Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 04:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Astralium calcar 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Astralium calcar 01.JPG
Comment The image is too dark and monotonous. The colors are sleeping. We name this in German: "Dies ist eine graue Maus". The image needs a better contrast and lighter colors. Avoid overexposure by the white color. I tried this in photoshop, it looks great! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2011 at 21:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chedul.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chedul.jpg
Oppose Obviously lacking sharpness, this would be avoidable if the camera adjustment where chosen well. It is a impressive view but with this implementation it is not featureable. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but as the others already pointed out not really close to perfect. The debris is too present in important parts of the picture. -- Avda (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 05:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elvis-nixon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elvis-nixon.jpg
Neutral High EV, yes, but many technical problems; dark areas too black, some noise and low resolution, besides the fact that I think the crop doesn't work here. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe President and the King. I've read somewhere that this picture shows two of the greatest recording artists of the 20th century. It is because of the 'watergate' scandal in the beginning of the 70's, when it appears that Pdt Nixon recorded secretly all the conversations, even private, in the oval office. I find this funny. But the crop of this picture is not good IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2011 at 18:54:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liévin - Fosse n° 1 - 1 bis - 1 ter des mines de Liévin, puits n° 1 bis (S).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liévin - Fosse n° 1 - 1 bis - 1 ter des mines de Liévin, puits n° 1 bis (S).JPG
Comment In fact, this image comes from a big serie which has been taken in black or white because the sky was grey, the rest of the time, I only take photos when the sky is blue. -- JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist mainly due to compositional issues (cropped flowers all round, stalk extending towards the viewer, somewhat random arrangement). --Quartl (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 13:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jaszczurka.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jaszczurka.jpg
Oppose Nice and valuable, but not FP standard. Rather ordinary composition, tail not sufficently sharp, distracting twig in the foreground. --Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2011 at 08:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lagon poé.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagon poé.JPG
I could be wrong but I've always believed the DPI figure inside a JPG is merely a hint to a publishing application about what default size to display / arrange on the page. It has nothing to do with image resolution or printing. This 10MP image will print 12 inches wide by 9 inches tall at 300dpi. One could argue that with the heavy noise-reduction in compact cameras that the official 10MP no longer contains that much resolution detail but that is a different issue from DPI. Colin (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like composition. In such case, I'd rather see the whole tree. As a side note, it's tilted to the left. - Benh (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is so-so (strong noise reduction?). It's hard to tell which dark parts are actually dark (lake bed) and which ones (if any) are just cloud shadows. The tree is debatable... I'd say a more complete view of the tree would look better. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition and colours. But the camera has applied some heavy noise reduction and/or compression and even if I resize the image down to 5MP there's still insufficient detail for FP IMO. Plus it is tilted too. Colin (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2011 at 17:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Ferry Collaroy 1 - Nov 2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sydney Ferry Collaroy 1 - Nov 2008.jpg
Oppose The light, colors and overall technical quality is excellent as usual for this creator, but the composition is ordinary and the crop too tight. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 17:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iguane terrestre des Galapagos (Conolophus subcristatus).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iguane terrestre des Galapagos (Conolophus subcristatus).jpg
Oppose Rather good composition and angle-of-view. Nice that it is taken in the wild. However, as has been noted already, the photo has tilt (correctable), but even if that is done, the focus is way to soft on the head in my opinion for FP. --Slaunger (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 17:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Volcán Chimborazo desde Guayaquil, Ecuador.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Volcán Chimborazo desde Guayaquil, Ecuador.jpg
Oppose Unsharp, noisy, tilted. If you wanted to turn this good opportunity into an excellent picture I think you would have needed a better camera. -- Avda (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no doubts that seeing this in real life was breathtaking. It is, regrettably, not captured very well in this photo, which has the quality issues mentioned by Avda. --Slaunger (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose La calidad de la imagen no es la mejor David, con pocos pixeles, mucho desenfoque (sobretodo las luces al frente), poco detalle en el volcán, y muy poca iluminación en la mayoría del frontal. Una vista hermosa sin duda al atardecer con colores hermosos, pero esto no se aprecia tanto en la foto y no creo que sea una de las mejores de Commons. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2011 at 17:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Cour du Palais des études de l’École des beaux-arts.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Cour du Palais des études de l’École des beaux-arts.jpg
Info created by Dalbera (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Oppose I thought it was going to be a support, but it's very small, and even at that size, quality is soso (I don't think it was necessary to choose f/11.0, ISO800 and 1/500sec). Also tilted. Very nice shot to me otherwise. - Benh (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The lighting is very very good (symmetrical, at the zenit), the other picture shows how the light can make it worse. Colors are very nice, but per the other opposers I'm staying neutral. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2011 at 09:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Interesting subject, but not enough to give full reading on my wow-o-meter. Distracting loudspeaker in the background. Moreover, I think the image could benefit from a perspective correction. --Slaunger (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's clearly a story here, but what is it? Some context is needed in the image description, or at least some links. The background is unfortunately very distracting. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and not replace. Both are not original, but a 1980's copy. They suffer of a two strong stitching errors which does not appear on the original of course. Please look at the two escucheons (King of France and Paris), and look carefully !! None can be a FP in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2011 at 20:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St.Felio de Goixols Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St.Felio de Goixols Beach.jpg
Oppose First something positive: I think the light is good. But, have to oppose because: Overall image quality so-so concerning detail level. No clear idea in the composition, and distracting elements, like ugly white plastic tables. Point and shoot character. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Idea is clear: sunny morning impression (like by Oscar-Claude Monet).By the way:the furniture are withdrawn --Vitold Muratov 13.35,28 November 2011 (UTC)
Better without the white plastic furniture. However, still far too many distracting elements for my taste, like the sign, the base plates for the sun umbrellas and the containers for litter. I do not think you will find equivalent compositional elements in Monets paintings :-) Regrettably not really fixable. Something you could fix though would be the rather strong clockwise tilt (check with horizontal line at the horizon). --Slaunger (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Skyline is correct now, I hope.Thanks. But another items ... "c‘est la vie", indeed!--Vitold Muratov 22.05,28 November 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2011 at 17:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pale Blue Dot.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pale Blue Dot.png
Support as this image is the most distant image of the Earth ever recorded, making it a "historical or otherwise unique image". It shows just how small our planet is in space - as it is taken from just outside the Solar System. The low resolution is a inherent in its creation, because of the device (Voyager 1) and the distance - from 6 billion kilometres away the Earth appears as a tiny speck, visible only at low resolution. Also, this picture is actually a blown up version of a much smaller image in which the Earth is essentially invisible, and the graininess results from that increase in size. It appears as NASA created and distributed it - no larger versions are available. It has very high encyclopedic value in illustrating Pale Blue Dot, and significant encyclopedic value as iconic image of the Voyager Program. From the 'pedia nom. - Benzband (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We had a nom of this a few months ago. I haven't changed my mind since. I'm not the "modern abstract art" kind of guy. There's a huge technical challenge behind this, but you really have to have the explanation beside to get the whole meaning of it. But otherwise, I only see noise (something I could pretty much mimick by taking a picture in the dark with ISO pushed as far as 12800) - Benh (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rules can be broken and all, but I really see this 100% more a valuable image than a featured picture. No composition, colouring, sharpness, quality, there's noise and chromatic mess. I'm sorry but despite its value, I really don't see it as a FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i didn't know about the previous nom. However it seems the picture received much more support back then than it is getting right now. - Benzband (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I can't believe that this image is opposed purely on technical merit. Of course is noisy and withoud details. The earth is a tiny pixel - that's the point, d'oh. Please read Reflections by Sagan, maybe you'll change your mind. --Lošmi (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is "purely on technical merit". The image does not work as photography, all the encyclopaedic value (well recognised on Wikipedia) is in the caption, as already explained by Benh. --ELEKHHT07:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was not your intention, but "that's the point, d'oh" doesn't sound too polite, does it? I know that's the point, but I still don't see it as a FP sorry. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, but it's not polite to oppose this image based on sharpness and noise as well :D This image is about feeling you get by how and why it was made, and what it represents. Simple "No wow", would be much more sencere reason for opposing, IMO. I don't think that every image should be judged solely on visuals. What's wrong if you must read a description sometimes? For example, lots of images in this category requires reading the description to get what they represent, this one is featured because of it's historical significance, etc. --Lošmi (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how you feel about that, but the feelings you talk about, they come only after reading the explanations, and the picture don't add much (if at all) to them. If I show anyone the picture and give no caption on it, I bet no one will feel as you expect. Photo can convey feelings close to or stronger than reality. IMO, this one doesn't compare to how small I feel when I look up and see a clear starry sky. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I think about featuring or not I think: if I was a random visitor of Commons and wanted to see the best pictures, would I expect this one to be there? Or would it be better placed in a section called "valued images"? That's the reason why I give a lot of weight to the technical part. This picture has its own amazing story, but I just see a lot of disturbing random dots. I remember taking a picture of an incredible starry sky far away from the city, in amazonia some two years ago... that night I stayed up for hours just looking at the sky in meditation. Then I came home, watched and edited the ISO1600 pictures and in the end I remember thinking those pics were just an awful mess. I did not place them among my best pictures despite the value of the moment. The text is awesome, but I don't picture the image in the FP gallery. So that's how I see it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Agree with the opposers, despite the text of Carl Sagan (whom I admire very much). This image is valuable because of what it represents, not because of what it shows. And what it shows is not featurable imo. It is not like a poor quality photograph (e.g. an old one) depicting an extraordinary or rare event, where the lack of quality is mitigated by the value of the visual message transmitted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2011 at 18:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pink elephant in the sky.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pink elephant in the sky.jpg
Oppose The composition is too busy with balloons in various stages and people taking pictures. The lighting on the subject isn't best. I don't see much special here other than a novelty balloon. Colin (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally sure I follow your text but suspect you are thinking that given our prior disagreement that my review might be biased. I can assure you I bear no grudges and very much believe that a FP review should judge the photograph, not the photographer. But, of course, we shall see what other people think of the pic. Colin (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall a nice picture, but the bottom crop feels a bit random, with people in the foreground cut half. Also the people looking in different directions on the right side add to the too busy feel. I think a slight crop on the right (woman with child posing) would help, but am not sure about the bottom. --ELEKHHT03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 09:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alkazar. Toledo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alkazar. Toledo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 09:15:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Borgeby castle in winter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Borgeby castle in winter.jpg
Oppose I think it is a nice idea to try and frame the castle the way you have done with the braches/twigs, but I think they obstruct the castle view too much. Also way too much fog. --Slaunger (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 16:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bakka kyrkje 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bakka kyrkje 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 14:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Golden retriever ruede.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Golden retriever ruede.jpg
Comment sehr schönes Foto. Nur muss das Bild, um überhaupt exzellent werden zu können, mindestens zwei Megapixel groß sein. Vielleicht könntest auch die überbelichteten bzw. aufgefressenen Stellen am Hund reduzieren? --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice, but per Bruce1ee, "Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information, for example, 1600x1250." Also the head is in the shadow. -- Avda (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 17:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Angel Thunder 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angel Thunder 2011.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 14:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Raspberries macro 1r.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raspberries macro 1r.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 14:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Edison2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Edison2.jpg
Weak support already featured on en wikipedia, an excellent image of high quality, great EV (one of humanity's most brilliant minds), nice lighting, but the focus is really weird. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very notable subject and also a good portrait with a charismatic expression. However, as minimum for its time I would have expected the face to be fairly sharp, but only the eyes, nose and lips are in focus. --Slaunger (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 22:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Arnoia. Río Arnoia na desembocadura no río Miño-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Arnoia. Río Arnoia na desembocadura no río Miño-1.jpg
OpposeVery distracting bush right in the middle of the foreground. I do not see anything particularly featurable. What is it I am not seeing, that the nominator sees?? --Slaunger (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 18:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The position of the pyramid, which is about half hidden behind the head of the sphinx, the lack of contrast in the yellow zones, and the too shady face of the sphinx, are some of the weak points. --sNappyml19:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 19:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 17:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hängebrücke am Berliner Höhenweg Nr 526, Zillertaler Alpen 5.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hängebrücke am Berliner Höhenweg Nr 526, Zillertaler Alpen 5.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 14:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
-Oppose A third of the pic (top left) is just dark bokeh. Also the sharpest objects seem to be some leaves on the right, not the mushrooms. -- Avda (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nominationTomer T (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 00:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2011 at 21:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info the picture is made sharper--Vitold Muratov 09:40 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Unsharp + strong pixellisations, and some issues (stitching ?) annotated. I like the composition, and the light is good. I'm afraid the camera not.--Jebulon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 13:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vocabulaire de l'académie, 1832 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vocabulaire de l'académie, 1832 01.jpg
Oppose Interesting to look at and eye-catching with a great mood. I appreciate the worn look of the dictionary and the table on which it is placed. Good topic too. But I find there is not a proper balance in the photo; the crop is too tight at top and left edges, and the shadow on the lower side of the dictionary is too dark, I think a small secondary light source from another direction would be helpful. Then one could alse see the worn pages, which are only vaguely hinted at now. --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To me (and my Imac screen), the worn page are very visible and nice... But I agree with framing/crop, which is not perfect. It is enough for a very nice QI, nevertheless.--Jebulon (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2011 at 23:02:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 07:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lion carved swiss pine 2 rear.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lion carved swiss pine 2 rear.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 13:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:LFP - Barcelona vs Mallorca pre-match - Oct 3rd 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:LFP - Barcelona vs Mallorca pre-match - Oct 3rd 2010.jpg
