high, and I don't find it essential here because it blends quite well with the sky. This way, the focus is only on the central front section of the building (which is also why I cut the right and left areas off). — Julian H.^✈ 14:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The top is disturbing. Even when zoomed in it is difficult to understand what that ugly grey thing is. With that cropped, it would be FP in my opinion. -- Pofka (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It took me quite a while to understand what this blue/grey top part was but after having understood I can say that it's a great picture. --Code (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those times when an image of a building works both as a depiction of the architecture and a pleasing abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 13:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice, and I agree with Daniel, it works as an architectural photo and an abstract. Diliff (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful composition. I think photography is also about showing people point of views you won't expect of a subject. This one is very successful at this to me. - Benh (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Some of the comments above about the big grey thing on the top of the building just show that these people have no idea about the architecture of opera houses. These things on the top of many opera houses have a purpose. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment … but you’re not going to tell us what it is, I suppose? --Kreuzschnabel 20:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment go here to see Category:Copenhagen Opera House the thing on the roof top. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would guess that the stage decorations and curtains are pulled up into this space. — Julian H.^✈ 10:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Harvestman opilio canestrinii male.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 14:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is a male harvestman (Opilio canestrinii) - (not a spider!) - on a geranium flower. He is cleaning his leg by drawing it through his jaws. Photograph taken on Cumnor Hill, Oxford. I think the image has great educational value as it shows a rarely-captured, but typical behaviour. The image is Wikimedia QI and has been the main image on the article Opilio canestrinii since September 2013. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by User:Charlesjsharp
Support Rare image with nice composition -- Charles (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really great composition! But the resolution and the picture quality probably isn't worth to be FP. The creature's legs very lacks details/focusing when you zoom in. -- Pofka (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work IMHO. Level of detail sufficient for me. Only issue to mention is a red channel overexposure on the flower. --Kreuzschnabel 15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done thanks - I've adjusted red channel and reduced noise at the same time. --Charles (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unfortunately, there are lack of details of cephalothorax and abdomen in this view. D kuba (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Not educational bacause large parts of the legs are "blurred" --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really can't understand the above like-type supports. Please note that much of the creature is out of focus and we can hardly see any details in its body and legs. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively small and relatively little in focus, per others. — Julian H.^✈ 15:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Kiss - Gustav Klimt - Google Cultural Institute.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2015 at 07:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gustav Klimt - uploaded and nominated by Crisco 1492 -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High quality scan of a very interesting painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I would say: bad crop. But I know the painting itself is like this. And I always wonder why. This is an excellent reproduction of one of the finest paintings. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but this picture really deserves to be seen in the flesh, many different textures and golden reflections and quite big size, and nicely illuminated as well. --Kadellar (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The FP star is not for this kind of works.--Jebulon (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The template atop COM:FPC begs to differ. "Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable: Notable in its own right (check; the painting has an article in 20 or so Wikipedias), Of high artistic merit (check, in my opinion), Of high historic merit, Of high illustrative merit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see nothing featurable here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High quality scan and an utterly FAMOUS painting, by a most famous painter. Austrian painter Gustav Klimt was Vienna's most renowned advocator of Art Nouveau, or, as the style was known in Germany, Jugendstil (sic). If the artist was painting it like this, than it was meant to be like this. And on top of everything it is one of the most famous artworks in modern art history, too. Don't get the above comments. ..."but most importantly he began work on the painting The Kiss, which was to take its place as one of the most famous pictures in the history of art". Check references. Indeed the FP star is for this kind of works. --Hafspajen 14:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Florence Duomo from Michelangelo hill.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2015 at 15:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Florence Duomo from Michelangelo hill. All by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did prefer little wider crop but some strong ligth were there. -- Mile (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good pictures of the Florence Duomo! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I right that there are JPG artifacts? At the top of the tower? --XRay ^talk 19:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done XRay,♦ Some celaning of noise and few artefacts. Check now. --Mile (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose Nice image, but it looks still posterized. IMO there is a problem with too much JPEG compression. Additionally there are halos.--XRay ^talk 07:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Nice photo, but the image is not particularly sharp, there are sharpening halos (esp. on the left), and there is too much pitch black. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with KoH, with regrets.--Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the King. Looks like many details have gone away during post processing. A striking picture at thumbnail though. Wouldn't be too sad if it's promoted. - Benh (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light and composition. Shame it isn't higher resolution. I don't really see a problem with the original and the later version smudges the clouds and the top of the buildings so I would be more careful with masking out the softening you've applied to the sky. -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:G. Dury - Portrait of Dom Augusto, Duke of Leuchtenberg - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2015 at 17:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of Dom Augusto, Duke of Leuchtenberg. Created by G. Dury (?) - uploaded by Dcoetzee (Bot) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More fine paintings! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great historical value --Ezarateesteban 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --LivioAndronico talk 23:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nobelpeopleuploader: Why? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great artwork, high res scan. --Hafspajen 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per ArionEstar --Mile (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018.-- Cart (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:NASA-SNR0519690-ChandraXRayObservatory-20150122.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2015 at 21:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/CXC/SAO - uploaded by Drbogdan - nominated by Ras67 -- Ras67 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info SNR 0519-69.0, the remains of an exploded star in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
Support Impressive! -- Ras67 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support YES - *Entirely* Agree - Impressive! - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! :) --· Favalli ⟡ 02:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Bouzov hrad - Burg Busau.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 23:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much of the building is in shadow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. The right down corner is especially problematic. -- Pofka (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too much shadow below! --Tremonist (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ninh Hòa salt production.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2015 at 15:53:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Shansov.net - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! --Kikos (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Two days ago I saw this image. Great! Thanks to colleague from my country...--Brateevsky {talk} 18:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors! --- [Tycho] ^talk 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I basically like it despite some niggles (framing, a bit dark). I'm more concerned about the colours. Looks a bit too yellowish to me. I tried to play with WB at home but couldn't get something really better, so there must be something I missed. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was very difficult to choose correct crop from 3:2 to 16:9 - I wasn't sure if I need to keep more sky or more ground... As for WB, it was taken at the sunset, hence the color cast --- [Tycho] ^talk 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guessed it was taken at sunset. But that highlighter pen yellow color seems a bit off to me. Could it come from post-processing ? - Benh (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken not by a conventional Bayer-CFA sensor. It produces amazing colors sometimes, but may be less accurate. Probably I can make it less vivid and more neutral, but that would defy the whole point of sunset --- [Tycho] ^talk 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose So it was not me. I support the alternative instead. Out of curiosity, why camera did you use? - Benh (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not convinced about the colour either. The yellow just look/feel wrong to me, and some of the blue is a bit too blue as well but that could just be me. -- KTC (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do hope the colours are genuine, it's a great image. --Charles (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice blue hour. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am unconvinced by the light colour also. I don't remember witnessing as yellow evening sky ever. I bet the actual colour of the backsky was closer to orange, reddish, brown or towards pink. I wouldn't know but doesn't feel right anyway. --Ximonic (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That yellow is seriously wrong. Makes me wonder if Tycho's monitor is adjusted properly. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly see the difference and I like this version because it looks more vivid (or vibrant? Or saturated? something along that lines). Some people believe that this kind of camera has yellow cast or something like that, so you may be partially right --- [Tycho] ^talk 20:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Issues with the yellow. -- Christian Ferrer 21:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I liked the yellow, deal with that...-- RTA 21:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wrong colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Testing with color balance

Info I hope it is ok that I tested it by altering the color balance. This is something closer to what I would think it looked like. However I cannot be certain... Just to give you an idea. Greetings, --Ximonic (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. If you want to know my opinion, then I prefer my version - it doesn't looks as realistic as yours. But let's see what others will say --- [Tycho] ^talk 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The impact of a picture always differs after such changes. As much as it might be about what's real or what's not it might be about the matter of taste and compromises too. --Ximonic (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tomer T, Kikos, Brateevsky, Benh, and Quoc-Phong NGUYEN: @Charlesjsharp, ArionEstar, Yann, and Nobelpeopleuploader: -- alternative version uploaded, please compare. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. -- Christian Ferrer 21:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. -- Benh (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 10:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 13:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great too. --Brateevsky {talk} 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is convincing. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this version.. --Hubertl (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one has indeed the magic touch despite the not-so-good image quality. I like the composition, colours and mood. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Ninh Hòa salt production - alt.JPG

File:Oščadnica, Slovakia - chapel.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 10:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I like it, but it isn't very high resolution and is a bit soft. I think it would benefit from sharpening. Diliff (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not outstanding: too little detail and too soft regarding the low resolution, not much whow too. Would probably gain wow if taken from a lower viewpoint to make the chapel appear larger. --Kreuz schnabel 11:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Pathetic when photographers upload and nominate their own photos. Too me it's like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying... --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is nothing pathetic to get own picture reviewed if the author sees it as a highlight. Otherwise for some it would be very difficult to be even found. Unlike the oscar movies which usually tend to have big advertising campaigns. I give this neutral because it's a good picture of the subject with nice mood but maybe not outstanding enough as a whole. But nice enough not to oppose. --Ximonic (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is very good but the sharpness should be much better. --Code (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Excellent lighting and composition, but sharpness could be better especially at 6 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per King --LivioAndronico talk 12:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Cienie troszkę za głębokie, ale podoba mi się .[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 10:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI definitely, but not over the wow threshold. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Pažaislis Monastery interior dome, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 13:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing without valid reason doesn't count. The guy is actually opposing all the images here with the childish reasons! Take a look: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nobelpeopleuploader. Some funny arguments of this person previously: "Pathetic when photographers upload and nominate their own photos. Too me it's like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying..." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:St_Mary%27s_Church,_Radcliffe_Sq,_Oxford,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg), " I don't like the man's very big nose and his tie knot is bad." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Denis_Mukwege_par_Claude_Truong-Ngoc_novembre_2014.jpg), without arguments as well: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Church_of_St._Teresa_Ceiling,_Vilnius,_Lithuania_-_Diliff.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Spitfire_and_Hurricane_in_the_Battle_of_Britain_Memorial_Flight.jpg and so on. I think he should be blocked from these nominations. -- Pofka (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- "Opposing without valid reason doesn't count." - Reference needed, because that is 100% wrong.

