Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2015

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chimborazo 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 17:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral So well-done generally but there's visible CA on the ridgeline to the left of the summit. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 14:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Viktorkirmes auf dem Overbergplatz -- 2014 -- 3738.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 16:06:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo although it would be even better if the distortion wasn't that strong. --Code (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Nice work. -- Pierre André (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrific colors combination, however I might still question this picture usage in articles as it is not a notable site. Still a really great picture. -- Pofka

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 15:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Hammarbykanalen January 2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 11:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Tugboat Leif in Södra Hammarbyhamnen, Stockholm on a very beautiful winter afternoon. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours --LivioAndronico talk 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution, nice colors. A little grainy, but good. Illegitimate Barrister 22:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail and colors; forms of boat and buildings complement each other well. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. --Code (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very beautiful light and composition, but a lot of noise (or traces of noise reduction) too. See annotation. --Kreuzschnabel 09:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kreuzschnabel: thank you for your comment annotation. I did some selective noise reduction and uploaded a new version.--ArildV (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - { Comment Still not convinced, sorry. The ship’s bridge and exhaust pipe are still very grainy, far below today’s standards. Which is a pity, for it’s really a beautiful image, but the technical shortcomings keep me from supporting --Kreuz schnabel 12:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Nice work.-- Pierre André (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: Your vote is invalid unless you sign it --Kreuzschnabel 12:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @,Kreuz, Thank you, I fix this oversight-- Pierre André (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balles2601 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well-composed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 14:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Le Pechoux v Meinhardt Master de fleuret 2014 t210013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 12:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marie-Lan Nguyen - uploaded by Marie-Lan Nguyen - nominated by Pleclown
Info France's Erwann Le Péchoux (L) competes against Gerek Meinhardt of the United States (R) in the pools stage of the 2014 Master de Fleuret Melun Val de Seine. -- Pleclown (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pleclown (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Popo le Chien ^ouah 12:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 14:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Ludwigs monument at Luisenplatz Darmstadt.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2015 at 20:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rijinatwiki - uploaded by Rijinatwiki - nominated by Rijinatwiki -- Rijinatwiki (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rijinatwiki (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI I'm afraid. Rather saturated colours. Not especially sharp. -- Colin (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin + face is unsharp at 100%. --Cayambe (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luray cavern stalactites and stalagmites.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2015 at 18:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tomandjerry211 - uploaded by Tomandjerry211 - nominated by Tomandjerry211 -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment chromatic aberration to be removed. --Kreuz schnabel 05:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Match and match labels, 100 years ago.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 12:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Takkk - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm aware that this picture is not technically perfect, but it's so stunning I had to give it a try. -- Tomer T (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support From an artistic perspective, since it's not perfectly sharp it actually fits the 100 year old theme better. -- Ram-Man 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really don't see anything too wrong with this technically, and it's (ahem) strikingly arranged, colorful, in scope, and not the sort of FPC we usually get. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support for the grand idea. Resolution and sharpness are a bit on the poor side for a studio shot. Lighting is excellent though. --Kreuz schnabel 09:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balles2601 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high EV. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 14:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Thomas Le Clear - Interior with Portraits - Smithsonian.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2015 at 09:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thomas Le Clear - uploaded by Clindberg - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balles2601 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Not enough edits to vote. J e e 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 14:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tor-Arne Moen Natural selection.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2015 at 10:31:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Photograph of the painting (oil on canvas) "Natural selection" by the Norwegian painter Tor-Arne Moen with the painter. Created by Tor-Arne Moen - uploaded by Kjersti Lie - nominated by Torstein -- Torstein (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I saw the comment on the bottom crop. The artist (who is also the photographer) has sent me a new version, which is not cropped at the bottom. What happens with this nomination if I upload that version? I have also read the rules, which say that only one version of a photo can be nominated/featured. Kjersti L. 14:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Info I got no replies, took a chance and uploaded the new version. Kjersti L. 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support -- Torstein (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful portrayal. I especially like the visual "echo" of the painter. Kleuske (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the bottom crop is a tiny bit unfortunate - which doesn't diminish the picture's overall greatness! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jedudědek (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice way to have an image of a painting. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 15:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Crocodylus acutus in la manzanilla.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 20:55:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Tomascastelazo Too busy for me... -- RTA 01:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a special picture quite different from what is normally featured. It is a busy picture and a picture that requires the user to spend a bit a time before the wow is revealed. The fact that the wow is just below the surface makes it more interesting than many other FP's where the wow is obvious. --Pugilist (talk)
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pugilist. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image has been "adjusted" in LR, clarity, contrast, etc., etc., in order to visually represent clamouflaging, or the blending of the croc into the surroundings. When moving it is hard to notice them fast, and while still in the water, they look like a log. Either way they blend in. Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Rodrigo.Argenton already said it is way too busy. It really took time for me to figure out what is pictured here. Maybe that's the main point of this picture that the alligators are hiding perfectly? Still not FP for me, sorry. -- Pofka

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Objetos medicos de uso en Cardiología.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2015 at 19:53:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ivan2010 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Need WB and cut composition --The_Photographer (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swallow-tailed gull (juvenile).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 17:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bird is excellently depicted but the heavy shadow to the left drags attention off the subject. Maybe a crop could help. --Kreuz schnabel 09:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cropped it. You're right, it looks better. Thanks. --Bgag (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, agree. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The shadow is disturbing and you should crop out most of the stone at the right.--XRay ^talk 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Eye 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2015 at 14:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kuebi - uploaded by Kuebi - nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a rare and well done documented process. -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose While I'm not sure I want to know how this came about, it's a great idea and almost perfectly pulled off. However, the image in the upper right is glaringly unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case "Black eye after extraction of a wisdom tooth." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high EV. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. Imo candidate for the Commons:Valued images, no Featured picture. Jedudědek (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESC2014 - Austria 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2015 at 18:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by abbedabb -- abbedabb^talk 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- abbedabb^talk 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is almost identical the one above. It should be alternative IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same reasons as above. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less interesting too.--Vikoula5 (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESC2014 - Austria 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2015 at 18:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by abbedabb -- abbedabb^talk 18:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- abbedabb^talk 18:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of technical reasons (strong noise, not absolutely sharp). Furthermore a portrait format would do better. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less interesting than the one below. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Less interesting.--Vikoula5 (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful Dman41689 (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:GalerieHarfaVnitrek.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2015 at 13:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SimcaCZE - uploaded by SimcaCZE - nominated by SimcaCZE -- Simca 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simca 13:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing special, too cluttered to tell what subject is supposed to be, and if it is the whole thing, it didn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what the author wanted to show here but the composition is irritating, mainly because the athlete dummy appears to rest its feet on the column behind (which is not possible, nor even wanted on pole vaulting). I’d try to take this either from smaller distance, using a wide angle lens and risk some distortion of the dummy body, or choose a larger distance from a point which supplies nothing but empty (and then unsharp) room in the background. --Kreuz schnabel 08:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Emin • message 18:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Josephine Skriver.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 13:20:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Macsurak - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF JukoFF (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Интересная и, на мой взгляд, довольно качественная фотография! Хорошие фотки на Flickr есть, оказывается...--Brateevsky {talk} 19:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment focus in her mouth not in the eyes, and cause the shallow dof, hers left eye is out of focus... -- RTA 01:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image of the year does not pretend :) JukoFF (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 15:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like that photo of the Swedish journalist, I find the unsharp parts detract from the image. But even that picture wasn't cropped weirdly. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. Striking idea but not a favourable portrait. --Kreuz schnabel 12:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. Beautiful natural smile in natural light. I don't find the out of focus areas disturbing at all, they make it look like just a random encounter in the streets, which adds to the "natural" feeling. The tight composition works very well with that as well. It's unfortunate that her left eye is out of focus, but that's not going to keep me from supporting. --El Grafo (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and very important quality photos. JukoFF (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I think the DoF is really insufficient here. The right eye is clearly out of focus, even in medium size. --DXR (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puliyanthivu 3D map.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2015 at 06:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Anton^Talk 06:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anton^Talk 06:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unsuited file format. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the rule/criteria deny such file format? --Anton^Talk 06:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:RysZooVetrovy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2015 at 19:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SimcaCZE - uploaded by SimcaCZE - nominated by SimcaCZE -- Simca 19:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simca 19:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015 Kaczka krzyżowka w wodzie (samiec).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 21:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 08:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Invalid vote, sorry. You need to have at least 50 edits to vote at FPC --DXR (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Support --Kreuz schnabel 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A QI but not FP. Nice but not remarkable enough for such a common and very easy-to-shoot bird, hence little wow. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support niezłe i nietypowe jak na Ciebie --Pudelek (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Muito bom. Mais uma imagem para o banco de dados das aves das FPs. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per Colin. Sorry. --Pugilist (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Code (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Krzyżówka to jeden z najczęściej fotografowanych ptaków. I wymaga czegoś więcej.../Mallard is one of the most photographed birds. It needs something more...D kuba (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chapel ceiling rosette, Greenwich Hospital, London version 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2015 at 20:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At long last, I am nominating the less-corrected version of this image ... the lens distortion actually compensated somewhat for the curvature of the ceiling in question (see here and here for an image of where I was standing at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be much better if the crops at top and bottom, and at right and left, are symmetrical. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture itself is a pretty tight crop to begin with, the better to avoid the curves being too obvious. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw those pictures, double trouble. I would crop it anyway to border lines. --Mile (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Support Good now. --Mile (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support better with crop. Yann (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes,better with crop --LivioAndronico talk 10:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's interesting, Greenwich Naval Hospital has been on my to-do list for some time now, but I live on the western side of London and never get around to heading that far east! ;-) Did you take any regular interior photos of it too? In any case, the rosette is well done, although a tripod and stopped down aperture might have increased the sharpness a bit. Diliff (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you so mcuh for your support ... now I know how all those tween girls on Twitter feel when Justin Bieber retweets them (But not all of them, thankfully

).

Actually, yes I do have some other interiors that have made QI and which I am planning to nominate here soon.

As far as a tripod goes ... yes, I agree. I'm new to finally using a DSLR after shooting with just a DP/S for so long (and having had experience with film SLR, I feel like I've come back home). As I've gotten used to it more, a tripod is part of my plan for next year, as I would ruin less shots with it. And thanks for the tip about the aperture ...

Whenever you get over there, I'd love to see what you do. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 16:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2015 at 14:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, the sky is overcast and the hour is neither golden nor blue, but the viewpoint is the platform near the top of the dome on the Methodist Central Hall, This only open to the public for a few hours, one day a year on the Sunday of Open House London weekend. So there isn't much chance to choose one's weather let alone choose the time of day. The unique viewpoint and extraordinary resolution enhance the educational value here beyond a QI to give some wow in my opinion. Specifically:

It shows all 96m of Big Ben (Elizabeth Tower) from base to top. Many photos of this side of the tower are cropped or obscured at the base by the trees, fencing or surrounding buildings.
The viewpoint is equal in height to the bottom of the clock face, and 400m distant. Therefore, the narrow vertical angle-of-view and perpendicular gaze means that the subject is not distorted, giving a true representation of the proportions and dimensions. Almost all near-view photos are taken at ground level so suffer from vertical perspective issues that can't be fully corrected. Horizontally, the angle is slightly off of face-on, which allows for more than one clock to be visible and to give a sense of depth to the tower -- other high-resolution images of the tower are flat.
The New Palace Yard with Jubilee fountain is visible from this angle.
The Union Jack is flying next to Big Ben -- can't get more British than that.
It is at least twice as detailed as any previous photograph of Big Ben, while also including some of the Palace of Westminster and surrounding area. Overall, this image is 205 megapixels.

I recommend using the Non-flash viewer to examine the image since the Flash viewer zooms to 200% and limits the quality of the JPG it displays. Can you find Shrek? -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support has a definition so big that seems to enter in the tower --LivioAndronico talk 21:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes I found Shrek and behind him not very far there are traces of purple CAs, but it's marginal. -- ChristianFerrer 09:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! Though the details at 100 per-cent view do visibly suffer from noise reduction, this is not a reason to downscore at the resolution and detail level supplied. Found Shrek. --Kreuz schnabel 09:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not crazy about the composition but as you say, the viewpoint is pretty limited in terms of when and where you can shoot from and this is a unique angle. Also, were different shutter speeds used? Big Ben seems to get significantly darker around the clockface, which also seems to be in line with the horizon. Or did you apply a gradient filter on the sky? Either way, seems a bit odd and I've never noticed it being darker in any other images of Big Ben. Anyway, it's the extreme detail and unique location that gets this image over the line for me, and for that reason it's very useful. Diliff (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. The shots were all taken fully manual with same 1/500s shutter. I checked and there's no graduated filter used. A couple of small spot adjustments to remove some fringing and moire. I examined some the individual frames that are half-face half-body and perhaps the face is a little darker but it seems a bit more in the final image (with some global exposure adjustments + modest vibrance + clarity boost). My other shot, File:Palace of Westminster from the dome on Methodist Central Hall.jpg, doesn't show a darker face, though the sun is shining on Big Ben in that photo. The clouds were moving across the sky, possibly altering the scene during the few minutes it took to capture all these frames. That other photo was taken just 11 minutes earlier, with quite different lighting. -- Colin (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support--Claus (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just a crop of the above. The composition is more focused on Big Ben. But it loses some EV with less surrounding (cropping off Middlesex Guildhall, the status of Boudica, Portcullis House, and much of County Hall). File:Big Ben Clock Face.jpg is an even more extreme crop. -- Colin (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Glad to see Shrek is still in. --Kreuz schnabel 11:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this better. Yann (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~for the no-cropped version~~ -- ChristianFerrer 17:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I practice a catastrophic english language, I wanted to say: I oppose the cropped one and I prefer the no-cropped version. -- ChristianFerrer 17:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Elizabeth Tower 2014-09-21 205MP.jpg