Oppose -- I was caught by the superb composition and was going to support. But then I opened the picture in full size and realized how the ISO 640 affected its sharpness and detail! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral uh, oh, no, the referee... As German I can't vote unbiased here :-) But seriously, very, very difficult conditions… High ISO: inevitable; wide open aperture: inevitable; short exposure time: inevitable. I don't expect high quality and I see it's the camera's full resolution, but mostly the details are too low, sorry. So I abstain. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to feel lonely here, but the composition seems rather fortunate to me (most people shooting from similar place will end up with this). I looks nice for sure... but why is it a little offset to the left ? Quality issues are mitigated by the conditions IMO (but I would have traded more graininess for more details during NR I think). - Benh (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)-[reply]
Comment I prefer the first version you uploaded without the chroma NR. A slight RHS crop, which makes the distance from the circle to the two sides identical would optimize an already very good composition. Other aspects concerning the quality are mitigatable given the circumstances. Oh, well, I could just have read what benh says above. --Slaunger (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ok guys, thanks for the feedback: I uploaded a new version, takin' into account your comments. In answer to Benh: I left some space on the right side because referee (quite prominent in yellow) is in there, balancing the composition to that side. Plus, the referee fell perfectly in the intersection between two lines of thirds, which is usually good (e.g.: placing an eye of a subject in that intersection). But now I centered it anyways. The difference in sharpening is considerable: a bit grainier now, but you were right about NR, looks better imo. If you have some time, feel free to re-check it out.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 09:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris - Île de la Cité 2011.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris - Île de la Cité 2011.svg
Oppose One could tell at first sight it's from open street map. Here, colours, fonts don't look very attractive, and I see no benefit from having this svg compared to getting straight to the website (no extra information added by the author it seems). - Benh (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 23:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Upernavik cemetery 2007-08-06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upernavik cemetery 2007-08-06.jpg
Info This nomination is a tribute to Böhringers panoramas. When I saw his latest nomination I was reminded of some old photos from Greenland taken with a compact camera. I recalled one of the photos were out-of-focus, and I had given up stitching it. However, Böhringers photo inspired me to revisit the old photos and try again, this time also with better stitching software than back in 2007, and it turned out better than I had anticipated. The pano is not flawless, it has still a soft area in the foreground to the left of the large cross (see annotation on file page), and the overall image quality is a bit 2007ish. But maybe wow mitigates? --Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I remember a pano of yours which I voted for despite some flaws because Greenland is not one of these mainstream places. I still face the same dilemma here. It's a tad soft, and one shot was missed on the left (blurry band). The lighting is also very flat and doesn't help guess the shape (volume) of the landscape. But it's a beautiful place with an interesting composition, so I can't oppose. - Benh (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize it was so long ago... already. As for the light, I'm sorry to insist, but the peninsula (looks like so) is evenly lit, which is why I mention it's flat, and why we can't tell the volume (or relief). If you like it that way, it's another issue :) - Benh (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Groucho Marx once said. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.Upernavik is located on a small island 2.5×1 km, see the geocode map on the file page, if you are interested. 1100 inhabitants and 2000 Greenland dogs... --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Such an interesting place to shoot! And still I have the annoying feeling that something is missing at the bottom. Crop too tigh, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I think I could give it some room below, but at the expense of the sides. I'll look into that tomorrow. I wish I had had better equipment then, and the knowledge I have today. There were so many awesome sights there. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd really love to have this on our gallery! It really is a unique location. This has better lighting than your FP. But I fully agree with Gaspar. Once you upload the new version I might help you with the blurred band: since it is relatively little, I can improve it with some patient cloning, sharpening/blurrying job (in case you are interested). But first fix the crop: this one has a great light and not such a bad resolution for 2007, I think it could be featurable, plus; I love the icebergs: they are so illustrative about how cold the place must be, even in sunny days! --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paolo, thank you for your kind offer. I am very much interested in getting help with the editing, as it is not an area in which my competences peak the most. This evening, I will upload the full resolution stitch with black areas and all. It gives a better impression of give-and-take possibilities concerning the crop, and what you can clone from. I will also have a look in my file repository for more wide angle single shot photos of the cross the same day. As I recall, I have some on my NAS. Cheers from Denmark. Concerning the whether: At summer time it was my experience that the wheather could be in three states: Dense fog 45%, storm 10%, blue sky with no wind 45%. When in the latter state, the climate felt very mild. When in the latter state you could actually often just wear a T-Shirt, an open wind breaker and jeans. Average high temperature of 8 deg C in July and August, but when sunny and in calm wind it feels warmer. There were days, where the temperature was higher than in Northern Italy in the summer of 2007. The sea temperature is always around 3 deg Celsius independent of the season.--Slaunger (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with comments about the too tight crop at the lower edge. I have uploaded the full, uncropped version from the stitcher, and if other editors feel they can come up with a better crop, or can do some nice cloning to fill in some gaps or repair the soft region, I would be absolutely thrilled. --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really is a shame about that empty space in the lower part... that would have definitively improved the already attractive composition. That really is the reason why I tend to take some huge margins now when I take panoramic picture :) - Benh (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just found another set of photos from the same location taken 1-2 weeks after! I had totally forgotten that back then I also found out I did not cover a field of view, which was large enough. Unfortunately, that set appear to better cover the lower part, but also seems to have huge parallax issues at the big white cross. I will try to work with that, but it will require quite some hours of fiddling and masking work. I'll be back! --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's from similar point of view, and similar lighting, then it should be possible to properly add it into the other set of pictures in the stitching. The missing part shouldn't bring up parallax issue as far as I can see. If parts are still missing, I think you can get a good result by filling with careful cloning. You seem skilled, so let's wait and see the result. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 21:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20101009 Arrested refugees immigrants in Fylakio detention center Thrace Evros Greece restored.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20101009 Arrested refugees immigrants in Fylakio detention center Thrace Evros Greece restored.jpg
Comment Usually, I find B&W photography using film cameras a nonoptimal technique for modern photography. However, this photo from October 2010 using the Kodak Tri-X high speed B&W film (first introduced 1940 and once one of the most popular films for photojournalism) has made a big impression on me ever since I saw it the first time about a year ago on Ggias blog. Ggia has now been so kind to rescan and upload it in very high resolution, and besides Ggias work in a real darkroom and a film scanner, we have toyed a little around with it in the digital darkroom to remove dust spots and such... I think the use of B&W ISO 400 film gives this photo of imprisoned refugees in the Fylakio detention center in Greece a raw look which help highlight the expressions of the refugees. Also I find the high resolution an excellent display of the purpose of film grain. It is the grain which makes the photo - or the signal which is in the noise. I also find the recent documentary topic refreshing, and I think we need more peoples photography on Commons. Hope you like it!
Support Well taken image, and the B/W helps focus on the facial expressions which is really the subject. But "Arrested refugees immigrants [...] in detention" sounds a bit confusing. So "Refugees at Fylakio detention center" would be a better filename/description, I think. Also should probably be tagged with Template:Personality rights. --ELEKHHT23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With your French translation of the description, you are part of the collaboration, which is appeciated! Thanks. I do not see an oppose as having anything to do with political correctness or a lack thereof. I trust it reflects the conclusion you have reached after reviewing the photo against the FPC guidelines.--Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 00:29:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brodski lenin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brodski lenin.jpg
For the particular example a user has uploaded a lower resolution version of the file a few months after its promotion in 2007 (should be fixed I guess). The version, which was originally promoted was +3Mpixels.--Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created a larger version by stitching together the parts from the website using ImageMagick (I think the previous version was a screenshot). Now it is 9.49 megapixels, closer to the guideline. InverseHypercube00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 15:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leeds Castle - side view.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leeds Castle - side view.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 10:40:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lotus flower from the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lotus flower from the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.jpg
Info created by Dennis Jarvis (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16
Oppose Sorry but I have to oppose: EV is high but it looks oversaturated, the crop is tight on the sides, making the composition weird, exposure is low, there's a petal covering the center of the flower which I wanted to see in detail, image size is higher than 10 Mb but it looks overprocessed instead of detailed. Many problems; better pictures of flowers have been uploaded imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 10:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:2011.10.frankfurter zoo 077.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:2011.10.frankfurter zoo 077.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 09:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Twin Pyrite HC1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Twin Pyrite HC1.jpg
Comment Maybe a noise reduction of the grey background would be a good idea? Not that it is terrible as it is. It just could be better. --Slaunger (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it's rather noisy given the size, and I don't think spot lighting, with that reflection and shadow, is appropriate here. Also, maybe DOF is a bit short, and maybe we see too much one face and not enough the others. I suggest reshooting with tripod and better lighting scheme - Benh (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The specimen could be cleaned. it is not a twinning of the dodecahedron, but the pyritoedron. The lighting is bad, the depth of field is too short. There is no scale or dimension in the caption. We do not know the origin of the specimen. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination For those who like minerals, it might be a suitable picture. It is a twin crystal which is called "Eisernes Kreuz". I made the "cross" visible by selecting spotlight + angle to get a specific reflection. The specimen cannot be "cleaned". More info in the file of the picture. --Holger Casselmann (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 22:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20101227 USA embassy graffiti Tehran Iran.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20101227 USA embassy graffiti Tehran Iran.jpg
Support -- A similar image from the former-USA embassy in Tehran was nominated here [2]. Looking to the comments in the previous nomination.. I don't think nominating this image means that we (or me as a nominator) support any kind of anti-american propaganda. BTW I love also the other image with the antisemitic/anti-american message.. both have very high EV for an article like Iran hostage crisis. Recently (a few days ago) some protests.. that remind me the iran hostage crisis.. took place in front of the British embassy in Tehran [3]. [4]Ggia (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Highly valuable, and very good image quality. The lady in chador sets the scene nicely concerning the location. But the light is dull, and the composition as such is not that attractive in my opinion (I think the previous nom had more wow, although it does not set the scene as nicely as this nomination). I think the photo could be a good candidate as a valued image within a scope such as Grafitti at USA embassy in Tehran (in competition with previous nom and other candidates) as the grafitti at this particular location seems to be notable. I agree with you that nominating (or perhaps promoting) such an image is not equivalent with supporting anti-american propaganda. It is merely an educational and informative photo of a particular place where a particular POV is expressed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a photograph I think this is very good. I agree the light is dull and I'd be tempted to clone out the distracting bottom left corner of the pavement. But the diagonal lines are effective in leading the eye towards the woman, as does the image of the gun. As an image it is very powerful: an American gun pointing towards an Arab civilian. I can see it would be a useful image that illustrates some peoples' feelings towards the US. However that image is an artefact of the composition and not contained within the graffiti itself. It illustrates an emotion rather than captures a physical object. I was concerned this could be considered political art (rather than a photograph of notable political art, which would be ok) but think it has useful educational illustrative value. Colin (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, you are right about the composition. I do not know if it was a deliberate effect from Ggias side, but it is quite "smart" element in the composition. Modified my vote above. --Slaunger (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Colin: please notice that Iranians are not "Arabs" at all...--Jebulon (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC) @Slaunger: maybe the persian word chador could be more appropriated than the pachto one burqa, for the description of the cloth of the lady. I know I'm maybe nitpicking, but I think it is important to be precise in this (sensitive) matter. As we say in french: "Le Diable réside dans les détails"...--Jebulon (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info in Iran the women usually (I am not sure to tell never) don't wear burqa. Look to my blog these 3 images to understand how the dressing look like [5]. Traveling to Iran for 20 days I didn't see a woman with covered face. A lot of young iranian women have half of the head uncovered. May-be this stereotype is from your experience with Turkey or Syria or arab countries, where you can find women with burga.. it is not the same in Iran. The problem is that in this image you get a stereotype that women in Iran are like Afganistan or like Arab countries (where burga exists and lot of women wear it). Ggia (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jebulon and @Ggia: Thank you for educating me. I must admit, that I am not very knowledgeable about the different clothings worn in these countries. I have corrected my decription. As a pedantic I appreciate to be corrected when I state something, which is factually not correct. I am familiar with "The Devil is in the Detail". We have that saying as well, and I agree. --Slaunger (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 13:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2 Aguilas del Zulia vs Leones del Caracas 21-12-2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2 Aguilas del Zulia vs Leones del Caracas 21-12-2011.jpg
Comment Good action shot with good timing. I think the intensity and concentration in the scene is expressed quite well. The mulitcolored background is quite ugly, unfortunately, and the colors appear oversaturated. The attempted noise reduction does not appear very succesfull, probably because some color "knobs" have been turned too much in the digital darkroom. --Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentEpale pana!! En primer lugar un cordial saludo de mi parte y mi agradecimiento por ser uno de los usuarios que màs fotos de Venezuela ha subido, como voluntariado, cosa que no es fácil de encontrar. En cuanto a la foto, recuerda que por aquí son sumamente rígidos, tecnicamente hablando. Si quieres saber mi humilde opinión, la reducción de ruido de la imagen está demasiado forzada, bastante pues. No se que software usas porque no aparece en la metadata, sin embargo te recomiendo fuertemente el Lightroom, además te servirá para remover fácilmente esas molestas aberraciones cromáticas que puedes notar donde por ejemplo dice "camisas ROW". Aquí se requieren trabajos casi perfectos: tampoco te votarán positivo si la luz es escasa o si hay desenfoques mínimos o si por ejemplo la composición es mala o el fondo distrae, como ocurre en este caso. Sin embargo no dejes de subir candidatos de Venezuela, mientras más tengamos en la galería mejor, ya que no hay material actualmente. Saludos y un abrazo desde Caracas. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 13:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dromedaris met de Bocht.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dromedaris met de Bocht.jpg
Oppose I agree the golden winter light and atmosphere is very good. Also good composition. But I am afraid that the technical quality of the photo is not good enough. Somewhat noisy, but worst of all too soft focus for the more distant elements to the far left. The f/3.5 explains the too shallow DOF. The 1/1250 s exposure time could easily have been longer and then a smaller aperture could have been used. --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 10:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Villa Aichele5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach - Villa Aichele5.jpg
Oppose The yellow colors and the light on the tree to the right looks awesome in preview size, but rather dissapointing quality at higher resolution. Moreover, I do not understand the idea with the composition. Is it to show autumn colors of leaves (see, e.g., this FP of autumn leaves) or the building hidden behind vegetation (in which case the vegetation is distracting) - or is it the complete scenary? For me none of these ideas work very well. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 14:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I love the specimen (I know nothing about mushrooms, but it looks nice) and the lighting. Maybe it wasn't necessary to stop down so much (f/22) but maybe author can justify ?. - Benh (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks everyone. In answer to question, I used F22 to get as much DoF as possible, but maybe F18 would have been better. I think mushrooms on right are slightly further away. --Str Photo 15:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