- "The guy is actually opposing all the images here..." - That's a lie. Take a closer look and you would see that I also support many pictures.

- And again: Wikimedia sites, like Commons, are the Wild West. Most of us here are amateurs. And it's normal here on Commons that people judge many other things than the pictures.

- And just because a person is opposing doesn't qualify for blocking "from these nominations". That's your very own opinion and that idea is actually against the whole idea ('everyone can participate') about Wikipedia and the sister projects like Commons. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look and you would see that I also support many pictures – that’s wrong, you certainly didn’t (and are not entitled to before having uttered 50 pieces of rubbish), Nobelpeopleuploader did. I would never go that far to suspect someone in here is working with sock puppets. --Kreuz schnabel 21:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad. I have an account for Wikipedia, and one for Commons. I forgot to log off from Wikipedia before going to Commons. I didn't know that you could use the same account on both Wikipedia and Commons. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Academy Awards (oscars) are given to Academy Members so... yep... they nominate their own works ;) --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a Diliff, and it has the usual quality (trademark sharpness, contrast, light NR). But I don't find the composition and subject very appealing to the eyes here. Certainly useful, but not extraordinary. And there are a few stitching errors here. - Benh (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, you're right, there are some stitching errors. I appreciate Pofka nominating my images but unfortunately it means that I don't have the same quality control on them before nominating, so some errors slip through. I'm surprised that there are such errors though, as I used a panoramic head which has never given me errors before as it's properly calibrated. Weird. I'll see if I can correct it. What do you mean light NR? I don't usually apply any noise reduction to my images if that's what you meant by NR. The only reason my images have less noise than would normally be the case for ISO 500-800 is because the HDR processing takes the better exposed parts of the images (exposed to the right) so even the deepest shadows can have acceptable noise levels. Diliff (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what I believe to be luminance noise pattern, so I believed you applied NR to a small extent. And what I meant is that I like when one goes easy on luminance NR but a bit stronger on chroma NR, as I thought you did. - Benh (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah ok, that's just the base level Lightroom processing settings on RAW files - mild chroma NR and zero luminance NR. Nothing out of the ordinary there, no additional NR applied. I agree with you though, chroma noise is uglier and easier to remove without affecting detail too much. Diliff (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:BM Benin head sculpted n&b.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 17:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by gbi.bytos - uploaded by gbi.bytos - nominated by Gbi.bytos -- Gbi.bytos (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gbi.bytos (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose failed crop, extremely noisy --Hubertl (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition (apart from the top crop), but it's really extremely still quite noisy. --El Grafo (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top crop & noise. -- KTC (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've downloaded a cleaned version of the picture (less noise).
Comment Thank you, that's much better! Still not quite at FPC level for me, because noise reduction can't really make up for the lack of detail that comes with a noisy picture. Those yellow spots all over the background are a bit strange as well. It's a shame, because for a museum shot it has a nice light quality. Needless to say that it also has a very interesting subject (I'd like to know more about that). --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bolma girgyllus 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 21:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More images like this one! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely done, yep, great shoot. -- RTA 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 07:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My vote won't change anything, but although the shell looks remarkable, I don't really think it should be featured from a photographic stand point. I would try something à la Alchemist instead of manually isolating subject from the rest. - Benh (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As with all the other shell groups, this is excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support these pictures do have great educational values.--Hubertl (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Building of the Salins de Frontignan 14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 18:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same place as this recently promoted image however I took the freedom to nominate also this one because the composition is is quite different and interesting IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extend content

~~Oppose~~ I think it is pathetic when photographers upload, nominate, and vote for their own photos. Too me it is like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying... --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If it could be true. Just saying... -- Christian Ferrer 19:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Christian Ferrer: This user is opposing without reason. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:G. Dury - Portrait of Dom Augusto, Duke of Leuchtenberg - Google Art Project.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amolação interrompida by Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior 1894.jpg/2, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Mary's Church, Radcliffe Sq, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pažaislis Monastery interior dome, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Denis Mukwege par Claude Truong-Ngoc novembre 2014.jpg and more. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Users don't have to write comments when they oppose, support, etc. Therefore, your comment above about my is completely irrelevant. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - ArionEstar, you do the exactly opposite, so why he can do not do what he is doing? And you supports or nominates for no reason, or bad reasons, and for me this even worst, because you, Livio and others are transforming the FP in political support, or "friendly" support, and them many bad pictures are becoming FP. In the other hand, this guy is not a barrier to good photos...