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moravskoslezské Beskydy - zima 2014 (by Pudelek) 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2015 at 08:33:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good timing for this weather. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check WB, there’s a slight magenta cast IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 09:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps there is a magenta case, but I can barely see it. Looks like what I'm seeing out my window right now, at least in terms of weather. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but nothing extraordinary, and a bit too noisy imo --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow + too dark. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the contrast between the dark trees and bright sky is quite nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Universitetet metro station January 2015 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015 at 10:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Man waiting for the arriving train at Universitet metro station in Stockholm. Some technical considerations: the point was to capture both the man and the arriving train, I needed longer exposure time for the train but which also means that the women are slightly blurry. Personally, I like the composition especially how the train is reflected in the wall
Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support marvelous! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great, with some very WikiMedian letters visible through the windows. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As well-captured as a moving train can be without taking video. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Pugilist (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some crop from the left, till that ligth sign maybe.. --Mile (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how you captured the movements and the colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support … and 10. I like the composition as well as the colour combination of blue, red and green. A bit of noise (or NR artifacts) cannot be avoided in this light. --Kreuz schnabel 07:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moravskoslezské Beskydy - zima 2014 (by Pudelek) 03.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 22:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lovely, lovely winter scene that I can easily imagine myself skiing into. Well-detailed and a QI for sure, but too cluttered to be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Straightforward winter scene. No reason for low resolution. I fail to see anything to feature in this, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its a good example for a winterscenery, I like the composition for its density. --Hubertl (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-09-29-nordfriesisches-wattenmeer-RalfR-24.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2015 at 19:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ralf Roleček - uploaded by Ralf Roleček - nominated by Ralf Roleček
Support -- Ralf Roleček 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Noisy (chroma noise in the green foreground areas), shadows are distracting, and I wish the train was more in the foreground. Too little detail for a 12 mpix FPC IMHO. Very nice idea and composition though, I would love to support if it weren’t for the technical shortcomings. --Kreuz schnabel 05:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Similar to Kreuzschnabel. The technical quality just isn't there. It is odd that the railway track is lighter in the cloud-shadows in the foreground than it is in the sunny patches. Btw, please save your images with sRGB colour profile -- this JPG has no colour profile at all so isn't technically correct (thus different computers/monitors will render the colours arbitrarily). -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I understand the comments above but I have also considered; a) very high EV; b) the photo is taken from a higher altitude than many other aerial FP; and c) a very good composition.--ArildV (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until I blew the image up, I didn't know that the railroad track was as small as it is, and I didn't realize there was a train in the image. I thought the tracks were a lot wider. And on top of not knowing what the subject was, I really wasn't wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Noise is a little bit disturbing, the very small train too. --XRay ^talk 18:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corydalus cornutus MHNT male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 06:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- ChristianFerrer 06:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you to Christian. This insect is most impressive for its size. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Be..anyone (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Federal-Territory-Mosque-05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2015 at 10:53:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 13:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 7... 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose definitely a very good QI - but I'm simply not that wowed. Lighting and mood seem a bit too conventional to me. Sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have been wondering a few days now why this looks strangely incomplete to me. Think I miss the ground below the palm trees. Centered composition is not appealing. --Kreuz schnabel 12:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vikoula5 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Land Rover Desert Sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2015 at 05:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Land Rover MENA - uploaded by Fauzan - nominated by Fauzan -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 05:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 05:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pro photo, but I have uncertainties about the author, I really don't know if they could put this images under CC-by, was better send a OTRS to confirm... -- RTA 08:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doubtful quality and no wow for me, low resolution with less than 3 Mpix --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 17:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Uoaei1. Yann (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, we need more information about the copyright. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, It has been determined in this discussion that the flickr account is official and owned by Land Rover MENA. Would you change your vote? --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 03:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: , Rodrigo.Argenton, the uploader of the image on flickr, Landrover MENA, has uploaded all of their pictures under CC-BY-2.0. You mean we should cross check through OTRS? However the website on their profile page is down for me. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fauzan: Just because someone has uploaded under CC on Flickr doesn't necessarily mean they had the rights to do so. Do we know for sure that they work for Rover? That the photographer, if a third party, was doing so under conditions that allowed this release? Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fauzan: Adding to Daniel, we don't even know if Land Rover MENA have copyright freedom, or if Land Rover UK are the only proprietary, in example of that, the official website, even in countries of MENA, all information remains UK property. -- RTA 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted them, and waiting for the OTRS team to get a reply. See the OTRS noticeboard. However, I don't think there is anything suspicious at least about the ownership of the Flickr account. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read there. -- RTA 17:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hõreda mõisa viinaait viinamahutiga*.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2015 at 14:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A. Palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Shiva Khanal (Talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik, 19.-20.saj.a*.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2015 at 11:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by A.palu - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have looked at this image a few times and I really find the composition odd. I think it is unfortunate to put the dominating chimney in the middle (but not quite) and have a lot of forest at the left. I think the image would be much better with the chimney at one of the thirds, the building itself centered and framed by the forest on both sides. --DXR (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next to this building there is actually an ox stable (one old photo of mine). That sets some additional limitations on possible suitable compositions. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi, the size of your image is a bit too small for a nomination here but the composition of your image is far much better. -- ChristianFerrer 13:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --DXR (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. My images from 2008 is rather bad by today's standards and not taken it that good light conditions. This photo by A.palu has like super nice colors and I think it's really good depiction of this distillery. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kruusamägi As now you know the place and the light needed for it you can go back there and try again to take this photo with a better light and quality. -- ChristianFerrer 23:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)The file made by Ivar have a good quality and a good light however the reflection of the chimney is cut (maybe 24 mm is not enough wide) and the little waves on the water don't help for a good reflection. -- ChristianFerrer 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bandurria-UY-Theristicus caerulescens.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 19:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by Fedaro] -- fedaro (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely an interesting bird. Unfortunately, the sun comes from the wrong direction and so the bird is a bit shadowy and the sky very bright. --DXR (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the light situation wasn't perfect for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Concattedrale di San Giovenale (Narni).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2015 at 17:05:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition doesn't work for me, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with Martin. I prefer this image to the one you previously nominated because more of the ceiling is visible, but I don't think an off-centre composition works very often in churches. If I was going to go off-centre, I would have gone further to the right to find a more extreme angle. This just feels confused to me, not knowing if it wants to be centred or at a stronger angle. Diliff (talk)
Oppose per Martin and David. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norman Saunders - cover of Marvel Science Stories for April-May 1939.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2015 at 10:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Norman Saunders - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'd like to invite everyone to compare this image with the original scan, to see how extensive the restoration was. Also, I should note the scan came out very light for whatever reason: the colours of the restoration are most decidedly more accurate to the actual magazine cover. This restoration took about a week and a half, but I think the results are definitely worth it.
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic work — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --· Favalli ⟡ 02:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC); Results reviewed by nominator (which I believe is allowed, since it's literally just by count) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geranium wallichianum 'Crystal Lake' 06.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2015 at 06:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Geranium wallichianum 'Crystal Lake'. A silvery blue selection.created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this photo is not a little bit dark? Could make brighter? -- RTA 05:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done little lighter.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNice photo and informative for learning purposes -- Zeynel Cebeci 12:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 12:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 18:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Gullfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 119.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2015 at 19:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the 32 m (105 ft) high and 20 m (60 ft) wide crevice of the Gullfoss waterfall located in Suðurland, Iceland. The crevice extends perpendicular to the flow of the river and is 2.5 km long. The average amount of water running over this waterfall is 140 m³/s in the summertime, but up to 2000 m³/s have been measured. Together with Þingvellir and the geysers of Haukadalur, Gullfoss forms the Golden Circle, the most popular touristic attraction in Iceland. Poc o² 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support marvelous weather during your visit to Iceland. Lucky you! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Compositionally very nice, showing the path weaving its way around the edge of the crevice. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent view point, framing, and remarkably descriptive for the subject -- Zeynel Cebeci 12:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of all FPC of this place, this is the best. Yann (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose I could complain about the slightly off tint of the sky, but that's not really the subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support At last an unusual viewpoint of this falls. I started to hate the standard one --Kreuz schnabel 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 18:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HMS Protector at Half Moon Island, Antarctica MOD 45158398.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015 at 10:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Si Ethell - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs to be viewed "full size" to come across, though. Kleuske (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great picture, but only 861 KB. --Pugilist (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, nothing to see in the snow. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The snow is textureless and overexposed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. Yann (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Yann. --Milseburg (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:House of Blackheads and St. Peter's Church Tower, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015 at 00:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support some distortion, but still... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of problems of wanting "too much in one photo" which then destroy composition. In this case, i would leave church out, its not enligthed, would focus just on rigth part of those 2 bldngs. Bottom option doesnt seem good. I was in same doubt not long ago, better skip some part due to better composition, than to try to get all. Would better work if in dayligth, at least would be illuminated. --Mile (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand why the composition is destroyed though by using an off-centre composition. In this case, it shows the location of the building as it relates to the courtyard and the three dimensionality of it - a sense of its relationship that you don't get from a frontal view. Yes, this results in perspective leans of vertical lines but this is to be expected, and I don't think it is very extreme in this case. I also took this image of the building which is from a slightly different angle and does not include the church spire behind. Do you think this is better? It was taken 4 minutes later but you can see that in that time, the lighting changed a bit and it was darker. I specifically chose to photograph it illuminated at dusk because the building (House of Blackheads) stands out much better than during the day and contrasts nicely against the blue hour sky. Diliff (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thats one you mentioned definately works for me, should be first alternative. Actually i like off-centre, i hate all those centering and asking PD fine on 40-50 meters high tower, and especially mentioning PD at angle shot... its nonsense. Some are too much up the rules, and not know when is not so goood to obey them. Leaving that high church out, you get some more natural-looking PD correction. I didnt know it have some name-ambient conotation. Worth to rethink. --Mile (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mile, I have re-worked this version (uploaded over the original) to improve the distortion at the edges, and a slightly brighter exposure also. Do you still oppose this version? Diliff (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support /me prefers this one, too. I find the perspective view way more appealing than the frontal one. --Kreuz schnabel 07:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 12:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Emin • message 18:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support Whatever! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The color of the sky is less uniform in this version. -- ChristianFerrer 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Martin, I did also take this frontal photo of House of Blackheads. It has less distortion but I didn't think the composition was as interesting. The other image shows the building in its surroundings better. Diliff (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whatever! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also great - it should get an independent nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm maxed out with two current nominations. If you think it should be nominated separately, someone else such as yourself would have to do it. ;-) Diliff (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one the most Dman41689 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one is featurable too and deserve to have it's own nomination IMO -- ChristianFerrer 12:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:House of Blackheads and St. Peter's Church Tower, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg

File:St Paul's Cathedral Dome from One New Change - Square Crop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2015 at 21:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many photographs of St Paul's dome are taken from the Tate Modern to the south, across the river Thames. This clear and high-resolution photo was taken just across the street and to the east, from the roof terrace of the recently built One New Change. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer much the no-cropped one, however it is so big that I was not able to open it in full resolution. The quality and size are of course very good and outstanding however it seems you're facing the northwest and the light could maybe have been better earlier in the morning. -- ChristianFerrer 11:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support goooood. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:경주 부부총 금귀걸이.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2015 at 13:15:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by National Museum of Korea - uploaded and nominated by Revi— Revi 13:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred gallery: Objects. — Revi 13:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Revi 13:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The framing is a bit unbalanced, suggest a slightly tighter crop especially at the top. A scale bar would also be nice, or at least some words on the size in the description. --El Grafo (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have resource and permission to re-take the photo with scale bar, so I'll find out and write about size tomorrow. (I'll do the crop too when I update description.) — Revi 15:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: Crop and description edit done. — Revi 04:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the background as the previous one was not black, I couldn't download the original source, I didn't get the Korean site, so Revi, if is available RAW file, or TIFF there, pleas fix the background and re-upload... About the crop, I cropped a little bit further, to fit in golden spiral. -- RTA 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no RAW or TIFF available... I only got JPG from the website. — Revi 05:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Twotwo2019 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 18:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:ISS-40 Thunderheads near Borneo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015 at 17:18:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an ISS Expedition 40 crew member - uploaded and nominated by Ras67 -- Ras67 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking view at 413 km altitude. -- Ras67 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice satellite image. I also like this image: File:ISS-20 Thunderstorms on the Brazilian Horizon.jpg. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You can actually see how the wheather systems reach up in the atmosphere. Impressive. --Pugilist (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Emin • message 18:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 19:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)~[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Merri Church Interior 2, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015 at 00:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice indeed.--Godot13 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is nice, not just poor walls, but enriched with some nice art. --Mile (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice-- Pierre André (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ’nuff said about Diliff’s masterpieces --Kreuz schnabel 07:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support such masterpiece. -- Pofka
Support--ArildV (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1er Prix Créatif 2012.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2015 at 15:00:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mounir TOUZRI - uploaded by Mounir TOUZRI - nominated by Mounir TOUZRI -- Touzrimounir (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Touzrimounir (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient DoF on the subject, and the empty space at the top probably should have been cropped out at least. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayuntamiento y Shard, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 076.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2015 at 19:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the City Hall (round building on the left), More London office complex and The Shard skyscraper, at the south bank of the Thames, Southwark district, Central London, England. The City Hall was opened in 2002 and comprises the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. All by me, Poc o² 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No wow in this image for me. It's a photo that any tourist would take from Tower Bridge. The river is also a bit unaesthetic at low tide. Diliff (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I lived in London I could not even take a picture as good like this. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that, now having seen the phenomenon with my own adult eyes (I might have seen it when I was younger but not appreciated it fully), that the Thames at low tide is better appreciated in poetry than photography. However, on the whole, yes this is a picture most tourists get—which is why we should have one of as high a quality as we can get. If someone uploads a better one one day and nominates it here, then we can delist and replace. (And what's wrong with a classic tourist pic? I seem to remember we have in the past promoted to FP a tourist standard image of Lower Manhattan). Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't see them as the same at all though... The detail visible in the Lower Manhattan image is much much higher (12000x3000 resolution, and pixel sharp, compared to 5000x3000 and not that sharp at 100%), and taken from a moving ferry (so had to shoot the panorama extremely quickly to avoid parallax errors), which makes it stand out compared to tourist snapshots IMO (although I didn't nominate it or vote on it!). I just don't see anything that stands out about this image though. My point wasn't that touristic views shouldn't be eligible for FP, it was that this image doesn't seem any better than a tourist snapshot, for me. The baseline for FPs (for me, anyway) is that it is an image that stands out amongst contemporary photography in some way (detail, composition, lighting, aesthetics etc). This image just doesn't have any of that IMO. Diliff (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Case, Commons "Delist and replace" isn't like the en:wp one. We don't delist and replace FPs when someone else takes a better one. We only use it when someone has improved the same image (e.g. a better photo of a painting, a reprocessing from raw file). Generally, once an image is FP it stays that way, and we only delist FPs if they are now embarrassingly bad compared to the standard of today. London is a heavily photographed city and we need to compare this to the kinds of photos that appears exceptional. For example, some very high EV with great detail or panorama, or some beautiful lighting due to time of day or weather. Pointing a high-quality DSLR at bits of London isn't enough. It's a useful picture and nice weather but I don't see it being among our finest. We can wait for someone to take a finer one. -- Colin (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the cloud reflection in the Shard (though I don't much care for the Shard in general). But it isn't exceptional enough for FP of London buildings. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per Diliff. --Ivar (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Diliff. Certainly it’s nice and well deserves the green badge but it’s not that outstanding then. --Kreuz schnabel 04:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beaver work on a tree in winter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 04:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Simon Mer - uploaded by Simon Mer - nominated by Simon Mer -- Simon Mer (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simon Mer (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tinss (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC) While this picture could use some post processing and reframing, it illustrates in a humorous manner the difficulties of winter (exacerbated by climate change in this case).[reply]
Comment The image description lists "pic 1 of 2". Please link to the second picture on the description page, ideally through "other versions". -- Ram-Man 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- no wow factor Dman41689 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good wow factor, but bad iamge quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor image quality, suffering from severe noise reduction everywhere. No wow in composition (why not get closer to the main subject?) --Kreuz schnabel 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball (ahem) oppose If the point is to show the beaver damage to the tree, then why not just take a closeup of that rather than burying it amidst some random silvicultural display? I also don't see from first look what climage change has to do with this ... in fact, it rather suggests the opposite (Now, palm trees in Estonia would suggest climate change). Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Daniel Case, snowmelts like this have become increasingly frequent over the last decade. Having 10 oC+ temperatures in January is not normal in Canada. Otherwise, I agree the subject would be much better illustrated with a but more focus on the tree itself, there is a closeup version on the file's page in case you want to see the beaver's work in details.Tinss (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the image, or the filename for that matter, tells us this picture was taken in January ... we have to go to the EXIF for that. Or where it was taken FTM—I could take such a picture in the Catskills, near where I live, where such January melts have historically been more common. If you have to explain this much to get someone to understand why it should be an FP, it's not ever going to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--Emin • message 18:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dallas Taylor 2008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 08:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dallas Taylor performing in 2008. created by Ricky Norris - uploaded and nominated by Dman41689 (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support after making sure that it's big enough and some years old. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Support IMO the dark parts have not enough structure.--XRay ^talk 14:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to many dark parts and unsharp. Far away from our FP standards. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esna mõisa peahoone laedetail.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2015 at 20:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Amadvr - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lambayeque gold mask.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2015 at 15:17:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was the glare inevitable? Anyway I’d prefer a completely black background. --Kreuzschnabel 16:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake about the background, I had not imported a good version of the picture. For the glare, I have made some improvement. --Bgag (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bgag see the annotations, all this areas have "weird colour" polygons, you shoot raw or jpg? In raw in 2s I could fix that, in JPEG... well I could try, but, if you having difficults to create a perfect black background create a section at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. -- RTA 11:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help but unfortunately this picture has been taken in JPEG. --Bgag (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Relax, so I'll try to fix, ok? -- RTA 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done -- RTA 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS:Bgag, next time do not remove like you did, some places I had to remake the object, because you erased some pieces...

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Osaka Castle 01bs3200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 02:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 663highland - uploaded by 663highland - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Emin • message 18:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question, is it only me, or does this need some gamma correction? I like the old before new motive, but it's rather bright. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the end, It was photography through a windowpane, so an original picture is in the cruel state. So the retouch work took long time. Thank you for nominating and voting this photograph. Thank you so much.--663h (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink twinged daisy on table edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 18:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Jina Lee - edited and nominated by Ram-Man. -- Ram-Man 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info A pink Bellis perennis flower on a table. This was nominated in 2007 with a mixed lot of votes.
Support While its age shows, taken 7.5 years ago with a 6MP point and shoot, I still think the composition makes this more interesting than the average flower FP, including many of my own. The focus and DoF (f/4 on a 1/2.5" sensor) are spot on. I'd like to see if others agree. -- Ram-Man 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dman41689 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow factor, not encyclopaedic plucked flower D kuba (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I shouldn't like this. The DoF leaves some parts of the flower to be desired, and it's not even wild ... it's cut. There is, despite the natural tinge of the petal ends, some CA. In fact, it almost looks like a grayscale image that was later hand-tinted.
But I like it anyway. For what it lacks in technical sophistication, it more than makes up for in artistic appeal. On some level, this just speaks to me ... so plainly and clearly. It does more than speak, actually—it sings. I cannot not hear Satie's Gymnopédie No. 1 (I know, such a cliché) as I ponder this image. It will make a great album cover one day for the right music. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The perfect example that it is not the camera which makes the photographer. Yann (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks unbalanced to me, too much space to the right. Crop suggestion added. --Kreuz schnabel 08:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Playful Old Lady in Da Nang, Vietnam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2015 at 05:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Playful old lady bursting with energy in Da Nang, Vietnam. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really a nice portrait but the bright background distracts too much from her shady face. Red channel blown on the cardigan btw. --Kreuz schnabel 08:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps but I've just had a go at fixing these issues—I can't reduce much more the brightness in the background or it starts turning grey. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I brought some popcorn with me but I'm a bit disappointed with the lack of activity on this portrait, what's happening? Would it help if I'd come up with a B&W portrait that has the eyes out of focus? :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Poor timing then – the popcorn consumption is still here. --Kreuz schnabel 13:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sacré-CœurFromLaTourEiffel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2015 at 06:35:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SimcaCZE - uploaded by SimcaCZE - nominated by SimcaCZE -- Simca 06:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simca 06:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment -- Nice composition, but there seems to be CA on the right half. Nikhil (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition dosn't works for me (too much sky) and the technical quality isn't ok for an FP-image: bad light, overexposed parts and the CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly per Alchemist-hp. One area of severe CA annotated. This might work well as a highly detailed panoramic widescreen in softer light. --Kreuz schnabel 18:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info SimcaCZE, if this helps: remix -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet Nave, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2015 at 07:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Emin • message 18:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow ... didn't realize that there were people sitting up front. Nice. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you consider the people sitting at the front to be a good thing? I generally try to avoid people in my church photos, and will wait until it's empty if possible. Not just for aesthetic reasons, but also because these interiors often require very long exposures (20-30 seconds per section is not uncommon) and people tend to move and blur, which often looks ugly. You can see it has happened with the man on the left. From my experience, most churches receive mainly interested visitors rather than parishioners and these people tend to sit at the back and don't stay seated for long, which makes photography reasonably easy if you have the patience to wait, but this church seemed to be a local parish church (albeit quite an impressive one) and there was always a small gathering of people praying at the front of the church so I had no choice but to take the photo with them in it. If people is representative of the church, I don't mind, but when it's just a random tourist picking their nose and staring at their phone, I'd rather the photo without them. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, yes I do consider the people up front a good thing as they're obviously worshipping. I understand how your way of doing this requires the space be empty, which was another reason this was extraordinary. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, I don't mind the people here since they are as you say representative of the church and I expect almost to find some people sitting in a church (at least in a local Roman Catholic parish church).--ArildV (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simeis 147.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 19:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by en:Rogelio Bernal Andreo, edited and uploaded by The Herald, nominated by Yann (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Simeis 147, also known as the Spaghetti Nebula and cataloged as Sharpless 2-240, this filamentary structure can be found in the constellation Taurus, close to the border of Aurigua, in roughly the same line of sight as the star Elnath. Approximately 3000 light years away, the nebula stretches about 150 light years across. Yann (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really, it's a great image . WOW . --fedaro (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spaghetti Nebula? Is new for me... --LivioAndronico talk 19:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 20:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As editor..--The Herald 08:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Spaghetti Nebula may be the origin of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. --Pugilist (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balles2601 (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Villers Young Woman Drawing.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2015 at 02:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marie-Denise Villers - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 02:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 02:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do love this painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure --Mile (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice-- Pierre André (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --aman.tur

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ESO - Milky Way.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2010 at 16:58:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO - uploaded by Luiscalcada - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pir6mon (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That really is magnificent. Though I'd consider cropping ~50 px top and bottom due to distortion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Lago di Braies 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 18:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mentnafunangann - uploaded by Mentnafunangann - nominated by Mentnafunangann -- Mentnafunangann (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mentnafunangann (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but very disturbing lens flares.--ArildV (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Emin • message 18:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very nice picture ... of a lens flare. A nice effect but one that comes at the expense of the rest of the image. The lake looks more like a mud pit and the mountains on the other side are too dark. One's first reaction to seeing this is to put your hand up to your face and try to shield your eyes, the better to see the lake. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wasserturm Hohenstadt 2013-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 18:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The historic water tower near Hohenstadt village (part of Abtsgmünd) is used as a dwelling now. Captured in late afternoon sunlight. Image has been cropped to square ratio for composition, then slightly downscaled. c/u/n by --Kreuz schnabel 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 18:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect timing, great composition and decent quality --ArildV (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Kłodzko, ul. Grottgera 14.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 18:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mood of the image. Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good atmosphere and composition. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has a nice Old World ambience. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and ...7 --LivioAndronico talk 22:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Collops bipunctatus, U, Back, SD, Pennington County 2013-07-15-16.27.08 ZS PMax (9345938007).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 23:48:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sam Droege - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- ChristianFerrer 23:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 23:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support Impressive.--ArildV (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
still Neutral Very good work, a bit oversharpened though for me (bright seams around dark hairs). Will support a less processed version. --Kreuz schnabel 07:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info here a link for a manual for taking similar pictures. -- ChristianFerrer 12:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, D kuba (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I might prefer a vertical image as a personal taste. Probably it's just because I've read and browsed so many insect guide books. So I have this association to top side pictures. --Ximonic (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kaunas Priest Seminary, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 17:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the nom. Diliff (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking some amazing pictures in Lithuania! -- Pofka

Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too little contrast (sunlit and shadow areas too similar in intensity) looking unreal -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but it looks to me as if some HDR technique has been used. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong, it has. I'm happy to increase the contrast if you think the shadows look too bright. Diliff (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so. Why not try an alternative version (although it is already some days into the voting) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contrast is fine. Shadows looks like shadows (especially the one at the center). Lowering contrast will probably reduce the building visibility and there will be no "WOW" effect. -- Pofka