My advice would be about F9, but with focus stacking. JJ Harrison (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 10:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Spyridon's 002.2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Spyridon's 002.2.jpg
Oppose The moon shining thorugh the sky looks good in thumbnail, but low quality at higher resolution: Posterized sky, harsh spotlight illumination, weird looking towers (overprocessed/out-of focus?) and uninteresting composition, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pope palace Avignon by Rosier.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pope palace Avignon by Rosier.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image resolution is significantly below the 2 Mpixel guideline. --Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 00:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Nice to see more recent artwork nominated. Good image quality. Good composition. My immediate impression was "Not my style", but I have been looking at it for some time now, and I am beginning to appreciate its qualities and the notable topic (the sacrifice of Isaac), which it is depicting very dramatically. I did not know this artist, but found it interesting to read about him (I found out he spends half of his time in Denmark, but that is not why I am supporting ). The style gave me associations to Guernica by Picasso, albeit that painting has an entirely different topic. --Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2011 at 21:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica December 2011-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica December 2011-1.jpg
Comment The "wall" of white caps in the back looks impressive, and in front it looks like the water is boiling. I like that part of it. The surfer stands out well, but he also appears "static" in the photo if you understand what I mean? As if the timing of the shot could have been better regarding the surfer, but probably not regarding the sea... Hmm... Can't make up my mind. --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 02:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great Sphinx of Giza 9049.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Sphinx of Giza 9049.jpg
Comment Ach, du warst zwei Wochen nach mir dort (und kramst jetzt mitten in der Nacht im Archiv)?. Das Bild scheint mir blaustichig zu sein, ansonsten pro. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good image quality, but that`s all, can´t see s.th. excellent here, sadly the eyes of the sphinx are in shadow, also the shadow edge at bottom left is disturbing --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Waldyslaw and Slaunger. This image is QI candidate, and I put it in "Consensual review" because of the shadowed edge I find disturbing...--Jebulon (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2011 at 21:10:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trafaria December 2011-1a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trafaria December 2011-1a.jpg
Oppose too much green, sorry ;) lighting is a bit dull, and I don't find the composition very eye catching (the boats barely break the monotony imo). Some unavoidable stitching errors as well (unavoidable because the boats probably weren't still) - Benh (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 15:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry but, really not sharp overall. When I looked at metadata I found out why; f/3.8 on a view with such depth is a killer I think. People look blurred. The lighting is dull too and I would have preferred a not so centered composition. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the centered composition for this particular subject. However, I agree with Paolo concerning the dull light and shallow depth caused by the f/3.8. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 02:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grand bassin octogonal Jardin des Tuileries 003.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand bassin octogonal Jardin des Tuileries 003.jpg
Neutral Very nice late afternoon/evening mood and light. Quality is quite good and I like the scene with the people sitting with their back to the photo. The composition is quite good, but not outstanding. I added an approximate NW heading to the geocode. Maybe the position itself could be refined as I get a marker right in the middle of the octagonal basin, I guess it is at the South-Eastern edge of the basin? A pity the editing software has removed the camera data in the EXIF. --Slaunger (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed your vote template to {{Support|Weak support}} since the FPC bot does not recognise the {{Weak support}} template. (Nomatter how weak or strong you express your support, it counts as +1 in the vote counting). --Slaunger (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry no, it does not work for me. I dislike the composition, something more centered and symmetrical would have been better for my taste. At the right, on the ground, there is something distracting, and the feet of the right chair are cropped unfortunately. At the left, the cut off fountain is disturbing too. The light is a nice evening light however. But I think it looks a bit random. I admit the major part of my oppose is due to subjective feelings.--Jebulon (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well summarized by Jebulon --Norbert Nagel 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 13:54:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak support Good composition and light. A pity with the presence of the (I guess unavoidable) cars and (I guess unavoidable) tourists. --Slaunger (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good lighting and good enough image quality. But the cars kill it in my opinion. Maybe it would result better if taken from a little further away. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 14:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Albi Palais de la Berbie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albi Palais de la Berbie.jpg
Info The former bishop's palace (13th) is now the Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec Museum, famous french painter born in Albi. View from the garden. -- Frozenn (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an assembling of several photos : 24mm on a 5D isn't enough wide angle to embrace all the scene, especially the garden. Then, the final image was cropped in order to optimize the resolution and the format. -- Frozenn (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, 5D and a stitch of several photos crammed down to 3 Mpixels. Uploading a significantly higher resolution version would be cool and preferred, as we are loosing a lot of information with the current resolution. I recommend to use the {{Panorama}} template on the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was much more informative. The image quality is very good, with a high detail level and very little noise. I found a weird looking soft area (see annotation). Is it some artifact from the stitching process? It would be nice if you added some info about the number of photos used in the stitch and the tool(s) used in the process on the file page. Adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. The slight blur of this area is due to the stiching process. It is why I had first uploaded a downsized file, more usable, where this defect was not visible. -- Frozenn (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but isn't it just because you have some bad control points/misalignment between two images? It should be easy to fix in a restitch. It does not appear to be a parallax problem which would have been harder to fix. --Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Je retire ma candidature - Without any vote in one week, it seems that the interest of this photo or its composition isn't enough attractive. Thank you for those who supported this image! -- Frozenn (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 20:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Henry V.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henry V.jpeg
Support This is the update with colour changes and perspective correction by Claritas 22:37, 3 December 2011. The colours are ok, the image is very nice. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel that, while an improvement on my original upload, this is not an accurate reflection of the colours - it looks slightly too bright. I've retouched the image myself and re-uploaded as File:Henry V.jpeg. --Claritas (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 21:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leaves in the forest after the rain.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leaves in the forest after the rain.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 00:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Calidris ruficollis - Marion Bay.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calidris ruficollis - Marion Bay.jpg
Neutral Very good technical quality, crisp and clear. Rather good light. High EV and good for a taxobox image. However, the composition is rather uninteresting in my opinion, thus my neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed good for a taxobox, but uninspiring compo for FP. EV has never been that relevant on commons FP, though it is a nice bonus. พ.s.00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 02:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau.jpg
4638
1794
960
274
5610
3738
tilt ?
No, it is original.
2219
125
1234
635
5610
3738
overexposed clouds
no, you are not right, I can't find any 255:255:255 areas. Alchemist-hp
1085
299
1122
436
5610
3738
overexposure
no, you are not right, I can't find any 255:255:255 areas. Alchemist-hp
Oppose Nice crepuscular rays, there's noise in the bottom part. I believe it's artifact from exposures blending (or other tricks involving playing with curves) as the colours don't look very natural. The car trace is a real mood killer. And it's tilted. - Benh (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: take a look to the tree on the left side: it is vertical. The landscape has an uneven horizon in that area! The "small overexposed" area in the clouds: that shot is a shot against the sun! Think about it again. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is true that there is a little bit too much foreground, but the proposed crop removes too much there. Seen that both pictures are a great work, I support this nomination. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I'd guess that the best cropping line originates where the vegetation ends on the bottom right side-[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 17:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Srinagar pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Srinagar pano.jpg
Comment It is a pity that the forest regions in the foreground are so much darker than the rest. But the panorama is very detailed, has great visibility and deep depth of field, and is from an interesting place. --Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the forest is in the shadow, but this is a very interesting image from the town Srinagar with the houseboats. This image has high educational value: in the 18th and 19th century got no foreigner the permission to purchase a site for an building. Each foreigner lived therefore in a houseboat. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support Deserves FP status. It's useful, there'slovely light, position of camera is good, colors are nice, as the composition. I saw no major flaws, and it has SO many descriptions in its page. It is geotagged and there's wow. I would've liked it a bit more detailed, but quality is ok with me. What really is not so good is the darkness of the left side, which should be corrected a bit, and even more the "fisheye" distortion, which is usually corrected for FP status. I'll change to full support as soon as this issues are solved. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 12:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Torre de Sant Joan (Amposta) - 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre de Sant Joan (Amposta) - 1.jpg
Weak oppose There are too many useless pixels, if you know what I mean. The main subject is very far away amidst some blown parts, and in the mist. This is very artistic and beautiful, but not a FP in my opinion. I would've also cloned the fisherman out, and there's some orange garbage among the rocks too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the simple composition, which is interesting. I do not think anything should be cloned out, especially not the fisherman. Artsy, but in my opinion of limited educational and informational value. The green colors looks oversaturated to me, and too much fog for my taste. --Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the mood and the composition (including fisherman). The orange/garbage disturbs me though, might be better cloned out. --ELEKHHT04:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 12:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Odle di Funes2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odle di Funes2.jpg
Info This is a nice image, but it is not perfect. Please make an update with 300 dpi, noise reduction, without vignetting in the corners, without the white lines over the mountains and without the blue and white sun-reflexions on the Sass Rigais. Each image in wikimedia commons needs 300 dpi for printing. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I eliminate the white sun-reflexions on the Sass Rigais. For the rest I dont know how to do it (i.e. 300 dpi and white lines)--Llorenzi (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My immediate impression is that I do not understand what the informational or educational value is in this photo? I see two mountain peaks sticking out over clouds. Is it taken at very high altitude from the top of a very special mountain? The file description in Italian list some location names, but some links there would have been helpful.... --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made an update with noise reduction and without vignetting in the corners, without the white lines over the mountains and without the sun-reflexions on the Sass Rigais. I left the 72 dpi. Maybe there is no 300 dpi requirement. The overall resolution is OK like Colin and Slaunger said. I added Category:Fog in Italy. llorenzi, You can replace your version, if you want. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For now, until geotag is added. - Per ora. Beh, a me piace abbastanza! Ed é anche illustrativa. Solo che non posso vedere dov'é il posto perché ci manca la "geotag". Cioé le coordinate del posto da cui é stata scattata la foto. Cambieró il mio voto a positivo se verranno aggiunte le coordinate nella descrizione (Vedi qualche foto mia ad esempio, quella dei caraibi, per capire come fare la geotag). Le coordinate le puoi trovare mediante google maps in internet. Saluti, --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that's a lot of cloud/mist or whatever and in the end, there's not much to see here. I may have been great to be there, but I don't like too abstract pic. Personal taste oppose. - Benh (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 11:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose All is very random. Composition is messy. People are showing their back, the bomb is partially covered by a man. Now, as for the technical part, cyan/red CA's are very strong, and noise is quite high, making the whole image look unfocused. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fairly valuable image of an interesting topic, but many problems with the composition and technical quality. I had the same observations as Paolo above, when I scrutinized the photo. --Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support try to bring your photo equipment in the near of an sharp blockbuster bomb and you will see why this is a featured picture ;) --Slick (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 05:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Barco atravesando el Canal Beagle.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Barco atravesando el Canal Beagle.jpg
Oppose I like the scene but not so much the central composition for the, probably, moving boat. I would have liked if there was more space on the right side than there was on the left. Maybe the use of thirds would be useful in this kind of picture when it comes to composition. Then maybe the horizon would be positioned at the lower third of picture and the ship at the 1/3 from the left. Another problem might be the gray light which is why I'm not sure if the picture can stand out among the other FPs. I think I'm also seeing some chromatic noise which is a kind of a quality issue. --Ximonic (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (edit conflict) Beagle channel is as far as I know one of the few straits/passages around the southern tip of South America near the border to Chile from Argentina. Not so easy to navigate through and narrow in some places. I do not understand exactly what the idea is with this photo? If it is to illustrate the channel it would have been more interesting at a narrow stretch, if it was geocoded it would be easier to understand exactly where we are. If it is the boat, which is the subject, it is way to distant and fills a too small fraction of the image area. Moreover, the frontal sunlight and haze to the background mountains is rather unfortunate. The centered position of the boat in the photo also makes it uninteresting to look at from a compositional point of view. The place in itself is interesting though, and I think it would be nice to have some photos from this area in our FP gallery. Just not this one, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Strong support -- David C. S. 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Several small overexposed areas, significant perspective distortion and quite dark foreground (which could easily be cropped). Not even a Quality Image for me. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:11:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bartoleme Island.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bartoleme Island.jpg
Oppose Good image from a valuable place, with many positive aspects. But the camera with which the picture was taken is way below the average of FP's (and of course the weird spot in the upper left corner). --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 12:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Keri majakas.jpg (new version)Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keri majakas.jpg (new version)
Support Interesting. Good composition. A liitle noisy, going to ISO 100 and doubling the exposure time would have been slightly better I think, but not a big problem in my opinion. Like the partially deterioted look of the lighthouse. And then it has a puzzle: What are the people looking for? --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 21:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Speicher Spullersee Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Speicher Spullersee Panorama.jpg
Support Beautiful scene. Very good quality. I feel that geometric distortions are not that bad, considering the extend of the panorama. The cross sets the scene nicely. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting, scenery, and composition with the cross. There's flare on the cross, but this can't be avoided and it's very minor anyways (but I mention this because I have a pic which I haven't yet uploaded because of that flare I can't get rid of). - Benh (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 12:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo reevei 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo reevei 01.JPG
Support Very good technique. How many more have you got in your collection? I hope all these get spread out well in time on POTD, such that we show topical diversity from day to day, such that we will not be nicknemaed "commonshells". Do not get me wrong: It should not be held against you that you persistently produce a flow of very high quality shell pictures. Keep'em coming.--Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 23:05:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caribbean sea - Morrocoy National Park - Playa escondida.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caribbean sea - Morrocoy National Park - Playa escondida.jpg
Oppose It is pretty and the colours look great, and right now, being in a dark and cold country at this time of year, I would just love to dip in. However, isn't this how the sea looks many places in the Carribean? At least, it looks very much like the sea I saw, when I visited Guadeloupe in the Carribean last year. That is, I do not see anything particular informational or educational in the photo, which is characteristic of the location, except, "relatively close to the equator". That is, not very valuable, much like a pretty sunset. But it gave me a warm feeling, so thanks for sharing it.--Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right but: a sunset can be shot from anywhere around the world. The same cannot be said for the crystalline, shallow-water beaches of the Morrocoy national park (notice the extension of shallow waters, check on the geotag). Besides that, when I looked up for "Caribbean sea" and "Caribbean beaches" on Commons I was so disappointed by the lack of pictures and quality images that I wanted to share this one. I noticed South american high-quality pictures are pretty rare (compared to N.A. and Europe for example), not to mention images from Venezuela. That's where I saw the value. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with you concerning the low availability of such high quality photos of shallow-water Carribean beaches. You are good at arguing, and I have modified my vote to neutral, as I am still not entirely FP-convinced. --Slaunger (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but it's a bit too abstract for me (which would be fine as a desktop wallpaper), and I don't think it's as unique as implied by author. I've come across similar sceneries from other parts of the world. Also, the subject is said to be water, yet it accounts for only a third of the image. - Benh (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I love minimalism and this picture is so much alike some others I have taken in Porto Covo! But, like Slaunger, I'm not fully convinced it is FP-worthy. If the community decides otherwise, maybe I will nominate this one of mine... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support We see, there are different meanings. But I like this image. His minimalism shows only the Morrocoy National Park in the Caribbean sea, that is the subject and that is ok. I see this image as a German born in India. My grandfather and my father worked as German people over 20 years in India, and I traveled to several lands around the world. There is Fernweh in our family since 130 years. You don't find this word Fernweh in the Wikipedia, not even in the German Wikipedia. Fernweh: you need to go and see and live and work in other lands and you need to return later on to your own home, because you have (de:) Heimweh (en: homesickness in the en: Wikipedia) in other lands. In the Romantik had Fernweh the name (de) Wanderlust, (en) wanderlust, (pt) Wanderlust or (pt) desejo de viajar, you find this in the wikipedia. Fernweh is the modern word with global thinking. Paolo Costa, your image "Caribbean sea - Morrocoy National Park - Playa escondida" is a Fernweh-image for people in the cold Europe. But you feel even Fernweh in Venezuela, you traveled to Canada and Italy. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That word will be imprinted in my mind for a long time. That's exactly how I feel about traveling. My parents were italian, I live in Venezuela, and when I travel I enjoy viewing other cultures and nature wonders. But eventually I get the need to return home and travel here as well! Nice info. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, would make good widescreen desktop as noted (I may even use it for that purpose), but at bottom it's just a picture of the sea, with nothing special. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 21:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chvalkovice kaple 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chvalkovice kaple 1.jpg
I was wondering at first whether my eyes were deceiving me due to the slope of the landscape, until I checked with a vertical line on a wall of the church... Try for yourself, and you will realize it is tilted. --Slaunger (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is better, but actually, it is still a little CCW tilted... Didn't you notice that by comparing with vertical lines aligned along the church walls, when you did the rotation? But maybe, I am just being overly pedantic now?? --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two image sizes are also identically large by the pixel. Probably the same photo was uploaded by accident instead of the rotated one. --Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have uploaded corrected version with the same name and i gave it here. I don´t know, what is wrong??? Maybe the name should be changed???? --Karelj (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 20:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak support I am fascinated by the dark and dramatically clouded background combined with the light coming in from the side on the old buildings. It gives a lot of wow to the photo. The foreground elements are rather ugly and do not fit well with the main subject of the image. On the other hand, they are representative of the mixture between construction, infrastructure and architecture in any city, and thus adds a good portion of authenticity IMO. I appreciate the information rich file page. There is maybe a little motion blur (or f/10 DOF soft focus in foreground), and the overall image quality is not exquisite, but I think acceptable. --Slaunger (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral. Faszinierendes Abendlicht, na ja. Die Stimmung hat was, dennoch empfinde ich das Licht mit den vielen Schatten als eher unschön. An der Qualität habe ich rein gar nichts auszusetzen. Die Komposition spaltet mich etwas zwie. Mir gefällt der Bildaufbau an sich sehr gut, man merkt, dass du dir darüber Gedanken gemacht hast. Die Brücke und die Steine passen sehr gut ins Foto. Dennoch hätte ich oben vom Himmel und unten von der Straße ordentliche Stücke abgeschnitten. Auch links ragt die Werbetafel nicht wirklich exzellent ins Bild. Das wollte ich mal loswerden. Viele Grüße --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment vielen dank für die blumen. abendlicht um 11:08 uhr ist mir neu - aber warum nicht. das mit dem plakat stört mich selbst. bin mir noch nicht sicher ob ich das noch wegshoppe. leider war vor ort nicht die möglichkeit die komposition weiter nach rechts zu verschieben (da hatte es eine messstation). croppte man an der linken seite, wäre mir der beschnitt der hinteren häuserreihe zu knapp. so läuft es einigermaßen gut aus. per kameramessung ist der turm etwa 291m entfernt. daher vermutlich die vordergrundunschärfe, obgleich blende 10 genutzt wurde. die aufnahme entstand aus der hand. regards, PETER WEISTALK12:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really love the 3 stones on the foreground (De barikaden op! gevoel) and the old city in the background, but the heavily overexposed bridge and the advertisement thing on the left which is cropped ruin that mood a bit. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral. Unten die Straße, sowie oben vom Himmel könnte wirklich etwas abgeschnitten werden. Es stört, weil es nichts wesentliches zeigt. Ich hätte da eher vom Stein rechts im Querformat, bei vielleicht 30-50mm das Bild geschossen. Ansonsten auf alle Fälle QI für mich. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 07:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bonhomme coucher de soleil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bonhomme coucher de soleil.jpg
Request the EXF data missing, GPS tag for the place too.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resolution to small: minimum 2MP, a large part is overexposed. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 21:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Changhua Great Buddha Temple amk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Changhua Great Buddha Temple amk.jpg
Support Illustrative, well executed, detailed, colorful and valuable. It would require a slight perspective correction on the vertical axis though. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 21:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Daption capense in flight - SE Tasmania.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Daption capense in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg
Support Well taken, high ISO unavoidable for a focused picture of a moving, distant subject. It is a rare picture also, coming from Tasmania. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm at a school computer at the moment and they aren't really reliable, but at this screen there's a (strong) halo around the bird... Am I right or is it the bad school equipment? --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you see a strong halo in full res, I'd say it is a technical issue with your equipment. I do not see any halo, but I am not at an optimal screen ether right now, but a pretty decent one. --Slaunger (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again and again, the differences between some screens are interesting. The quality at my one now at home is much better, but one problem is still there: the (very) well visible halo, in thumb and full resolution. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what can I answer to that? :-) As you can read above, I can see a halo effect exactly around the bird at two monitors, and I think at least my one should be quite good, too. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a halo though very slight. I just measured the RGB components of a series of points along a line cutting horizontally the bird. The extremes are: [120 159 202] (near the bird) and [100 149 197] (away from the bird). As we know the feeling of tone change in enhanced by the presence of a darker area. Now for the explanation: either the photographer created it in the digital lab (unlikely, considering who he is); or the camera sensor was fooled by the situation (?); or the camera increased internally the contrast in the jpg output (likely) Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Home at a better LED screen now, and I see it as well now (although not as a strong halo). Not something which bothers me though concerning supporting the nominaion. I have asked JJ Harrison to comment here. Maybe he has a good explanation. --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is there, but seeing a strong halo really just suggests only the thumbnails have been looked at - downsizing to thumbnails makes it much more obvious, or a badly adjusted display. It is very mild on my (calibrated) monitor. It the result of a small amount of highlight reduction, required to fit both the black and the white within the dynamic range available in the jpeg format and typical computer displays without blown highlights etc. One could shoot on a cloudy day, but then you'd have to use much higher isos to freeze the motion. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@JJ Harrison: Request I think it is only a small work to correct the halo effect. Can you try to eliminate it? I see it also "mild" on my calibrated monitor (U2711) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same... I'm trying to find him mitigating reasons: MediaWiki (the soft behind wikipedia) had issues with thumbnails cache (though it seems fixed now). Also, user could be behind a proxy, and see an old cache of the thumbnails (happens to me when at work). But in any case, I don't think he opened the real image at all. - Benh (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I looked at this image about 15 hours ago and I couldn't figure out what halo has being discussed. I wondered if my monitor calibration was off even though the tests patterns looked right. Now I understand why. Royalbroil06:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 13:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hypholoma fasciculare qtl3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hypholoma fasciculare qtl3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 13:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suricata suricatta qtl2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suricata suricatta qtl2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 15:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Nymphs and Satyr (1873).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Nymphs and Satyr (1873).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 16:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black Australorp rooster.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Australorp rooster.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 20:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boise State MSS 122 2 crop.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boise State MSS 122 2 crop.jpeg
Support -- please note that the dimensions of the original (when the crop is taken into account) are only 9 x 8.5 cm, so the resolution is not reflected by the image size. Claritas (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is a beautiful manuscript. But nothing here seems to justify the FP status, either historically or aesthetically. I suspect that there are some other illuminated documents with exceptional historical relevance and/or beauty that could be brought here. On a side note, this reproduction looses much of its documental value without an explanation of its content. Yes, there are a few users here who can read Latin, but they are still a samll minority... Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that it is of exceptional beauty - "wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art" are allowed irrespective of their notability (and I freely admit that Boise State MSS 122 is not a notable manuscript). If you'd like an illuminated document of exceptional historical relevance, please see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henry V.jpeg.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2011 at 12:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kenya09-Murang'a-progetto Aids-COSV.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kenya09-Murang'a-progetto Aids-COSV.jpg
Comment - I really like it as a photograph, but I'm unwilling to support unless the file page provides more information concerning when and where it was taken etc. Without a full description there is very little potential for encyclopaedic or other educational use.--Claritas (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is fine that the DOF is shallow. It is reasonably sharp in the handshake area and thereby naturally draws the eye to part part of the photo, which is well placed. That is actually a positive effect, to help isolate the essential part of the photo. The tiny hand in the knitted sweater shaking the large adult finger is very powerful compositional aspect of the photo in my opinion. But I too, would like a more thorough file page with more information about where and topic. The file name indicates that the child has aids, but is that true? Is it staged? --Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 18:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lisbon - Vasco da Gama tower.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lisbon - Vasco da Gama tower.jpg
Neutral Very good image quality and composition. Light is a bit flat/harsh, and there are distracting foreground elements in front of the building (sign, etc.). --Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 11:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svg
Oppose There are many minor "errors" in this diagram in my opinion. Many parts look not like possible in real life (see annotations). This is a diagram, if it has to be FP, has to be close to perfect I think, and, no offense intended, this is far from perfect. And last, words are not well spaced, but a little too tightly placed one against the other. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with any of my notes please, and to remove them, but after a while so people can read them). --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it should say tHrust, (The reactive force in the direction of the nozzle's exit) not trust... trust is another thing that has to do with faith :) --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) As far as I can see there are no errors, on the understanding of course that you are looking directly at the svg file rather than the rendered version. A couple of the points you raised are unfair really as if you look on the original 'official' png you will see that the illustration remains faithful to it. I can answer each point if you wish. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no offense intended, and I never wanted to be unfair. But I have an advanced understanding of 3D graphics and can tell you for sure this file is not a good reproduction of reality in that sense (not the reproduction work, which is good, but the original work)(This was a mistake, I thought you had edited the first svg version, which I thought was the original file. Then I looked at NASA's file and it's ok. I still think the svg has many errors). I'm just saying, in my point of view, this shouldn't be a featured image because it has many logical errors - in the original file (I mean the original svg file in Commons with the typo, not the one from NASA which looks ok in 3D despite the lack of precision). No need to discuss any point. I look at the file and think: this is not among the best works in Wiki. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may or may not have a good understanding of 3D graphics, what you don't appear to have is a good understanding of illustration. The original from which this illustration is based is by NASA and it is faithful to that. An illustration is not meant to be photoreal otherwise a photo would do the job better. An illustration is supposed to simplify so as to make it clearer. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate in fact most illustrations aren't. It is interpretation of the original artwork and attempts to make that clearer which it does incredibly well. As an illustrator I understand that, you obviously don't and as such I don't believe you are in a position to properly judge this illustration's merits. Especially as you seem to want to argue with NASA's viewpoint. Bear in mind this is not my artwork but as a professional illustrator I see it for what it is, not for what you think it should be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having gone through your points the only conclusion I can come to is that no offence was intended, but you just don't seem to have a clue about illustrative work. When you can't even recognise that the line on the top you think is a problem but is actually the rear edge of the far ceiling then I start to believe that you really aren't qualified to make the judgements you are making. perhaps you should pass on by and we'll wait for someone who does know what they are talking about. I'm just surprised you haven't passed comment about QA somewhere in the artwork. If you do wish to pass comment then I suggest that you look at NASA's artwork, then back at this artwork then pass judgement. The nominated artwork is a realisation of the original NASA artwork, nothing else. Not reality, not the image that's in your head, not what you may have seen in text books. perhaps when you can do that I will take your comments seriously. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear user, I can see you must have worked really hard on this. Your work on Wikimedia as an illustrator is pretty awesome, no doubt. Despite my oppose, I sincerely hope you get your FP status. You look very confident about the original artwork (I meant the first svg file, not the NASA file which is ok) and the fact that I don't have a clue, that I am not qualified, that my comments are not serious, etc: if the file is so good, my oppose should do no harm, and you'll get plenty of supports, it'll all be fine. Regards --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twice or three times I've mentioned it now yet you still don't take it in. This is not my artwork, I am merely nominating it. The only thing I have done to it is correct the typo and anyone with a text editor could do that. Looking through your contributions I see that there isn't a single vector illustration there, this just further solidifies my opinion. I am well aware that I cannot take photographs to your standard and as such wouldn't dream of critiquing them, I just wish the opposite were true. Unfortunately you are critiquing this artwork as if it was a photo, that's not how it works I'm afraid. I am nominating this artwork because as a professional illustrator I feel I am qualified and can see the level of expertise and artistry that went into this, hopefully someone else with similar abilities and experience will be along to give a more insightful critique. Thank you for your time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Paolo that the illustrator didn't seem to get the correct 3D shape of the object he intent to represent (how could he have, starting with such a poor quality diagram?). Some parts also seem to be missing, but it's hard to tell what exactly. I can change my vote if I find a better version of the diagram before voting period ends. - Benh (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What does the acronym "ET" in "ORBITER/ET" expand into? "External tank?". I don't like acronyms in text in figures unless they are very widely understood (IN. is OK as an abbreviation for instance). I think they shall be either expanded to full text or eliminated unless they are crucial for the understanding. Also, is LO2 standard notation for liquid oxygen in aeronautics? According to en:Liquid oxygen the most well known abbreviations are LOx, LOX, or Lox (although, personally, I prefer LO2 or ). --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lower right subfigure confused me for a while. I think it could have been clearer if the LH2 and LO2 compartments had been enclosed by a cross-sectional view of the well known shape of the external fuel tank (I suppose the oxidizer is near the tip end?). I am also wondering if there is a special point in going from 3D in the main figure to 2D in the subfigure. The connection is not immediately clear as it is I think. --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 20:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I dont think the left side needs more light because the frog has a darker skin IMO, look at the trunk - there isn't a illumination fall-off on the left side. Regards • Richard • [®] •