Both are opposite side of the same coin, a coin that I do not see any kind of value... -- RTA 21:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ma finiscila e piangi di meno --LivioAndronico talk 14:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Very well composed, photographed, colored, "painted". ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without doubts --LivioAndronico talk 20:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely composition, but I feel the WB may be a little too yellow and a little too green. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @King of Hearts: , Done, thanks, new slightly modified version. -- Christian Ferrer 09:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry Christian, but I see a design problem: too much foreground, building too small, the ratio is unfavorable. A better crop can be (perhaps?) improve this problem, a bit. But the main: no wow for me. What is the main of this image: the ruine or the salt evaporation pond or what else? The ruine is too small and I can't see the salt evaporation pond. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support At a first sight I was thinking like Alchemist here, somethig could be wrong watching so much land than sky... but, I can see three parts in the picture, sky, houses and horizont and the water with this "grass stones".. I think those both bring the leverage to the picture --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mrtony77 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I keep coming back to this one. - Benh (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Edouard Manet - Le Chemin de fer - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 16:21:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Edouard Manet - uploaded by Artwork - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. --Mile (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Kareby IS-AIK, 13 mars 2015 (23).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 14:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Kareby IS celebrating winning the Swedish championship in bandy after beating AIK 3-1 in the final. Kareby is arguable the best bandy team in world, double reigning team world champion and undefeated in the 2014/2015 season. I think this is one of our best images of this type. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like the image's photojournalist style, but not so much the processing. It seems like you've bumped the shadows and highlights sliders as far as they'll go in an attempt to maximise dynamic range, but I'm guessing the shirts they're wearing are supposed to be white, rather than grey? And there is quite a lot of posterisation on the blues of their trousers (but I think it may be partly due to the shiny material). Perhaps you could bump up the whites a bit? Diliff (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diliff, new version uploaeded.--ArildV (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm I think you've made it worse to be honest. It's much too dark now. I didn't have a problem so much with the shadows being pushed, it was more the highlights being reduced too much (which doesn't seem to be fixed anyway). Do you mind if I upload an edit with my idea of what it needs? It would be best to work from the RAW file, but I can at least give you a suggestion based on the JPG. I'd be happy to work from the RAW file though if you are prepared to give me access to it. I'll understand either way though. Diliff (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version uploaded by Diliff.--ArildV (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Happy to support this image with new processing to resolve the issues mentioned above. Diliff (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I think it is pathetic when photographers upload, nominate, and vote for their own photos. Too me it is like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying... --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (account blocked)[reply]
- Comment Huh? That’s quite usual in here, and complies with the rules. Not a reason to oppose. We judge pictures, not behaviour. --Kreuzschnabel 20:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikimedia sites, like Commons, are the Wild West. Most of us here are amateurs. And it's normal here on Commons that people judge many other things than the pictures just like it is normal to nominate own pictures. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (account blocked)[reply]
Comment Perspective distortion at right. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be honest, I'm not sure what kind of disortion you are talking about or how it affects the quality of the image. It is not a architecture photo, the image is about capturing the moment (the players celebrating in front of the supporters) and it is taken with extreme wide angle (the players stand a few feet from the stands, and I and the other press photographers is between the stands and the players). Eventual perspective disortions is not realy relevant imo.--ArildV (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I agree with you that it's not that significant and is unavoidable in any case, it's the same distortion regardless of whether it's architectural or photojournalistic - all wide angle rectilinear views have distortion at the edges, and all distortion affects how objects (in this case, people) look at the periphery. I just think ArionEstar is pointing out the obvious. It's there, but it's expected. I don't see it as a significant reason to oppose. But that's just me. I do note that Arion didn't oppose either, just pointed it out. Diliff (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neutral Sorry, the photo is very interesting, but the distortion bothers me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-1a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lateral stained-glass window of the Sagrada Familia Cathedral in Barcelona, Spain, by the Spanish Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí (1852-1926). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Not beautiful or educational to me. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm going to disagree with Nobel's reasonings even if I agree with the vote. It is beautiful and it is educational to me. But again, the image quality is the issue.... And again, I think it's a missed opportunity due to the camera settings used. Why f/10?? You could probably use f/4 or f/5.6 without any loss of depth of field and then you could use ISO 125 instead of ISO 800. I don't mean to be a stickler for these things but camera settings matter. Also, it's unfortunate that the left quarter is completely blank. It's compositionally awkward. Diliff (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its very interesting. Play of ligth, from dark to ligth, like renaissance. I think left dark part is good combined with rigth ligther part, maybe just some crop from above. Not QI, but its interesting. --Mile (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sure it’s interesting, but poorly composed. I agree with Diliff. Pointing the camera more to the right would show more play of light instead of the dark shade. --Kreuz schnabel 20:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I lay my eyes on this photo for minutes, seriously, it's a graceful place. Notwithstanding the photo has so many mistakes that creates a feeling of a waste... A lot of noise at left, (ISO 800, even with a D800); lack of sharpness in the stained glasses, and in the architectural sculptures; the perspective is a little bit weird also... (OBS: I'm wasting my English to reatin some new words :P)-- RTA 21:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very beautiful and moody photo which makes great use of light. I don't think the small technical issues are really a matter here. Maybe author could have gone more easy on NR (and choose better setting), but it's not like the points of it is in the details anyways. I agree that the left part brings nothing and probably may be removed with no regret. - Benh (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff, but a really good photo nonetheless. — Julian H.^✈ 16:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! --Tremonist (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-4a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 16:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The ceiling of the Sagrada Familia Cathedral in Barcelona, Spain, by the Spanish Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí (1852-1926). The cathedral is still under construction, following the detailed plans of its creator, and is antecipated to be completed in 2026, 100 yeard after Gaudi's death. This is one of the most astonishing buildings I have ever photographed. A pity that a tripode could not be used! Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose.. Neutral. I agree that it's an astonishing building, and the image is definitely valuable, but I couldn't in good conscience support it as a featured picture as the image quality is just too poor, particularly at the darker bottom end and there isn't a lot of texture visible anywhere. Too much noise reduction perhaps. Also, not a reason for the oppose but there is a white pixel width line along the top of the image. Diliff (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to neutral as an oppose it probably too harsh, given the limitations imposed by lack of tripod. Diliff (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I think it is pathetic when photographers upload, nominate, and vote for their own photos. Too me it is like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying... --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition, and quality is acceptable although I agree that you should try to tweak your NR settings (as in the other beautiful stained glass nom).- Benh (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not going to support an image just because someone was unable to use a tripod. With very few exceptions, the image must stand on its own merits. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Saffron Blaze, mostly. — Julian H.^✈ 08:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suggest crop from above, at least some part of that glass. Even the from bottom could be croped some. --Mile (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Gertrude Old Church Interior 1, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 09:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wooo-weeee! You just get better and better! This is one of the ones I especially love since it gets more colorful at high resolution (love those ribbons on the aisles!) and we can also see that the aisle rug needs to be vacuumed. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Pofka. Diliff (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! -- Pofka (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Appears we do have a Diliff nominating club. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of easy to become his pictures fan. =) -- Pofka (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the risk of a rather pathetic pun, I think the top crop is a bit archward ;-). Can we get at least the outer arches completely? No big deal if not, but perhaps it would look nicer. --DXR (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 21:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:St Mary's Church, Radcliffe Sq, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 11:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discussion not related to the photo

~~Oppose~~ Pathetic when photographers upload and nominate their own photos. Too me it's like nominating yourself to an Oscar. Just saying... --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so you're taking a political approach to your voting then. Why don't you judge the image and not the nominator...? You've said nothing about why the image deserves an oppose. Diliff (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikimedia sites, like Commons, are the Wild West. Most of us here are amateurs. And it's normal here on Commons that people judge many other things than the pictures. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - - This user is opposing without reason. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:G. Dury - Portrait of Dom Augusto, Duke of Leuchtenberg - Google Art Project.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amolação interrompida by Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior 1894.jpg/2, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Building of the Salins de Frontignan 14.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pažaislis Monastery interior dome, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Denis Mukwege par Claude Truong-Ngoc novembre 2014.jpg and more. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Users don't have to write comments when they oppose, support, etc. Therefore, your comment above about my is completely irrelevant. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, they do have to write reasons for opposing with strong arguments. About the support part you're correct though. Read the "Voting" part here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates. It seems somebody is raging because his pictures were not promoted. -- Pofka (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        "Oh yes, they do have to write reasons for opposing with strong arguments." Please, write a quote. I didn't see that on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates.
        
        I am not a professional or amateur photograph and don't have own pictures on Commons and therefore I am not "raging because his pictures were not promoted". But I have learned that everyone can support and oppose with many, many, many different and personal reasons and you don't have to follow the guideline, bacause the guideline is only a guide. --Oldnewnew (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of what you vote, you should be able to defend your position reasonably, and it is absolutely not normal or acceptable to judge anything other than the image itself. If you don't feel that way, then yes unfortunately I don't think you're welcome here. (referring to the edit summary). 22:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Very big strong support Congratulations @Diliff: Go on taking more good photos (like you always do). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Diliff, I tried a vertical adjust, and you can tilt a little bit anticlockwise, and this blue looks to me over saturated. ArionEstar if you do want to vote for the photo, do it, otherwise do not use your vote just to poke another volunteer. -- RTA 22:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any tilt in this image. I've double checked all the verticals and they seem correct to me. There are one or two verticals on the left wall that are leaning a tiny amount but I can't trust them because other verticals on the same wall are straight. These walls are very old so it most likely that they are actually leaning in reality. The church itself has no significant lean at all. If anything, it is perhaps half a degree leaning counter-clockwise which is the oppose of what you're suggesting, but really... half a degree is imperceptible. It is only possible to see it when you measure it. As for the blues, I'm not sure. Blue hour = very blue. I think it looks normal. I'd rather wait to see what other people think before I adjust the saturation. Diliff (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diliff, "a little bit anticlockwise" ~ "half a degree leaning counter-clockwise" --*. And I'm saying that are too saturated based in the blue hitting the left tower, open it at the Lightroom and reduce by 10 the blue (further, as -20, seems more "natural", however not much blue hour), anyway Diliff, just trying to help, see ya... -- RTA 03:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS:I was expecting ArionEstar to do a proper vote instead the provocative one, that's why I did not brought out the vote...
Support Love that you even got the ghosts that haunt the street beyond the church on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just the right time. — Julian H.^✈ 08:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best of Diliff in my opinion. Although the mood is nice the composition is somehow unbalanced, owing to the geometrically-distorted building at left. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what is so geometrically distorted about the building on the left. It's compressed because you are looking along the face of it, but there's not much perspective distortion. The angle of view is actually not as large as many of my interiors, it's about 65 degrees horizontal by 80 vertical, which is fairly close to what you would see with a regular wide angle 24mm lens (unlike my interiors which are more like 10mm). So yes, it's wide, but not that wide that that distortion is really off-putting, IMO. Diliff (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My guess is that Joaquim talks about the leftmost tower. While I do agree with you generally speaking (I'm often faced that situation where I have to explain or justify distortion), I don't think it's that simple as to say "vertical FOV is 80°, so it's not so distorted". It's perspective corrected, so it's much like your lens points toward something at viewer level, say the people in the distance. In that case, it takes more than 80° to fit the whole leftmost tower into the frame. How much more ? I'm not a math guy... :) - Benh (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually you've made an assumption, which would normally be correct, but in this case, I had already made allowances for the perspective correction in my calculations. Yes, it's perspective corrected but when I gave the angle of view and equivalent focal length, I had already factored in the perspective correction. See this screen capture which shows what I mean. Obvously, ignore the exposure issues - this is a bracketed image and PTGui previews with the brightest exposure. As you can see, the total vertical angle of view including the area that wasn't captured (which keeps the centre-point at eye level, as you say) is 90 degrees. So actually I was wrong about it being 80, it's 90 which is more like a 17mm lens rather than 20mm. But because PTgui calculates the AOV with the assumption that there is as much space below as there is above the centre point (which you usually crop if you don't want too much foreground), you can consider it like this:
      1. The vertical angle of view is 90 degrees which is the equivalent of 17mm lens - with no perspective correction, or
      2. The vertical angle of view is about 50-55 degrees (half of 90 degrees plus some foreground below the horizon) which is the equivalent of 24mm lens - with perspective correction applied.