Comment Diliff assembly error, see note -- ChristianFerrer 06:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- KlausFoehl and Christian, I've uploaded a new version which corrects the two problems reported, the stitching error and the contrast. Diliff (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely contrasted -- ChristianFerrer 12:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks more natural now. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pažaislis Monastery interior 1, Kaunas, Lithania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2015 at 18:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Opps! Two votes. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stiftskirche Herzogenburg Orgel 06.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2015 at 19:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nave and organ of Herzogenburg Abbey church (Lower Austria). All by --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 11:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice, although I would have liked to see a bit more of the sides. Diliff (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that little shaft of light coming in below the door—blown, of course, but works in a church and far too small to see as ruining the image. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:מבצר מונפורט בזריחה.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2015 at 15:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Eranfel - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Emin • message 18:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anton^Talk 10:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is very ordinary, and the light is not particularly special.Fotoriety (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really know what I'm supposed to be looking at, and at this size it seems like a rock outcrop. Perhaps a tighter view? In sunlight? Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City July 2014 002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2015 at 11:58:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- ChristianFerrer 11:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 11:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent composition, although it's a shame that the skyline is a bit lacking in contrast. Diliff (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 10:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, nice colors. Yann (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --Pugilist (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uau! O novo World Trade Center já concluído! Very high EV! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flock of Seagulls (eschipul).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 05:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ed Schipul - uploaded by Trialsanderrors - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 05:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 05:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lots of wow in idea and composition, but then it’s really small in size, even for having been taken in 2006. I took the liberty to level the horizon and reduce the CA on the birds’ wings. Feel free to revert if you don’t like it. --Kreuz schnabel 08:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, indeed. The species needs to be identified in the file description. --Cayambe (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably laughing gull (Leucophaeus atricilla), [1] with definitive basic plumage, but that I'm not sure. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 13:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a very interesting shoot, but sorry not FP for me: the right part of the images is overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two dust spots, which are visible even on my smart phone. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, but the blown sky at right ruins it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santuario nacional.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2015 at 20:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Valter Campanato/ABr - uploaded by Limongi - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is without doubt an interesting building, even though it could very well also be a railway station if not for the cross (and, well, the missing rails). The image is competently taken from an interesting vantage point, but the light is not very attractive and the size is quite small. --DXR (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DXR. It’s really nice but since it’s a static subject and (I suppose) easy to take, there’s no excuse for the small resolution. From an FP I’d expect way more detail on the building here. Can’t be too difficult to shoot a panoramic of 4–6 frames here and stitch them to a hi-res photo of this view, which would get my immediate support. --Kreuz schnabel 03:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Emin • message 18:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. I don't understand the concerns above. We can't expect everybody to take gigapixel-HDR-panorama-shots just because some frequent nominators create such pictures (which are very impressive, of course, please don't understand me wrong). For me saying a picture could have been taken even better is not in every case a valid reason to oppose. For me this picture is excellent as it is. --Code (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never said it had to be a panoramic, that was just a suggestion. I’d happily support a single shot of 12 or 16 megapixels here. But I expect an FPC of less than 4 mpix to be crisp sharp and well-detailed, while this one is still a bit soft at that small resolution. My oppose is a regretful one for the view is indeed nice. I just point out that any single shot with a lower-class DSLR and kit lens purchased after 2010 would have given a better result here. --Kreuz schnabel 06:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice view! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tornado GR4 Over London MOD 45156190.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2015 at 23:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Senior aircraftman Andy Masson - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posterization all over the sky, upper side of plane entirely blown, artificial blur on the background (focal distance of town differs entirely from the focal distance of the plane) – no, sorry, though it’s impressive. --Kreuz schnabel 08:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure how the blur was created to be honest, as it looked potentially like a thick glass effect. Unfortunately we are highly unlikely to get anywhere asking for the original at this point in time. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A pity, with the original would probably be possible to recover the burned areas, it would be a remarkable picture. Painful. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per above. At first, I thought the blur could have been done with a tilt-shift lens (focus shifting, which would have been quite an achievement doing this from a plane), but I'm pretty sure Kreuzschnabel is correct, it's artificial. The focal length reported in the EXIF is 52mm and there is no tilt-shift lens with that focal length. Diliff (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light situation and bad image quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Beyond the technical flaws, there's the composition—it looks like a '50s movie onseheet for something likely to end up on MST3K. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Nysa, zespół klasztorny jezuitów, kościół 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2015 at 09:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but some more noise reduction in the sky would be fine. --Code (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness is very good on the bottom part but becoming insufficient towards the top. Maybe caused by perspective correction. Posterization in the sky visible between the spires. --Kreuz schnabel 11:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antequera View.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 12:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by imehling - uploaded by imehling - nominated by imehling -- Imehling (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imehling (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little too unsharp all around; Maybe blue hour wasn't the right time to take this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neottia ovata - Suur käopõll Niitvälja soo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2015 at 12:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Common Twayblade (Neottia ovata), created, uploaded and nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evening lights? J e e 03:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corpus Christi College Chapel 1, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 02:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka
Support Photos of Diliff are always good. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do mean photos by Diliff, of course

. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm hiding in this photo somewhere. A little game of "Where's Diliff". ;-) Kidding. English is a funny language. If ArionEstar had said "Photos of Diliff's are always good", it would have made sense. Punctuation makes all the difference sometimes. Diliff (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support why are the photos of Diliff always good? :-P --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please Diliff, create a category with 500 pictures to nominate a full category set. --The_Photographer (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 09:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pažaislis Monastery exterior, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2015 at 07:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blindly. Nikhil (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. -- Pofka
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And ... 7 Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was going to nominate this image eventually, so I might as well support it now. Diliff (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Cyprian's Church Sanctuary, Clarence Gate, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 02:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors and detail. As always. -- Pofka
Support Photos of Diliff are always good. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support , The stained glass is beautiful and the photo is very detailed "Pray for the soul; of Edward Hilder; who died october..." -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 09:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dyrhólaey, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-17, DD 140.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2015 at 21:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dyrhólaey Arch, Suðurland, Iceland. The ocean has worn the black basalt here into a 120 meters (394 ft) high arch which also serves as a bird sanctuary. Poc o² 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice lighting and composition. Nikhil (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only issue disturbing me is the point’s outline exactly aligning with the horizon. But nevertheless an outstanding image. --Kreuz schnabel 06:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. unfortunately I don't saw it if I visited Iceland :-( --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1 dustspot very hard to see (see note) -- ChristianFerrer 19:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christian: Done, thanks! Poc o² 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diego, thanks to you, I am glad there are people on commons that are recognizing when you tells them a little defect on a photo :) I stay

Neutral because of the little shadowed area. -- ChristianFerrer 06:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joint Logistic Support Ship Karel Doorman of the Royal Netherlands Navy MOD 45158361.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2015 at 21:59:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PO (Phot) Carl Osmond - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Chase me ladies -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great picture but several technical shortcomings make me oppose: Colour banding and considerable chroma noise in the sky, right third of image is entirely unsharp, and the horizon line is bent (which is easily fixable but the other issues aren’t). Pity! --Kreuz schnabel 10:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir, The Umbrellas, ca. 1881-86.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2015 at 20:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes more good paintings --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vaxholmsleden February 2013 02 (crop).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2015 at 11:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Vaxholm Fortress, originally constructed by Gustav Vasa in 1544 to defend Stockholm against shipborne attacks from the east. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice air view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --PierreSelim (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine quality aerial photo. Nominated it on en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get cold just looking at it. Good subject, good execution and sufficient wow. Kleuske (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is the proof. Don´t make areal pictures out of airplanes. You need a) a sunny cold day, b)a helicopter. --Hubertl (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Street Craftsman in Olinda.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2015 at 00:24:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The_Photographer (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically sound and high educational value. Thanks a lot for your contribution! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank Frank, I hope see you again someday and take pictures, U and I together --The_Photographer (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dense atmosphere, well captured. May I ask why you don’t support your own nomination? You may do so here (and are suggested to do so by nomination template), this is not QIC. --Kreuz schnabel 07:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp, noisy, very artificial, for an EV I'm missing a more important property: the colors! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that does not mean that photos in B&W can not become FPs. Here are some examples: File:PapuaNewGuineanandson.jpg, File:Tomi Ungerer par Claude Truong-Ngoc mars 2014.jpg, File:Cycling Amsterdan 03.jpg. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your examples, but there were a long discussion here. No need more examples. A color image has a more EV than a BW for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArionEstar you are right, and this continues to be tiresome. We all get that Alchemist-hp doesn't appreciate b&w but there's no need for him to continue reminding everyone of his limitations in photographic criticism. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: a B&W image is and remains a castration of the reality! That is my valid criticism! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a castration of the reality" Do you realise you extreme you sound? The reality moves, smells and has 3D, and yet.... Please stop disrupting FP with your bias. There is always the possibility to have more EV. Wisdom says more isn't always better. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist-hp if you are going to continue voting against b&w on principle, then I will continue to exercise my right to criticise such biased and weak critical analysis, and to defend others who question it. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you unwatch after voting. -- Colin (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin you can do whatever you like. I have no problem with it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The_Photographer a proposal: if possible for you, so please show us the color image as an alternative too. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It is up to "The Photographer" of course, but continues to represent a misunderstanding of b&w and our choices as artists. This is his creative choice, not yours. Do you ask everyone who nominates a cropped photo to also upload the uncropped as an alternative? Or perhaps we should nominate the "out-of-camera" unadjusted exposure/colours version as an alternative in case you don't care for the post-processing someone has done? Why not just ask for the RAW and forget about reviewing JPGs at all? This is rude. Please review what you are given in the nomination, or taken your own picture. -- Colin (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It was only a proposal from me. Have a nice time at our FP side. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin and Alchemist-hp: In fact, I support this picture more because we have to have more FPs of Brazil. While there are countries with more than 80 FPs, we have only 32 FPs of Brazil. For me, this number could and should be big and great. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops, I somehow seem to have missed the rule saying there have to be equal numbers of FPs of every country in the world. Anyroad, the point "there have to be more FPs of $COUNTRY" will never make me support. Any outstanding image quality will. --Kreuz schnabel 08:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArionEstar, this worries me more than prejudice against b&w. I've noticed your frequent "More pictures of Brazil!" comment but assumed it was just an aside. If instead, the locality of the image is your reason to support, then please stop. The collection of FPs is hugely unrepresentative for all sorts of reasons. By all means seek out under-represented images and nominate them if they are of FP quality but our mission is not served by having weak FP pictures of Brazil. If I was a photographer in Brazil, I'd feel cheated if my FP's were known to be inferior to those from photographer's in London, if the reason they are featured was to keep some statistic happy rather than because they are great. Let's compare the images, not the photographers or the countries. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Yes, ok. I was wrong. I take that back. Let's again? I ~~Support~~ (The grey alternative version is better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk)) because this is a great photo. I liked the photo in B&W. But, as RTA said, we also need more photos of Brazil. I am available to The Photographer to nominate great photos (and not bad) of Brazil that I think are great and very good. Forgive me! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And for prove that I'm not supporting any photo of Brazil without high quality, on 11 January, I will renominate the beautiful and great painting of Brazil (File:Leitura by Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior 1892.jpg) that, unfortunately, did not become FP and also help expand the collection of featured paintings of Commons. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArionEstar, do not lie: this nomination is a clear example of any crap material that you send/support to FP just because is a Brazilian subject. Even my one, at the time had a ridiculous huge problem, lost of information check between the reflex and the fruit, in this case I could fix, but I am here imagining how many of this will pass... -- RTA 22:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great! Yann (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More pictures of Brazil! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 17:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "Craftsman street" or "Street craftsman"? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Street craftsman" is right, I will change it when this nomination is finished. Thanks ArionEstar :) --The_Photographer (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like this types of candid than people stopped their work and looking into the camera. But here the face is too dark to see. J e e 03:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's your opinion and I respect it, but what I wanted to show here is the work and not the person. Thanks for your comment. --The_Photographer (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only works? J e e 11:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your example you show, there are few elements in the composition. To clarify these doubts about when use B&W with HC, I invite you to read this nice book --The_Photographer (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noway against B&W photography. J e e 12:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose colour was very important here indeed, because I don't know what a type of work he is doing this type [1] or this one [2], if was the second case... Hell, was vital to have colours, and being in Olinda I could bet money that was the case! More problems, the photo shooter was not align with the subject, generating a sneak photo a-like, creating a disconnection between then. We could see the face with the work just going down, no excuses to that. In this position I can't see his work, I can't get what's going on, his hands are in a position that do not allow a clear vision, looks like more a masturbation scene then a hand crafting... I can't see the face, I can't see were this is happening, and this do not looks a street, for me is middle a "feira", were we have a lot of others artists doing their work... And will this sad felling? He is a f artist, celebrate his work!

About technical issues, part of this photo is blurred even with 1/200 s of exposition... a lot of graining and noisy areas and is kind of obvious ISO 640 (1/200 + 640 ISO????), and part of the right leg of the artist, how I will explain that, is merging with the floor, probably because the B&W choice, or lack of focus... Is not sharp enough also, not even one single area of the photo have that crispy feeling of a good photo... for THE Photographer, this things should be not even close to happen...

One observation about this voting, this photo would not received half of the support if personal issues was not in game, some here just vote because is a photo in Brazil (note, I'm Brazilian, and I think that we need more photos of Brasil in FP, but we need incentive better photographers to share their work, or buffer the skill of the locals, not just accepting any Brazilian crap), and others looks like more a support just because another one voted against, as we can see so many mistakes here that not even a QI this image should be!

-- RTA 12:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is almost a textbook example of hate-inspired reviewing. We do not need such comments. -- Colin (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still can't accept other opinions. My advise: unwatch the FP side! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Colin, this is the exactly what you all need, raw true. A lot of images are passing by politics (ie. "U and I together" [above]), not by their quality + importance, and no, this is not hate, I do not have time, and emotion enough to that. You, Colin, put your emotions in your vote, just see your reaction against Alchmist, I just listed all the problems that you all ignored, for strange reasons...

This image do not exemplify the beautiful work that this artists does, and pass to the viewer a sad story, by a lack of skill and mistakes made, and you are applauding that "Dense atmosphere, well captured." [above], this is f terrible. This have the same weight of a sensationalist news "look the suffer, [I'm not suffering], look the sadness [I'm happy, really happy actually], look look, in Brazil they have to do their art at the street because they are too poor to have a place to work, [I just do here to better share my art]..." And this is the opposite of educational purpose that we have.