Comment There are some dirt(?) spots scattered around, which can easily be fixed. I have marked two of them, but I believe there are at least two more. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there the frog on the left-hand-side is too dark, but this is mitigated by a most striking composition. This is an Awesome! catch. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you could add some to the description (on the file page I mean) about the 5th guy. I had not noticed about the legs until I read some. But in the file page nothing is said. And I still am a little curious about the 5th friend! Is he dead? are they cannibals? Is she transporting a son in her mouth (some frogs do that, but it doesn't seem the case here!). Congrats for the awesome and intriguing shot!--Paolo Costa (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing picture. I think moody lighting goes with the subject. So did the zoo staff come and rescue it?--Str Photo 15:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 04:06:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Quite good technical quality (relatively low noise, high DOF) given the circumstances. The subject is rather "kitschy", but nevertheless I kinda like it due to its unusual composition. And it is that season, so... --Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the composition -I would rather that the whole wheel was shown in context, and the text isn't easily legible. --Claritas (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:09:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Humboldt Alexander.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Humboldt Alexander.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 12:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St George - Kyustendil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St George - Kyustendil.jpg
Support Very good light and control of exposure. Good DOF and technical quality. Interesting architecture from a place where we are rather sparsely populated in our FP gallery (as far as I know). Interesting texture of the bricks. I was wondering for myself for some time if the shadows from the branches on the wall was distracting? I came to the conclusion that the shadows are so few (and probably unavaoidable), that it is not a nuisance, but rather underlines the environment (surrounded by trees) of this cute looking little church. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very high technical quality - wonderful at full resolution ! Shadows of trees are a little bit off-putting but acceptable. --Claritas (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a pretty subject and technically fine. But the branch shadows are distracting. Taking the picture over to the left might have made more of a feature of the curving path and less of the trees. The shadows are avoidable -- look at the other pics on Commons, such as this seasonal one. Colin (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For sure quality is good, and I'm fine with the lighting and shadows, but basically, there's no wow to me (composition) - Benh (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful church, wonderful colors, nice quality, but the shadows kill it for me. They were unavoidable imo, but that's not the point... they really are disturbing for my taste. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, really not. Had the wall been unicolor, maybe. But in this case, with all those parallel, straight lines on the wall, those random shadows are very disturbing for my taste. But I think the image is pretty good in general, so I won't oppose either. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a bad image and I'm not disturbed by the shadows really, given the rather monotonous façade. As Benh, I miss the wow though. I like this angle more, as it shows more of the main facade and less of the side one, and it avoids that ugly path. Also describing it as "medieval" when in fact it was "mostly destroyed, leaving only the foundations" in the 19th century, the present being a reconstruction, I find somewhat misleading. --ELEKHHT13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I specified that this is a reconstruction. After all, about 95% (and maybe more) of the world heritage of old times is a reconstruction. As for the angle which you suggest, you know, the both facades are almost one and same and it is completely visible here. No matter of the angle, the whole idea of this structure is presented well. Cheers ;) --MrPanyGoff 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I'm so sorry that there are no clouds to make the so called wow effect... :)--MrPanyGoff16:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of clouds, I was thinking of a better angle (as explained), one which shows more of the entry (an important part of a church), and has a more dynamic composition. That "both facades are almost one and same" I must disagree. Sorry if my assessment is disappointing, please don't take any criticism personally. And thanks for improving the description! --ELEKHHT04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 21:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coimbra December 2011-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coimbra December 2011-1.jpg
Info The University of Coimbra (here), one of the oldest in the world, was founded during the 13th century, under the Portuguese king D. Dinis. Its tower, an iconic building of the city, was rebuilt in the 18th century and restored very recently. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Oppose why a panorama? Of course it's your decision to make one, but here it ruins the picture, because all below clock is out of focus. The crop is very bad (too much boring ground at bottom, tight at top). The composition is centered as well. Nevertheless, I have to mention the excellent light, very nice. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat21:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeVery high historical and educational value indeed, but really the composition does not work to me, as mentioned by Carschten. --Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 12:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cricetus cricetus 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cricetus cricetus 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 04:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Valtu mõisa -Puraviku- tuuleveski.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valtu mõisa -Puraviku- tuuleveski.jpg
Oppose Even if I love the mood and colors, light is coming from behind the subject, and the crop is a tad too tight on the top. I would've probably chosen a vertical shot, or a horizontal shot with lower focal distance, showing more of the landscape, maybe placing the mill at 2/3 on the left, and with 2/3s of sky, which was beautiful at that moment. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 09:36:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
weak support The people on the arc gives a good sense of proportions. Good colors. Quite eye-catching. Light is a bit harsh. Earlier in the morning would have been better, I think. --Slaunger (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 19:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mamba Dendroaspis angusticeps.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mamba Dendroaspis angusticeps.jpg
Support Excellent composition, colors and technique mitigates zoo shot. It is, as if there is not even glass between the mamba and the photographer, but I guess there was? --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 21:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose IMO, the WLM contest results are a real problem... A lot of awarded pictures in Europe are NOT following the FPC and QIC guidelines...--Jebulon (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think that could be achieved Jebulon? I think from watching the 170 nominees to the European jury there are quite some pictures (20 maybe?) that could be a FP, but these didn't make it that high to the international jury, I believe between the 12 winners there are 1 or 2 FP's, and maybe 3 or 4 could be one. So where does this difference come from? Between the 170.000 pictures there should be some pictures able to reach the FP status, but on the other hand myself I think anything out of the ordinary simple straight forward object on a picture gets it harder on an FP, in a contest you want pictures to win with something caracteristicly, a nice mood. If you've any ideas on this please inform me on them, next year there will be a WLM worldwide, probably that will mean even more pictures, if there are problems with the results (I believe those are mainly on the technical part and being to artistic?) how could we solve those? Also I'd like to know your opinions (to all), on which pictures (from the 170 nominees) you think should have won, and why? I guess doing that discussion here is no option so if you've any opinions you want to share on this which we, the organizers from WLM 2012 could use, please share them with me on my talkpage. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As you know I raised this issue here. If only the organisers wouldn't be soo afraid of promoting quality, and soo insistent about quantitative targets, the results could be better. --ELEKHHT22:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I raised exactly the same issue here, as well as in my own country's contest. I hope that next time the national and international organizers finally admit that quantity does not produce automatically quality and act accordingly, limiting the number of photos per user and imposing some minimal quality criteria. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem with your suggestion is that limiting the number of photo's simply means that less monuments get illustrated. Allowing somebody to upload a bit less perfect picture doesn't disallow him to upload a more perfect picture. In the Netherlands out of 12.000 images, 8.000 are used on articles on Wikipedia, Andorra got all monuments covered, in total tens of thousands of monuments got a picture, which they didn't have yet. If we would have limited users to only upload 100 pictures each that would've ment only half that much monuments would've got a picture. Another thing is that the high quantity of pictures mainly comes from the more experiences Wikipedians, new users were allready a bit more picky in what to upload, and wonderful pictures have come across, ok they are not 165.000 quality images, but that's simply impossible. I believe that forbidding to upload a certain picture wont make people upload more pictures of another kind. I think improvements can be made, but on the field of which pictures win the contest in the end, because indeed it seems logical that the 100 best pictures overall should be able to make it as a FP, or at least a big part of those. The pictures suitable for FP are between the uploaded pictures, but seeing the nominations they don't yet end up that much as winners. I think over there we can win something, but disallowing uploads seems ridicule to me, I'm sorry. But improvements on what gets picked in the end could be made, and exact plans for that would be welcome. You guys simply calling out that the contest is crap wont be of any use. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon.. looking to the results of thw WLM contest for Romania ro:Wikipedia:WLM.. I find that these images cannot have success to FPC and some of them neither to QIC.. the winner of this contest is too over-processed/kitsch.. and all these HDR / over saturation effects makes the images not useful for wikipedia.. I have the feeling that an image in order to be used in a wikipedia article has to be with neural colors, without heavily artistic effects that make distortions to the colors, high HDR etc. Ggia (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not linked to the proposal in any way, but please, keep in mind that WLM is mainly a free photo contest, not necessarely a "photos for Wikipedia" contest. Also see the last bullet of my message here--Strainu (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vorbesc si limba romana ;-) dar o-sa scriu in limba engleza aici (=I speak also romanian lanuage ;-) but I will write in english here). Me as a photographer I like shooting b&w film since 1993 and I have a lot of images published in my blog [7]. The images that I publish in commons, I publish them because I think they can used somehow in wikipedia project (they are not the same with the images I publish in my blog). If a photographic contest is running.. I suppose that the goal of a contest should be the images to have some encyclopedic value and to be used in the wikipedia. These images should not be extreme processed or have distortions in the colors in order to illustrate a encyclopedic article. Ggia (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 22:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It is a nice effect that the beak is poiting directly towards to camera, and that you can see from the eyes that the bird is looking right at the camera. So it is definately good timing. But as Claritas mentioned, too soft, and I also find the light is too dull. --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't a scan from a manuscript be featured ? These are of significant historical and illustrative merit, showing the method of a seventeenth century scientist. --Claritas (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is simple my opinion. The name of this side is: "Featured picture candidates" and not "Featured manuscript candidates". But we can wait for other votes and opinions. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with alchemist. i thinlk it is not well fit for the scope of FP. Very high value though. Yesterday, I was just sitting and browsing these exact pages and found it rather interesting, although I also found much of it hard to read and understand. Feel free to start, FM, and discuss the scope and setup for such a project. At least that is how I initiated VI... --Slaunger (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - thanks for the input. I think FM would be possible in the future, and I'll give some thought as to how it might be implemented. Claritas (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 08:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the poor lighting and composition and significant perspective distortion --Claritas (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 13:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cockroach head.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cockroach head.jpg
Oppose -- Everything looks out of focus, it is not as sharp as many other macros. Not the best angle either. Background is distracting and has overexposed areas. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 13:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Embrasure of bunker 57 of Bolzano barrage in the Alpine Wall.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Embrasure of bunker 57 of Bolzano barrage in the Alpine Wall.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 11:58:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Emerald Cockroach Wasp.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emerald Cockroach Wasp.JPG
Oppose Contrast was pushed too far, as well as saturation. The background ain't ideal either, looks like it's levitating. In any case a black or a white, unicolor background would've been better.--Paolo Costa (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 02:01:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster - Island of Lost Men 01.jpg
Rationale: High resolution, attractive poster. Illustrative of topic. Irrefutably PD.
Oppose - 1,551 × 2,361 pixels is inadequate for a poster. The resolution is not high enough to read all the text easily - it's difficult to read the "country of origin: USA" at the bottom right . The scan could be a lot better: white patch on the left, chromatic aberration around the letters etc. I also don't see how this poster is of high historic, artistic or illustrative merit. Also, the description page does not cover the retouching done or the poster itself in adequate detail. Sorry, --Claritas (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "high historic, artistic or illustrative merit", the only thing more illustrative of the film is the film itself... which is not PD and will not be PD for a good period of time, with the current copyright lobbyist atmosphere. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think promotional photos for the film (which are generally PD), if they exist, would of much greater illustrative merit. In any case, the image would have to be of extraordinary encyclopaedic value for me to support it despite the technical flaws. --Claritas (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ones like this have copyright notices on them (sadly, I personally like the poster...). Others, like this, may or may not have been renewed (and I am halfway around the world from the US copyright office, so I would never be able to check). Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very unlikely, but without a very thorough check unable to be uploaded to Commons. I've been dying to get a picture of The Shirelles as well, but because the online copyright catalog does not go back far enough... Oh well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like it. Good colors, a topic where we do not have too much in our gallery. Resolution is in the low end for a scan. --Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 02:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black genitalia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black genitalia.jpg
Oppose - Per Ottava's comment about the Flickr account (we must be absolutely stringent about personality rights in a case like this) and the fact that this photo does not represent the best of Commons to our viewers. Steven Walling • talk06:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in favour of the image, it is a work by a notable artist, and perhaps a useful illustration of its subject. But there are obvious ethical issues with featuring the products of sex tourism (if it is indeed by Klashorst), and there are potential legal issues with the file per Ottava Rima. --Claritas (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- I don't understand the rationale of your opposition. Or maybe you are just joking? Anyway, let's add a FPX templare to this thread and see what happens! Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (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 the reasons stated above regarding formal and ethical issues. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2011 at 22:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Geochelone carbonaria 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geochelone carbonaria 01.jpg
Oppose - the black background is inappropriate. Much more educational to see an animal in its habitat. I agree with kaʁstn that the lighting could be improved too. --Claritas (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with Carschten. Looks oversharpened and cut-out.
Oppose same here. Not a huge fan of harsh flash light, and this picture screams "I was taken with harsh front flash and low ISO". - Benh (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 15:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20090714 Mavrovo lake church summer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20090714 Mavrovo lake church summer.jpg
Comment thanks for supporting my image.. but I don't think it deserves to have FP status.. not because of the quality (I can upload a better version with a little higher qualirt) but due to the general composition, colors the image is not featurable. My recent nomination (IMO it is better than this one) from Mavrovo was that [8] but it didn't succeed to get the FP status. Ggia (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for that, but I think the object on he image is pretty interesting and makes sense for the image to get an FA status. I can withdraw this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my comment it just a comment (my opinion has no stronger value than others - even if I am the photographer of this image).. if you think that other people will like the image and support you don't have to withdraw it! Ggia (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2011 at 21:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alpensteinböcke, Capra ibex auf der Sulzfluh 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alpensteinböcke, Capra ibex auf der Sulzfluh 1.JPG
Info Descending from the Sulzfluh 2.817m, shortly before it goes into the throat, we disturb the siesta of the Alpine ibex. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light not perfect. There is a "wow factor" only if I zoom in and see the animal directly looking at me/at the camera position with the two eyes far apart. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 23:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Korab, Republic of Macedonia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Korab, Republic of Macedonia.jpg
Oppose It is a pretty view, but the composition does not seem balanced to me. Moreover, the texture of the mountainsides looks very odd (lacks detail) indicating one or more of the following effects in an unhealthy cocktail: Oversaturation, soft focus, aggressive noise reduction (or some other "prettyfication") and/or an overall not so good image quality from the camera. --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 12:47:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ultrasound of fetal spine at 20 weeks 3D Dr. Moroder.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ultrasound of fetal spine at 20 weeks 3D Dr. Moroder.jpg
InfoThis image is not a photograph but has been generated by high frequency (5Mhz) mechanical vibrations. Therefore rules of photography do not apply in determining the image quality in terms of pixels.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - really too small. I'd suggest nominating for valued image status. It is possible to create a 2MPx ultrasound image, so while the "rules of photography" may not apply, our rules concerning image size still do. --Claritas (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoThe biggest image size I can produce with a ultrasound device is a 3Dcolor bitmapped image 1,78 MB. As far as I read image size is not essential for FP it is only for QI --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the width × height (in pixels) of the image which is mentioned in the guidelines not to be confused by the file size in Mb. This product shall under normal circumstances be above 2 million (2 Mpixels), unless there are good mitigating reasons. (Your type of ultrasound generated image may or may not be considered mitigatable, but that depends on the opinion of the reviewers and the per pixel information content). Interesting and refreshing topic though. --Slaunger (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. The point is, that ultrasound images have a low resolution due to the wavelenght of mechanical vibrations compared to electromagnetic vibrations (light). These physical facts should be considered by reviewers. Therefore, I stated and repeat it that this is NOT a photography but it is a picture and that should not preclude it to become FP--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Did I say it was a photo :-)? I have been working for years with Scanning tunneling microscopes which produces computer generated images like this in less than 2Mpixel resolution, so I know what you mean, which is also the reason I say the technique may be considered a reason for mitigating the minimum 2Mpixel resolution guideline. --Slaunger (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 12:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lac du Great St Bernard Pass, 2010 August.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lac du Great St Bernard Pass, 2010 August.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 22:34:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau de Chantilly, La Chapelle.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau de Chantilly, La Chapelle.jpg
Info created by Gilles Messian (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Comment The composition and colours are good. Focus is a little soft at places given the after all limited resolution. The photo appears to have blown areas at the windows (I have not checked). I realise that the lightning conditions are very hard to control. Overall, the photo seems a little overexposed. I will not vote pro or con as I am not certain what is reasonable to expect concerning exposure control given the circumstances. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - slightly too dark on the left hand side, windows overblown (understandable but regrettable), and technical quality generally not FP standard. I understand that this is a difficult shot. --Claritas (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 14:41:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hausen im Wiesental - Katholische Kirche2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hausen im Wiesental - Katholische Kirche2.jpg
Neutral That trampoline is an eyesore and distracting, and to some extent the stone oven as well. Good colors and quite good quality. At full res, the sky is somewhat noisy, but not a big problem for me, just an observation. --Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I like the composition, but the trampoline detracts from the image. As Alchemist-hp said, the image could be sharper around the top church tower, especially on the clock-faces. This is a QI to me, but not a FP. --Claritas (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality as usual from author, but per Jebulon. Would be better without trampoline for sure (it's quite noticeable). Some small issues with source pictures (blurred part on the right clock) and maybe a minor stitch error on right edge of the tower, but fixing them won't change my mind. - Benh (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Wladyslaw, this is a misinterpretation. I just pointed out, that the "wow factor" is limited IMO, because it is a relatively common motif and to me there is nothing special about this church. I didn't gave nor intended to give a statement of whether I like or dislike this church. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 21:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nobel BrianSchmidt 2011-12-08.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nobel BrianSchmidt 2011-12-08.ogv
Oppose -- Valuable interview I suppose but I don't see any audio/visual brilliance. Is this nomination just because the subject won a Nobel prize? Colin (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated this video because it has high quality, which is rare amongst videos on the Commons. Having an interview with a nobel prize winner available under a free licence is great and I consider this content worthy as well. The often quoted WOW factor for images does not apply for documentation vidoes such as this interview in my opinion. In a nutshell quality and content made me feature it. Regards, PETER WEISTALK09:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a valuable interview with a notable person and the technical quality is quite good both visually and audio-wise. But it does not really stand out for me as something exceptional. The interviewer is clearly not very experienced as compared to a professional interviewer on TV, and the production with the setting and the background is not very attractive. I really had to restrain myself from not "zapping" away right from the start. It became better though along the way, except for the end, where the interviewer runs out of questions. And it is even my domain, as I am educated as a physicist. The interview targets the young interested in science and wondering about which career to take. However, I do not think many 15-year olds would see the video from end to end. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. Do you have an example of an interview on Commons where you say it was better done? Finding a experienced interviewer is quite hard, and Axel is one of the best Wikimedians for communication i know about in Sweden. How can we find a better? The background setting is the same all media got with the laureates. How do you think one could get more out of the scene? What should be done better from preventing you zapping away? Who should these videos mainly target? Which questions are the most interesting having answered in a Wikipedia article? We decided to focus more on their biography and personal development instead of research. I'm a physicist, too, and could have talked to him (and Shechtman) about physics, but is this really what readers are interested in? I'm asking all these questions since we may do some more interviews in the future, and making them even better. This was so far the first attempt. --Prolineserver (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prolineserver. Good and many questions. I do not have examples of interviews on Commons, which is better done. But I also do not think that videos is not the optimal media format on Commons the way Commons is set up now. The problem is that it is very hard to compete with the resources, gear and professionalism of journalists and interviewers on commercial TV stations. Given the boundary conditions for you folks, and gven it was the first attempt, I think the end result was very good. Yet, it just does not really stand out, as we are used to the standards in commercial broadcasts. I think the topic for the interview is good, and I agree with you that it is less alienating than speaking about the physics, as only very narrow group would follow that. Some ideas for future imprevements though. Bring a piece of uniformly colored cloth, e.g., black or grey, that can be suspended in the background to give it a studio-feel. There are too many distracting elements in the background as it is now. Consider to bring some lightning and set that up if possible. Consider standing up by a small cafe table instead. It usually gives more energetic interviews in my opinion than the laid-back sitting down interview. When standing up, there are also better possibilities to make gestures with hand and body I think. Consider blending in still photos from the laurates youth and childhood to set the words he use in context. Ideally, if a photo of him with his favotire high school teacher was available. Having one long clip with an interview can be a little boring to look at. The interviewer should omit the superfluous "Good" or "That's good" when the laurate hands over the word. The interviewer should not run out of questions. Some of the things I propose may actually worsen things. I dunno, live media and its toolbox is not something I am terribly knowledgable about, but try and see what works. I also think just getting some more experience doing these things will help, so keep working . --Slaunger (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing. The microphone. If possible use microphones clipsed to the clothes of the individuals participating in the interview. --Slaunger (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A videolight and better microphones are already on our shopping list, sound actually turned out to be the hardest part. I found another video of a Nobel laureate on Commons, but it is by no means better. I don't think that we cannot reach the quality of professionals due to lack of resources, Commons photos can compete. Though the chance of accidentally taking a great photo is higher than accidentally making a good video, most of the good-quality pictures on Commons are taken by experienced amateur photographers with gear much worse than that of professionals. The key is experience. And we have to find ways of minimizing the need/influence of an interviewer. My big question is still: What kind of videos are most useful?
Regarding the specific setting we will probably not be able to improve it much to next year. All media is using it, and all have a 5-min-slot: Moving/setting up the equipment, doing the interview, and removing everything while the next one is setting up. The maximum one can do is moving the Nobel laureate and his chair around. Do you really think a standing interview is better? Most of the interviews are done while sitting. Many people tend to move quite a lot which makes it harder to get a headshot. You are talking about gestures, but they are not visible at all in the crop I have chosen. What do you think is the best crop?
SVT and Nobelprize.org had much better interview possibilities. Do you think this is less boring? Would it be more interesting? What do you think about the cutting? It was probably done with one camera only, which is quite annoying since his right hand shifts around. The best setting got SVT between the award ceremony and the banquet (34:30). So final question: Which of these interviews are best fitting in a biography? --Prolineserver (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 16:16:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 20:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jacobus Koelman.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jacobus Koelman.jpeg
Support Very good quality and detail level. It is fascinating how every line in the engraving form the portrait. Interesting subject also and good file page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 11:43:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kopfloser Böhringer.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kopfloser Böhringer.JPG
Comment This is a very funny and well conmposed photo (albeit the crop is tight on its sides). But what is the informational and educational content? --Slaunger (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shows a valuable approach for children. The boy buried his teammates is delivered completely. He is dependent on the confidence of his friend. We also see that in addition to Game Boys and computers themselves can experience fun games and it creates memories for later. Sorry for my English. --Böhringer (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, That is a good explanation, and your English is fine (for a Dane at least). Really a nice photo, but cannot really support due to the crop. --Slaunger (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Uh-oh. Lighting problem here. I know it is very tough to get the correct light and the sea at the bottom at the beach. But featured is featured, and crop here is tight, with the light behind the face and body. Some (very slightly) disturbing elements too. Awesome idea though, thanks for the picture, I'm gonna try it myself when I go to the beach with my friends next time! --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bravo Böhringer, something different and exciting! How did you put the head back? ;). A smart cloning would solve the extreme crop at right but I'm not skilled enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This intelligent image illustrates a German play on words: "kopflos". It means: to be headless in a panic, panicky, to get into a flap, to lose one's head. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The work needed on that article on the English Wikipedia should not have anything to do with Commons. Visual gag describe the type of information displayed in the photo. It's not a critique term. A visual gag is a common term meaning a trick on people's vision. The trick is that it looks like the boy bending over is holding his own head. Royalbroil06:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 23:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stone Urn, Trent Park, Enfield.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stone Urn, Trent Park, Enfield.jpg
Abstain as author -- Str Photo 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment Very good quality technically speaking, adequate depth of field. I believe the crop is really too tight and doesn't allow the urn to breathe, if I may say so. --MAURILBERT(discuter)05:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technical quality is high with a crisp object. But the crop below is too tight my liking, the background is somewhat distracting, and the light is a little dull. The stone urn itself is fine, but not very eyecatching with the centered composition (which is OK though, due to the mirror symmetry of the urn in the vertical plane). Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOK, thanks for your constructive comments, I reverted to original crop which was a bit wider on the right, but am withdrawing it anyway.Stu Phillips--Str Photo 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Str Photo 17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 22:07:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Quite good. The light is a bit dull though, and that is my main objective for not supporting. At full resolution (21 MP!) there is noticeable color noise on the breast, where it is also a little soft. I just took a 8 Mpixel preview (which is more fair), and there the color noise is hardly noticable and it is also sharper, so not a real problem, just an observation. --Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed and the overcast light is coming from behind a poor angle, leaving much of the face and body in shadow. The choice of aperture has left the image quite unsharp too. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 08:21:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Upernavik cemetary 2007-08-06 original stitch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upernavik cemetary 2007-08-06 original stitch.jpg
Info Created, stitched and uploaded by Slaunger - edited by Paolo Costa - nominated by Slaunger. This is a follow-up on a previous nomination I withdrew recently based on review comments suggesting some improvements. More foreground, and quality issues addressed. Please consider, that no downsampling has been used in this 35 Mpixel edit, and the stitch is based on single frames taken in 2007 with a compact camera. To see how it looks in, e.g., 10 Mpixel resolution see the discussion page of this nomination. Thanks to benh and Paolo for a fruitful dialog regarding the possibilities for image improvement. Independent of the outcome, it has been a fun process. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry guys, but quality is just not there: the image is unsharp, noisy and lacks detail. I also find the composition unbalanced, due to the shape of the hill, and wonder whether a different shooting positiom wold have helped. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. I know there's no weak support over here, but this is what I mean. Superb view of not mainstream place and nice composition à la Boringher ;) but lighting a bit flat on the right side and overall quite soft. But we have to take into account the size of the picture... It certainly would render better than many of our sharp FP (including some of mine...) on a given fixed size "canvas". And very nice fixes from Paolo !! - Benh (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (ec) Regarding noise. Yes, if you open the file in full resolution and inspect a section of this 35 Mpixel image at a time, it is noisy, and also a little soft in focus. However, in my opinion, the pixel-by-pixel noise and softness is not noticable in any practical real-world application of the image. Be it as a full screen view on a monitor or as a large printout. Noise can be decreased a lot by downsampling, and I have done that previously here and here for instance. But I am done with this trick as the downsampling also results in a loss of information. The more I work with images, the more I feel that postprocessing like downsampling, sharpening and denoising ruins the photo - giving it either an artificial look or lower information value. There are exceptions though. like it can make sense to denoise a large homogenous area with basically no information. Like blue sky. That could be done here, but really, in the end, it would not matter in any real-world application. --Slaunger (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding noise.. if the image will be downsample to 2megapixels, the noise will not be visible. If some of you have knowdelge of engineering.. you probably know the Signal to noise ratio. This ratio describes how strong is the signal concerning the noise. If the signal is very strong, the noise can be ignored. In electrical engineering (ie. telecommunications) you don't try to see who much actual noise you have but you are interested to have a strong signal. I believe that the community has to justify image in a similar way. When you have a 35mpixel image you have to see the ratio of image size (image information) / noise (lets call it INR: Image to Noise Ratio): Ggia (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- As any other regular, I'm perfectly aware that some allowance should be given when examining a digital photo in full size. "Full size" means here the size of the image as captured by the sensor and reproduced on a computer screen with the usual enlargement factor. Knowing that a panorama is just a mosaic of several individual pictures, I don't see why additional allowance for unsharpness & etc should be given in that case. The argument of Benh concerning the practical real-world application of the image is invalid in my opinion. Either the picture is supposed to be used in full size (on screen or as a printed copy) or it should be downsampled because the extra pixels are useless. I've always been against downsampling but, on the other hand, consider that big photos should be assessed exactly the same way as the small ones. A quick browsing through our FP panoramas (including Boringher's ones) shows that their sharpness, focus and detail are in general much better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By evaluating the per pixel sensor quality instead of the end result, which is the image in its entirety, you get some very odd drivers for promotion. For instance, this is a stitch of 9 photos. To get as much detail and information as possible I used zoom on the camera knowing well that the per pixel noise will increase, because I get less light on the sensor. I could as well have chosen to take just three photos at its widest angle, as the pixel noise will be at its minimum for the sensor. In that way I could have produced a 10 Mpixel stitch of the same scenary with a significantly lower pixel noise and better sharpness per pixel. But that image would not contain nearly as much information. You say, that you should see an image at full size. I do not think that makes sense. If on a screen, you simply do not have a screen 12000 pixels wide (at least I don't). If you click on an image to see it in its entirety on a monitor, the viewing software makes the downsampling for you to make it fit. and the the per pixel noise viewed decreases, and the per pixel shapness increases on screen. Likewise, if you use a printed media, I would claim that you do not chose a paper format based on the number of pixels, but rather scale the pixels to the format you want, tolerating a low or high dpi in the final result. I think it is an oddity to include the method used in the review. That just because it is a panorama, the detail level shall be much better than if you too the same scenary with a wide angle lens in a single shot. It is the end result, which matters. --Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Last remark about the noise. The discussion above is very theoretical perhaps. To make it easier to understand I have collected some examples of the image sampled at different resolutions starting from HD resolution, to minimum FP resolution all the way up to full resolution. And finally, the apparently crisp HD upsampled to full resolution, where the information loss is evident. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment opposing votes will turn photographers in the future to upload a non-full resolution of images. One can say.. Why to upload an image @35megapixels and receive oppose votes? I will upload @12 megapixels and everybody will be happy.. (no oppose votes due to noise). It is clear in the examples in the discussion-page that this image in lower resolutions has no noise. This image has high information and very low noise (concerning the size-resolution). Ggia (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As editor, and because, as I said from the beginning, I think it is important to have some panos from all around the world. The other files from Upernavik did not have as great light conditions as this file. Sky is nice, the sea is beautiful, houses are colorful, and those nice icebergs give an idea of how cold the place must be. This place even gives you an idea how a cemetary looks like. I always wonder what kind of cities and towns exist around the world, in such isolated places like Greenland, Tibet, Iceland, Far Oer islands, etc. This is a great way to help users like me get that picture. That's why I really do not care about quality in this case (besides, we are not even talkin about a disaster picture here, noise is not that bad imo). Finally, this was an example of a nice voluntary-group-job. Things like this should be supported on the Wiki projects. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added another downsizing example to the talk page. I don't understand the comments about noise -- this image doesn't suffer from noise much (there's a little in the sky). What it suffers from is a lack of detail. Of the many reasons I listed on the talk page, the likely culprit is aggressive in-camera noise reduction. Like many pictures taken with a compact camera, the official resolution is an order of magnitude greater than that actually recorded onto JPG. Add to that the processing necessary to make a panorama, and we've got an image that can comfortably be reduced 50% with no loss of information. For panoramas especially, we should not be uploading huge images for no good reason. This image should, IMO, be downsized 50% from 35MP to 9MP. There are valid reasons to oppose downsizing but this watered-down image is not one of them. Colin (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Something which also makes me happy is that it's not among the most common locations of the earth photographed for Commons. We definitely need good pictures from all over the world. Novadays, especially from the more unexpected sites of this globe. --Ximonic (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 16:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:"An MP on motorcycle stands ready to answer all calls around his area. Columbus, Georgia.", 04-13-1942 - NARA - 531136.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:"An MP on motorcycle stands ready to answer all calls around his area. Columbus, Georgia.", 04-13-1942 - NARA - 531136.tif
Support This image was previously nominated on August 30, 2011, but reviewers requested it be restored first. This has now been done by User:Elinruby. Note that we have many photos of African-American soldiers serving in World War II, but none show that the military was segregated as clearly and dramatically as this one.-- agr (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Image has many dust spots. Some fibers too. I think this B/W image lacks a tiny bit of sharpness contrast even if the S curve is ok. The subject doesn't have ideal lighting (shadow easily visible), achievabe by taking the picture at day. I know this may be valuable but it has many details that don't convince me. The question: is it normal to upload Tiff images? Shouldn't this be converted to jpg? (pd: the expression of the cop playin the tough guy is hilarious! How times change!) --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 20:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica December 2011-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica December 2011-8.jpg
Info OK, here it is a challenge to the pano below! The issues mentioned at QIC, and many more related to the "stitched sea", were addressed carefully (it took a long time because my team has only one member :) ). Quality is on the fine side and the picture has, for me, a beautiful light and an inspiring minimalist composition. No downscaling whatsoever. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Comment I had to read "dull light" and "nothing extraordinary" very often at FPC (and in lots of cases I don't agree)... And/But so I'm really surprised about some candidates, e.g. this one, because both issues are fulfilled here. Hmm... --kaʁstnDisk/Cat21:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same here. And as per some previous pano nom of yours for the dull lighting (looks like taken the same day, I didn't go back and check the dates). I don't see the point with the composition. Beside, there are some stitching errors (but it's surprising there are such few ones actually). - Benh (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the main problem here is lighting. Composition is not optimal, WB looks blueish, some surfers are too black. But still, I would support a version with less sky, geotag, and with the major stitching error fixed (see annotations). --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Thank you for noticing the errors, they are fixed now. Lighting is as I remember when the shot was made, with a marvelous blueish tone covering eveything. I won't crop the sky as I like the centered horizon and the image would become too long and narrow. Geotag is included. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2011 at 16:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coimbra December 2011-12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coimbra December 2011-12.jpg
4802
159
331
423
5292
5119
Dust spot in this zone
Info OK, here it is a replacement for the nomination withdrawn below. The tower of the University of Coimbra (here), an iconic image of the city, was rebuild in the eighteen century and restored recently. At left, the manueline door of the Chapel of Saint Michael, built in the begining of the sixteenth century. Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support I may be biased. I stayed in Coimbra for three days 15 years ago, and I liked the atmospere in the town very much, especially this area at the university. I am happy to see it again, now I just need to hear some fado. Good image quality and composition. --Slaunger (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) This picture has nice quality (though issue mentioned after), but I'm still missing wow here. Sorry. A few other minor issues to me: 1. you might want to check the white balance. It's not on par with the two previous nom. 2. pano size is 5312 × 5055 pixels but viewing at full size reveals pixelisation. Either the image size is incorrect, or it was upsampled, or my softs are wrong. - Benh (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Sorry about the pixelation, that was an artifact generated by my lousy image application when rotating/distorting (Corel PhotoPaint). I re-started everything and a brand new version was uploaded. The white balance was checked and a very slight correction, maybe not perceptible, was made towards a lower temperature (more red). We can't compare this picture with the other one though because the light was not exactly the same. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Chernilevsky. And... I don't like the crop at top (I know the square and I can't say nothing at left and at right). Dust spot (see approximate note)--Miguel Bugallo20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Collybia-platyphylla.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Collybia-platyphylla.jpg
Question The photo appears very color saturated to me. Has the color knob been turned in postprocessing? If yes, how aggressively? --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the color histograms in GIMP. They appear not to have been manipulated. If that is the case I am impressed by the crispness and colorfulness of the motif. --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither me nor Holleday haven't retouched the photo. It's true, it is rare to have mushrooms as well enlightened, it is more usual to see in the dark undergrowth. --Citron (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2011 at 12:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dn nasva 0854.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dn nasva 0854.jpg
Support Beautiful image, but image size is very low, I hadn't noticed, therefore I changed my vote. I still think quality is ok for my taste, but what about the suggestion of not posting below 2 Mp? Was this downsampled? --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image quality looks surprisingly fine despite the small filesize/imagesize ratio. Come to think about it, I think it's fine. That picture is mostly plain pale blue and white, so there's no so much information inside. - Benh (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File size may sometimes be important as the jpeg file size (roughly speaking) increases with increasing information in the photo (intended subject and non-intentional noise). A low file size can be indicative of too aggressive jpeg compression, upsampling or excessive noise reduction, or in this (not a problem) case due to large homogenuous areas with little "diff" in the background. Since a small file size may be alright for some images, we do not have a guideline for it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 08:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leaves in the forest after the rain2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leaves in the forest after the rain2.JPG
Oppose - technically, nice photograph. But I see it as being of very limited educational value, and it has no "wow" factor for me.--Claritas (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 22:19:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schiffmühlen von Lorenzkirch und Strehla um 1840.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schiffmühlen von Lorenzkirch und Strehla um 1840.jpg
Oppose -- Too grainy. Even if this is a faithful reproduction of the original, it's too distracting. It's apparent even on the thumbnail. Royalbroil13:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction of a typical print of that time (with the "pointillist" effect indeed). Nice and interesting picture. Are you sure about the date? It seems rather early for a chromolithograph. -- MJJR (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2011 at 22:55:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Venezuela - Caracas - Parque del Este (58)-Venezuela - Caracas - Parque del Este (72)-4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Venezuela - Caracas - Parque del Este (58)-Venezuela - Caracas - Parque del Este (72)-4.jpg
Neutral It is weird. The photo appears overexposed by eye to me, but when I look at the color histograms, there is not a sign thereof. No clipping or blown areas, and I do not think there was before the exposure correction either (although I have not checked). I think the apparent overexposure is due to harsh light conditions characteristic of the near-equatorial latitude and the time of day. Although it is not stated in the file page what time of day it is, I guess it is not more than a few hours from noon? . Besides that, very good image quality, and quite good composition, although it does not give full readings on my wow-o-meter. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 02:11:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A small yellow flower refracted in rain droplet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A small yellow flower refracted in rain droplet.jpg
Oppose The idea is good, but the main subject is really very small, and the sharpness is far from the expected quality of FP, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Jebulon supported a similar nomination above this one, so to be consistent you should too, should you not :-)
On a more serious note, of course the flower refracted in a droplet is small, but it is sharp, and I believe the image is still an interesting one, and something different. Could be used for meditation :-) --Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 02:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grass with rain droplets in which flower is reflected.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grass with rain droplets in which flower is reflected.jpg
Oppose (weak) Reminds me of the last Richard Bartz's (long ago now). Nice idea, and I like the fact we see the flower in some of the droplets. But it's a bit soft (bee aside). And since the picture is not huge (barely meets requirements), not so many details in the end. I wish the EXIF were there as well. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image has nothing to do with beautiful macros by Richard. This image is about the flower refraction in rain droplets, and the bee was just there by the way. It is not a macro of a bee, but it is one of the best images on Commons in this category, and it is something different. If promoted it probably would have got to finals of POTD. BTW commons have no "weak" or "strong" votes. They all count the same.
I know there's no weighted votes over here. I simply wanted to show that I was close to support. And if the image really was about droplets, maybe the focus would have been more on the droplets themselves rather than on the bee, which is the sharpest part. There's only one oppose anyways, so maybe the withdrawal is a bit too hastened. And although you're one of the finest contributors over here (as your records show), be careful not to being too self confident... - Benh (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, you are so funny :-) Between "support" and "oppose" there is "abstain" or simply not voting :-) Besides, if you were "close to support" you could have voted "weak support" that of course is much better than "weak oppose" :-) There 7 or 8 droplets with the flower seen.