Hopefully you're following, I think you've done enough panoramic stitching of your own to know what I mean. Anyway, my point was just that this is within normal bounds of wide angle photography, there's nothing extreme about the distortion even with the perspective correction. I guess in the end this is just academic, but if you need to go 'wide' for compositional reasons or because of physical limitations preventing you from getting further back, you have no choice but to accept perspective distortion. I still believe it's not that significant compared to a lot of other architectural photography, both interior and exterior. ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I feel somehow relieved to see your numbers. And you're right, if my assumptions had been right, the "perspective corrected" equiv vertical FOV would have been something closer to 130°, which should have materialized into much more ugly "stretched" shapes. - Benh (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Two different things I don't like: the very presence of the building at left, which doesn't add to the composition imo; and the geometry of the tower, which doesn't look natural. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough, I can't argue with your impression of the composition - it's just a matter of taste. Diliff (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in my eyes too strong distorted. --Ralf Roleček 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ralf Roleček. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 05:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Windows in Caracas Building.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 11:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The_Photographer (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please remember that this picture was taken with a compact and cheap camera :) -- The_Photographer (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And this should give it some bonus? -- Rillke^(q?) 11:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't compare with our existing similar featured building facades such as File:Colombo April 2013-2.jpg and File:Facade of the Conjunto Nacional cropped version.jpg. Too small, not sharp (considering the low resolution), and while the colours/pattern is nice, it isn't impressive as the other photos are. -- Colin (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. — Julian H.^✈ 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good concept, though! --Tremonist (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, only horrible feeling for conditions of human beeng living there. --Karelj (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And.. What do you think about this one? --The_Photographer (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of CC0

Request the CC-0 license is not conducive to our Commons project, because everyone can use this image how as his own, without license and author mention. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And CC0 is Illegal in Venezuela (See question 5), the country origin where the work was first published, btw copyvio --The_Photographer (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in CC-0 says: it unnecessary to note your name and/or the liecense. If an user use your image outside Wikipedia without both, so all others don't know that this image is free! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? That ensures that the image can be used with maximum flexibility and freedom, in any situation, and therefore makes it most useful. If the creator is ok with that, isn't this the ideal license? — Julian H.^✈ 10:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it: "the CC-0 license is not conducive to our Commons project". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I'm just a little puzzled to read that in an FP nomination. — Julian H.^✈ 11:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CC0 is perfectly appropriate for Commons. It is up to "The Photographer" if he wishes to require anyone to attribute his images to him and to re-publish with a similar licence accompanied by a notice saying so. The same is true for images that are public domain due to age or because the photographer was working for the US government, and we have no problem accepting them. I'm not sure what Alchemist-hp means by "everyone can use this image how as his own" but if he means they can claim they are the author instead then that is not true: that's plagiarism and both morally wrong and commercially foolish. The re-user, if they wish, can still attribute and can still mention the CC0 status. CC licences prevents many re-use opportunities that would be possible with CC0, which results in either the image not being used, being used illegally, or paying the photographer to escape the licence restrictions. Btw, technically CC0 is not a licence but a "waiver" (though it may act as a licence if some aspects of the waiver are ineffective in some countries). About CC0. -- Colin (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this was a joke.

-- RTA 22:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people find refreshing practiced one Edema. No need to come to commons to write thousands of jargon entangled to feel superior to others,. --The_Photographer (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, "The Photographer" is taking the piss, that much was clear, but I thought Alchemist-hp was serious. I suggest "The Photographer" takes a break from the project, and regain what we're here for. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to end this discussion. As it turns out now it was a huge mistake to start with appropriately licensed on COM:FPC at the first place. This is the location for evaluating the quality of media files, not their license. Another approach would be to make a white list of licenses you want to allow on COM:FPC and reject every other candidate. With dual-licensing this shouldn't be an issue. These never-ending discussions on nomination pages lead to nowhere. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Almeida Júnior - Scene of Adolfo Pinto’s Family - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 10:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Scene of Adolfo Pinto’s Family, by Almeida Júnior. Created by Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by Dcoetzee (Bot) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More fine paintings by Almeida Júnior! -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agfa-Optima-1A-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 17:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Agfa Optima I A with Agfa Color-Agnar 1:2.8 /4 5 lens. It's the world's first 35mm camera with automatic exposure control.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine, accurate work. --Hubertl (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the lighting soft enough, and it may be a tad over sharpened (one can see jagged lines). - Benh (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cutout is a bit rough in places (back of the camera; squiggles are visible) but considering the size, I don't think that's a problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A professional looking photo of high quality, certainly a QI and/or a VI. But it lacks the magic touch of a FP. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "magic touch" ? Where are here? FP or Avalon? --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:C2014 Q2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 15:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Vermette - uploaded and nominated by The Herald -- - T H (here I am) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- - T H (here I am) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 21:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nothing featurable here despite the good quality. We have hundreds of photos of the type and have to make the difference between the good and the exceptional. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then FPC is useless if you don't have exceptional pictures anymore. Plus you don't have any quality pictures of LoveJoy and may not never in (near) future. Superb comment and reason to oppose...

-- - T H (here I am) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor composition and blown lights in the comet head. Superb enough for you? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Christ!! Cest tres bien... - T H (here I am) 15:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Halavar (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Bristol Cathedral Nave looking east, Bristol, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2015 at 12:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ the resolution is much too small, I can't read the information boards :-P Of course: Support ha, ha, ha .... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can, it says "Will you be a friend of Bristol Cathedral?" ;-) Diliff (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And on the right side? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "Like us on Facebook!"?

. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ■ MMXX ^talk 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad, not bad ;) Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little bit of white on the top edge, roughly in the middle (slightly left). — Julian H.^✈ 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know. An easy fix. I'll upload a new version now. Diliff (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Support — Julian H.^✈ 16:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Architect failed at symmetry (choir) :P --Kadellar (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, you noticed it too huh? ;-) You know, I am starting to think that it is a deliberate Anglican architectural style. At first, I thought it was simply because the choir was built at a different time by different people, but now I am not too sure. I've seen this exact 'problem' in so many English churches and cathedrals. I actually asked a guide in a cathedral (a different one) about it once, and she said that she thought it was to symbolise Christ's slumped head when he was crucified (because of course, cathedral floor plans often take the shape of the cross). At the time we laughed and I suggested that it's a nice story to explain a building problem, but maybe she was right! Diliff (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support These packed chairs on the sides looks just crazy in this picture. Like the creatures with 100 legs. lol -- Pofka (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of your best, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Not counted as voted after vote closed per 5th day rule. -- KTC (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Divinity School Interior 2, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 14:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- A bit of information about the image...This is a medieval room, built between 1427 and 1483, and is apparently the oldest surviving building purpose built for university-use and was originally used for lectures on theology, hence the name of the room: the Divinity School. It is part of the Bodleian Library of the University of Oxford which itself is the second oldest university in the world after the University of Bologna. Quite a stunning interior, built in the English Perpendicular Gothic style, and some similarities can be seen with other perpendicular buildings such as the shape of the ceiling arches at Canterbury Cathedral and the cage-like stonework of Gloucester Cathedral. Diliff (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting lamps they got here. Modern ones which reminds torches... They produces interesting lighting. In a small resolution picture they actually look like torches. Anyway, just gorgeous interior. Gold+black color combo always works. -- Pofka (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support brilliant. Nikhil (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also like the lights. — Julian H.^✈ 19:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support though may be a tiny bit oversharpened IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wishing I went to Oxford. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 12:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Hoila-Cider from Zingerle, Bolzano, South Tyrol 0633.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 03:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A ll by Hubertl, nominated by -- Hubertl (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info It´s not a Photoshop collage. Glass: V.S.O.P. Cognac-glass, Sommeliers-series 400/71 (Height 165 mm, Content 160 ml) by Riedel, Austria
Support -- Hubertl (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Glass is slightly turned left (i guess so), D kuba (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done you are right, D kuba, it was. not much, but it´s a FP-Nomination.--Hubertl (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It still is:) D kuba (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It´s still what? Tilted? No! I believe, that the rulers in Photoshop are straight. It could be theoretically, because this is a handmade glass (really a very exceptional glass!) and therefore not perfectly straight. Even the official product picture from the producer itself is tilted. ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe you have right, D kuba (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A perfect view! I want to taste the cider now! ;-) --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support cheers! --Isiwal (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Santé. --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the focus looks to be on the apple rather than on the glass itself, which is a bit soft. Also, the (nice) trick results in a disturbing cast shadow IMO. - Benh (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your really interesting theory about focussing to the others here too, while this is a focus-bracketing picture with 35 single shots stacked with Helicon-Focus? And yes, in the background, there is a real shadow of a real apple. Does studio pictures have to be shadowless? --Hubertl (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. What I noticed is a very soft glass compared to the sharp support on which it lies. I naively thought it was a result of OOF shot, but you prove me it's not. This doesn't change the fact that the whole glass is the only soft part when you ironically tried to achieve the opposite. Now for the shadow : no, studios shot don't have to be shadowless, but I can not like shadows which seem a little out of place. - Benh (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I´m glad, that this picture is surprisingly not just for me. The volume of the apple is two and a half times as much asl the glass itself. It may be different, using one of my large, 850ml bordeaux glasses. I will try another time. --Hubertl (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've thought about this for a while now. It's a nice idea and the execution isn't bad either, but a few points keep me from supporting: I agree that the shadow is a little distracting, there is a dark halo around some parts of the glass (due to focus stacking?), the glass doesn't look very clean (may just be imperfections of the glass or scratches, I don't know, but I think a different light direction could have hidden some of those problems), the out-of-focus background has a pattern that isn't too nice, and there is some overexposure (especially on the bottom). — Julian H.^✈ 15:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is not a brand new glass. I can and will not afford new ones. It´s 77,- € each, todays price.--Hubertl (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cincin! --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian, and I'm not convinced by the lighting setup – there are a lot of strange reflections on the glass. --El Grafo (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough for FP in my opinion even with the reflection (?) of the apple. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see an apple REflection? There is no. ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I do not find it a compelling work. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saúde! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced either. While it’s an interesting idea, the lighting is not suitable. Reflections on the glass are too harsh and look a bit blurry. The scratches on the glass don’t improve the impression either. And I would have chosen a brighter bottom ground for the glass to stand on. So altogether, while it’s not bad, it’s still not one of our very best images IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 06:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muncan Bali Indonesia Rice-paddy-along-Jalan-Raya-Muncan-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 18:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 13:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its nice.--Mile (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice place but no wow, and I don't get the idea behind the composition. -- User:Benh 20:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Admittedly a fairly common view here in Indonesia, but Uwe pulled it off wonderfully. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually enjoy the composition. --El Grafo (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Benh --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MChS) Mil Mi-8MTV picking up water near Nezhin.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 23:26:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Oleg Belyakov - uploaded by Ukravia - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my comments at the original nomination, here. Revent (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dura-Ace (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous nomination: oversharpened, wrong colours, frozen rotor, main subject too small and pixelated. --Kreuz schnabel 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Revent. --Gyrostat (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting photo, but the quality isn't good enough for FP. --A.Savin 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin. The (even smaller) file linked to in "other versions" seems to be a more faithful rendering (though both images lack a colourspace definition, so what colours you see on your computer/tablet is anyone's guess). This one has had the sea turned blue and heavily sharpened in order to visually appeal. There is significant chroma noise in the sea. The image is valuable (so Valued Pictures might be an appropriate place) had certainly has some wow. Taken in 2010, I'd expect an image of 12-18MP out-of-camera so this is significantly cropped/downsized at 2.67MP thus any technical flaws remaining are hard to justify -- particularly when some oppose over such issues with 36MP images, which are 13x larger. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow effect --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. And I think the rainbow-y colours on the water that look a little like chroma noise are actually plausible, although I don't know how strong they were in reality. More resolution would of course be better, this is only supportable imo because it's perfectly sharp and sharpened well. And just an amazing perspective. — Julian H.^✈ 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, have a look at the version at File:Ukrainian MChS Mil Mi-8 Belyakov.jpg for something closer to reality. Sadly, that realistic photo is even lower resolution, but this one has had the full 500px treatment applied. The chroma noise I'm referring to is also in the dark still water rather than just the choppy water that might conceivably generate a rainbow effect. When you compare the two, it's clear this version has had the saturation cranked-up, thus emphasising the inherent chroma noise. We wouldn't accept such a poorly post-processed JPG from a Commons photographer. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, I would expect the colours to come from foggy air from the blown away water (which would spread) but it's probably greatly emphasized. The problem with the "from a Commons photographer" argument is that I'm okay with that - we can make "our" photographers learn how to take and edit photos that are perfect for Commons - I think I learned this to some extent myself (not perfect but good), from FP discussions. I'm thankful for that, it made me a better photographer/editor. But we can't do that with other photographers (at least not as easily) and there are subjects that just aren't captured by Commons photographers. I'm torn here, I see your argument but I also think the photo has something special that deserves recognition.