I'm done here, just one more sad they for me in this community, better days will come, better days will come... -- RTA 22:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemist-hp, you confuse "other opinions" for prejudice and spite, neither of which are good here. RTA's comments are spiteful, particularly the "masturbation" comment. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if we do not agree with you, our opinion is prejudice and spite? And remains true after your talk, you just need stop to look the discussion, and start to see the picture. ;) -- RTA 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like pictures of people in their daily activities, an artisan on work, their instruments set, their finished work, your workplace ... I like the composition, the good moment, and the atmosphere of B&W fine art photography. -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 21:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per User:Alchemist-hp and User:Rodrigo.Argenton. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Neutral the B&W image conceals only the bad image quality! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
o.O this are the original ? Holy s, so much more colours that I imagined... I'm neutral to this for the lack of eye contact, but way less stressful and sad image, and the grain and the blur almost disappeared, thank you. -- RTA 23:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, two very small parts of feet on the bottom right are "neutralized" ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I support if CA is removed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Neutral the real image status converted from the RAW file to shade of grey. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the raw file just desaturated? Sorry, but a desaturated image is not how one makes a b&w photo. I fail to see why these two images are posted as they tell us nothing other than that the poster does not understand b&w photography. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, I know: a yellow banana () on top left) must be a dark undefined something ... ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Alchemist-hp: This alternative is better, although suggestion: the feet at right could be removed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Street Craftsman in Olinda.jpg

File:Alex Schomburg - Harl Vincent - Marvel Science Stories for April-May 1939 - Illustration for Newscast.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2015 at 09:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alex Schomburg - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not my most extensive restoration - this one, outside of one big stain, wasn't too bad. Still, a fine example of 30s Sci-fi art that I have strong proof of the copyright-free status (the Penn State University link). Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 11:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bowled-over support It looks like you printed up a new copy. Great work! Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You might want to consider removing the scratches through the soldier's gas mask and headphone cable though. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those are meant to be traces of some sort of gas or wind or something. They look just intentional enough that I wouldn't like to remove them without seeing a second copy of the image that doesn't have them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like accessing a second copy is not that easy. Next to the obvious buying another copy off ebay, I think this entry from Virginia Tech and their Speculative Fiction Project might be an option. Great reddit post by the way. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stift Göttweig Gobelinzimmer 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2015 at 18:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Gobelinzimmer (tapestry room) in the imperial wing of Göttweig Abbey, Lower Austria. All by me. -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely done. Diliff (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, fine details, perfectly exposed. Distortion a bit strong to the sides but still ok. --Kreuz schnabel 07:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico talk 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely detail. -- Pofka (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 03:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dlieja Sacun Santa Maria Maddalena072.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 15:03:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image lacks any wow; borders are not very appealing.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same. -- Pofka (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beskid Wyspowy - panorama z Jaworzynki.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2015 at 23:03:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Pudelek - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The pole is leaning in, see note. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 09:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Velazquez-The Surrender of Breda.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2015 at 17:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diego Velázquez - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 09:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Agepsta.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2015 at 17:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sergei Kazantsev - uploaded by Sergei Kazantsev - nominated by Sergei Kazantsev -- KSK (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KSK (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Large dust spot, see note --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Certainly nice but not outstanding for me --Kreuz schnabel 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well Probably a QI, but the composition is just too busy for a great mountain picture. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support but please fix the dust spot. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing dust spot and good, but no wow.--XRay ^talk 09:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support not only picture but and author, if remove the dust spot. Sergei Kazantsev, попробуйте правда номинировать фотографию в Quality images или даже в Valued images. По мне, очень качественная фотография. Давно не было качественных фотографий из России не из Москвы или Санкт-Петербурга. --Brateevsky {talk} 19:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altar in chapel at Greenwich Hospital, London.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2015 at 03:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "No wow", "A normal picture, nothing of special here". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "No wow", but yet has perfect lighting and quality. -- Pofka (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very parts blurred --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amolação interrompida by Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior 1894.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2015 at 18:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Amolação interrompida by Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior 1894. Author: Jose Ferraz de Almeida Júnior. Uploaded and Photography by -- The_Photographer (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes more good paintings of Brazil!!! --The_Photographer (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lovely color gamma. -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trace (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Hafspajen 09:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Support --The_Photographer (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Camille Pissarro - La route de Versailles, Louveciennes, Matin gel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2015 at 22:29:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Camille Pissarro - photografed by Dallas Museum of Art - uploaded by Elya - nominated by Atamari -- Atamari (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Atamari (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Brilliant quality of the picture and it is very detailed (over 47 MB), however I find this painting way too ordinary, uncolorful and not interesting. Yes for the picture, no for the painting. Result: neutral. Criticizing Camille Pissarro... =o But that's just my opinion... -- Pofka (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can check the quality of the digital reproduction of the image, for example colours or reflections of a glass in front of the painting. The painting itself is IMO no criteria. That's the problem in voting for an photograph of a painting.--XRay ^talk 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colonnade and sky of Saint Paul (Rome).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 10:53:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 10:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 10:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting view. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive! It was obviously a good day! --Hubertl (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Hubertl’s assumption and impression but the upper part shows similar ghost contours as the fountain image recently nominated. I don’t know if there’s something wrong with your lens, or the sensor, or maybe there’s a glass filter screwed to the lens which should be removed for full sharpness (there are always the brighter parts affected, could well be reflections in a poorly coated filter). While the effect is minor it still makes the image look partly unsharp, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 19:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think, you are right Kreuzschnabel, on the other side it makes me sad, that it needs an 3.500 Euro-equipment (Full format camera plus professional lens) to realize this high claims. I don´t want to question the basic requirements for FP at all, but we both know that in the printed implementation even that would be sufficient as long as it does not have to be printed on A3 size. But this is just an academic diskurs.--Hubertl (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does not at all take such expensive gear to take sharp pictures. Anyway, two thirds of this image are perfectly sharp. Is it really too much asked to have the third part in similar quality? --Kreuz schnabel 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the composition outweighs the technical shortcomings in this case. Technically one probably couldn't do it better with this equipment and it's not too bad at all. Sure, the sharpness could be a little better but I think what counts for FP in the end is a well done interesting idea. That's what I see here. Apart from that, San Paolo fuori le mura is one of my favorite places in Rome.--Code (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To me, the entire result counts – which is a good idea (given here) as well as a really good performance. An outstanding idea might outweigh technical shortcomings of course (for me this is the case with File:Flock of Seagulls (eschipul).jpg, that’s why I don’t oppose that one despite the overexposed right side) but this image would only get my support if it were perfectly sharp at its most interesting part, which is the top. That’s why it’s not outstanding for me. I wouldn’t care if the lower part was slightly blurred though. Just to explain my verdict if you think it’s too hard. --Kreuz schnabel 07:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flower of Jacaranda cuspidifolia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2015 at 01:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can you se the elfs? -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I miss a storyline here... What to look at ? Don't mean to be harsh, but to ping you back : no I don't see any elf... But would be happy to revise my vote if I'm proven wrong. - Benh (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuala Lumpur Malaysia-Istana Negara-Jalan-Duta-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2015 at 11:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Istana Negara in Kuala Lumpur is the residence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the malaysian ruler. The photo was shot from a distance of 550 m.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice building. More good pictures of Malaysia. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The quality of the building and all these flags is excellent (love that it was a bit windy that day), but if the sky would be blue, I think it would look much better in contrast with these golden domes. Plus I guess it has great garden in front of it. Why not to capture more? -- Pofka (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info The garden is not really superb, you can see a total view of it at my photo File:Kuala_Lumpur_Malaysia-Istana_Negara-Jalan-Duta-02.jpg. Plus the topography does not allow to get a perfect front view. My intention in this photo was to focus on the main building with the flags of the 13 federal states in front. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like your panoramic picture much more than this one. The garden looks fine with that huge gate in front of it. It is a brilliant complex. -- Pofka (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Feel free to nominate it! --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parque en Casco Historico. Trinidad.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2015 at 13:10:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Ivan2010 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A imagem está um pouco inclinada, e há um sombra no canto inferior direito (ver nota). 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concur with ArionEstar, and also it doesn't really have the "wow" factor for me. Gamaliel (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, per Gamaliel and ArionEstar. Competently done and definitely a QI, but not FP-level. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rice Farmer in Hoi An, Vietnam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2015 at 02:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will I manage to get more than a single feedback on this one? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like it - it has character and nice composition. It seems slightly lacking in contrast though, but a minor issue. Diliff (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right—I feel like my photos have usually a bit too much of contrast so I tuned it down this time. I can't upload a new variation right now as my internet is way too bad until another week (I'm even struggling to log in here). -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I've just managed to upload a more constrasted version! Let me know if it's working better. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Nikhil (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given the situation of a rice paddy, this man doesn't looks for me like a rice farmer but just only as someone posing in front of a rice paddy. A rice farmer with clean feet and hands and a fashion shirt ... well, I saw a lot of rice farmers yet, but the atmosphere of this image is strange. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sherlock Holmes wannabe, I'm not sure what you're trying to show off here with your doubtful arguments but this guy is a 100% authentic rice farmer. He wasn't working right now as the job was being split with others. Btw, I'm travelling only with a local, far away from other tourists—none of the Vietnameses that we meet on the road do speak English nor have any interest in lying to us. This leaves me with a very interesting critic, thank you. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of my previous reply is based on the fact that you're not criticizing my photo but a man that you've never met, that you don't know anything about, and that you're judging based on appearances with highly criticizable points (didn't anyone tell you to never judge people by their appearances?), and thus regardless of the experience that you might have with your own rice farmers encounters. This man has been incredibly kind to us, offered us many tips including a cool path to follow accross the rice fields (and buffalos), and even offered us to park our bicycles at his place for free, while inviting us for a drink. We, who spend most of our lives our ass sitting on a chair, really need to have more consideration for those living a much more difficult life. Next time you eat some rice that you probably waste because it's so cheap that you've put too much in your plate, think of all those men and women, like this ~70y old guy, who spend most of their life in those rice fields, when we probably wouldn't stand just one day of it, only to end up with a huge back pain and just enough money to buy a fashion shirt for less than $5 USD. Seriously, unless you're sure of what you're saying, these guys deserve all our respect and eternal thanks by default rather than doubting their lifestyle. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed in FPC to extend an own opinion - even when it is not a supporting opinion - or should I better hide behind the usual "No WOW for me"? Beside that, I cannot see anything in my comment, that is disrespectful to your friend. Take a breath, scroll through my photos and you probably will notice, that I am pretty familiar with the life of people in Southeast Asia --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind your oppose, many seems to boycott voting on my photos anyways so any vote is good! I just wished it was based on the photo itself rather than on the argument “I'm sure he's not a rice farmer”. And in my opinion, when you say about a man, who has undoubtedly been a rice farmer for all his life from what I know, that he's not one, then yes, I find that to be disrespectful. But I agree that I've been quite impulsive, as usual. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will be more precise: Your photo is not telling a story. You title the man as rice farmer, but this charming man has not the smell of a rice farmer. Title the photo "My driver in Vietnam" or "The lovely barkeeper of our hotel" it would always be the same. So what could you have done? Perhaps let him keep an attribute in his hand - a sickle or a bunch of rice seedlings - or show him among some bags of rice or inmiddle of his paddy. All would be ok, but this photo is not really special about a rice farmer. Or, as I said first: The atmosphere of this image is strange. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I wouldn't have been able to take such a picture since he had finished his morning shift. He was in his casual clothes, more or less overlooking the work of the ladies in the fields behind him. Thanks for the extra explanations. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Crouzet, I can't add a vote now as it is too late. I would probably have supported the new version. I saw the old one when it was nominated and the face lacked contrast like it was under-exposed and had been recovered. So it was a bit "meh". The new one is better. I think the comment by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas was badly worded and can indeed read like he is doubting the authenticity of your claim. I see now what he is saying, and it is a valid point. -- Colin (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rom, Sankt Paul vor den Mauern, Statue des Heiligen Paulus im Vorhof der Basilika.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 01:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dnalor 01 - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 01:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 01:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valletta Saluting battery Malta 2014 7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2015 at 16:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very special moment but the crop cutting the neighboring guns is unfortunate, making the composition rather random. Perspective correction needed (cutting away even more), and severe chromatic aberration to be taken care of. --Kreuz schnabel 07:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vilnius Cathedral Chapel of Saint Casimir, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2015 at 17:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but for me: too distorted bottom side. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm living in Vilnius and this chapel is quite small and has narrow entrance. Taking it from the entrance (center) would make these side (and especially ceiling) decorations invisible and lower "WOW effect". That sarcophagus in the center is with the remains of Saint Casimir. The chapel has two paintings. Left-side painting shows scene when he returned to Vilnius in coffin after his death after some time. When people opened the coffin, they saw that his body is completely not disintegrated (one of his miracles). Right-one (pictured here) is somehow related with his ability to cure people (don't remember the whole story, but it is his another miracle). In my opinion, coffin and at least one of these paintings should both be visible in FP of this place. Picturing it from the chapel's angle is the best solution to capture both of them in one photo. Actually there is no other solution... Furthermore, this picture has brilliant lighting. At times it is quite dark here (depends on the weather outside). -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too distorted --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not distorted in my opinion. Just what you get with using rectilinear at such wide angle. The stretching is still reasonable for me. - Benh (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Precious, the apparent distortion is somewhat important aspect in the image at full resolution and it is inevitable at this distance, would be less evident only the photo was taken from a scaffold 3 m from the floor. ; ) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hafspajen 09:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Defence Imagery - 45145974.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2015 at 13:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Merlin HM Mk1 helicopter based at RNAS Culdrose, with a Seahawk from the Australian Navy, flying over St Michael's Mount, Cornwall. This image was submitted to the Royal Navy's Peregrine 06 Photographic Competition. Created by PO (Phot) Darren Macdonald - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - nominated by Chase me ladies -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent composition. Really enjoy that it captures two military objects from different times (castle and these helicopters). Great lighting, perfect capture of moving objects without any blow effects. Another good thing is that the lower helicopter didn't covered up the town/landscape panorama. Great shot. -- Pofka (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted - see the walls of the castle --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might actually be the walls of the castle - some are not vertical, but others are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose false exposure time. It must be 1/150s up to max. 1/250s for a better blurred rotor. Also a bit to grey with low contrast for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose First, I agree with Alchemist-hp. In-flight pictures look odd with stillstanding rotors or props. Then, the framing is too tight, the castle almost being cut off. The image looks tilted CW to me – that can be fixed of course but at the expense of an even tighter framing. Nice shot but not outstanding enough for me, sorry --Kreuz schnabel 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per tight framing noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support As Pofka, the composition is great. However, the picture quality is only average and there are some dust spots. –Makele-90 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khrutsky-Plady dynia, 1830s.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2015 at 14:52:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan Khrutsky - uploaded by Jarash - nominated by Jarash -- Jarash (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jarash (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serratula seoanei, Zaagblad 02.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2015 at 06:20:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Serratula seoanei, blade. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. Even the smallest details are visible. -- Pofka (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over-sharpened in my opinion - see the dark sharpening contours of the flower. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sharpness done something changed. --Famberhorst (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture could be more centralized. Only MHO. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk)