But to tell you the truth I took this image for myself. I uploaded it to English wiki, to use at my user page there, and at my personal web site. I was not going to transfer it to commons. Somebody else did, and, when I noticed it was transferred, I decided to nominate it only to check, if it really would get to the finals of POTY as I believed it would. Now with your "weak oppose" even, if it is promoted, it will be too late to get to this year POTY, and I do not care about the next year, because as I said I am not back. I was just passing by, and this has nothing to do with your "oppose".--Mbz1 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 17:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skeppsbron december 2010.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skeppsbron december 2010.JPG
Comment Not oversatured IMO, natural colours direct from the camera. Why F/22, must have been a mistake but I do not think it affects the picture that much. Unsharp, maybe but there was snow in the air.--ArildV (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not sure it was possible to get a good picture under these difficult conditions. But putting the camera in autoexposure is not a good choice. Better to take several shots with different exposure solutions (bracketing) and pray for someone to get right! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The mood of the place is very well captured in a way unusual to featured pictures here. It's not oversaturated IMO. / Achird (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's so unusual a mood, (I have myself contributed a few dusk shots, as I like the genre pretty much) albeit it's true that the Xmas tree gives a nice touch to the picture. But the quality is way insufficient and I don't think it was because of the difficult conditions but rather because the camera settings were not optimal. Framing is a bit tight as well. - Benh (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per alchemist. If you insisted on the five second exposure time to get motion blur I would have chosen the lowest possible ISO (100 or lower) and have opened the aperture to circumvent the diffraction limit. View is nice though. --Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2012 at 12:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Otaru-Unga.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Otaru-Unga.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of excessive noise and oversharpness. --Claritas (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 08:37:27
Info I think that this photo of mine was of questionable quality already at the time of promotion in March 2008. Lens dirt problems and a soft focus oin the right hand side. It is a (lucky) point and shoot with a compact camera taken in 2007. But now, 3.5 years later it is really not on par with present FP quality. It still has value and wow, and I am proud that it has lead image status in water, but I do not think it belongs in our FP gallery anymore. (Original nomination)
Keep - per Alchemist-hp. I would have been happy enough to be able to take such point-and-shoot, even lucky ! Are you fishing for compliments ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2011 at 18:59:49
Info I'm sorry but I don't think it meets the criteria. I saw it as POTD and I was a bit surprised. I see some better pictures on QIC which not always succeed there. In my opinion, quality is not good enough for a FP and composition could be better, the crop up is too tight and, being a centered composition, which is not bad, it's not exactly in the middle (and that could be some kind of desirable symmetry, imo). And —tell me if I'm wrong— I'd say that in 2010 any FP candidate needed at least seven votes, and this one has only six. (Original nomination)
Comment Thanks. I could add some blue sky at the top, but there is nothing much I can do about enhancing the resolution or the lateral composition. All in all, you're probably right, compared to the general FP standard. --JN46600:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please give me a few days; I'll do some work on it over the holidays to fix the tight crop, and upload a revised version. Cheers, --JN46614:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question to a sysop. Can we please prolong the voting period until changes have been done? (The voting period is supposed to end tomorrow, probably too soon to have a new version). Kadellar (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I've now re-cropped the image. I've taken a little off the left-hand side, and there's more sky at the top. (You may need to purge your cache to see the changes on this page.) --JN46613:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 06 Jan 2012 at 13:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral-of-Christ-the-Saviour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral-of-Christ-the-Saviour.jpg
Comment - can you crop the foreground to remove the motion blur ? It's really distracting from what's otherwise a very nice image. --Claritas (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 17:54:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2012 at 12:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:地球岬.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:地球岬.jpg
Oppose Severe tilt, nothing really outstanding for my taste, and lack of "latin alphabet" description. Could somebody translate, please, as I can't know what is shown here ? It seems to be a lighthouse in the japanese island of Hokkaido if I look at the categories, but I'm not sure.--92.151.242.172 19:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry I was not logged in.--Jebulon (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 11:28:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Durer -The Promenade.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Durer -The Promenade.jpeg
Oppose Exquisite detail level. I am probably a cold-hearted art ignorant when saying this, but this engraving does not really get to me nearly as much as for instance Melancholia or many other of Dürers works, like the Apocalypse series. --Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that this is one of the less interesting Dürer engravings from an aesthetic point of view. Still, it's a work of art of undoubted historical importance.--Claritas (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are very many pieces of artwork, which has historical importance, and in that case we might as well feature almost all of Dürers works, provided they are available in adequate technical quality:-) For me, FP is the one in a thousand image, thus only for the best of or by the best, even when created by a very good and notable artist like Dürer. The objective for this standpoint is to maintain diversity in our FP gallery. --Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As my opinion, it doesn't fair if we would do the way you said. How would some pictures that deserve FP but because they are from the same artist, which make them not FP? If all Dürers works deserve FP then we should FP them all. Give them what they deserve. The objective to maintain diversity is a picky unfair way of picking FP. I also think the ratio is pretty much unfair too. 1:1000? Why does it has to be like that? FP should not following any kind of ratio or rule that limit the actual FP standard. Give the pictures what they deserve FP regardless of whatever. This is the same as trying to force people to take other "rare" pictures to apply for FP. This wouldn't affect the diversity at all because people will apply whatever pictures they got.
Concerning the ratio I think 1:1000 is actually a higher ratio than we currently have on Commons if you count the number of FPs vs the number of image files on Commons. So it is not a rule (or my personal rule), it reflects (ballpark) things as they are now. I am open to "several" of Dürers works being featured if they are of sufficient importance, and quality, but not all of them, even if they are all of historical value and has artistic merit. I am not sure how many "several" would be, but probably not more than five in my opinion. But that is just my opinion. I do not mind that other users have other opinions, and that I appear to be overruled by other opinions for this particular nomination. --Slaunger (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the numbers. We have about 3800 FPs on Commons and 11.8 million files of which the vast majority are images. That gives an FP ratio of approximately 1:3000 (rounding down to closest thousand), so I was being overly inclusionist in my 1:1000 statement above :-). --Slaunger (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 13:24:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amiant-Körnchenschirmling Cystoderma amianthinum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amiant-Körnchenschirmling Cystoderma amianthinum.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 00:48:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - I agree with Carschten. I also feel that the face of the eagle could be sharper. It's a good picture, but there's nothing about it deserving featured picture status. --Claritas (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Claritas, I made a sharper update. Please see the enlarged image in the resolution 1600 x 1200. I see very small details in the eye and on the feathers of the face. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the warm colours of this eagle versus the background and I feel the composition is quite good also. But the pattern in the feathers looks somewhat posterized and grainy to me. --Ximonic (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2012 at 01:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Diglossa lafresnayii.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diglossa lafresnayii.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 15:07:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:14-55-41-ouv-g.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:14-55-41-ouv-g.jpg
Oppose Neither the filename gives any useful information, nor an adeqate Englisch file description is given. Please provide more information about what we see here and where the photo was taken. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2011 at 19:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hurricane Isabel from ISS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hurricane Isabel from ISS.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 08:08:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A small flower refracted in rain droplets.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A small flower refracted in rain droplets.jpg
Really? Dr. Andrew Young from San Diego University believes otherwise. Here's his discretion of the image: "What a lot of beautiful effects are illustrated here! Images formed by reflection; both real and virtual images formed by refraction; and some fine examples of the contact angle where the droplets meet the plant surface. In some places, the plant cuticle is waxy, and the contact angle is near 90 degrees; in other places, the water wets the surface, and the contact angle is small. The picture is a real museum of physics, in addition to being a beautiful image. Thanks!"--Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very little information is actually conveyed to me concerning the optical phenomena by the image, and the species of plant is unidentified. --Claritas (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a highly intelligent reason to oppose the nomination :-) especially after I provided the description made by a person who really knows what he is talking about versus lycaon, who usually does not. BTW, lycaon, I meant to ask you how come that your sock user:biopics asked your sock user:Wetenschatjedo not edit his user page? I mean when one is talking to himself, isn't it better to do it in private? No worries, I will not ask for an interaction ban to renew because after the first time instead of one lycaon we have got 3 :( Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Mostly out of focus, due to shallow dof (automatic exposure was probably not the best solution). I don't like the tight crop and the distracting background either. I suppose it won't be difficult to repeat the shot. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 10:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0025.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0025.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 15:34:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mitra stictica 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mitra stictica 01.JPG
Oppose It for sure is beautiful object in itself, but I see nothing outstanding from photographic perspective. Maybe on FSC (Featured Shells Candidates)? I don't believe settings are optimal, and the results aren't very sharp. Nice masking job (or looks like so at least, since we don't know where edges truly are) - Benh (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Just because a creator produces a steady flow of high quality photos of a subject related to its other should not be held against him/her. I think this nomination is also very good. Quality is surely adequate given the large resolution of the composition. Having said that it would be nice wih some diversity in the composition, which are almost mechanic now. This layout and composition is very encyclopedic and informational and perfect for VI, but maybe not the composition which best wets the appetite for shells among persons not normally interested in that subject. Something like this, for example is perhaps more eyecatching. I don't know, but it would nice to see some compositional diversity and boldness. Show us shells as we have never seen shells before. --Slaunger (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a creator produces a steady flow of high quality photos of a subject related to its other should not be held against him/her.. And then you oppose the train candidate below because the bar has increased ;). So does the shell bar stand still unlike the trains'? That's no my point anyways, just this picture is not to my tastes like many dislike the dusk panorama I like so much and can find them boring unlike me. But just, I feel like it's a tad harder to get the train picture below right. This one can be repeated a thousand times, yet the settings aren't optimal, and it shows. It's not bad (at all actually), but it could be better, and easy for the author who has his shells collection in sight. And again, what are we voting for? Shell itself (which is beautiful to me), or photographic skills?- Benh (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your line of thought, and sorry for the comment, which, on rereading it, seems a little snide. Concerning my different votes, the difference is that unlike the trains I still have not seen better shell images on Commons than Llez's... I think the shell photos can be done more interestingly, which I am trying to point out, and this drives my symbolic weak. Concerning what we are evaluating, for me it is actually the end result we are voting for, not necessarily the photographers skills or his equipment.... although they are usually correlated. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are too kind a person. Your comment isn't snide at all (contrary to what one can feel when reading mineS, but most of the time, I'm simply a bit too straight). I personally haven't seen better trains' pic than Kabelleger's ;) - Benh (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - high quality reproduction. From a scientific point of view, an "artistic" photograph of shells can be far less useful than this sort of illustration. --Claritas (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Like the French say, mon coeur balance (my heart is divided) between the very good quality and educational value of these pictures and the feeling that a FP should be something special and unique. I have produced FPs of the two types and believe that they are both featurable. Still, when one very good image is promoted, the FP bar seems to automatically adjust as to avoid that very smilar pictures are promoted in the future. This is a good principle in my opinion because it makes our creators to look for better and/or original solutions. In the end, maybe we should only promote these kind of standardized illustrations when they show considerable improvements over the existing FP of the same kind. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2011 at 07:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Brouhot car in Paris, 1910.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Brouhot car in Paris, 1910.jpg
Support – A terrific photo of a bygone era, this is also a finely rendered digital file with excellent contrast: a nicely printable image. I quite like the yellowing, too – it collaborates with the handwriting in the lower left to define this as a photo of an old photograph. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The voting period is over, but not the comment period maybe: I think that the file name is completely out of sense. This venerable picture does not show "Paris in 1910"...--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 14:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-12-13 12-58-49-eglise-st-maimboeuf-montbeliard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-12-13 12-58-49-eglise-st-maimboeuf-montbeliard.jpg
Support -- Excellent picture. I wondered what kind of lighting was used when I saw the magic initials in the Exif info: hdr. By the way, the focal length is wrong. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - crop is slightly too tight at the top IMO - it would be good to have the whole of the crest of arms in the picture. --Claritas (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 15:04:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2011 at 14:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vitelline Masked Weaver male RWD.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vitelline Masked Weaver male RWD.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2012 at 01:12:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Atibaia_River.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Atibaia_River.jpg
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2011 at 13:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment The image is too dark and monotonous. The colors are sleeping. We name this in German: "Dies ist eine graue Maus". The image needs a better contrast and lighter colors. Avoid overexposure by the white color. I tried this in photoshop, it looks great! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Done --Llez (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Neutral Not so much amazing, in my opinion. All shells look flat. However, well arranged. --sNappyml 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Obviously lacking sharpness, this would be avoidable if the camera adjustment where chosen well. It is a impressive view but with this implementation it is not featureable. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
.JPG)
Keep it was simply in the past. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Strong support -- David C. S.
Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Request need a GEO tag and a right description too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
--Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose Agree with Paolo Costa and Elekhh.--Claus (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Weak support already featured on en wikipedia, an excellent image of high quality, great EV (one of humanity's most brilliant minds), nice lighting, but the focus is really weird. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Abstain as creator.--MrPanyGoff 08:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Question What about a recrop at the bottom, to get rid of this unfortunate focal point, aka the red stroller ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
_-_1.jpg)
Oppose Good image from a valuable place, with many positive aspects. But the camera with which the picture was taken is way below the average of FP's (and of course the weird spot in the upper left corner). --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg)
Awesome! catch. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
--Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
-Venezuela_-_Caracas_-_Parque_del_Este_(72)-4.jpg)
Fixed Yes, I do, thanks. Fixed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
?--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_1.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
-Venezuela_-_Caracas_-_Parque_del_Este_(72)-4.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20101009_Fylakio_detention_center_for_immigrants_refugees_Thrace_Evros_Greece.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Teheran_US_embassy_propaganda_grasp.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-12-03T20:12:00.000Z-File:Henry_V.jpeg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_1.jpg){kind=link}
_-_1.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_1.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg){kind=link}
_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
_-_Nymphs_and_Satyr_(1873).jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
-2011-12-07T20:24:00.000Z-File:Boise_State_MSS_122_2_crop.jpeg,_featured){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:20090714_Mavrovo_panoramic_summer_new.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-12-13T20:04:00.000Z-File:Jacobus_Koelman.jpeg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2011-12-13T22:07:00.000Z-File:Sula_nebouxii_-Santa_Cruz,_Galapagos_Islands,_Ecuador-8_(1).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
-Venezuela_-_Caracas_-_Parque_del_Este_(72)-4.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Venezuela_-_Caracas_-_Parque_del_Este_(72)-4.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