Neutral for now. — Julian H.^✈ 12:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think sometimes we extend our "point out minor fixable flaws trying-to-be-helpful advice" to become reasons to oppose, which is wrong. We tend to get away with it for Commons photographers who then fix the utterly insignificant CA in their 36MP image :-). It fails, spectacularly, when we get a high-quality high-resolution portrait from a third-party and then pixel-peep it to death. So I agree that we have to learn to just live with what we've got sometimes, and weigh up the merits and flaws, even if we know the photographer/post-processor could have done better. If this was 20MP with that degree of chroma noise at 100% I'd let it pass since it would be invisible at 5MP never mind 2MP. But at just-HD resolution, it isn't close to meeting the definition of "our finest" on the technical front. I agree that "wow" from the perspective/subject is impressive, but the small size seriously diminishes its utility -- you need about 5MP to print in a A4 magazine to high quality. -- Colin (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I hear ridiculous comments that do not take into consideration where this photo was taken. surely someone will recommend using a tripod. This section is contaminating some kind of obsession for some users. --The_Photographer (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not thrilled by it and main subject ridiculously small. Taking a picture in the air does not necessarily make it great, as proven here. - Benh (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that we need change our ridiculous size requirements for images. You can propose this in this section talk page. This image meets the minimum requirements. It's funny, you call the ridiculous requirements with a ridiculous comment. --The_Photographer (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop requiring legislation for/against absolutely everything for just a moment, and allow people to use their brains -- we are not computer programs. Our minimum size guidance is a lower bound beyond which images "are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'". We are free to oppose for images above this, or support for below. No justifications have been given for why the image is only 2.67MP. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is not the size of the image itself, but the subject (i.e. helicopter) within the image. In response to that particular concern though, I would say the subject is not just the helicopter, but also the mrotor-wash underneath. -- KTC (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you: subject is more than just the helicopter. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I'm mostly concerned about the chromatic noise or aberration which is quite visible on the water surface even in this size. The picture seem to have somewhat magenta cast in it. Perhaps the problems could be partly fixed though. --Ximonic (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ The fixed version is much better to say the least. Thanks! Could be a little bigger picture but for me it's impressive enough. --Ximonic (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See comment below. --Ximonic (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed color balance, chromatic aberration, color noise, oversharpening, perspective, color aberration in light, distortion --The_Photographer (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version -- KTC (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Oppose based on Colin's analysis. -- KTC (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is actually worse. Rather than go back to the photographer and ask for a more realistic (less processed for 500px style) image, the new version is about as authentic as a colourised b&w photo. The EXIF data explains what has been done. Firstly, colour noise reduction at level 90/100. This has removed all colour detail. The patch of land in the corner is now just various tones of green and the sea is just tones of blue. But more importantly (since this is an image of a helicopter picking up water in a bucket), where have the red ropes that held the bucket gone? They have just been merged into the sea like so much digital colour noise. Next, the blue hue adjustment is -13 (modest) but the purple hue adjustment is -100 (max) which has transformed all purple in the image into blue. Next the blue and purple luminance have been increased to +36/+38. This does return the blue of the helicopter to closer to the original photograph. However, the sea is still nothing like the original which was a typical brown/blue rather than deep blue. Lastly the JPG has been saved in "ProPhoto RGB" rather than "sRGB" (or even "AdobeRGB) which are the only two standard colourspaces for JPG. ProPhoto RGB is a colourspace used internally by Lightroom/Photoshop and is completely unsuitable for 8-bit JPG. Some computer browsers, most non-professional computer image viewers and all mobile browsers will fail to display this in anything approaching the "correct" colours (likely rather desaturated). But after this must post-processing, "correct" is anyone's guess. There's no change on the over-sharpening, perspective or distortion, though I didn't think the latter two were even an issue. If I were the photographer, I'd be upset that someone had removed all the colour detail, all the purple, and had ensured mobile and computer users see completely different colours. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of criticizing the work of others(500px comment), do not be afraid to fix it by yourself. The ProPhoto RGB color space encompasses over 90% of possible surface colors in the CIE L*a*b* color space, and 100% of likely occurring real world surface colors documented by Pointer in 1980 --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do get what you write. If your monitor encompasses what ProphotoRGB has to offer, it's fine for you, but mine merely is a sRGB, and I bet most people are in the same situation. Also what Colin tries to explain you is that the colorspace covers so much that your 8bit-JPEG is not big enough of a container for it. It gives you a mere 256 levels per channel, which is a reason why it might not be suitable to represent, says, a gradient from the lowest to the highest value of "color", without visible transition. Hopefully I wasn't too wrong. - Benh (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no monitors that can display ProPhotoRGB, it exists merely to enable lossless colour transformations during pre-processing. Rather than argue about it, you could just Google. There isn't anyone who knows anything who would recommend a ProPhoto JPG. If your job was to sort screw nails by size, you'd use a 15cm ruler with mm scale rather than a metre stick with cm scale. Bigger isn't necessarily better; it's just bigger. -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made an honest good-faith attempt to improve it but this just shows the problems with fiddling with other people's JPGs, and that none of us are professional post-process artists (which some photographers outsource their work to). A modest amount of colour noise reduction would help the original candidate photo, but I wouldn't go any further than that personally. At FPC we need to review a third-party image for what it is, if we are unable to request an improvement from the photographer. Even if the candidate is too saturated/contrasty/noisy to please our FPC tastes, that's what the photographer thought was an improvement on his out-of-camera version (assuming that's the history). His choice/taste and we should respect the colours he chose for his image -- even if that means we dislike it at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not want to ask NASA or a painter to fix their colors. --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think editing or fixing another's work or FP candidate is the problem. Well all make wrong choices from time to time. I just don't think it was a good idea to overwrite the image, instead of uploading it as an alternative. - Benh (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well its not a ALT, its the same image, same angle, same size, same author... --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The modest change I suggest would be fine for an overwrite but changing the colours is really too much of a change -- and needs to be documented (it's no longer solely the original artist's work). -- Colin (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do that by yourself? --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't prove him wrong though. And his criticism is well structured and thought. It's not like hesays "it's shit" period. I was amazed with the rope issue, and this alone should trigger a revert on ur changes. - Benh (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's OK when that someone is "the photographer" himself ;) - Benh (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the photographer --The_Photographer (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Halavar (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ahonc and The Photographer: There is a problem with this nomination in that over a dozen support/oppose votes were cast on the earlier photographer's image that Ahonc nominated, and about four votes on the significantly altered version that "The Photographer" uploaded and which has an important flaw that may justify reverting (the ropes carrying the bucket are no longer visible). It would have been better if this upload were done to an alternative file and an Alt added to the nomination (providing the nominator agrees to such disruption to his candidate). One option is to ping all those who voted prior to the image change and ask them to reconfirm or change their vote on the new image -- but this assumes the flawed current version is not reverted. Alternatively, revert the modification and ping those who voted recently.