No at all... this could be even more to the right to better follow w:Rule of thirds or w:Golden ratio... -- RTA 05:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Tighter cut at the bottom could improve the picture (see the note suggestion), occupying more of the subject in the photo. Nice colours, a bit of blurred and lack of sharpness, but macro photo, so... and I had never heard about this lens before, it's good for you? -- RTA 05:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Other crop.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Comment macro lens satisfies me fine.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, I Support. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Famberhorst: I suggest you renominate it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barracudasauroides panxianensis MHNT Chine.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2015 at 11:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info nominated by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support New species of marine reptile, a good size. Non-composite specimen. In permanant exhibition; photograph taken through the glass. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - High EV. --Pugilist (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 08:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 10:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 19:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corallus hortulanus head, Peru.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 19:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- ChristianFerrer 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support WoW --LivioAndronico talk 20:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is that shiny square on the eye? -- KTC (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... a reflect? as I opened it several time before to nominate it, I'm surprised to not have seen this, I can try to clone it out if necessary. -- ChristianFerrer 21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support if that is fixed. -- KTC (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --LivioAndronico talk 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Livioandronico2013 -- ChristianFerrer 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--LivioAndronico talk 08:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support now -- KTC (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and thanks for the nomination Christian. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scary even from the screen. lol -- Pofka (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The_Photographer (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 10... 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 19:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erik kırlangıçkuyruk - Iphiclides podalirius.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2015 at 10:39:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zcebeci - uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- ChristianFerrer 10:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 10:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trace (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 07:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Jopp, einfach nur schön!--Finderhannes (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Um auf FPC abstimmen zu können brauchst du leider mindestens 50 Edits. --DXR (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 19:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Inzlingen - Inzlinger Wasserschloss - Gesamtansicht.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2015 at 20:21:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good work! Some minor stitching errors to be fixed in the foreground, then it’s clearly FP for me. And while you’re at it, try to reduce the chroma noise in the sky to the right. --Kreuz schnabel 08:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Done[reply]
Support now, no doubt. --Kreuz schnabel 07:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 11:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 03:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vilnius Modern Skyline At Dusk, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2015 at 14:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably best Vilnius skyline ever uploaded to Wikipedia, especially at night time when it is difficult to catch all these lights without them being blown. Look at the picture nominated below which is captured during day time. It has much lower detail and lighting than this one taken in Vilnius at NIGHT. In this one you can see every building, every window. Most other photos would be 70% black spots. This really is a terrific night shot. -- Pofka
Support --XRay ^talk 14:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 10:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, I am actually opposing one of David's images (I find it significant that not only did he not nominate it, he hasn't voted). I am surprised no one has pointed out the blatantly obvious processing artifacts in the lower left corner (look at the trees in the park) and the distortion near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 19:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zonaria pyrum pyrum 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2015 at 15:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, A lot of dust. And weird lightning specially in first two. -- RTA 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear RTA, it is a natural object in close up. Natural objects aren't perfect and some "dust spots" are visible, but it is real dust on the shell, not caused by photography. I cleaned the shell before, but you have always some dust in the air and so is impossible to get a shell completely without dust - unless you work in a high-purity laboratory. On other shells (like rock snails (Muricidae)) you don't see dust at the surface, but this is caused by the different surface structure of the shell (in which the dust is not visible), not by the absence of dust. Also the surface is extremely smooth and reflective (please compare with other photos of cowries in the www). To verify this, please see [3] --Llez (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  PS: RTA, I'm glad that you only opposed and that you didn't replace my picture during the voting period by another, as you did some weeks ago (see Bad behaviour just to troll or lack of reading? [4])! --Llez (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a lot of excuses, as always, ad hominem you will not improve your photos, and if I can take this without a dust how you can't do? And this is a f collaborative community if you can't handle co-work, just put your photos at Flickr and we import from there, no one will properly remove dust spots, as you are not able.

The cut stills a crap one in the right of the first shell, the light stills not even, and this will not change by you attacking me...

If you do not know how to handle criticism, do not apply for FP... -- RTA 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS:Looking other photo of this shell, the light is away more weird that I thought as here, it's interesting see people in a wiki community avoiding learning, and keep doing same mistakes as before. But thanks for the shells.

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 15:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 Llez --LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banaue Philippines Ifugao-Tribesman-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2015 at 21:03:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive image --XRay ^talk 07:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 08:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds File:Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg. Definitely worth being FP. -- Pofka (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but the left crop is quite random. See suggestion. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid that I lose the previous assessments, if I apply this crop. However, I provided an extracted version of the file with the favoured crop (format 8.5 x 11). So if anyone wants to use the other format, he can just use the second version. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would also like a tighter crop on the left. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /1989 18:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Lupinus pilosus (Zachi Evenor for Wiki).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2015 at 14:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 14:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Per others. Only a repetitious carpets. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty flowers but not "among our finest" photographs. -- Colin (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Colin. Pretty flowers, worth being QP, but not FP. I doubt that it might be used as primary picture in article of these flowers, which means it is not the finest image of its kind (that's what FP actually is). -- Pofka (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Sure it’s nice but that’s not what makes an image FP. --Kreuz schnabel 19:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ///EuroCarGT 02:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on oppose in the hope that the nomination will be mercifully withdrawn. Nice colors but nowhere near FP, not least in extremely ordinary composition. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stairs at Du Loup.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2015 at 21:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pel Laurens - uploaded by Abigor - nominated by Abigor -- Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 21:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 21:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Artistically I like it, but it's rather overexposed in most of the brighter areas (not just the 'obvious' flat areas, but look at the detail on the top of the post at the bottom of the left-hand stair). I'm not going to 'oppose' as I'm not a FPC regular, but I don't think it would really be 'usable' at higher resolutions because of the burned in areas. Revent (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Revent - Artistically - yes, encyclopaedic - no way. just stairs. sorry, D kuba (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- D kuba, this is Commons, not Wikipedia. There's no requirement to be encyclopaedic. We have an educational scope but this can be very widely interpreted, including images of "just stairs" taken artistically. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image might have worked if it was better technically -- it is rather soft/noisy. As a b&w photo the shape of the staircase is emphasised and it is permissible to have extremes of contrast (including blacked-out and blown areas) that wouldn't be accepted in colour. But I'd like to also see the detail in the flooring pattern and ironwork. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a 'technical comment', taking the same image with a polaroid filter would probably have helped significantly in that respect. Revent (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-01-11 Yvi Quainoo Cologne 11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2015 at 10:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Achim Raschka - uploaded by Achim Raschka - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. Yann (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausgezeichnet. Herzlichen Glückwunsch zu dieser gelungenen Aufnahme. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, good light--XRay ^talk 07:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wholehearted support Great use of light and shadow; captures a singer in the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait, good light. --Pugilist (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine. --Kreuz schnabel 19:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --///EuroCarGT 03:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /1989 23:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Edouard Manet - At the Café - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2015 at 00:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Edouard Manet - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 08:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 02:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brateevsky {talk} 11:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Manet more like this one, please. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /1989 23:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Augustine's Church, Kilburn Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 18:38:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "No wow", "A normal picture, nothing of featurable here", "bad quality and bad perspective". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So why You supporting this image? I don't understand Your comment. D kuba (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being ironic. ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't very funny the first time. Remember that "humour" doesn't often translate well. -- Colin (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say: WOW, very featurable here, good quality and nice perspective. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thumbnail looks great and I would love to support but my browser's simply not opening the whole picture. Crashes everytime. Quite frustrating. --Code (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Code, that's strange as it is only 41MP. For large pictures I find using the no flash zoom viewer to be helpful. It is linked just below the image on the description page. The flash viewer is not advised for FP review as it trashes the quality of the image. -- Colin (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Using actually Chrome 40.0.2214.115 m. I don't know what the problem is. Pictures below ~20MP don't make any trouble. --Code (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worked with Firefox. Support now. --Code (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's something in your Chrome's cache (or an extension) that is causing the problem. Chrome (40.0.2214.115 m) works fine for me. Diliff (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lots of wow. -- Colin (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /1989 23:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Sophia's Greek Orthodox Cathedral Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 18:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and intersting view! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual church (for UK) and the fine detail captured shows with the mosaic walls. -- Colin (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /1989 23:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brugge Vlissinghe R06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2015 at 20:44:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. The colors are contrasting very well and so do shadows and sunlight. --Code (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. Buildings are the "bread and butter" of commons, and I see nothing really outstanding in this image. I'd also prefer more light on the courtyard. --DXR (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Classic example of a QI that will never be an FP. Competently done and nice colors, but the composition just isn't doing it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gorce - polana Podskały (by Pudelek).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2015 at 23:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but no wow, neither special lighting nor special detail. --Kreuz schnabel 07:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the photo is far too good for its minimalistic file page. Wikilink(s) or a rough object location would help. The dewiki:Gorce via the category is only a red link. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added location :) --Pudelek (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "not far from Kraków" is clear on the map. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's plenty of wow for me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this kind of pictures --LivioAndronico talk 20:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really like the light, creating strong contrast with the building being almost completely black. The quality is not outstanding for a static subject. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pudelek (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Joven Madre 1889 by Arturo Michelena.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2015 at 12:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Young mother (La joven madre) by Arturo Michelena, photopraphed and uploaded by -- The_Photographer (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course... 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malhoa February 2015-1b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2015 at 22:29:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of Laura Sauvinet by José Malhoa, 1888. This realistic painting was considered by the artist as his masterpeice. Museu de José Malhoa, Caldas da Rainha, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trace (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monks' cellarium, Fountains Abbey.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 17:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KTC - uploaded by KTC - nominated by KTC -- KTC (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Lovely colors but the green and yellow columns closest to the viewer are posterized. Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Daniel Case, I've uploaded a new version. Can you have a look again? Thanks -- KTC (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer 09:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. Yann (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petroica goodenovii - Chiltern.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 01:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JJ Harrison - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 01:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 01:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple and impressive -- Zcebeci (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture quality is mediocre, even though the image size is only 4,4 Mpx. Only the head and chest are in focus, legs and wing are out of focus. –Makele-90 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samuel D. Ehrhart - An International High Noon Divorce (1906).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 02:09:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Samuel D. Ehrhart - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info As with many restorations, the borders were the most hellish part of this. Which is always annoying. There were some challenges on the cartoon and text, but I dealt with them fine. Border? Hours of focused work to remove all the damn thumbprints and grime and lighting issues. Which is, inevitably, annoying. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Annoying maybe, but an excellent result. --Pugilist (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good restoration. Thank Adam Cuerden!--Paris 16 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fresh as the funnies in the Sunday paper! Good work again, Adam. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

file:Bryggeriet Nyköping February 2015 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2015 at 11:30:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bryggeriet (the Brewery) is a former brewery in Nyköping Sweden. Today a cultur and art centre. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least 6 dustspot, see notes -- ChristianFerrer 13:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thank you .--ArildV (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you too, the motion and light of the water is near perfect. -- ChristianFerrer 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Immediately caught my eye. Good one. -- Pofka (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't find the composition very appealing. Looks to me it was made so that a bit of river can be thrown in a corner. Lighting doesn't help. The whole building isn't lit, and I'd rather have had this taken at sunset (of course I don't know where sun comes from, and even if there's sun at all over there right now, but only the result counts)- Benh (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I added location, the photo is taken from a bridge (Street view).--ArildV (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh, I find the composition too busy. It should either be a long exposure of the water or the building at blue hour, not both. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /1989 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Concattedrale of Sutri - intern.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2015 at 16:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 16:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharpness could be better and I'm not sure about the clearly overexposed window (could only have been avoided using HDR, I think). At least the first issue should be improved to get my support. --Code (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Code – unfortunately, Diliff pushed the FP threshold for church interiors up pretty far :-) Pity the rightmost candle is leaning, spoiling the balance. --Kreuz schnabel 07:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but DoF not the best. Sharpness could be better.--XRay ^talk 09:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you read Commons:Photography critiques#File:Concattedrale di San Giovenale.jpg?? You improved, but same issues as before. -- RTA 15:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo I'll explain: I have a cheap camera with a economic objective (both used) ,I paid 15 euro my tripod (...and my wife also accused me:"with that money you bought new shoes to a child!") , I DO NOT have a objective that allows me good shots, I have NOT the sharpest f-stop, I do not have the built-in HDR, I DO NOT have the bracketing. But I have the remote control (paid 2 euro I can afford it). I tried the HDR on pc and in fact the window at least a little bit you see otherwise only light, the only thing I have actually wrong, as he said good XRay, is the DOF. Thank You.--LivioAndronico talk 15:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Code,Kreuz schnabel, XRay I increased the Sharpness , for the candle ..... I don't know what I can do --LivioAndronico talk 15:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but I do what I can with what I have available, I hope not to create too much bother, but if so, I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 15:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you yelling?

You have Adobe Photoshop CC, so you can easily bracketing/stacking photos see and achieve the DOF necessary, and then you can use your sharpest (all lens have a better f-stop, do you know what is it?) any time... it is the same technique to HDRI 2 in 1, and very close to panorama technique.

And mirror lock up will reduce camera shake, and with 15 EUR tripod this could be even more necessary...

No, this not the only mistake, you also cut the main arch, and the benches stills in a weird position.

The only problem I see is: We tried to help, and then you react as this, I have a cheap camera also, and more cheap lens actually, so I know that you can improve... -- RTA 16:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yelling, I'm underlining, however I do not have the function raises the mirror (Nikon D3200!), Then I took the bow and also the floor, I remind you that I do not have a wide angle, and then if there is little room not I can not help it. --LivioAndronico talk 17:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a underline, anyway, after you focus, you can switch to "live mode" this will make your mirror rise up, and you will have the same effect. And yes, but, I can see half of a bench, maybe a step back, just guessing, I do not know the church, and with one more shot a beautiful panorama 2 min most, between take the extra shot and edit at PS.

