Info created and uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Thermos -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Quite simply, a stunning work of photography, where the colours, composition and athmosphere are perfect. Excellent bokeh too. -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Great photo. I really enjoy looking at it --Leafnode 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the original one. Great job! --Manco Capac 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment The colors are off, everything has a red tinge. --Calibas 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Sometimes, at the end of the day, colors and light are just like that and that's what is great. --B.navez 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
temporaryOppose ... until the colors are tweaked correctly. No sandstorms 4 me. --Richard Bartz 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to colour cast. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Very nice mood and atmosphere. I trust the creators statement that the colors in the original best resembles how it really was. -- Slaunger 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment The original has a low dynamic range and I don't like the contrast. Unfortunatley, the first edit eliminates this together with it's warm evening atmosphere. Maybe a second edit keeping its original colour temperature would enhance the picture's quality, but in general, a suitable candidate... --Taraxacum 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose bad contrast --Herrick 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Support I like this one the best out of the three. I find the colours natural. Popperipopp 16:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Support The colours of this one give it all its charm. Colours don't seem natural on first edit, and there is too much light on the two edits. Fred waldron 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment a great composition, I also noticed it in the QICs. I added a new version. I am not the best concerning colour-balancing...maybe someone can make it better (Richard..are you there? ;)) but i thought that the sky is too brown in the original version. --AngMoKio 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment _Please_ link all edits/versions with each other. It's so often forgotten. /Daniel78 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Your edit looks good. --Richard Bartz 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice new balance but the "true" colors are more like in the original ; sky isn't blue in Ouagadougou. --Romanceor 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the colors could be more like in the original, but the original has not the original/true colors IMO. When looking at the histogram on circle1 the blue channel isn't congruent like it should. Furthermore its hardly imaginable 4 me that we have a twilight or a rainy situation here as the shadows in circle2 are nicely drawn and the afternoon sun (arrow4) causing overexposed highlights in circle3, even at 1/1000s. The truth is somewhere between the original and AngMoKio's edit --Richard Bartz 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
At 18:18 under tropics night is very soon, you can also see that by the enlightening of the cushion very horizontally. And you can have dusty clouds in the background but not necessary around you. --B.navez 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Support have to rethink --norro 19:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment This edit copleteley changed the photo. In the original version the day light is close to a rainy day and wich is great with the colors of the dress of the lady. But in the edited version it is a sunny day and I didi not liked the colors in that way. --Manco Capac 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose artificial change of colors --B.navez 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The moody atmosphere in the original is lost for me. -- Slaunger 10:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
OpposeALL versions. Not enough wow, aesthetically not very strong, and I do not like the tree in the background (composition). Barabas 23:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Info - Sorry, but each nominations has its own poll. The vote only counts for this one -- Alvesgaspar 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
4 support, 1 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Bad quality, no wow. —kallerna™ 15:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special. Downtowngal (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Not bad. --Karel (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Support tells a story --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Support I agree that there is no wow in it but it is still just as good a pic? ~ R.T.G 21:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 07:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Who is the boo for now? The whole point of FP is wow (in a technical AGAP setting). Lycaon (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Has wow for me. Jonathunder (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 07:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 09:22:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balisique Saint Marc de Venise facade door 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balisique Saint Marc de Venise facade door 1.jpg
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Romanceor[parlons-en] 09:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Original – Gothic quadripartite cross-ribbed vault of the Saint-Séverin church in Paris
Reason
It's a quality image and valued image at Commons, so the technical quality is apparently good. The size of 1,825 × 2,855 is well over the minimum. It definitely has a "wow" factor, showing details of the closer arches as well as a comprehensive view of the farther ones, thus demonstrating how the vault is composed as a whole. Licensed as GFDL/CC-by-sa-all. It demonstrates the way in which arches combine to form a vault, with bonus points for demonstrating the vault's curve over the apse. Easily verifiable; it's a simple photo of the interior of a public building. The description is what I've given as "caption" for this nomination, plus geotagging and date; the primary caption is in French, as it's a place in France. I'm unaware of any digital manipulation whatsoever.
Support as nominator --Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. Great example of high quality architecture photo. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Support This is a useful, high-quality image. The caption should include the date, which is known- 1489. Note: I changed the picture caption from "vaults" to "vault". A vaulted ceiling is a "vault" singular, not plural. Amandajm (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Support. Nice image, good EV. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Support - Solid image, useful for a nice, general topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Info Ad for Viandox from the sixties revealed by the workings in the parisian subway. created by Romanceor - uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by B.navez --B.navez 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral In general an interesting photo. Is there also a photo with a bit more of the surroundings? Where do you have that info about the ad from? It is not in the pictures description...it should get added there. --AngMoKio 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Info The info is available on the "Viandox" entry of the French Wikipedia. I've just added it to the description. Romanceor 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Question Is this copyright infringment, since it is from the 60's? -- Ram-Man 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Opposeas per Beyond Silence. Also, a tad unsharp, even scaled down. -- Ram-Man 04:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In what sense is this photo not valuable? --AngMoKio 09:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Arguing over value takes a lot of effort and upon a second closer look at this, the picture is of a wall and should be spectacularly sharp, but is nowhere near FP quality. The fact that it came from an SLR implies that the error is the photographer alone, likely because of the too slow shutter speed blurring the image. For reproductions of artwork, this comes nowhere close to the acceptable standard. -- Ram-Man 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the technical quality. But still I think it is a well spotted scene...not everyone has an eye for such shots. --AngMoKio 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I completely disagree with these technical arguments which I think are not valuable because this is a poster, in a tunnel, without flash and furthermore matter is printed with low resolution (how should it be sharper?). So, this is a very good picture technically, artistically and historically. But Guillom is right, there is violation copyright. Sorry --B.navez 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Info Ads from the sixties revealed by the workings in the parisian subway station "Porte de Vincennes" — Created, uploaded and nominated by Romanceor 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see why this is featured quality material. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Support urban times are passing, very meaningful picture --B.navez 10:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose In general a nice subject, but I think the quality is not good enough. --Taraxacum 11:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral a nice idea and composition. The quality is a bit problematic..did you make the photo with a tripod? --AngMoKio 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Info Yes I did (1/3s). --Romanceor 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Good composition and original subject. It makes a change from the over-coloured HDR and the macros of insects. --Pymouss44Tchatcher - 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I like the idea and intention very much, but composition and lighting are not perfect in my opinion. Not sure yet. --norro 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per AngMoKio. Lycaon 11:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Info New, better quality version. --Romanceor 14:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral If it were not for the camera shake, I would support it. -- Klaus with K 11:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 neutral, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Too dark, harsh shadow on subject, poor general quality (artifacts and noise) and unbalanced composition. Sorry, but I don't understand how this picture could be promoted to QI-- Alvesgaspar 07:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose It's not a terrible image, and the exposure/composition choice are very stylistic. The noise isn't that high due to the SLR choice and perhaps noise reduction software, but overall it is just a little too dark for me and I don't think it is "wow" enough. -- Ram-Man 05:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karelj 18:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sharpness, Shadow, DoF --βαςεLXIV™ 05:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not a striking enough composition for me, and the shadow is not good. --MichaelMaggs 10:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I like really this picture for its lights and its shadows, because it was the purpose of the gardener to get these games with sun rays and I find the photographer gives them back very well, but depth of field doesn't fit : closest poles should be absolutely accurately focused.--B.navez 14:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Support Schöne Farben, schönes Schattenspiel. Bilder müssen nicht unbedingt von vorn bis hinten durchgehend scharf sein. -- smial 10:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As MichaelMaggs. --Karelj 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The shadow detracts from the image and causes too much focus on the hedge at the back rather than the perspective offered by the posts. Perhaps another shot taken earlier in the day would work better? Cpl Syx 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
3 support, 5 oppose >> not featured -- Alvesgaspar 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, it's an interesting photo, but fuzzy and no really Wow --kaʁstn 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I find more wow in this type of pictures than in insects' macros... but I very well understand it's just my opinion (of course not for the context which I don't care, but for the subject : people). --Romanceor[parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Support an interesting photo--Claus (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Interesting people on the stairs. Well chosen. --Dereckson (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - The photo doesn't tell us anything about the manifestation except that some photographers were tired. Well-composed but not valuable. Downtowngal (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment This is because the subject is not the demonstration ; it is the public of it. Am I the tired photograph ? --Romanceor[parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - No, you're not the tired photographer. The people in focus look tired, or maybe just cold! Actually, I disagree that the people in focus are "the public" of the demonstration. But that's another discussion. Downtowngal (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Support I like the picture, which tells a story --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 16:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Romanceor[parlons-en] 16:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 12:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tambo Quemado.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tambo Quemado.jpg
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Romanceor[parlons-en] 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Support because of the opposition between the trucks and the landscape -- Romanceor[parlons-en] 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Neutral No wow factor for me, nothing truly featurable either... but well, why not. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per Maurilbert, I did nominate at at QIC though. --TheHighFinSpermWhale 03:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose sorry, but i dont like the composition. Have a look at the pics of User:Kabelleger, he has many pics which are nearly the same kind of shots with mostly a more pleasant composition. --mathiasK 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Info created and uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Thermos -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Quite simply, a stunning work of photography, where the colours, composition and athmosphere are perfect. Excellent bokeh too. -- Thermos 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment The colors are off, everything has a red tinge. --Calibas 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ... until the colors are tweaked correctly. No sandstorms 4 me. --Richard Bartz 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Question What is your opinion to this version? --Taraxacum 07:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutral In general an interesting photo. Is there also a photo with a bit more of the surroundings? Where do you have that info about the ad from? It is not in the pictures description...it should get added there. --AngMoKio 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