At present, it is impossible to tell which votes apply. My view is that latest version does not represent the image the photographer donated to Commons, has a serious flaw, and should be reverted. Respecting the photographer's artistic choices is more important IMO than fiddling with the image to please the FPC crowd and gain a gold star. I would support making a new version that had very modest colour noise reduction applied, while ensuring that the ropes holding the bucket remain, and no global changes to colour. But looking at the opinions expressed, I am doubtful that would be sufficient improvement to sway enough to support. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you can do it :) --The_Photographer (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Halavar, Palauenc05, Yuriy75, and Ximonic: The new version you have voted on has two significant problems: the ropes holding the bucket have vanished with over-aggressive colour noise reduction, and the colours (particularly purple) have been radically altered from what the photographer uploaded. The photographer has not sanctioned these changes, which represent deterioration and alteration of his artistic choices as image-creator (whether you like those choices or not: they are his). It is not our job to significantly change his image merely to suit tastes at FP. I propose the new version is reverted. If you like the new version, then it should (per the licence) be uploaded as a new file that clearly states what the changes are and who made them (as required by the licence). -- Colin (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pull my support for now since I noticed the new issues. But in my opinion there is no reason to make this all such big of a problem as it currently looks. I suggest that 1) either this will be reversed, a new alternative will be made with softer methods (perhaps like how was done with the Vietnam picture). 2) or in respect to the creator we just reverse this anyway because of the trouble this has caused or might cause and we continue without the alternative. In that case there won't be very good chances for a FP, I think. --Ximonic (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I think you are making a huge effort to prohibit all costs involving users globally blocked, please do not let these issues interfere with your gimmicky techniques assumptions. --The_Photographer (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I don't think so. If I wanted to wreck this nomination, I'd upload-over-the-top a new version of the file that removed a significant portion of the subject and then I'd whack a few Lightroom sliders to min/max to create some interesting colour effects. Oh, wait, someone already did that :-) -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking see in the TV for today "~~Big bang theory~~" Dances with Wolves for relax me a bit, however, your comments are more funny and relaxing. --The_Photographer (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the reasons above despite the dramatism of the scene. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I located the photog myself on Airliners.net and wrote to him explaining what is going on and asking very nicely for a higher resolution "original", and I did that still at the time of the initial nom, right after commenting. However, I am led to understand that no such version will be catalyzed via any request made on our side that would make a difference. Me, I am just a j r random, to use MIT jargon. I refuse to further involve myself in this rope-pull. I am very sad. --2601:D:2F80:DE7:4472:D4EC:7DEC:B978 15:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:NeuseelandSeagulls.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2015 at 20:36:33
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Low resolution, doesn't meet today's standard. (Original nomination)
Delist -- KTC (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it FPCBot, this is a removal nomination, don't make me add Support and Support just to stop you from closing this early. -- KTC (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Kreuz schnabel 07:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Paris 16 (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Nice enough composition, but the bad quality as thumb is not good enough for such a generic image. --DXR (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per DXR. --Kadellar (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , per DXR. — Julian H.^✈ 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. - Anonimski (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. KTC (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mountains from Hatcher Pass (Alaska).jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 15:34:43

Info Nowhere near current FP standard for natural scenery/panorama at 0.7MP (Original nomination)
Delist -- KTC (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support FPCBot early closure avoidance Support scheme. -- KTC (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Despite that it is quite dark picture from the bottom the white corners are very unfeaturable imo. I don't think it was a favorable thing in panoramas even back then when it was featured. Sometimes I'm ok with smaller pictures when they are otherwise a good presentation of Commons featured picture history. I think this is not one of the better ones. --Ximonic (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist a realy delist candidate. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna cry?-- RTA 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I cropped, for obvious reasons, but for me we could go further and remove all the right side... anyway, a very tinny picture with nothing much. -- RTA 21:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist — Julian H.^✈ 16:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per Ximonic --DXR (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. KTC (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cartagena de Indias en la noche.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 16:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luz Adriana Villa - uploaded by George Miquilena - nominated by Mrtony77 -- mrtony77 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mrtony77 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Converging verticals, long exposure leading to a lot of blown lights, and at the end of the day it's just another photo of some plain looking high-rise buildings. -- KTC (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make that a strong oppose. Just noticed the black strip across both the top and bottom of the picture, and severe jpeg artifacts. -- KTC (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KTC. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Night photography is quite tricky to do well and there isn't really anything that makes this image stand out - there's not much visual interest, there's too much darkness. Diliff (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It really looks nice! The black strips, though, should be cut off. --Tremonist (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toni Frissell - Frida Kahlo, seated next to an agave.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2015 at 17:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Toni Frissell - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not sure how much you can see comparing thumbnails - there's certainly some large-scale damage, but most of my work was lots of long scratches and dust spots. This image looks very good now, even at full resolution, whereas the original was rather questionable when you started zooming in.
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly good restoration work, and I like back and white portraits, but I don't find the quality or the composition good enough for FP. IMO, not enough contrast, and the leaves at left are either too little or too much. Also too much sky. Sorry Adam. Yann (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the most interessting pictures of Frida, as a young girl. I like - in contrarian to Yann - the composition. --Hubertl (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A valuable historical document but not extraordinary, as required. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Composition is fine with me. Unburdened, free, natural - rather like she depicted herself in the self-portrait in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Yann. --El Grafo (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann, Alvesgaspar, El Grafo, and Tremonist: I would like to point out that, as an artist only really recognized after her death, there aren't a huge number of photographs of Kahlo, and fewer free-licensed ones. Commons has an educational mission, and I do think that that should have some effect on FPC, even if it's not the only consideration we use. If people want to point to a better free-licensed Kahlo image, I will restore it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but that has never been much an argument for FPC on Commons. However it would certainly be a VI, and may be on the English WP? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: educational value or rareness of a subject traditionally play a minor role in everyday Commons FPC life – that's what COM:VIC is for. It is possible to overcome things like lack of sharpness or bad composition though educational value, if that value is high enough to create a "Wow!" effect for the reviewers (example 1, example2). But that's difficult, and it seems that at least for the three opposers, that wasn't sufficient to overcome the perceived shortcomings of the image.

Commons FPC is all about finding the finest picture, the best of the best, the Crème de la Crème – and I stand by my opinion that this isn't one of them. However, I would highly recommend trying to nominate it for FPC at Wikipedia, where educational value seems to play a much more important role – if I would participate there, I'd vote for it. (I'm not so sure about VI, since something like File:Frida Kahlo, by Guillermo Kahlo.jpg might be preferred over there) --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the idea. ;o) BTW I am surprised that there isn't a license for this file. I am not sure if the current template is sufficient. I expect more for a FPC. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: The license is certainly accurate if you read the LoC page linked - explicitly released by Toni Frissell, and the LoC checked with Vogue and tthey confirmed she had that right:

“

Images for which the Library holds original negative: Per the instrument of gift, Miss Frissell dedicated to the public the rights she held to original negatives in her collection, and she orally informed the Library that she held the rights to those images. This assertion is supported by Vogue Magazine, for which Miss Frissell was a staff photographer from 1933 to the late 1940s. They have informed the Library in writing that they claim no rights to images for which the Library holds the negatives. However, privacy and publicity rights may apply.