One observation, this not a bad photo, I like the composition, the colours, the perspective, I do not know if you missed something in the overexposed window, but not seems the case, and to a church is a interest thing, looks god light, or something like that, but have technical issues that could be solved with small adjusts. -- RTA 11:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. --Code (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp, detailed. Good colors. -- Pofka (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pofka. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The central window is a bit bright but everything else of the picture is very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 23:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Pudelek (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/Delisted to not featured per this consensus. --Cart (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia colegial de Poznan, Poznan, Polonia, 2014-09-18, DD 22-24 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2015 at 13:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pipe organ of the Poznań Collegiate Church, Poland. The organ was made by the famous German organ builder Friedrich Ladegast between 1872 and 1876. The piece has 2579 pipes, most of which are made of high value tin alloy and valuable species of trees like: spruce, birch and Siberian fir. The splendid neo-Regency organ case is decorated with sculptures of angels playing musical instruments. The Poznań Parish church of Saint Stanisław The Bishop and The Martyr, built in the years 1651-1701 (and completed around 1750) and located near the Old Market Square in Poznań, is one of the most impressive Baroque sacral edifices in Poland. All by me, Poc o² 13:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting and quality. -- Pofka (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is it me or is there a recrudescence of quality interior shots ;) ? That said, my vote is an oppose, which is a bit extreme here. Quality is nice, but it's very honestly an easy shot which is why I'm demanding. Subject is seen from to low of a point of view. Feels a pain in my neck by just looking at it ;) I don't think the church was as small as to stop you from stepping back a little. - Benh (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supporta real and nice view. Good lighting, nice and an emotionally view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Kaunas Cathedral, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2015 at 17:31:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renomination. Previous post was denied due to more than two nominations. -- Pofka (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Pofka. And if anyone wants to oppose, please come up with a less trivial reason than "the floor is shiny". ;-) Diliff (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the image have a disturbing distorted appearance? This is a Diliff, so i could very well be mistaken.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not completely symmetrical, as you can see by the step from the nave to the choir/altar. I'm not sure if that's what you're seeing though, or if it's something else. Many of my interior photography is very wide angle, which exaggerates any asymmetry. Diliff (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - To me, it just seems that the right half of the photo appears stretched e.g. compare the left and right side ceiling lines, top and bottom foreground statues and paintings.Fotoriety (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, it's the asymmetry causing this. It is not the same on both sides, so you can't compare the shape, size and location of equivalent objects on either side. The camera is positioned exactly in line with the central checkerboard squares of the aisle. That is the true centre of the sanctuary. The fact that the statues and pillars are not aligned on both sides is because they are not in equivalent positions, relative to the camera's centre of view. Hard to explain with words, but it's the asymmetry. It looks almost symmetrical, but the reality is that it's just not, and wide angle views exaggerate any asymmetry. Diliff (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fine Diliff, i fully understand the asymmetry thing. Perhaps if you had taken the photo a little further behind the asymmetry would have been less pronounced and the image would have been more aesthetically pleasing...Not that 100% of voters seem to mind. :) .Fotoriety (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leitura by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior 1892.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2015 at 07:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Reading, by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior, oil on carvas, 1892. Located currently in the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture, because we need support works from Brazil and because it has a excellent quality --The_Photographer (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the color gamma. Excellent quality. -- Pofka (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 23:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 10:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- Zcebeci (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trace (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Leonardo da Vinci - Virgin and Child with St Anne C2RMF retouched.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2015 at 16:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leonardo da Vinci, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Huge size (237 Mpx, 71 MB) of a famous painting. Good quality reproduction, nice colors. The previous nomination was withdrawn IMO prematurely. High EV.
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just crazy resolution of this picture. Superb quality. Support. -- Pofka (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank Yann! People like you and da Vinci.--Claus (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lloyd's Building - Escalators fisheye.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2015 at 17:25:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Colin - nominated by Benh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly caught my attention. In my opinion, a very nice example of where the distortions actually add a touch to the picture. And that "S" unconsciously calls for a "S"upport ! - Benh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Catchy colors and view, however the moving people are blown. -- Pofka (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"S" for Support They were so proud of the escalator mechanisms in the Lloyd's building that they painted them bright yellow, installed fluorescent tubes to light them up, and enclosed them in glass panels. The escalators dominate any view of the lower-interior of this huge building and I wanted to fill your vision with them too. I think the image is dynamic in composition and in captured movement. -- Colin (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Technically not particularly strong, but compositionally interesting, and a view of an iconic building that we rarely see. Diliff (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ sorry, but I only see a fisheye distorted and blurred image. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to change your mind, but is this, like B&W, another case of 'fisheye = automatic oppose'? Fisheye is a legitimate projection of 3D space onto a 2D surface. It's not to everyone's tastes, but your oppose reason sounds like it's a fault. Diliff (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remember to a lot of other images with a small distortion and a lot of opposes ... and here? Here is only a distortion visible. For me: strong distortion = a oppose possible. I also wrote: "blurred". The most of the people and the escalator are blurred. My conclusion: distorted + blurred parts = "oppose" for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not all distortion is equal. Sometimes fisheye 'distortion' is a deliberate artistic/compositional choice, sometimes distortion is detrimental to the photo and adds nothing. In this case, the composition would have been absolutely impossible with a fisheye or similarly distorted projection. Also, you may have noticed that I said I wasn't trying to change your mind, I was just trying to understand your reasoning. And yes, the people and escalator are blurred. I would argue that it's not vital in this image that they are sharp. They are transient in the scene. Diliff (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think that distortion should yield an oppose. It really sounds like the argument of someone who think of photography as a technology show case. It doesn't have to be tack sharp, big, noisefree and straight. Diliff almost summed it all, but I'd add the blurred people is fine because it's motion blur which is way to evoke movement, and certainly not a fault. - Benh (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think we are here on Wikipedia:Commans, not in a fine art fotocommunity blog ... but "to err is human", sorry for my honestly opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thought Commons was mostly about photography and that photography itself was an art but yes, Errare humanum est. - Benh (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I was wrong. I strike my oppose. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Benh and Diliff, naturally. Our scope of "educational media content" is far far wider than merely photographs that are just literal photocopies of the visible world. Capturing a precise and accurate "specimen record" of a subject is of course a valuable part of educational image making, but only a part. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great idea - minor technical shortcomings do not devalue its execution --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition and interesting subject offset blurred people and blown window at top. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool and interesting photo. --///EuroCarGT 03:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the fisheye. I dislike all of the clipping due to the high gain. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lunar eclipse 04-15-2014 by R Jay GaBany.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2015 at 14:36:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Robert Jay GaBany - uploaded and nominated by The Herald-- - T H (here I am) 14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- - T H (here I am) 14:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. I’d prefer a symmetric crop though. --Kreuz schnabel 18:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’d also prefer a symmetric crop though. --Trace (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This picture deserves my Support. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like this unsymmetric shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Palacio Sintra February 2015-12a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2015 at 19:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Manueline window in the National Palace of Sintra, Portugal. This part of the palace was built in the reign of King D. manuel I of Portugal, in the begining of the sixteenth century. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! Sharp, good motif, good colours. And IMO with a wow factor. --XRay ^talk 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the simple rectangular windows and the plain white wall balance/counter the busy frame. Well spotted! --El Grafo (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice clean symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great combination of detail and simplicity. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice details --The_Photographer (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 01:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Refleksjoner.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2015 at 23:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karin Beate Nøsterud - nominated by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A (refreshingly) different type of picture. It has an interesting mood. --Pugilist (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed. -- Colin (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I love the idea and the differentness. Yet I struggle to get over that "Floor slippery when wet" sign. Still a good idea executed in a way that is quite visually appealing. --DXR (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The slippery floor sign is really off-putting I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Pugilist --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DXR. --El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support different and good --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea, but very disturbing, very busy, too bluish. The image describtion is also to low. Where is the place? Perhaps the blue Lagoon at Iceland? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alchemist. --Karelj (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /1989 17:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Rho Ophiucus Widefield.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2015 at 14:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rogelio Bernal Andreo - edited and uploaded by The Herald - nominated by The Herald -- - T H (here I am) 14:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- - T H (here I am) 14:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love these high resolution space pictures. -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - So do I. --Pugilist (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ohh Yeah! It's very good! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Pofka. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Seljalandsfoss, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 189-191 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2015 at 20:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sunset side view of the Seljalandsfoss waterfall, Suðurland, Iceland. The waterfall of the river Seljalandsá drops 60 metres (200 ft) over the cliffs of the former coastline. All by me, Poc o² 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Just curious... Where did that shiny thing in the middle came from? Looks quite unnatural and unnecessary. Probably would look better without it. -- Pofka (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compositionally it's very nice (would have been even nice to see the edges of the pool though), but the processing is a bit off-putting. The edge where the sky and cliffs meet has a strong halo. It's more obvious in the thumbnail view than at full size, but it's still not ideal. Diliff (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff, Pofka: Better? Poc o² 20:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. That shiny thing was completely unnecessary for sure! -- Pofka (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, there doesn't seem to be any change to the halo that I mentioned.... Diliff (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it again, it could actually be brighter next to the cliff because the waterfall's path creates a small gap between it and the cliff, so perhaps it's not a halo. Diliff (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I loved the sharpening and the composition, a litle bridge there with this bigest fall. Simply overwhelming --The_Photographer (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sooo envious. Really. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Makele-90 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 19:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. I'm "wowed". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of the composition which is mostly centered on the waterfall itself. Would have preferred something wider and dramatic. Like in [5], [6] or [7]. Don't know what combination of lens and filter was used but it looks a bit soft for a tripod shot photo. - Benh (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, I would also prefer to see these compositions, particularly the third one which has a similar 'under the waterfall' angle, but with a more interesting and aesthetic composition, and better lighting. Diliff (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problems with this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Successful posing in creating flow transparency on clouds. Zcebeci (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trace (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --///EuroCarGT 03:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Tahkuna tuletorn Hiiumaal, päikeseloojanguvalguses.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 13:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by MinuHiiumaa - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors. I'm looking at it and I wish I was there. --Code (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want to go to Estonia! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trace (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a big wow despite the sunset light... which unfortunately comes from behind and doesn't make the picture as moody as it should. An otherwise commons shot in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Tower Bridge view at dawn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2015 at 21:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution (205MP) panorama of the view at dawn from the road over Tower Bridge. -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "No wow effect", "a normal picture", "bad quality, bad composition and suject", "simply ugly"! (it's lie, ok? ) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of "wow" but still missing something. I feel that but I don't known what that is.--Claus (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs another huge skyscraper. They're probably building something monstrous where all those cranes are in the middle of the picture. :-) -- Colin (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, Colin, now I understand why you were oppposing Diego's picture of the Shard from the bridge. If that was the standard tourist view, then this deserves featuring as the creative local photographer view. Good stuff! Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely! ;-) Diliff (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Very good. I somewhat prefer to wait a few minutes after "peak golden hour" but this image is great as it is. The Shard doesn't make the composition easier with its height, but overall a difficult scene well managed, --DXR (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer crop --DXR (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive. -- -donald- (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice indeed. I don't think I've ever seen such a pleasant view from Tower Bridge (it's very different at sunset/dusk). Diliff (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And nice to see you using the Nodal Ninja pano head! (although it may not have even been needed for this scene, as parallax would have been negligible at such distances) Diliff (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  - Thanks for the support Diliff, and the Nodal Ninja of course. I haven't always had success with it -- need more practice but you make it look easy. I agree parallax isn't an issue here but a tripod does make a difference. Pretty much all my shots turn our sharp when I've used the tripod rather than handheld where I usually have to take several spare shots just in case some are blurry. Standing on the pavement alongside the road across Tower Bridge is not as stable a surface as I would like. In the middle, you are on the end of the drawbridge so it vibrates like mad when a vehicle passes -- some shots I took at slower speed were not sharp. (I thought you might mention the tide being out) -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)--Cayambe (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice size --The_Photographer (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive. --Pugilist (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel cold just looking at it. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 12:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eye catching. Surprised it came from you (expected a Diliff tag to be honest) - Benh (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Benh, Diliff's a steady churchgoer these days. He only allows works dedicated to the glory of God to render themselves on his camera sensor. :-) -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - One only goes after his/her siblings ;-) - Benh (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin, everyone needs a hobby. ;-) There is a chronic lack of quality interior images on Commons, and churches are simply the most accessible (and among the most beautiful), given you tend to need permission to photograph anything else with a tripod. Any fool with a camera can photograph the Thames from Tower Bridge! (Kidding, obviously. This is an excellent image both in terms of detail and aesthetics). Diliff (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trace (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop[edit]

Support This crop was proposed by The Photographer and I agree it is stronger, with the buildings filling the frame more. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit better. Yann (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better composition, difficult to open in my browser yet, however, thats good because it is big --The_Photographer (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The_Photographer, have you tried the no-flash zoom browser. I don't recommend the Flash one because it trashes the quality of the image. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this crop is better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above and even better. --DXR (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - both are very good indeed. The tighter crop makes the buildings stand out better, but I like the "tall sky" of the first picture. The tall blue sky emphasises the vastness of city below. So not indifferent, but pros and cons for both crops. --Pugilist (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as Pugilist -- ChristianFerrer 14:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess both compositions are valid—I see the first one as giving a nice and calm feeling, with an extra breathability factor (which I like), while I see the second one as being slightly more aggressive and dynamic. It's up to you to decide what you want to express! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aggresive like a lion or like a Trex? or like or as a worker of public social security? --The_Photographer (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "aggressive" is the wrong choice of adjective (bold, strong, powerful, perhaps?) Still I think the comments are interesting. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, poor choice of wording! :) Let's say that in extreme cases, when there's no breathability in a picture, I feel a bit oppressed somehow, which is what I meant by “aggressive”. This is not the case here but definitely more than in the first version for me. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a slight preference for this version. I'd be happy with either though. Diliff (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was thinking the same and even of getting rid of the rightmost building to balance it even more. But it's fine like that already. - Benh (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Diliff --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --///EuroCarGT 04:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although numerically the original crop has more support, the alternative was added quite late in the nomination. The consensus, of those who expressed an opinion, seems to be it is a bit better, with nobody thinking it is a lot worse. So I suggest the alternative be promoted. -- Colin (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Colin.--Claus (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Colin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Tower Bridge view at dawn crop.jpg

Comment. Umm, I thought it seemed clear as per Colin's comments, that the cropped version had slightly more support. The original had more support votes, but many people voted on both images and expressed a preference for the crop. Diliff (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could work because Colin "withdrew" his first nomination. --The_Photographer (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tubala tuulik august 2014.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2015 at 13:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by MinuHiiumaa - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was about to suggest a tighter crop at the right in order to come closer to a "rule of thirds" composition, but then I noticed that this would cut the windmill's "tail". --El Grafo (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's the light source in the foreground? Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Code (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice time! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pretty sky but otherwise very dull. Nice (alghough a bit academic) composition. - Benh (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Trace (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Wedding Supper - Martin van Meytens - Google Cultural Institute.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2015 at 17:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martin van Meytens - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fabulous at full resolution -- Tomer T (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Tomer. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hafspajen 06:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Support per Tomer --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more good paintings like this one. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:York Minster Choir, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2015 at 10:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. There are some ghostly persons in the background. They are not really disturbing, but maybe you can change this. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Windows in the back neat the top of the arch slightly blown but do we really need to fix that? Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Of course not --The_Photographer (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Diliff what happened to the closest elements? They are stretched. Just for curiosity, how many photos did you used here? -- RTA 17:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They're simply distorted by the rectilinear projection, this is normal and happens in any ultrawide angle scene. I could use a different projection but then straight lines would become bent and most people prefer to accept some distortion in exchange for straight lines. I believe I used 75 images to create this. Diliff (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I thought Diliff, so you do not use, like, a 24mm and create a panoramic photo? Another thing, In metadata appears that you used a 10 mm, but I don't know any EF 10 mm that are not fisheye, and in your list of equipment does not appear 10 mm :P, so what lens do you used, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8? Thanks for your time, and contributions.-- RTA 05:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a panoramic stiched image. I use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens (at f/11 or f/13 usually), but PTGui puts the effective focal length in the EXIF data, which in this case is 10mm. It's not completely accurate though, because I often crop the image a bit afterwards, so maybe it's more like 11 or 12mm. Diliff (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not upload all your RAWs to commonsarchive, you dont know if in the future a better software could make a better build with more information, i dont know. --The_Photographer (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All my RAW files?? I took 1 terabyte of RAW images in 2014 alone.... I don't think it's very practical. ;-) If better software in the future can make better images, I'll do it myself. I don't plan to release all my RAW files under a free license. Diliff (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look like you dont have space problems like me. Do you know some private alternative? --The_Photographer (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:York Minster Rood Screen, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2015 at 10:15:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another masterpiece for my Diliff personal churches book --The_Photographer (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I may... you look sometimes on the verge of overprocessing (I give it to you that I don't crosscheck all the times). - Benh (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you feel that way generally. What aspect of it do you think is overprocessed? The strong micro-contrast is an unavoidable (as far as I know, anyway) side effect of Lightroom's tone mapping algorithms, but different scenes seem to be affected by it to different degrees. Sometimes I wish I could turn the effect down a bit, but I can't. I certainly don't go out of my way to overprocess it because I share your dislike for the overprocessed HDR look. I've just uploaded a new version - I've tried to minimise anything that you might take issue with - the red colour of the wood and the gilded gold are toned down slightly. I've sent the clarity slider into the negative (usually a bad idea!) to try to reduce the micro-contrast. I'm not sure if this is an improvement in your mind but after reflecting on the image, I see the changes as minor but a slight improvement. Diliff (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes only ;) (I insist). I don't really know how to describe it, but yes, might be a little too contrasty and saturated (this is what I'd tone down). Strangely this is more obvious on the thumbnail, but it looks quite nice when browsed at 100%. The very fine details of the (beautiful !) roodscreen scream HDR a little bit too much. Have you tried processing with only a single exposure and check at the difference? As sidenote, I can understand you can not fine tune your pipeline for each picture given your (huge! do you outsource? ;) ) ouput of pictures. But as we discussed, just nitpicking from me ! - Benh (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, single exposures always have a slightly different tonality. I've just tried processing a single exposure and it's similar, but with less micro-contrast (and more global contrast, because it's not HDR). Here it is, it's probably more to your tastes but the overexposed and underexposed areas make it inferior IMO. Diliff (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Benh re your comment about thumbnail vs 100%. Someone pointed out a month or so ago that the thumbnailing code for MediaWiki was performing badly due to a software change (they were creating thumbnails by progressively reducing+sharpening from original to smaller to smaller and so on, rather than always from the the original). I don't know if this "feature" has been reverted yet, but something to bear in mind. -- Colin (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Colin: That might have been me. It has been reverted in the code repository and I'd assume that the change has gone live on Commons since December. --El Grafo (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        El Grafo, thanks. Good news. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just showed the picture to Nicolas (so he knows a bit about HDR and stitching) and his first reaction was "C'est pas une photo !" (let you check your French lessons ;) ). So it's not only me. You guessed right, i like the single exposure one better overall. It doesn't seem to trade off that much compared to the HDR, and looks more photograph. Colin, Good to know. Last time (10 years ago?) I played with MediaWiki, they provided interface to ImageMagick's conv, and if I remember right, the downsampling was done from the original picture and cached somewhere. Don't remember they played with sharpening and all! - Benh (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There will always be 'purists' out there who expect a photo to have a particular look. It's still a photo as far as I'm concerned. :-) Diliff (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I beg to differ. It's not about particular look, it's about something is out of place when looking at an overprocessed picture (like my brain anticipate how reality should like and the picture doesn't match that). To me HDR is for compensating shortcoming of a sensor's dynamic range, not to necessarily recover ALL highlights and shadows to the point reality is broken and it doesn't match any more what the eye saw then. But yes, this one is still (more than) acceptable as a photo. Otherwise, I would happily oppose ;-). - Benh (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point was that images from a DSLR frequently don't resemble what a human eye sees either, but many people are familiar with this look and expect photography to look like it, just as many people don't like fisheye or other uncommon projections because it represents a scene in an unexpected way, even though there's nothing inherently more 'correct' about rectilinear. Our eyes don't see a scene in true rectilinear projection but because we scan a scene in small areas at a time, our brain builds up a picture that approximates rectilinear. I agree with you about how HDR should be used and that's also how I try to use it. I never tried to render highlights and shadows as midtones. Dark things are still dark, bright things are still bright, but our eyes do generally see most detail in shadows and highlights so it makes sense to render them viewable at the extreme shadows and highlights of the image. I'm not trying to argue that HDR is perfect or that my use of HDR here is perfect, only that it can represent reality reasonably faithfully (when it's not done badly - full of haloes, oversaturated colours and lacking contrast). Diliff (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is interesting that the HDR image is being compared with the single-exposure image as though the latter might be more faithful or the former a deviance from reality. The "looks (or doesn't look) like a photograph" comment says more about expectations than what matters does it not? An artist can choose his interpretation of reality so why not a photographer? While it is useful, if one is discussing how to make an image, to compare different exposures and processing techniques, the comparison of the two falls into a similar mistake as to compare b&w with colour and assume the only faithful transition from colour to b&w is desaturation. My books on b&w photography comment that we are less tolerant of gross alternations of colour images than of b&w images, partly because we have already accepted the latter's disconnect with what the eye sees. But colour has a history too of a conscious choice for one interpretation such as Kodachrome vs Fuji Velvia. There are those who claim to appreciate "Minolta colours" or "Zeiss micro contrast" yet software now lets us fiddle in ways no glass engineer could. What Lightroom Camera Calibration Preset you use can have a marked change on the contrast and colours. The look of this scene will also change dramatically depending on the daylight (strength, temperature, angle) and any artificial lighting. Without being there, it is hard to judge and I don't feel a single-exposure represents anything much more than what Adobe's Lightroom engineers feel is a pleasing starting point for the average photo. That said, there's always the temptation to bring out detail in shadows that really should remain hidden or to tone down the full glare of a sunlit window. Sometimes were are tempted to judge an image by "how I'd have taken/processed it" rather than simply weigh up its strengths and weaknesses for what it is. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Colin this left me speechless as I had to decipher first. I won't go into this many considerations, I lack knowledge, no one cares, and anyways my point was just that to me (and at least to my friend) the picture ressembles a painting more than a photo on the thumbnails, and in some of the finest parts of the roodscreen, hence my comments. Yes where an image ends looking like a photo is debatable. As for me any BW, velvia film and whatever look like photo. Some badly overdone HDR look like computer generated and because I did and saw many of them I can tell the symptoms quickly. But maybe I was educated like that and it's fine with others. - Benh (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't want to distract you from this discussion with Colin, but do you see any improvement in the tonality of the rood screen detail now? I've uploaded a number of updates to it that try to tone down the microcontrast, the initial issue that we both agreed was less than ideal. Diliff (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Apologies for the over-long comment :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Colin don't know if you apologize because I said I had to decipher. If so, it was only because I don't read english so well. Diliff I think it does look better, though I seem to always see HDR signature. You've listened to enough of my ~~complaints~~ feedbacks I think, which I thank you for. - Benh (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ///EuroCarGT 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chatillon-sur-Seine Bourgogne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2015 at 21:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little too busy for me. Perhaps if it were cropped more tightly ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Daniel. The tree on the right isn't doing anything for it. If it could be taken without the cars, it would look more timeless, and perhaps with nicer sky or golden light. There's potential here, with the reflection. -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop[edit]

Taking in account the comments of Daniel Case and Colin, here is a cropped version of this picture. And a big thank you to Tomer T for this nomination!--Myrabella (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weaker oppose. The cropping improved it a bit (though I'm not sure it was needed on the left, and what's left there is a bit too tight), but Colin's point is now more clear: dull light in a cloudy sky just isn't making it happen here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but I dislike to let comments unaddressed. I can't edit the unfavourable wheather conditions though... --Myrabella (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playful Old Lady in Da Nang, Vietnam 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 01:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by myself. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support She tried her best to stop laughing for the photo. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A decent impromptu travel portrait but nothing that makes it stand out as particularly great either. Composition is bland. Diliff (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. What was wrong with photographing her laughing? If that's what she wanted to do, you should have let her. You would have a more natural photo that doesn't make us wonder why you put "playful" in the filename. All the same, your comments below notwithstanding, on further examination the contrast just doesn't work. Her face is too dark and the buildings behind her are blown. (!vote amended 19:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that I asked her to not laugh? I never dictate how people should pose in front of my camera. I hate every single modelling photos, I'm all in to capture a true expression. She, and she alone, decided to do it this way. Too bad that you didn't vote on the photo that I nominated of her laughing then. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that seemed to be implied by "she tried her best to stop laughing for the photo"—it sounded like she did so at your behest. When did you nominate the one of her laughing? I might have been away for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here was the previous nomination: Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Playful_Old_Lady_in_Da_Nang,_Vietnam.jpg. I also have another one on Flickr were she really have a wonderful and sincere laugh but I find the background to be distracting. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Trivial touristy shot. Plus, not sure the lady is aware her face ended up on public place. Not a fan of that. - Benh (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The things in her hands are not bánh chưng. I don't known exactly what is this but it is not bánh chưng. It's probably bánh giò.--Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My friend asked her for the name, so we're pretty sure it's bánh chưng and I remember the firmer consistency in comparison to bánh giò—she just make them in a different shape. I've actually never seen any bánh giò in Đà Nẵng? (But I've tried them 1 week ago in Cần Thơ, delicious!). Might not be the best reason to oppose the photo though :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. She was wrong or she makes a wrong way. Every vietnamese knowns bánh chưng is a square package, it symbolizes the Earth. While bánh giầy is a round cake, it symbolizes the Sun.--Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah well, I don't know what to say then. The inside didn't have the jelly/sticky consistency like a bánh giò. It was made of sticky rice instead. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no wow, bad image quality ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is anything wrong with the image quality actually. It's got a shallow DOF but the image sharpness and noise levels are pretty good. It doesn't seem to have any significant technical faults. Diliff (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praia de Boa Viagem - Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2015 at 19:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Boa Viagem Beach, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil. Created by Leandro's World Tour (Flickr) - uploaded by Juniorpetjua - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture's trying a little too hard, and unfortunately a crop won't save it (although it would still be able to improve things). It would have been better taken from a little further down the beach, in front of the palm trees. That way the curve of the beach and the skyline on the promontory could be made to stand out more. As it is it's too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI'm a little tired of this nominations. Anyway, nothing special here, a bad day also, not the best time to shoot, not the best angle to shoot. -- RTA 18:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Jaguar XE Paris Take Over 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2015 at 01:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jaguar MENA - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is blurred in an really ugly way (reminds poor quality Google Maps satellite view). Nothing which causes "WOW" here. Nowhere near featured picture for me. Just a strange Jaguar advertisement sheet. -- Pofka (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Pofka. Daniel Case (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but photoshoped kitsch. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously the car was shrinking during exposure – its back end is motion blurred while anything else is crisp sharp. Needs re-engineering though for the rotating (thus useless) brakes on the hind wheel. Sorry but the only EV of this is being used as bad example, so it’s practically out of scope here. --Kreuzschnabel 10:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of motion blur: The planks are blurred at the sides but not below the car. Oppose --El Grafo (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --· Favalli ⟡ 03:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This advertising shot is neither about the city in the background, nor the car in the foreground. It's about the story. I think Jaguar has several great documentary style pictures on their Flickr account but this isn't one of them. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2015 at 12:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança, oil on canvas, circa 1835. Created by an unidentified artist; after John Simpson (1782–1847) - uploaded by Dcoetzee (Bot) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special here. Yann (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: I respect your opinion, although I think it has high EV. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be OK for COM:VI, but not here. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Pofka: Alternative version with modified colors. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First version probably is better (has more natural colors). He looks too pale here, IMO. -- Pofka (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Even worse than above. Yann (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]