”

I certainly do agree the template could be improved, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Made some improvements. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better. Yann (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow-legged gull, CAC (6).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2015 at 21:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in the water outside L'Hemisfèric, Valencia. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is just great. Even the smallest water drops are visible around this bird legs. Although, might require another crop for a more centered look. The balance between the top of the image and the bottom is a little bit missing here for me, however that water looks lovely though, so I am not really sure about that. -- Pofka (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, the sharpness on the eyes is wonderful. Great job. I do think that the top bit is a little distracting, and the bottom could be cropped more tightly. In order to not make the top crop too tight, a possibility would be cloning out the stuff there rather than cropping it away. — Julian H.^✈ 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would crop it (get rid of upper coastline). --Mile (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd personally have love to end up with more isolation of the subject from the rest, like in that picture (I'm aware it's not as sharp, but I find the result much more impressive). - Benh (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka: @Julian Herzog: @PetarM: @Benh: I have uploaded a new version, what do you think? -- KTC (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks perfect for me. -- Pofka (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, much better. --Mile (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The crop is better. But it doesn't fix my own concern (which I don't think you can fix afterwards anyways). - Benh (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for your opinion. Technically, it is possible to blur the entire background with much photoshopping, but that will of course not be a minor adjustment. -- KTC (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good catch. -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks for the update. — Julian H.^✈ 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good catch. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but far from exceptional, as most of the subject is unsharp or out of focus. In my opinion it doesn't compare favourably with the many FP examples of birds in flight (here, some of them gulls). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Great detail on the animal, where it matters. And it's nice to see a gull against aqua-colored water instead of dark blue. Still, I think it could be improved by coming in more on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Sorry Daniel but there is no detail at all on the bird, at least when set against the comparable FP: this one, this one, this one or this one, for example. If we choose other species, the differences are even for striking, as with this one. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Touzrimounir (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Expedition 42 Soyuz TMA-14M Landing (201503120102HQ).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2015 at 12:57:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA, Bill Ingalls - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support AM (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This file is a duplicate from Expedition 42 Soyuz TMA-14M Landing (201503120102HQ).jpg that i have uploaded two days ago. I have merged the two versions but my upload should have priority. --Ras67 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light bulb sun. - Benh (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great photo. Slightly annoying CA, I wish the tiff/raw would be available as with astronaut photos. — Julian H.^✈ 10:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dura-Ace (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Almost painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support … and another one --El Grafo (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful! --Halavar (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Discobolus in National Roman Museum Palazzo Massimo alle Terme.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 12:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 12:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The brighter stripe of background to the right is extremely distracting. Why didn’t you step a little to the right to get an even background? The technical quality is not breathtaking too. There’s noise visible in some parts (below his thighs, for instance), and the fingers of the hand holding the discus aren’t sharp at all (looks like a poorly done selection before editing). Barely QI for me. --Kreuzschnabel 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at File:Discóbolo Lancellotti 01.JPG. While it shows poor overall quality the forehead is even sharper than in your nomination, and the background definitely much better. --Kreuz schnabel 17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I think, it´s extremely difficult, to get a good focus point on a marble quality like this. Its more the background, which does not convince me. From the quality sight, its a quite good shot. I am sorry that I can´t give you a pro. --Hubertl (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to ~~Oppose~~ because of the background I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support okay -- KTC (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to Support because of the foreground I'm afraid... --Tremonist (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done @KTC: can you check the new version? --LivioAndronico talk 16:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Background retouche is poorly done, traces of cloning and smear visible, especially next to the head. This edit alone is below FP standard, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 08:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support now for me...--Hubertl (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little wow. And falls short on technical side, with processing, however it was done, looking to have removed most of small details. This is noticeable when comparing to the image Kreuzschnabel links to, and taken in similar conditions. - Benh (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuzschabel and Benh. Quality just okay, distracting background, sorry.--DXR (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background retouching isn't up to FP standards imo, and I'm skeptical about the saturated greenish yellow tone of the marble, in comparison to other photos. — Julian H.^✈ 10:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Not bad for me --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Cristóbal, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 09.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 20:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Night view of the temple of San Cristóbal (St. Christopher), a catholic church located in the center of Puebla de Zaragoza, Mexico. The church was built between 1676 - 1687 but whose towers were rebuilt in 1957 after they were destructed in 1856. All by me, Poc o² 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the color noise of the dark is too obvious. It was a single shot?--Hubertl (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will upload a new version this evening Poc o² 08:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poc o² 17:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like churches at night. --Tremonist (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I would possibly be fine with some clipping but in the case of the left tower, the flat grey area is even noticeable in the thumbnail above. The left crop seems random, but I assume it makes sense given what is cropped away. — Julian H.^✈ 19:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support now its ok for me.--Hubertl (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 21:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leighton-Stitching the Standard.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 21:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Edmund Leighton - uploaded by Brandmeister - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 12:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Perhaps a more minor work, but visually attractive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 22:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry guys, it is good but not the best Commons has to offer. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mouflon Corse.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 22:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Clément Bardot - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great! --Brateevsky {talk} 10:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too tight crop (let the poor thing breath), dof too shallow: the beast's nose should be sharply focused and detailed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, and I find the background to be quite distracting. Not the best lens for blurry backgrounds apparently. — Julian H.^✈ 15:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and Julian. --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice animal! --Tremonist (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad DoF, per Alves. Overexposition in white parts.--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not saying that the opposes are wrong, but from experience I have to say that balancing DoF is pretty hard for such images. We like soft backgrounds but also want good sharpness all over the subject. Pretty hard to do in practice, keep in mind that the depth is much larger than for e.g. a human face. --DXR (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, and DOF is actually quite OK for me. My oppose was mainly because of the background. --El Grafo (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Jebulon --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Prowincja Ararat, Widok na Wielki Ararat i klasztor Chor Wirap (04).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

All by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tractor in front of the medieval castle. =D Overall, the composition is really great. -- Pofka (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively small main subject, very nice background but lost in the haze, light isn't great. The attention goes to the contrasty, saturated foreground that isn't appealing. There's also a strange horizontal line pattern in the background that I can't explain at all. — Julian H.^✈ 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although centering the monastery to the right of picture would be better. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ThePolish 21:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea of a composition, but while I do like the clouds covering the mount Ararat, it may be a bit too much here. Besides, the background is washed out, the lighting is flat and nothing but the very foreground is sharp. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Ben and Julian. Yann (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per Benh, and the centered composition does not work for me, the image lacks balance. --Kreuz schnabel 19:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info New, fixed version uploaded. Opposers, please take a look again. --Halavar (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not one of our finest works. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. --Karelj (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ben and Julian, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition but poor quality,sorry --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:БАШНЯ СПАССКАЯ - Torre Spasskaya.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 09:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pedro J Pacheco - uploaded by Pedro J Pacheco - nominated by Pedro J Pacheco -- Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak --Hubertl (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 10:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A good composition, somehow spoiled by a bad lighting and poor image quality (unsharpness, lack of detail). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the "lack of detail"? It's a >23 Megapixel image with pixel-sharpness pretty much everywhere. I'm with you regarding the light, but if this isn't detailed enough, I don't really know what is. — Julian H.^✈ 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to rise levels on the wall and tower. About detail, nothing more can I try, but I will. Tonight or tomorrow. Thanks.--Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New version available. Not to much differen, but a litle bit detailed. --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that introduced a visible white rim/halo along the left side of the roof. --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. Thank you very much --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat light, halo, chromatic aberration in the leaves at left. Excellent composition though. A nice picture, at a bad time.--Jebulon (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Only the lantern at the left is a bit distorted obviously due to perspective correction. But it is a good composition with good colors and good sharpness. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Jebulon. A very good image, but the lighting prevents it from being truly outstanding. --El Grafo (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the part of the tree at the left is too small and disturbing. Sorry. --XRay ^talk 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le repos du guerrier, Zoo de Beauval, 2012.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 11:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Henry Marion from Flickr - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Touzrimounir (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could someone maybe identify the species? According to en:ZooParc de Beauval, they have Ceratotherium simum but I don't know if that's the only species in the ZooParc … --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute factor, wow, nice composition, and sharp (it better be at 6mpix) ! - Benh (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:White peacock (Anartia jatrophae jatrophae) underside.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 22:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charlesjsharp - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Although the technical quality is good enough for QI, this falls somewhat short of the previously featured butterfly images (OOF top of the wing, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different approach by using a very long lens. Sometimes I prefer this over a shallow DOF macro. There is a slight alignment problem as Crisco mentioned above. Background can be improved by cloning out the OOF leaf and fill the white pixcels on top right. Cropping a bit on left to improve rule of third may be worth to consider even if the subject is then going out of frame. Jee 01:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose the crop to keep in all of the damaged leaf that supports the butterfly. I'm not sure a crop of the left would improve things. I could naturally clone out the OOF leaf if that was the consensus. --Charles (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes; I noticed it (keep in all of the damaged leaf). It is a wise decision. J e e 11:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,for the opposer --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:15-02-27-Flug-Berlin-Düsseldorf-RalfR-DSCF2427b-02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2015 at 14:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ralf Roleček - uploaded by Ralf Roleček - nominated by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is currently ineligible for FP per rules due to lack of appropriate licence. Please add e.g. FAL/CC licence. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info FAL added. --Ralf Roleček 10:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wish it were bigger/more detailed. I like the diagonal transition and the light hitting the side of the buildings. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as colin.--Hubertl (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 06:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose top-left part overexposed + bad light. Again a BW-image because the quality of the color image was too bad ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both arguments of alchemist-hp I can't follow.
(1) A picture isn't excellent automatically if there is light from behind as well as a picture isn't bad if we have back-lighting. I see neither a aesthetic problem with the bright corner nor in information content. The important center of Berlin is good captured and the atmosphere of this image is winning compared to a "normal" birds-eye-view. So what is really here the problem of this part of the picture?
(2) It is the decision of the photographer if he nominates colour images or an image in bw. The contrast is very good, especially for a birds eye view from the plane. I can't remember that FPC would have restriction for black-white-images. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, but this is absolutely not mine! Sorry for this hard words, but this is digitally trash for me.

because if I read the image description:

   Dieses Bild wurde digital nachbearbeitet. Folgende Änderungen wurden vorgenommen:
   RAW-Entwicklung in Adobe Camera RAW
   Konvertierung in cmyk, dort extreme kanalgetrennte Tonwertkorrektur
   Rückkonvertierung RGB
   Entrauschen mit Dfine 2
   S/W- Umwandlung mit Silver Efex Pro 2 (90% Deckung)
   Schärfung mit Sharpener Pro 3
   Skalierung auf genau 50% mit PhotoZoom Pro 5; Methode S-Spline Max

Nice, but what is true at this image? Perhaps I do have some more software packages for additional reworking ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist-hp: It's absolutely no problem for me if our opinions are not equal. This is not hard because true. This image has a high aesthetic and information value. And the technical development is for me a reason for it and not against. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its all simply Photoshop. --Ralf Roleček 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support The effect is very nice--Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light and also a bit noisy. -- -donald- (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me, as per others. Yann (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, but stumbles in the execution. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Quiet Beach in Da Nang.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 04:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow to me, too hazy altogether. High resolution made up for by blur. Left side appears entirely tilted (poles along railway line, pylons on the hills) --Kreuz schnabel 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's not easy to take a non-hazy photo around Da Nang. In 6 months that I've been here, I have rarely seen a clear sky. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it still lacks whow. "Couldn’t take a better shot" is never an excuse on FPC. --Kreuz schnabel 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the opposite, I just said that for your information. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually if you downsample the image to about 5000x2000px, the image is sharp so I don't think the blur at full resolution is a major problem. What bothers me a bit more is that the framing around the sky is a bit tight. I think it would look more balanced to use the rule of thirds and have the horizon on the 1/3 position. Diliff (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I also would have preferred with more sky, which I actually have in the original file but I had to crop it out because of electricity lines being on the way. Maybe I could Photoshop them out, but I'm not a big fan of the idea? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like cloning objects out either, but it might be the lesser of two evils here. Diliff (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I guess you're right. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riehen - Neuer Wenkenhof - Eingangsportal.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2015 at 07:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The symmetry and details take it above QI for me. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support straight and clear. What does a FP need more? No wow at the first glance. But slowly growing. --Hubertl (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, nice colors, etc. Yann (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice symmetry, but it's a pity a large part of the left door is in shadow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of a symmetric door. Is there any information missing or a strong aesthetic disturbance? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The fifty shades of shadows ... Yes, the shadows are very disturbing for the aesthetic for me, because it is simply to fix it: take the image a little earlier or later with less visible shadows. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The shadow is disturbing because it is simply to fix? Where is the logic of this argument? --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn Du mein "schlechtes" Englisch nicht verstehst, dann eben auf Deutsch: etwas früher oder später am Tage photographiert (hängt von der geographischen Lage des Standpunktes ab) würde den Schatteneffekt minimieren und das Bild von den störenden Schatten befreien. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Du gabst diese Möglichkeit als Grund dafür an, dass es dich ästhetisch stören würde. Und das wirkt als Begründung nicht sehr schlüssig. Leider gab es keine Begründung, warum es dich dieser minimale Schatten stört. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per Alchemist-hp.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose parts of the door disappearing in the shadows. --El Grafo (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where we have light we naturally have shadow. Each shadow part is visible good, non of the parts in shadow is relevant for the image. The parts of shadow is less about 5%. So what's exactly is the problem? --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring distracting elements in % probably doesn't help. I feel this image lives from its symmetry and the shadows clearly do not help to strengthen that impression. This is a matter of taste, but saying "none of the parts in shadow are relevant for the image" is not a good argument for FPC, imo. We see no sky at all, so perhaps a cloudy day would have solved such issue? --DXR (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the symmetry-argument is the first documented reason here. But for sure I evaluate this situation different. Shadows give objects plasticity so this is not an issue of this picture IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very strong technical quality as usual, but the motive is not really appealing to me concerning wow (perhaps a wider view would have given a nicer pattern of windows) and the shadows do not help. --DXR (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole photo looks washed out as if a layer of grey was applied on top. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you proof your monitor to calibrate it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DXR --Code (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Shadows damages the doors visibility heavily. -- Pofka (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convocation House 2, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 01:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The_Photographer (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KKnoefler247 (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vote of User:Cayambe who forget sing --The_Photographer (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Gornji Orahovac, Bosnia y Herzegovina, 2014-04-14, DD 10-13 PAN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 21:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic view of the course of the Trebišnjica river near Gornji Orahovac, Southeast of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All by me, Poc o² 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Great composition, though lighting could be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice view, nice composition and actually I don't think the lighting is too bad - it's a bit flat but it doesn't need a sunset to be impressive and interesting. Diliff (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Diliff. Yann (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its good. --Mile (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Јованвб (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and because of the colourful landscape, I think the flat lighting is ok here. — Julian H.^✈ 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 20:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Komos site baie Crète.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 17:13:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support View of the archaeological site of Komos, which was the former harbor of the minoan city of Phaistos, around 1900 BCE, and of the bay. Snowy mountains in background. Island of Crete, Greece. -- Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice landscape. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:St. Peter's Church Interior, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 09:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great quality as usual, but I'm not sure about the metal frame in the centre in front of the windows which has at places taken on a semi-transparent quality. -- KTC (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very distorted. Look at the painting left. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Spurzem. See the CoA at right.--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tibetan, Central Tibet, Tsang (Ngor Monastery), Sakya order - Four Mandalas of the Vajravali Series - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 15:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tsang (Ngor Monastery), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Four Mandalas of the Vajravali Series, Tibet. c. 1429–56. The best reproduction of a mandala we have on Commons.
Support -- Yann (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something unusual. -- Pofka (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sharpeness isn't the same everywhere,but subject is very interesting--LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support For artwork it is essential that the JPG have a colourspace defined. This one appears to have been stripped of all metadata. Perhaps the DcoetzeeBot is to fault and should probably apply sRGB. But if GoogleArtProject are to blame, well they need to get their act together. -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any chance the left side could be marginally cropped in a way to match the right side so it doesn't have the white/milky colour bit or most of the black. -- KTC (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done @KTC and Colin: Hopefully, it also fixes the issue mentioned by Colin above. OK? Yann (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yann I don't see any change wrt sRGB EXIF. See this tool. What software are you using to edit the image? -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Colin: I use Gimp. In "Image properties" -> "Color profil", I see "sRGB built-in". Regards, Yann (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll have another look tonight. You could try downloading ExifTool to see what it says. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh Yeah! More fine paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Perth International Arts Festival SMC 2010.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Theatrical group La Fura dels Baus opening Perth International Arts Festival 2010. Created by SeanMack - uploaded by SeanMack - nominated by QuimGil -- QuimGil (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion request discussion is distorting the evaluation of this picture. Can I remove it from Featured picture candidates, and propose it again if it is decided that the image can stay in Commons?--QuimGil (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- QuimGil (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and unsual. Yann (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but too noisy.--XRay ^talk 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wonder why this event should be free of copyright for this artistic performance (e.g. like all show of Cirque du Soleil). There is no admit to make pictures of this written. So I have to assume that this image is a copyright infringement and therefore I started a DR. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info The DR is here. You are mistaken on the copyright issue: it is fine. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you should start DRs on your own pictures of performing artists first, e.g. this one. There also is no admit to make pictures of this written. 80.187.102.219 22:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please start it if you think it's reasonable and spare us with your anonyms input. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eryphanis reevesii - Schmetterlingshaus Wien 4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 18:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spacebirdy - uploaded by Spacebirdy - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is too dark, I guess because of flashlight. --Laitche (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too tight, and the angle of the butterfly doesn't aid in the composition.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with previous opposes, the crop is too tight, the butterfly is too dark and the angle makes it awkward. I've always thought that butterfly images should be rotated so that the insect is horizontal, but only if there is nothing in the background that would look strange if the image was rotated (such as a horizon, a flower, etc). Diliff (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support From this pose and look, I assume it is a newly emerged one drying its wings. The crop is a bit tight; but 15 MP out of 18, so I don't think not much to do now. It is more of a matter how much magnification we need still keeping enough space around. Flash is disturbing; but reminds me this previous FP. J e e 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Should be able to get better composition and lighting in a butterfly house image. --Charles (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 04:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A UNESCO World heritage site, Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan. Prime example of Timurid architecture, hence conical shapes. Shot off-centre, to the left. All by -- Mile (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like image is not straight. Building leans inward. That can be fixed. I think image should be first checked in QI pole. --Halavar (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made PD correction. --Mile (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. --Halavar (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good pictures of Kazakhstan! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks amassing. --Јованвб (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 04:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings