Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2016 at 19:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Burg Lindelbrunn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama Burg Lindelbrunn.jpg
Oppose Not so much per KoH, although he's right, but to me that the processing in the left frames with the castle is more erratic than that in the right frames with the deeper, more satisfying view of the landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2016 at 18:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stained glass windows in São Bento Monastery, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stained glass windows in São Bento Monastery, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Comment If the subject is the stainded glass window, it appears to be cropped at the bottom. That wouldn't be accepted for a painting. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to Oppose then. The other FP doesn't convince me to change my mind. We have thousands of stained glass windows on Commons and I don't think this is remarkable among them, and flawed too. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2016 at 17:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Newport Beach Boat Parade by D Ramey Logan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Newport Beach Boat Parade by D Ramey Logan.jpg
3717
2236
535
455
6016
4016
Your Christmas gift just might be inside this door, cast that vote carefully - Kris....
1203
509
201
2182
6016
4016
Reindeer Guidance System becomes operational on 12/24/2016 - signed: Rudolph, The Official RNR & station sysop..
107
2892
909
643
6016
4016
This is my sleigh under cover & made to look like a regular boat.. Thanks to my many helpers - Kris
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: camera shake.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 10:50:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Турно Скијање 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Турно Скијање 2015.jpg
Support Yeah, maybe, but I'm OK with it as it is. His bent posture and pack accentuate the "man against the elements" thing here, which works quite well at the current size. I can imagine this being memed, Successories-style, with some text like "It's all ... uphill from here." Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really seeing what is exceptional about this ski photo. The lighting isn't great per KoH, the camera angle isn't dramatic, there's no mountain vista in the background, and you can't see his face. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 16:23:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kanyam Tea GardenKanyam-00015100.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kanyam Tea GardenKanyam-00015100.jpg
Oppose Overprocessed in an attempt to compensate for the off focus; also while I can easily accept blue mountains here, purple ones are a bit much. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the focus/sharpness/color problems mentioned by the five opposers.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 20:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Notre-Dame de Paris from the Pont de l'Archevêché by Night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Notre-Dame de Paris from the Pont de l'Archevêché by Night.jpg
Oppose Per the halos, especially at left. I also wonder if moving the camera further left would be possible in order to get a composition where the big fall-colored tree doesn't hide most of the building? lNeverCry07:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. The whole processing looks very unreal to me, e.g. the windows of the towers being so much darker than the night sky. --El Grafo (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the effects of the overprocessing noted by others. It seems as if the idea was to eat the cake and have it too, to have the building well illuminated but not have the blown lights you'd otherwise have after even the most careful of 13-second exposures. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 13:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lesser Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lesser Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg
Oppose - I would recommend a nomination at COM:VIC, as this is definitely a valuable image. However, I don't find anything outstandingly beautiful or fascinating about this coat of arms that would impel me to vote to feature it. No offense, I hope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 17:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canthare à Aphrodite, MBA Lyon E 388b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canthare à Aphrodite, MBA Lyon E 388b.jpg
Oppose - Very nice piece, but the photo is not sharp enough for FP, in my opinion. I'm thinking that if you could use a softer light source, that might help, but I don't know how possible that is in this museum. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A photo of an ancient artifact like this should be represented in its true colors. It doesn't look like there has been any attempt to fix the white balance, I tested it a bit and it looks like there are at least three light temperature present making this almost impossible to fix. It is submitted under "Ceramics" but the description on the file's page says nothing about what material it is made of, pleas add that. --cart-Talk19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Милениумскиот крст на Водно.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Милениумскиот крст на Водно.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 15:27:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Konica Auto S3 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Konica Auto S3 1.jpg
Oppose I'm sorry but... It is a very good photo, it is extremely sharp and well lit, in fact so good that you can see all the dirt, grime, dust, fingerprints and other yuk-y stuff on the camera. If I'm looking at such a good photo I really want to see a nice clean camera without any such disturbing elements. This cleaning usually has to be done in two stages: 'analogue' cleaning before shooting and the some additional dust-spotting and removing with the clone brush. In my book Colin still holds the award for cleanest FP camera, sadly the same can't be said for many of the other FP camera pics. --cart-Talk19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Old cameras are going to have dust, just like ruins or historical sites that are popular tourist attractions will have crowds of people. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are those really analogous? I'm tempted to oppose per cart's argument. I think it's quite possible to carefully clean an old camera; do you think it's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes it is a bit dusty but mainly the photo doesn't make me go wow. I think one has to have just a little extra to get FP. Like being super clean or having interesting lighting, and if the tabletop surface is visible, it needs to be more photogenic than white paper. The background isn't pure white, like File:Sony A77.jpg (another immaculate camera) which limits its use a little. I note that we do have a mix of cleanliness of older cameras at FP, with some worse than this and some immaculate. Evan-Amos is the expert at taking photos of vintage equipment that look like they have only just come out the box. My own camera was almost new when I photographed it, but still required cleaning to remove household dust that gathers within seconds, and a fair bit of software cleanup. The rear photo was particularly difficult, with the LCD screen, viewfinder and especially the rubber eyepiece attracting dust like a magnet. So I do appreciate this isn't easy. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cart and Colin said it much better and in much more detail than I could. This is certainly a very good photo from a technical standpoint, and I don't think anyone would ever think of suggesting that it doesn't richly merit its status as a Valued and Quality Image. But I think the improvements they outline could and should be made for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 07:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 35-37 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anfiteatro, El Jem, Túnez, 2016-09-04, DD 35-37 HDR.jpg
InfoHypogeum of the Amphitheatre of El Jem, an archeological site in the city of El Djem, Tunisia. At both sides of this tunnel are located the cells where the beasts for the games were kept. The amphitheatre, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979, was built around 238 AD, when the modern Tunisia belonged to the Roman province of Africa. It is the third biggest amphiteatre and one of the best preserved Roman ruins in the world with capacity for 35,000 spectators within 148 metres (486 ft) and 122 metres (400 ft) long axes and a unique in Africa. All by me, Poco207:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I know the metal grate is not an original Roman element, but I love what it does to the photo. This is probably my new favorite out of all of your photos of this amphitheatre that I've seen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan, I think the mesh roof actually makes the picture more interesting—I'm sure the Romans would have been like, "Cur non cogitare?" if they could have seen it. It's a nice combo of old and new. And, to build on cart's comment, the color so works. You could easily expect to see Indiana Jones running past. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea, and I experimented with some crops also, but can't get away from that metal grate, which is just too busy. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 16:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2016 -- 5906-12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2016 -- 5906-12.jpg
Comment - Interesting photo, but I'd like a little more space on the right side, since the statue's pinky is pointed that way. Is that possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a candidate
I can check the image within the next days, but IMO there is no more space. Do you think another image may be a good choice? The one on the right?--XRaytalk17:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't like that one as much and see what the issue is: There's another building to the right, and including it in the composition makes it more complicated, to its detriment. I will live with this photo for a while and see what I think later. Thanks, XRay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)Comment I would actually prefer the second one. In that the hand is "clearer", it isn't interfered with by the lit windows behind it, it also gives an uninterrupted view of it's reflection and that of the horse nearby. In other words, it is less cluttered. Maybe with a little crop at the bottom to get rid of the uninteresting pavement. Decisions, decisions... cart-Talk17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination A decision! I think, I'll nominate the other image next year. Thanks for all your comments for all the images within this year. --XRaytalk12:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 19:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castle of Les Baux-de-Provence cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castle of Les Baux-de-Provence cf01.jpg
White cedar in sun shower and frost fog, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2017 at 17:37:45 (UTC)
White cedar in sun shower
White cedar in frost fog
Info A set of two photos of the same two white cedars and a small opening between them about 3 meters above ground. One photo is taken during a sun shower in autumn and the other in frost fog during winter about two months later. All by me, -- cart-Talk17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I knew I was going to get some comment about that one. It is shot in heavy fog just a few hours after this one so it is bound to be less sharp than the first photo, but I wanted the fog as a feature in the photo since it added to the cold ambience of it. cart-Talk20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PetarM, thanks for your comment. There are several permutations if someone wants to make these two pics into some combined photo: side by side with one or the other first, one on top of the other, half of each photo and so on, using either some software or plain wiki-code with a space between them. I think it is best to keep them as a set of two separate pics here so that people can decide for themselves how they would like to use them in articles etc. Combining them for the nom would make this inflexible. Let's keep this simple and basic. cart-Talk15:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2017 at 22:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kefermarkt Kirche Flügelaltar Geburt 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kefermarkt Kirche Flügelaltar Geburt 01.jpg
InfoNativity of Christ at the winged altar of the parish- and pilgrimage church Kefermarkt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master (Master of the Kefermarkt Altar), around 1497. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice, but is it not possible to up the sharpness further? Or perhaps it's the type of dull light that hit it that's tiring my eyes a bit when I look at this photo and that wouldn't be helped by further sharpening. Am I the only one who's affected this way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not the only one... Sharpness could be better here, no doubt. I just don't think it's actually bad enough not to support. But any attempt to improve the quality is definetely welcome. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 09:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape Nissan-lez-Enserune cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape Nissan-lez-Enserune cf01.jpg
Oppose - Very sorry to interrupt the support votes, but I really don't get why this composition is great. The village is unsharp and uninteresting to look at, and I think there's too much empty sky. I might rather see the rest of the tree that's cut off on the left and crop the photo just a bit to the right of the church, so as to focus on the dead tree, which is by far the most interesting thing in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Partly per Ikan, but I also don't see any beauty in the subject itself -- so to me it lacks "wow".. sorry. There are ugly subjects that still make my jaw drop but this looks the same as many other rural-industrial areas to me. The light is nice though! -- Thennicke (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 00:26:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Four versions of a floodlight through rain on a window.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Four versions of a floodlight through rain on a window.jpg
Info A little something for those who wanted more artistic and perhaps minimalistic pics. :) A combination of four photos of a halogen floodlight as seen through the pouring rain on a double-glazed window one dark and stormy afternoon. All by me -- cart-Talk00:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment good and interesting! It may be just my screen but I really don't have to try all that hard to identify the individual segments, ie photos, of this composite nomination. Maybe you'd like to go back to photoshop for a sec to improve (darken) the background a bit more? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, thanks for the feedback. :) It's not you monitor, I hadn't planned on "merging" these four photos any further than a thin gradual line to separate them. They are after all photos of a window pane and not total darkness, but if you think a bit darkness would improve the pic, sure I can do that. Only the space around the floodlights though since a total darkening overhaul would damage the fine details on the floodlights themselves. I'll have to do it later though since this is the day we celebrate X-mas in Sweden. Have you seen all the tiny rainbow patterns at full size? --cart-Talk11:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martin, that very gracious of you. :) Nevertheless, you were right. I've cleaned up the gradient in the darkness between the lights a bit.(Hmmm, in any other context that sentence would have sounded metaphysical and contrived... ;) On this project we certainly say things that would have sounded crazy outside the scope.) Best, cart-Talk12:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 08:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:High Court of Australia, ACT - perspective controlled 1.jpg
Support I like this more than the other one. The added shapes at left add some interesting structures/lines to the composition. The crop at left may be a bit tight considering the generous right crop though. lNeverCry08:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is nice, especially with the trees breaking in on the sharp lines of the building, stairs and whatever those "fins" are for. --cart-Talk10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I assume you're referring to the WB? I've tried to keep the lighting and processing consistent with images such as this and this and IMO this is very much as the scene looked (those trees are I think Eucalyptus cinerea and their leaves are blueish-grey, maybe that's making things look too blue to north american eyes?) And thanks for your comment of course -- Thennicke (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thennicke: That's sort of what I meant by "the photographer's tastes". You know this scene, I have never been there, and although my mind wants the concrete to be a little warmer (and maybe cheesier) that's not realistic so I defer to your experience there.
There are some eucalyptus trees around on the U.S. East Coast, mostly decorative plantings in larger yards where people wanted a big deciduous shade tree but not (for whatever reason) an oak or maple, but yes of course I haven't set eyes on whole forests of them. Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Good observation about the EXIF, I'll try my best to track down which program is doing that. I'll also add a more detailed description; thanks for pointing that out -- Thennicke (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2017 at 09:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mausoleo de Hafez, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 12-14 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mausoleo de Hafez, Shiraz, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 12-14 HDR.jpg
Info Ceiling over the marble Tomb of Hafez, northern edge of the city of Shiraz, Iran. The mausoleum is dedicated to Khwāja Shams-ud-Dīn Muḥammad Ḥāfeẓ-e Shīrāzī (1325/6-1389/90), better known as Hafez, one of the most important poets in the country history. The mauselum is situated in the Musalla Gardens and was built in 1935 according to a design of French architect and archaeologist André Godard, are at the site of previous structures, the best-known of which was built in 1773. Poco210:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is already a Featured Picture of the ceiling of this mausoleum, and I think it's quite a good picture, but it's a detail picture concentrating on the center, whereas this shows all the tilework. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional info. This was built in 1935? I assume the design is heavily influenced by earlier styles well-known to the archaeologist/architect who designed it, because I definitely wouldn't have guessed 20th century for this style. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is a bit awkward, and the off-center positioning made me think it was a heptagon until I counted the sides! -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 11:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support At first I was thinking that maybe it could have been cropped in tighter, but looking at it and thinking about it I realized that the background is just warm and subdued enough to perfectly contrast the bright yet cool sculpture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Oddly enough" ;) my first reaction was like Daniel's, that the crop was too wide but then I realized I could not suggest a better one since I wouldn't want to cut the glow from the horse, so it is perfect as it is. Really unusual. --cart-Talk22:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 07:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rofental, Tirol.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rofental, Tirol.jpg
Support - This photo's excellence is most evident to me at full size. I love the rockiness, the high, narrow valley, the contrast of light and shade, the brighter regions being further away, the dramatic sky, the glaciers, all the shapes. I'll be interested to see whether the rest of you share or don't share my feelings about this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Ikan. The waterfall at left is especially dramatic. However, quality is not fantastic (old camera, I know) and it seems like you might want to turn your sharpening/local contrast down a tiny bit -- Thennicke (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Easily memeable with the expression "I took him to the mountain and showed him the valley". I can't think of a better illustration for the underlying sentiment. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 04:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ballroom ceiling (29580926361).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ballroom ceiling (29580926361).jpg
Support Thanks to W.carter for cleaning this one up (the fixture is very slightly askew, but that's up to the Todmorden Town Hall maintenance crew to deal with) . I still think the colors and patterns are interesting and striking enough to be featured. I appreciate your consideration, and Happy New Year to everyone!lNeverCry04:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm finding this too unsharp for FP. If the sharpness is successfully upped, I may reconsider, because this is a very nice motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks nice in thumb, but the pixel quality is not at all there for me - very noisy. Some very strange things going on, like the chains, they start out being black at the ceiling, then turn to purple further down? That looks very wrong to me. But a happy new year to you too, INeverCry! -- Slaunger (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, even though I fixed this for you, but Slaunger is totally right. At first it was not only the chains that were purple, but the whole corners and some of the bottom of the pic. I cleaned it up as best I could and I was unsure about what to do about the chains, since it would take forever to clean them up without disturbing anything else. It's not very sharp and it would have ruined the details if I had done any major noise reduction on it. --cart-Talk17:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 09:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rådhuset metro station December 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rådhuset metro station December 2016.jpg
Support Having seen this view a thousand times on my way to work, it has never look as good as in this photo, and yet nothing is added or changed. Well done! --cart-Talk09:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Info for non-Swedes about the choice of artwork at this station: "Rådhuset" means Town Hall/Rathaus and the partial pillars are symbolizing the ancient foundation for the building above. cart-Talk09:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong support what a great picture of a truly wonderfully designed station! Personally I'd prefer longer exposures but that's just a matter of taste. 1/15 works as well as it provides a better idea and more details of the moving train. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is 2 very different images, due to the different focal length. Regarding the quality, I believe the quality to be good considering that it is a uncompressed 24mp extreme wide-angle image.--ArildV (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not sure about the two noms. I think, ArildV, you should have stated the other nom up-front. The previous FP has a slight horizontal-perspective issue (see the escalator lights) but handles the lighting highlights better. It is also better for having some people on the escalator, imo. Both have a similar amount of roof, but this one has more of the black floor, which isn't very interesting. The escalator here isn't quite centred in the frame. The train adds a little bit, but essentially we just have the same photo zoomed out a little bit. I would encourage you to consider a 16:9 crop (see note on file page) which will centre the escalator, remove some of the floor, has the floor lines lead in from the corners, and has a more dramatic format imo. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the other FP. Hmmm. I don't know why you shoot and nominate thesamesubject for FP with only some slight difference and not even in the "set way" where several shots of a subject makes sense. Wouldn't it be more productive to move on and shoot another location? I won't change my vote, but I agree with Colin that you should have declared the other photo in the nom and explained why you think we should have these two versions of the same view. --cart-Talk15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is vey simple, I thought (and think) it was a different images with different focus (more of the station and train, IMO also a more dynamic composition with the lines (train, and the lines in the floor). You can of course disagree. The previous FP was no secret, it was a finalist in last year's POY and I hope you are not suggesting that I tried to hide it consciously.
Wouldn't it be more productive to move on and shoot another location?
First: I am not employed by you or WMF for taking pictures. I am a volunteer and do not need to be extremly productive. Furthermore, I believe that it is good to have many images of an object taken during different seasons. I wish all small villages to be as well-documented as Ljungdalen, all the islands as well documented as Landsort and all metro stations as well documented as Rådhuset. I have limited time and often have a camera in my bag, and take photos of the places I visit anyway.
W.carter: Regarding Landsort; the last nomination from 2016 was from another user. The another from 2013 and 2012.
ArildV, I wasn't suggesting you "tried to hide [the previous nom] consciously" but even a POTY finalist can be unknown to people who only joined recently, and not everyone will remember the photo as well as you remember your own. It is best to be "up front" about this, so avoid the situation where a similar photo is pointed out only after several people have supported. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I prefer the existing FP. This one has more darkish areas, too much floor (though it could be resolved by cropping), more disturbing highlights (the lights on escalators, and the reflections on the floor), and also more noise (visible on escalators and the plaque). --A.Savin11:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 04:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - Very useful for VI, but I'm not finding the composition outstanding to move my eye around or view, or to put it another way, the photo is certainly interesting but isn't wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, and good technical quality, but many obstructing trees and a general low reading on my wow-o-meter, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wowed either; I think my main problem is the diluted sky. It may be how it was that day, but it doesn't create enough of a contrast with the earth tones of the castle and woods. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 23:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Korab 11.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Korab 11.jpg
Oppose - Not comparable in interest to the mountain pictures we've been featuring lately, but The Photographer, what's wrong with the name? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing composition. File name is OK with me, its primary purpose is to be a unique identifier and not be misleading. The description of the subject shall be in the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Radisson Blu in Christmas time.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Radisson Blu in Christmas time.jpg
Info Radisson Blu in cold Christmas time. Only way to dismiss Freedom of Panorama, and yet its good shot. Krismas tree can be seen inside of a dark hotel. And de-minimis ligths, non part of Xmas lighting. I am done for 2016. -- Mile (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the freedom of panorama can be applied pics where a copyrighted logo is the main subject of the photo. This file may be a copyvio, hopefully someone may know more about this. --cart-Talk18:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the copyright status of the logo in Slovenia. I believe, however, that the US part of the equation is fine, since it appears to consist of words in a common font and geometric shapes ... thus it is ineligible for copyright in the US. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the idea of this image, but the building's edges aren't clearly defined, so it seems like the logo is floating in space, it just looks weird to me, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, somewhat along the lines of Gamaliel. The emphasized forms just sit there and stop my eyes from moving around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 18:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Bradley (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP6830 smial wp.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Bradley (Traumzeit Festival 2013) IMGP6830 smial wp.jpg
Support - I like beautiful photos of architecture and nature as much as the next guy and gal, but it's good to have more FPs of people, and I really like this soulful picture of a singer in concert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would qualify my !vote, however, by saying that I hope someone can make the pink and purple splotches look like they came from the lighting and not paint dripping off some unseen part of the set . Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pink/purple LED stage lights are a PITA for photography. The look cool but render differently with digital sensors, where they are often out-of-gamut and easily blow the colour channels. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 14:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Кањон матка.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Кањон матка.jpg
Support - I don't feel like I'm really able to fairly judge this photo without making a high-quality print of it, because I don't think it's at its best at full screen, and I can't view it on my screen all at once at full size. My one hesitation is whether the depth of the view is truly captured in fog. But even so, I'll vote for it on the basis of my initial reaction of "wow" to the thumbnail and my sense that except for the motors on the boats, this looks similar to great Japanese paintings of yesteryear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically sound, but I can't see that composition justifies FP status. Charles (talk)
Oppose The scene has potential, but doesn't quite work for me. The boat is too central; the person onboard isn't striking an engaging pose; nor is the boat particularly photogenic; the harbour seems arbitrarily cropped. I think an FP has to be a great image, not just vaguely remind one of other images. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It definitely has potential but the crop is not really good. I'd probably support a different version with a sustantial crop on bottom and right, and maybe B&W works here Poco220:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 07:19:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klagenfurt Welzenegg Krastowitz 1 Schloss Krastowitz SW-Ansicht 29122016 5929.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klagenfurt Welzenegg Krastowitz 1 Schloss Krastowitz SW-Ansicht 29122016 5929.jpg
Comment Surely there must be a better place to take this photo from that shows more of the building from ground level not from way down where the building is half hidden? Charles (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Charles. I like the subject and light condition but the composition is not balanced. The tree and fences in the foreground just steal to much attention to the viewer versus the castle in the background. I'd have probably tried to look for a different spot to the right and closer to the castle. Sorry, not convincing to me like this. Poco220:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees don't help the composition: they dominate too much of the left-hand side and are also cut off at the top. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Sorry, it was one of my wrong decisions to nominate this picture here in FPC. I wanted to demonstrate the relation of the name Krastowitz (Slovenian "hrast" means "oak tree") to the oak trees nearby. Perhaps it would have better fit to the VI. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 10:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lang's short tail blue (Leptotes pirithous) male underside.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lang's short tail blue (Leptotes pirithous) male underside.jpg
Support per Thennicke, and I was just remembering how this was the kind of picture I used to oppose. I guess I'm still not sure this kind of bokeh is my absolutely favorite thing, but if that's what's needed to get this photo of the butterfly, I'm OK with it. And it is pretty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not my usual 100mm macro lens, Jee. I was on holiday, not really butterfly hunting, and had my 24-70 F4 L IS lens which has a macro facility. Charles (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 07:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old medina of morocco.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old medina of morocco.jpg
Weak support I've uploaded a version with perspective correction. The top center of this image is overexposed, but not severely enough for me to oppose. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm here, to support this very nice old alley in one of peaceful cities in Africa.
Mild Oppose - I really don't know how much more room there is in this alley. If there was more room behind the photographer, I think that stepping back for a longer depth of field could have improved the photo. I think that was needed for the viewer to feel a greater sense of relaxation in viewing the composition. In this case, I feel tense because all the details seem to be closing in on me. I think that's what Daniel may have meant when he said "there are too many things going on in this one", but for me, it's not that there are too many things; it's that because there are so many things sticking out in a picture with a short depth of field, the parts end up feeling to me as if they are almost the whole, whereas I'd like to see them more clearly subordinated to the long view. I hope that makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 05:32:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse (2016).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse (2016).jpg
Support - Very serene (apparently not super-windy and cold like it was when my girlfriend and I were driving down Highway 1 a few summers ago), and you really capture the way the light and air look in that part of the world. Well-composed, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the building in general isn't in great shape. Due to safety concerns, the lighthouse is currently not open to the public. It's also not clear how long it's going to take until they reopen it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it very closely, it's not the lighthouse that's the problem but the sea. It's not perfectly level but tilted a wee bit. Could you fix that please. cart-Talk11:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 10:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:To Become a Martial Arts Instructor in Hawaii 161208-M-QH615-011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:To Become a Martial Arts Instructor in Hawaii 161208-M-QH615-011.jpg
Oppose As a portrait (don't know what else it could be) I would like some better DoF and if we want pictures of guys that are focused and "in the zone" for a daunting task ahead of them, well, I've seen better. The bite guard only makes him look freaky, like some cheap version of Hanibal Lecter. --cart-Talk19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 20:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Sure, I most often do that, but here I chose the dominant black neck to be the 1/3. However we crop, there's always a difference of opinion among voters. I used to just leave all my images in off-the-camera 3x2, but most people seemed to want varying degrees of crop! Charles (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 18:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 898.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common kingfisher in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 898.jpg
Oppose - I'm sorry, but the unsharp branch and twigs in the lower left and center foreground really bother me and distract me from the bird. Because of them, this is not an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On image quality grounds. I don't know if this is relevant to your 7DII, but I tried using the Sigma 150-600 C on my old Canon 60D and found the image quality at 600mm to be much, much worse than on my full-frame 6D. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm skeptical at times about the ethics of cloning out things that were there. But that said, if you're going this far, why don't you crop out the branch completely? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not the only photographer here who objects to certain shapes of picture frames per se, but I really don't really understand why. A square is just a shape. The important things are the content and how the elements relate to each other compositionally. But that said, if you crop just to the right of the branch, it won't be a square but will still be wider (l-r) than it is long/tall (top-bottom). In the current version, I will again Oppose because the branch distracts me from the bird, and I care about that, not the shape of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sharpness and CA are much improved, and this isn't an overly busy composition like the other alternatives. Excellent! (though small now) -- Thennicke (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 17:04:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pierres gravées Khumbu.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pierres gravées Khumbu.jpg
Comment - I'm leaning toward supporting this because it's so interesting to look at. But could you possibly extend the photo down a little further so that we can see the rest of the stone in the bottom middle? I don't like the sensation of being cut off while moving my eye around the picture frame. Escusez-moi de ne pas ecrire en francais. Il faut tant de temps pour moi d'ecrire choses comme ca en francais. Et soyez le bienvenue ici! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your welcoming. Sorry, but I am not sure to quite understand what you are asking for. You mean that you prefer I cut the picture like this ?
No, I would like for the photo you submitted to extend further down, so that the large stone in the middle of the bottom of the picture frame could be seen in full, if that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is an interesting and unusual monument (here on COM:FP) and I would like to be able to support it but it looks overexposed to me, especially the big rock down right. Also for an FP, I would like a bit nuanced lighting and the text to be sharper, the focus is more on the rocks in the water than the text rock. Sorry. --cart-Talk19:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per cart. Overexposed areas of rock and water look like some attempt was made to mitigate it in processing, leaving a sort of artificial look. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2017 at 20:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Signal vor Einfahrt Bahnhof Meiningen 2016-11-28 HBP - A v2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Signal vor Einfahrt Bahnhof Meiningen 2016-11-28 HBP - A v2.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grand-Duc. This image depicts German railroad signals erected on the approach to Meiningen station (Bundesland Thuringia). Due to a slightly fogged weather ambience, we've got a stray light ray that IMHO serves nicely to illustrate the functioning of light signalisation. As I've got really positive reviews on DE-WP, I put this up here for scrutiny. As for a slight blue hue and bright spots visible in the lower half of the picture: I tried to offer the watcher's eyes some guiding towards the reflecting panels of the signals by illuminating them with a LED lamp (contrasting to the road lighting by yellowish sodium lamps). This made some ice crystals on the ballast stones appear as bright spots, too, the ice stemming from the fog freezing at around -2°C. I'm looking forward for any critics. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea and hard to catch such beams but I think this would have gone better if you'd skipped that LED light. I don't mind the glittery snow crystals but the blue hue adds yet another color to the landscape and the light makes the reflective surfaces stand out and compete with the red beam for the viewers attention in an unnatural way. A more coherent and warm color scheme would have been better. Unfortunately, part of the beam also coincides with the tree line, that sort of "stops" the beam and messes with it, plus you've got traily stars. For such a dark photo you could have upped the ISO just a bit to cut time. cart-Talk00:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - cart's points are well taken, but I also doubt this could be an interesting enough image to warrant a feature, rather than VI/QI. I hope that doesn't come across as unnecessarily harsh: I definitely respect your effort to take an informative photo in the cold, and I think it bore fruit, but as informational, ergo VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and Cart. To be FP in my eyes, the composition of a shot like this would have to do an incredibly good job at abstracting the signal and tracks away from the background - as it is, with the yellow sign and the trees in the background, it's too "busy". And mixing light sources is asking for difficulties in post-processing. The image does a great job of showing what it needs to show, but (to me) it lacks "wow", and as Ikan said, is therefore a good VI candidate. Just my 2 cents and I hope it doesn't discourage you from trying more creative images like this -- Thennicke (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per cart; I think the red beam in the fog by itself might have looked special and distinctive, like a laser beam; I have been struck by some that I've seen recently but was unable to photograph. However, all the other things take away from that. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Uitzicht over Val Venezia vanaf Posto di Avvistamento Pian Venezia 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Uitzicht over Val Venezia vanaf Posto di Avvistamento Pian Venezia 04.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2017 at 15:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dancing Knight 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dancing Knight 01.jpg
Those are called blinders and are used all the time when horses perform in stressful environments. Horses are very skittish and accidents can happen if they are distracted from looking only straight ahead on say a race track or at a show, especially if they perform in a group as the rest of the photos from this event shows. These are very stylish blinders. cart-Talk18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense. This is a very picturesque photo. I suppose some people may complain about the lack of more space in front of the horse, but I like the composition, anyway. I Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering about the file's name, is it referring to this act/show or is the horse called "Dancing Knight" (horses can have very strange names...)? Could this be explained a bit better in the description and maybe a better name for the file? cart-Talk22:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The setting looks appropriate to me, but I don't like the framing. Normally, you'd want more empty space in front of a moving person/animal/object than behind it. --El Grafo (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Matheson Hammock Clouds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Matheson Hammock Clouds.jpg
Comment According to the metadata, the camera it was taken with is 24.3 megapixels. The original photograph should have a much larger resolution if you have a copy of it. WClarke (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose We are so used to rejecting sunsets (actually, as I've said before, this is a dusk, since the sun itself has already set, and I have so categorized it) out of hand for not being distinctive enough that it's a real shame when you see one like this which does stand out from the pack to have to reject it for the obvious flaw of being too unsharp.
I like that the photographer used a long exposure to bring out the color, but I'm a little curious as to why the aperture setting isn't recorded in the metadata, something that might explain whether the unsharpness was avoidable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 18:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Osaka Castle Outer Moat and Osaka Business Park, November 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Osaka Castle Outer Moat and Osaka Business Park, November 2016.jpg
Support Lovely image, and contrast between the two types of building. I wonder if a 3:2 crop (losing some sky) would be a better format? I'm disappointed at the lack of fine detail at 100%, especially the left/right edge. -- Colin (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Colin and 3:2 it is... you're right, cropping did improve the image. As for the dissapointing image quality at 100%, there's not much I can do now, alas. Suffice it to say, I replaced the 17-40 with the far superior 16-35 4 a couple of weeks ago (after Japan... :-/ ) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And I want Martin's new camera equipment. I was hesitating at first because of the sharpness issue to the right (pre new lens), but this juxtaposition of old and new is simply too good to be turned down. --cart-Talk08:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid I must insist on keeping both equipment and money for upcoming photo projects . But I'll definitely come back to Japan one day - one the most amazing, interesting and beautiful countries I've ever been to! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly qualified support Has some slight imperfections—wildly unsharp tree at right and overexposed area on the castle—but overall it is an excellently composed juxtaposition of not only old and new but, by extension, East and West. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 10:11:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of young man by Sandro Botticelli - Louvre.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of young man by Sandro Botticelli - Louvre.jpg
Support, assuming that this is the best free image available. If it isn't, we should feature another one. But either way, I consider this a very good photo of the painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 07:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore (Florence).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of Cattedrale di Santa Maria del Fiore (Florence).jpg
Support - Just for my own edification, I just compared this to 3 FPs of comparable subjects by different photographers. Without naming any of the photographers or filenames, the quality of this photo is clearly better than one of the 3, on a comparable level to another, and the 3rd one is a greater picture but of a larger portion of a different church's ceiling. To me, this is clearly a good FP. Livio, I think you have improved your skills, and we are seeing that lately. Congratulazioni! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 07:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Friesach Petersberg 209 Filialkirche hl Peter O-Ansicht 21122016 5813.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Friesach Petersberg 209 Filialkirche hl Peter O-Ansicht 21122016 5813.jpg
Comment Really nice, but I think it is a bit too much in the grey. I checked and there is room for up-ing the light tones quite a bit and the dark tone some (in Photoshop Light levels: dark to 7 and light to 220) it looks stunning. cart-Talk08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. Still, I'd have liked to see more on the left than on the right (and maybe a bit less of sky) but this image deserves the star anyhow. Poco220:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 00:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Altar-mor da Basílica de Nossa Senhora do Carmo, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altar-mor da Basílica de Nossa Senhora do Carmo, Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.jpg
Oppose There appears to be distortion at the bottom? Zoom to 100% in your browser and line the step up with the bottom of the screen, then scroll across. I'll support if fixed (or explained, if that's just how the building is) -- Thennicke (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thennicke: Thanks for your observation. It's a Barroque Church from 1500s with severals "imperfections" (currently in restauration), however, the bottom problem was a barrel distortion caused by a lens distortion (I guess). Thanks @Colin: for your thennicke and I think that it's Done, however, let me know what do you think --The Photographer21:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
conditional support Agree with Thennicke that there is some barrel distortion that should be fixed. If you use Lightroom to import photos, you can set it up to apply the lens profile automatically on import. -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 19:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Thank you for all your advice, for me it was just a pile of stones :-) When I was there for shooting, I was hoping that the fog would break up in a more spectacular way. It seems it was good enough. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and atmosphere. Would have probably liked to see a wider image (showing a bit on the right), but still a solid and wowing FP to me Poco220:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The row of trees suggests that the image could be tilted but I'm quite sure it isn't. The landscape there isn't totally plain and (you can see this if you look in Google Maps), the row of trees isn't limiting a horizontal border but it's a row of trees along a stream that comes down from the mountains (where we're looking to). Another hint are the houses just behind the dolmen: they are straight. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 13:34:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neophron-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neophron-1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 18:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I like the sense of anticipation it creates ... what's going to be around the bend (As it's the start of the year, I hope it's something good). And since it seems both from this and the satellite images to be an internal quarry narrow-gauge track, I am not going to get all uppity about taking pictures from an unsafe location. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 18:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Water droplet laying on a damask.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Water droplet laying on a damask.jpg
Info Water droplet laying on a damask textile due to surface tension and low absorbtion of textile. Focus stacking: 24 shots, step 5; Raynox 250. My shot. --Mile (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 21:23:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Four pears.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Four pears.jpg
Support A really good quality photo with high EV, arranged in a aesthetic way that also (remarkably) brings a bit of life to this "group photo". -- cart-Talk21:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm involved in the fixing, but not in the photograph of the fruits themselves. It is a really good work, with a high value. I think it is a FP.--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good idea and quality, it's indeed funny. Can you though offer a version where the left shadow is not cropped? Poco220:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is possible with photoshop and I'm sure a version with a more narrow shadow can be created too, but for now people seem to be ok with this so let's leave it be for the time being. --cart-Talk20:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the one on the left looks sort of like that one person in every impromptu group photo who's got to lean his/her elbow on the shoulder of the person next to them, to show how spontaneous it was and what a cutup they are. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of cutups, when this group photo started, there was also a Bosc pear lying down in front of everyone. But it kind of blocked the little forelle and everyone got sick of it. — Rhododendritestalk | 04:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At certain points, I've wondered why people thought this was such a great photo, but in looking at it again, I find that tilting the yellow Bartlett (the pear on the outer left) to the right is sufficient to create a simple but nice back-and-forth motion with the red Anjou, whose stem curves to the left. That's enough for a good composition of 4 items lined up widthwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's amazing to see how little is needed to create a dynamic in a photo that would otherwise be rather static. There is also the flow of color change from left to right with the smallest fruit being turned so that it bridges the colors at its sides. Rhododendrites really has an eye for this. cart-Talk15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2017 at 23:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Northern Lights timelapse.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Northern Lights timelapse.gif
Ah! Yes at 18MB it is a heavy gif file to process. I was comparing it with one of my own gifs but that is only 4MB and is no problem in small size. cart-Talk10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's a great document. It's very small for FP, but because it's a timelapse and not one or more single pictures of the aurora, I think making an exception to our usual size requirements can be justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One caveat: I would hope that before we feature this file, the time interval of the time lapses will be identified in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This won't display properly on FF, IE, Chrome, Opera, or Safari, on Windows, OS, and Linux (I tested it out with a useragent switcher). I would support this if the display issue is fixed, but I can't support something with a serious technical problem. lNeverCry02:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is changing the user agent really relevant? It doesn't increase the software capabilities if the browser cannot handle it. Works fine on Chrome on Android. Ainali (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per primarily viewing it in Firefox, and also the tendency of some of the Wikipedias to discourage the use of these .gifs when possible because of technical issues like this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, and (if I remember correctly) I also supported some of these nominations. Still, shouldn't there be another project specifically for that, something like "Featured Movies"? Or should we redefine FPC to evolve into something like "Featured Media"? Not that's its a terribly pressing problem - the number of truly good vids/animations/etc. on Commons pales into insignificance when compared to our massive holdings of excellent still photography --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is simply a great picture, however I would also like the timeframe in the description. Looking at the un-traily stars and the airplanes going by I guess it is about a couple of minutes. It would also be great if there was a smaller version of this (below 4MB) as an alternative (linked to under "other versions") so that this can work as a thumb or smaller picture, otherwise it is almost impossible to use this in an article; for that there has to be something else than an annoying little icon up in the frame for the reader to click on. Many Wikipedia editors would love to use this, but as it is now they can't. I think the problem with displaying it here in any other way than full size really illustrates the problem. (Can anyone see it as a thumb here, or even at x300px?) cart-Talk10:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Display problem solved by Kristian who uploaded a smaller version for use. The original full-screen version is still accessible in the file's history. Now it can be used in articles as well as seen in its full glory. Many thanks! --cart-Talk11:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose IMO animated GIFs have no place in a serious image repository, and are especially unsuitable for photographic animation rather than simple CGI models. This is 2016 and we have video formats now going all the way up to 4k and true colour rather than a palette of 256! See File:Falkirk Wheel Timelapse, Scotland - Diliff.webm for an example video created from stills. The only reason such GIFs are popular on the internet is that Apple killed Flash and we've yet to find a universal alternative for moving images one can't turn off. I would support this if a quality video file was created instead. The GIF here has been reduced in size so that it is only 500x331, which is smaller than an old standard-definition TV from last century. If it was a video, then an HD image would be possible, it could be streamed, and viewers can start/stop/pause/rewind. There's really no excuse for choosing this file format. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin makes a strong case for opposing this. I had thought of supporting if this display issue was fixed, but it really wasn't fixed. The creator had to upload a much smaller version instead. I'm going to stay at oppose. I wonder if Colin, Yann, and others would be interested in starting a discussion or RFC on excluding .gif (and perhaps a few other formats) from FPC? I would support that. lNeverCry19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its good to see it, but i see banding even on this small size. Without, in normal size, some 1080px, this could be FP. For now, maybe Valued Image. But those planes, i got feeling meteorits are flying from the Earth to the sky. --Mile (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 14:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Commons:Featured picture candidates/
Oppose - OK, if we're judging this as a photo, I disagree that it's great, because all those circles of light distract me so much and hinder my eye movement around the picture frame. The Lego gingerbread man himself is photographed excellently, but the background kills the photo for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 05:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cam Newton, Joe Webb Dec 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cam Newton, Joe Webb Dec 2016.jpg
Oppose - Undoubtedly a great moment for the team and its fans, but as a still picture, I find that looking at their jump in this background of a crowd hurts my eyes at both full screen and full size and doesn't result in a good composition, in my opinion. Much less importantly, they themselves are a bit grainy at full size, but that really had no effect on my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is fine with me. As for the grain: Well, there's nothing one could do about it, taking the camera settings into consideration (which I don't question at all). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't know that synchronized jumping was a sport? ;) Seriously, any sports event is bound to have a lot of spectators and the photo captures the mood in the arena very well. I don't think the crowd in the background is any more distracting than say a hillside full of small houses as a backdrop in a panorama. --cart-Talk10:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. I can see the attraction of the symmetry of the two figures, but the background completely washes that away. On a less photographic note, I wouldn't be jumping if I was coming to the end of a season that had me chosen as my team's most disappointing player (Super Bowl to fourth-worst passer in the league ... really?) Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I would also like to add to my oppose more copyright party-pooping: The Washington NFL team's I refuse to use their name website states explicitly that "Guests may not reproduce any shots for any commercial use without the written permission of the [team]". I have long held that policies like these mean that we cannot consider pictures taken at the sporting events in question to be free images within the terms of Commons, since attendance at games is purely voluntary and, as the back of the ticket always clearly states, you accept those conditions by the act of passing the gate and entering the venue. The only way around this policy is for someone to get that permission, which has been done on the francophone Wikipedia at contests in France, Switzerland and Quebec.
I know this is not accepted broadly within the community and it is not a policy reason to initiate a deletion (yet), but it is enough for me to oppose an FP for this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trust those big teams to put a dampener on things... Well, with the ridiculous sums they pay their players I guess they have to control their copyrights pretty tight. But if this is like Daniel says, and I have no reason to doubt him, I'll change my vote based on the copyright issue, I want the FPs to be squeaky clean. Oppose Sorry. --cart-Talk19:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question You sure, Daniel? To me it seems that the photographer wasn't just a lucky fan who somehow achieved to smuggle in his supertelephoto lense attached to a 1DX Mark II... I'd guess he had offical permission to take (and later on distribute) pictures directly from the field... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 11:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing net Amarynthos Euboea Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fishing net Amarynthos Euboea Greece.jpg
Weak Support I like it for being different, original, but it doesn't wow me that much. The picture overall could also be improved cropping the bottom a bit to get rid of the open space. Poco220:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've thought better of my opposing vote. It could be reasonably interpreted as just obnoxious to be the sole opposing vote that just slows down the promotion of a file by acclamation. There were already 10 supporting votes when I voted. I've expressed my opinion. That's enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are a gentleman, Ikan Kekek. But rules are rules, and I'm ready to accept any vote at any time. Especially when the vote (even "Contra") comes from a wise reviewer like you !--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, that's very much in character for you to say so, and thank you for your good words and sense of fairness. But my decision stands. I will not be a minority of one on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 12:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de São Bento, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de São Bento, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
I applied more sharpening and It was a HDR of 3x(3 exposition +5/0/-5 images), please, take a look what do you think. I know that this lens usually is less sharp than a nikkor 35mm 1.8f or a 50mm 1.8f DX. I am not applying any downsizing to this image. --The Photographer13:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought its Orthodox, with some cyrillic script - IC-XC, but latin in bottom. Interior is more Orthodox, and then i saw its Catholic with mix of Ravenna mosaics. Pretty a mess. --Mile (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support A positive surprise to see in full resolution, and thanks for not downsampling! Very nice colors and lightning and quite natural looking. Well executed. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2017 at 12:02:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Niedertal, Tirol, Österreich.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niedertal, Tirol, Österreich.jpg
Support - Beautiful, and the erosion on the right side is really interesting: It looks like someone took a big bite out of the ground. Do you have any idea how recent that erosion is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This image is just ok, maybe excesive sharpening. BTW, I improved the sky noise, however, I reverted myself, if you are ok with this "fix", you could revert again to take my version on top of file history. --The Photographer23:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 13:00:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Railroad track in frost.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Railroad track in frost.jpg
I withdraw my nomination On second thought, Charles is right about the sharpness. Let's not waste any more time on this pic. Thanks anyway! :) --cart-Talk17:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 17:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metnitz Grades Waldbank suedlich der Filial- und Wallfahrtskirche hl Wolfgang 21122016 5761.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metnitz Grades Waldbank suedlich der Filial- und Wallfahrtskirche hl Wolfgang 21122016 5761.jpg
Mild Oppose When I first saw this photo, I first thought it might be something I could nominate myself but it didn't quite work for me, mainly because of the upper right quadrant with too many things deviating from the lines and harmony of the rest of the pic. Light is a bit dull too and I keep wanting to move the camera up and to the right a bit, sort of so that an imaginary person might be seated comfortable within the frame. Almost there, but not enough. --cart-Talk18:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 10:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buitre negro.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buitre negro.jpg
Support - Striking bird, in my opinion, well photographed, and educational value due to showing how they pick up pieces of carrion. Top crop may be a little close, but I like the photo enough to nominate it, anyway.-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some material at the top, due to the tight crop. If the author does not like, please revert. But I think it is better now. Wonderful sharpness, FP IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything. If anything, I might see something on the head between the top of the head and the beak, but it looks to me like a function of how the light is hitting there. User:Juan lacruz, if you see the halos, would you like to do something about them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: The bird appears to be "glowing" compared to the background; the area immediately around the bird (particularly the neck) is too bright compared to the background. I hope this description of the issue is more helpful? This kind of haloing is almost always caused by using the "shadows and highlights" tool too aggressively to brighten the shadows -- Thennicke (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically - too much use of the highlights slider. 09:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thennicke, thanks for explaining what you're seeing. It doesn't bother me that the bird is emphasized this way over the background, but I get your point when you explain it this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info I agree too much shadows and highlights, so I've retrieved the original image and avoided this processing. Please add space at the top for a better framing if desired. User:Juan lacruz
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 10:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eerste zonnestralen strijken over een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 04.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 10:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old and new Parliament Houses; Canberra Australia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old and new Parliament Houses; Canberra Australia.jpg
Info The view of Australia's houses of parliament from Lake Burley Griffin, in Canberra Australia. The wide white building is old Parliament House; the building behind with people walking on its grass roof is the new one. The curved area in the foreground is just a landscaping element.
Mild Support - A bit hazy (is there room for a tad more sharpening?), but what a great composition, with the kayakers in different colored kayaks on each side, in addition to the buildings, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The kayakers are what makes this photo. Not sure sharpening is the fix we need to go for, a bit if more contrast or upping the dark tones might be enough--cart-Talk11:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ikan Kekek: @W.carter: Thanks re. the kayakers. In terms of image quality, the main issue here is heat haze (sharpening won't fix it) - this isn't summer but it's a long focal length and a distant subject. I'll experiment a bit more with curves and the black point and see what I can do to make this really "pop". -- Thennicke (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the symmetry here. The curved steps up also, for me, sort of evoke the U.S.S. Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor ... I wonder what the architect's intent was, if he had something similar in mind.
I suppose the grayish tint of the background vegetation is that same rare eucalypt you mentioned in your responses to my !votes on your other nominations? Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: That hill in the background is Red Hill, and the dominant flora is Yellow Box-Red Gum woodland, so unfortunately no, it's a different tree. I'd guess it's gone a bit grey because of the volatile organic compounds the trees produce, almost like smog. Eucalypts can be very dull and boring in photographs, sadly. I don't know who designed the curved area -- Thennicke (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2017 at 08:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webmCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webm
Comment Now this is interesting. No doubt a very high-quality video, I'm just thinking about the meta of promoting a promotion video for the project. Or should we not overthink this and just look objectively at the quality of it. --cart-Talk10:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
cart: of course i am not paid PR of a PR. Just how we do here. Unpaid, voluntary, sometimes with sacrifice. Shot thru the screen is sometime hidding the hard part "to get it". Writers, photographers, admins; all is voluntary work. Good to see this video, all those people. --Mile (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was certainly not suggesting you are doing some paid PR. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?? I was speaking about all of us as a community and if we should promote a promotion of the project we are working on, that is what "meta" stands for. I have nothing against the video, it is excellent work made by volunteers like us. cart-Talk15:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The video didn't play at all the first time and played with fits and starts the second time, but assuming that's a problem with the software and not the file, I think it's a very good video, and I also think that we can judge Wikimedia videos fairly. As I recall, there was previously a Wikipedia video that was not approved for a feature because it was found wanting in various ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The best video I've seen nominated here yet, and no I'm not biased by this being an in-house product.
This is a very timely reminder of how what we do, what we all do, is more important than we may be thinking as we do it, especially in this historical moment. And it makes its point subtly but unmistakeably ... the first line is the most overtly relevant, but then the juxtaposition of the general statement of the importance of verifiability in Wikipedia and screenshots of articles about contentious or momentous events from the past year (and just "2016" ... need we say more?) are even louder. You can't ignore the subtext.
And then the images of the community at work ... it really makes me feel proud to be part of this group of people, some of whose acquaintance I have made at Wikimanias past.
On Christmas morning, I chanced to read a letter to the editor of my local newspaper where the writer starts off by recounting a report of a celebrity's apparent death on his Facebook feed, and then, "I questioned the item's credibility, given the person's age and good health, so I looked on CNN.com, then Wikipedia". While one can make sardonic jokes about being associated with CNN given some of that network's recent swoons, I found it interesting that he included us without any apparent irony, and no other media outlet. That's what you earn when you take verifiability seriously, as this video asserts. We've come a long way. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think you are right, and in addition, this might be a good time for everyone to remember that we are supposed to be subjective in judging whether a photo or video should be featured or not. If we weren't supposed to be subjective, at the very least, we would have a checklist of criteria that had to be checked off, with x-number of checks equaling a feature, or some other boring mechanical process. But instead, "wow" is expressly mentioned as the dividing line between QIs and FPs. And I don't think most of us would be able to agree on objective criteria for "wow", even if we had guns pointed at our heads. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reading the above, I can throw false modesty out the window and just support this excellently crafted video. It is well paced, the cutting of video flows very well with the audio, the camera work is good (no awkward angles), texting actually timed with some of the music, it uses low-key shots for parts where the narrative is in focus, it provides an overview as well as some nice details. I particularly like the scene when the focus goes from someone editing on a laptop to a guy checking a book for |author= and |title= , a gesture I've done hundreds of times when editing articles, that looks almost too good to be chance. It is a movie shot that could have been scripted and rehearsed, but it is probably just the photographer having a very good eye for capturing things. Good work VGrigas! --cart-Talk09:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 10:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) male with Oxpecker.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) male with Oxpecker.jpg
Info Although he doesn't look too happy at having a bird perched on his nose, he's really OK with it as the oxpecker eats ticks that are sucking his blood. Created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfectly sharp everywhere and there are a few annoying plants in the foreground, but that expression is too good to resist. It also illustrates the symbiosis between the animals well. Could be from a Disney movie. :) --cart-Talk11:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support From my own experience I'm very much aware of the 100-400L's physical limitations, so I won't critize any technical details. The "expression is too good to resist," to quote cart. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great capture, but the spikiness of the lighted bokeh grass is distracting me. Maybe smoothing it out more might help, but I'll leave that to your discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 08:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agriocnemis pieris-Kadavoor-2016-11-26-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agriocnemis pieris-Kadavoor-2016-11-26-001.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 01:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:FCCA GE C30-7 Infiernillo Viaduct.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:FCCA GE C30-7 Infiernillo Viaduct.jpg
Info (From David's description) Ferrocarril Central Andino's GE C30-7 1008 and 1009 cross the Infernillo ("little hell") viaduct between San Mateo and Rio Blanco, Peru.
@Thennicke: There's nothing you could've done. Timing doesn't always go your way, and that train ain't gonna wait for you. But you may still get an FP out of this, in which case you can have a good laugh at me and the cars... lNeverCry07:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kabelleger always takes interesting shots, and this is no exception, but parts of the photo, especially the cliffs, aren't sharp enough for my taste. I take INC's point about the cars, too: The approaching one is glary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 02:06:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Its nice with the bee in flight. With such a circular main subject, and a such a tight crop at top and bottom I think a square crop would be better. -- Slaunger (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 23:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Large red damselfly (Pyrrhosoma nymphula) male Dry Sandford.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Large red damselfly (Pyrrhosoma nymphula) male Dry Sandford.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 01:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lost Coast.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lost Coast.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 07:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Umschreibung by Olafur Eliasson, Munich, December 2016 -04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Umschreibung by Olafur Eliasson, Munich, December 2016 -04.jpg
Support Thennicke said it. During a conversation a couple of days ago, I was looking online for ideas for cool angles, saying it would be nice if someone made shots similar to this or this angle, and here you are. :) --cart-Talk11:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this composition would probably be greater if it included the entire architectural rhombus/square, but it's nonetheless a really good composition and a very deserving FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great compo. There is room for improvement IMHO getting the corners at similar distance from the crop or even getting all 4 corners within the picture (I know, I am picky, anyhow the idea is great!). If you don't mind I may give it a try somewhen. Poco211:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 06:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Close up on the Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète cf05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Close up on the Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète cf05.jpg
Support Great detail of the rust, corrosion, and chipped paint, along with vibrant color that contrasts with the decayed ship. The focus on the rust, as opposed to ship as a whole, is what made it stand out to me. -- WClarke (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm happy that one love my image(s), I would have not nominate it myself, nor likely I would have support this image if photographed by someone else. This is thus logical, that I don't support. Sorry. Christian Ferrer(talk)16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 13:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Himeji Castle, November 2016 -03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Himeji Castle, November 2016 -03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 12:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Madinaty.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madinaty.JPG
Oppose - insufficient image quality. To the person I'm quoting: Please include your username in your signature, or your vote can't be counted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Insufficient image quality (noise, out of focus, wb...) --The Photographer13:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 12:36:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.18.-65-Westensee bei Nacht Felde.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.07.18.-65-Westensee bei Nacht Felde.jpg
Oppose It's nice to be challenged with a night shot with the moon as the only natural source of light. I agree with you Hockei that nights are dark, and I like the reflection of the moon in the water surface. But two things: I am not convinced about the composition and the moon itself is one fuzzy looking disk without any structure. I think that for this to work, you should have taken some bracketed exposures, to avoid saturation of the moon for the shorter exposures, and make exposure fusion or an HDR merge to get more details in the darkness and a higher dynamic range. See here and here for two examples, albeit they have several artificial lightsources. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 07:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panasonic G80.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panasonic G80.jpg
Oppose Light not that good and the top part with the crease in the blanket just above the strap is unfortunate; as are the top messy corners and darker bottom ditto, creating a sort of vignetting. Having a red reflex on the lens makes me think of red eyes. --cart-Talk12:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 15:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kuklica Кratovo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kuklica Кratovo.jpg
Oppose - Interesting composition, in my opinion, but a bit noisy, not optimally sharp (oversharpened?) and pixellated (in the sky) for FP. Do you know why it's not displaying at thumbnail size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of over-processing and other issues mentioned above
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 15:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Матка 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Матка 01.jpg
Oppose per Charles. Unsharp in a way that doesn't wow me, though others (not so much here, but perhaps on other websites) might like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose; seems way overprocessed. I not only share Charles' concern about the sky, I would direct the reviewer's attention to that thin edge around the mountains suggesting the sky was heavily edited or perhaps pasted in from a different exposure (nothing inherently wrong with that, to me, but you have to do it well enough that it won't be so easily noticeable. And per Ikan and cart, I get the feeling that the haze was manipulated to the point that it seriously compromised the background (That color, for one, is just unrealistic). Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 13:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:14-08-14-Tallinn-RalfR-099.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:14-08-14-Tallinn-RalfR-099.jpg
Oppose per Charles. I guess there's something theoretically poetic about the tower in the middle of the woods, but the forms of these particular woods aren't special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This tower is situated in the middle of Tallinn and it is part of Tallinn Old Town. So this is a mere illusion, that the location is in the middle of the woods. Before seeing this image I would had not thought it to be even possible, that there could be something like this captured on a photo. Tallinn isn't like Tartu, that looks like a forest, when seen from above (that should give an idea). There really are not that many trees in Tallinn. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like Charles I don't find this interesting enough. Composition-wise, it might have been better if the sea and the top of the houses weren't visible, that would have given the whole thing a more minimalistic tone so you could focus on the tower in a "sea of green". Sorry. --cart-Talk20:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 10:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sommet du Ngozumpa tse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sommet du Ngozumpa tse.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 14:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vesuvius from Monte Somma (Panorama II).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vesuvius from Monte Somma (Panorama II).jpg
Mild oppose Impressive view, high detail level. The photo appears to have a slight CW tilt, and the lightning on Vesuv is a tad too unfortunate for my taste. Nevertheless, thanks for the view! -- Slaunger (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: 4 days since nomination - 4 opposes and no supports. Lighting issues.
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2017 at 03:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Telstra Tower from ANU campus, Canberra Australia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Telstra Tower from ANU campus, Canberra Australia.jpg
Support - Very high-quality and serene. I might prefer to see the treetops on the left, but I won't decline to give a supporting vote based on that difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your praise Ikan. I agree about the treetops, it would have helped the composition even more - still learning how to take the perfect photograph! :) -- Thennicke (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with my colleague because this is for me remarkable composition/scene, however the color don't work for me, especialy the color of the grass. Christian Ferrer(talk)19:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Always ping everyone who's voted or commented when you edit a photo that's submitted to FPC. For my part, I'm fine with either version, but it's up to you to decide which one most closely resembles what you saw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition (though I'd likely crop a bit tighter at the bottom) and I'm sure there is potential in this place for FPC. But as others already pointed out the timing wasn't ideal. I don't think this is something that can be "fixed" in post - only by coming back on a "better" day. (also, in the current version, the blue of the water looks a bit too punchy for me) --El Grafo (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 19:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beach - San Agustín.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach - San Agustín.jpg
Mild Oppose - Too many uninteresting hotels for my taste, but there's a way you might be able to crop the photo that could change my mind: If you crop just to the right of the fluffy cumulonimbus cloud (or if you prefer, to the right of the right-most palm tree), thus eliminating the nearby hotel from the picture, I might find the photo interesting enough to feature, although I can't quite guarantee it. My feeling is that the most interesting things in this photo are: (1) the nearby beach up to the cape; (2) the clouds, or most of them. Almost all of the buildings are quite uninteresting, in my opinion. I tried to add a crop suggestion, but it's approximate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wow for me here. I don't like the palm in the foreground. Moreover I'm not sure about the colour change in the sea in the left (stitching error?) and a little bit blurry horizon. I also agree with Ikek. — Draceanetalkcontrib.20:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I understand where Ikan is coming from, and I'd thus usually cite the same things for an oppose, here they do not bother me. The eye is drawn to that little sand spit in the center despite them. If I were a photo editor looking for images to illustrate a travel brochure or website, I'd seriously be considering this one (in fact, I think, cropped to the usual 7:1 size it would make a great Wikivoyage banner for the right page). Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 20:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose per others. Diliff is the gold standard for church interiors. He managed to pick near-perfect settings for the entirety of many of the interiors he shot, so that just about everything looks sharp and vibrant. This is a respectable photo that captures part of the feeling of being in this cathedral, which I've visited. But it's not one of the crème de la crème of cathedral interiors on this site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 17:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:D. Carlos de Borbón y de Austria-Este smoking.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:D. Carlos de Borbón y de Austria-Este smoking.jpg
Support Very difficult restoration for a portrait of an interesting person. Carlos, Duke of Madrid (1848-1909), Don Carlos de Borbón y de Austria-Este, was the carlist claimant to the throne of Spain (Carlos VII), and at the same time the legitimist claimant to the throne of France (Charles XI), as the elder male heir of the Capetian dynasty. He did not success, neither to conquer the spanish throne (in spite of several wars), nor to be seriously recognized as "king" of France. This photograph is by Nadar (photographer), restored (with many difficulties) by me. The original can be seen as first upload, as I usually do, for comparison. And remember: smoking kills !-- Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great restoration of a portrait very much of the era when smoking was the thing to do if you were a man of the world. I love such little anthropological markers in photos. --cart-Talk18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. There are several similar porraits from the same series of this prince. I chose this one because of this detail !--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 20:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gare Du Nord Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gare Du Nord Interior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg
Oppose Too many ghosts for my taste, inevitable when using the Diliff technique for this type of subject. maybe the wrong tool in the toolbox for this motive? -- Slaunger (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the light "path" at the bottom acts like a barrier for the rest of the photo and the cut pillars are also distracting from the harmony of the pic. See crop suggestion for a cleaner view. --cart-Talk07:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm OK with it as is. Cart's crop would not hurt it. But without the shutter speed in the metadata I don't feel like I can fairly evaluate this image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Do you ever get that feeling, especially with works by a pro like David, that perhaps he considered FPC himself and decided against it, or planned to nominate it after some fixes, etc? I once successfully nominated a photo by Diego, but I asked him first, and only after Colin had mentioned the image as a good FPC possibility. I figured I was in safe territory with that one... lNeverCry23:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 15:30:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lamps EM Belysning Viborg Denmark 2016-12-30-.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lamps EM Belysning Viborg Denmark 2016-12-30-.jpg
Info In the town I live in, we have a peculiar lamp shop, hidden in an industrial area in the outskirts of the town, called EM Belysning. Since 1990, they have specialized in lamps, and according to their web page, the owners claim to have collected 40,000 lamps over the years! The area of the shop is quite small, and the lamps are incredibly crammed. In every direction you look, there are lamps, lamps, lamps, it is like entering a cave of lamps. The aisles are narrow, and you easily bump into a lamp when going around, triggering a chain reaction of bell-like sounds. I asked and got permission to make a photo shoot in the shop the other day. The results are here. After careful consideration and after receiving some encouraging remarks from cart, I now nominate this one. Let's see what happens. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a daring nomination, because this is the kind of picture that I'm expecting at least a few people to call "too busy". Busy it indeed is, but what it doesn't lack is interest and places to move around for the eyes. If you want to compare any photograph from life with abstract painting, consider this one - but the comparison would be to complicated abstract paintings, not minimalist paintings. P.S.: I would be interested to hear from you, Slaunger, on how you decided where to crop the photo, as you undoubtedly had quite a lot of choice in the matter. What were your criteria? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: : Thanks for you detailed and encouraging review. I did put a lot of consideration into the crop; Unlike the usual convention used by most including myself, I deliberately cropped it such that you get the impression of an abstract 'sea of lamps', by cutting as many lamps as possible and maximise the clutter. The original format was portrait, and I have cropped a lot below as it showed some of aisle area and boxes with lamps. It was either that or showing an aisle in its entirety, that made the most sense for me if I wanted to convey what it feels like to enter that shop. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both interesting photos. If you decide to nominate the other one later, I'd suggest a crop on the left side to eliminate whatever is sticking out as a triangle toward the bottom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, doesn't work for me. These "cluttered" shots are hard to do well, and here I just don't find the arrangement aesthetically pleasing. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how eclectic the subject is- there is a lot going on, in a positive way. Nice description too; I've been to some similar shops in the United States, along with flea markets, that have the same feeling captured here. In the set I also liked #8 and #9. WClarke (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to all reviewers so far for taking your time to review the nomination. Uhh, a swing state nomination, exciting! But also thanks for another thing; I really appreciate that so far all reviewers have respected votes opposite to their own and not tried to put a pressure on a change of mind. That's how it should be, assessing photos is not an exact science, and all opinions are valid IMO. Not that discussion should be discouraged, but opinions respected. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 16:39:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Tatev, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 89-91 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Tatev, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 89-91 HDR.jpg
Support - Cutoff of the pylon on the left is slightly annoying to me, but no way would I withhold a support vote over something that's so trivial in the context of a big panorama like this. It's amazing how picturesque the locations of many monasteries in Armenia are! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The scenary is fantastic and the the monastery looks very good, but also slightly artificial. I feel the image is slightly oversaturated, and the chroma noise in the clouds supports this. I am not bothered by the motion blur in some of the vegetation. It is not important for the overall visual impression of the image. -- Slaunger (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it very much in general. But in details, some things prevent me to support. Slaunger is right, Mile too. I think the site can wait some years, until the end of the restauration work...--Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just uploaded a new version with following rework: increase of contrast, tilt, noise reduction and left crop. Poco219:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Things I don't like: lighting, tones, vegetation, construction and point of view. Especially on the last point I very strongly feel this is not the best angle available, down the road to the left provides a more pcituresque composition within a single frame (not that I have anything against panoramas). The reason I'm voting neutral instead of oppose is I'm planning to upload a pic on the same subject when time permits the ps work to be done, and opposing this just feels wrong. :) KennyOMG (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 10:43:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2016 -- 5920-6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Münster, LVM, Skulptur -Körper und Seele- -- 2016 -- 5920-6.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 08:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 40-42 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacio de Golestán, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 40-42 HDR.jpg
Info View of the chamber below the windcatcher of the Golestan Palace, used today as a photographic museum, Iran's capital city, Tehran. The UNESCO World Heritage Site belongs to a group of royal buildings that were once enclosed within the mud-thatched walls of Tehran's arg ("citadel") and is one of the oldest of the historic monuments in the city. All by me, Poco208:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great Diego - how fitting for FPC that your first nomination this year is an image of a photography museum, a place to admire and assess pictures. Speaking of assessing images, maybe you'd like to become again more active in the admittedly tedious process of evaluating other nominations here? Your expertise and input would be much appreciated! Frohes Neues Jahr und Gut Licht! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Iranian mullahs should get that fountain going again; otherwise people are going to think it's some sort of incongruous phallic monument. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2017 at 14:01:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vanessa indica-Silent Valley-2016-08-14-002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vanessa indica-Silent Valley-2016-08-14-002.jpg
InfoVanessa indica, Indian Red Admiral, is a butterfly found in the higher altitude regions of India. Males commonly imbibe mineralised moisture from damp ground, and also visit dung or decomposing fallen fruit. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee14:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Taken along with this so had though not to nominate. Now reprocessed with Capture One 10 and looks fine for a try! Jee14:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I bet we could crop to a more even amount of space at the top and get rid of a lot of that unsharpness at the top to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The crop was a good idea and improves the photo, because the previously larger amount of unsharp background wasn't adding anything great to the picture, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 22:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino (Rome) - Intern.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basilica di Sant'Anastasia al Palatino (Rome) - Intern.jpg
Where's your note? I'd like to see your proposed crop. I like this photo, but I'm not sure whether it's up there with the greatest church FP interiors. I could imagine a sharper nave in the foreground, such that we could read the inscription, which for me mostly peters out after "Joanni XXIII Pontifice Maximo" (I can also read the last line). Perhaps the painting on the altar might be a little clearer, too. Overall, very good and certainly wouldn't be out of place as an FP; it's probably only the excellence of other FPs in this category that's giving me a little pause. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2017 at 15:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Common moorhen in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 689.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common moorhen in Suita, Osaka, December 2016 - 689.jpg
Support - I don't like that unsharp conifer cone, or whatever it is, but I had to look at this photo for a while to recognize that the upside-down bird on the bottom is a reflection of the moorhen, because it's so clear. Beautiful bird, seamless composition, special photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you go - it's so unsharp, I confused a lotus with a conifer cone. I consider that the only real drawback of an otherwise great picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, The focus is all on the bird, that makes objects behind it unsharp, the same goes for any object at the same distance in front of the bird. Now, you don't seem to mind the unsharp lotus stems, the unsharp lotus seed pod is the other side of that coin, a sacrifice that has to be made to get the bird and reflection (the reflection being at the same distance from the camera as the bird) looking this good. The only option to get the seed pod sharp as well, would be focus stacking, but that's near impossible for such a shot. cart-Talk16:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have a different reaction to unsharp background, which is anyway readily recognizable as stems, than to somewhat obtrusive unsharp foreground. It just feels much more intuitive to me for background to fade. If something is so close to my eyes that it's blurred, I find the sensation uncomfortable and back up. Anyway, I fully take your point that this was necessary in context, but to me, that makes it a necessary evil, not something per se good. You might agree with me that if all that was in the photo was unsharp foreground, you wouldn't support a feature, but of course that is not the case! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying it's a good or bad thing, just explaining the physics of it. Cameras have yet to catch up with what the human eye can see and the brain can process. At least at your age, just wait until you get older and things in the foreground starts to get blurry too. ;) cart-Talk19:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before I voted, I googled the bird to see what other pictures looked like, and most of them had the subject clearly isolated from the background. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 15:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have met, when there is water, people want to get reflexion in any given case, like reflexion is more important than main subject. I would crop. --Mile (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: I think Christian's edit is not bad (the shadows are a bit clipped though) and I don't remember which colors are more close what I was seeing... Then I don't mind whichever you like. --Laitche (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the subject details and surrounding habitat. But the reflection didn't work for me as it is too crowded. Further there is an object (leaf part?) over the legs in the reflection. I prefer a landscape composition with lead room in left and more head room (without that reflection). Jee04:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2017 at 09:55:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barania Góra - view from tower.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barania Góra - view from tower.jpg
Support - This was on my list of photos to nominate, too. It's my idea of a perfect winter wonderland, complete with accompaniment of the "Winter Wonderland" song in my mind's ear. The evergreens heavy with snow, the snow field, the mountains in the distance and the sky all contribute to the picture, but I think it's the snow-laden trees and their placement in the picture that really make the biggest difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Good things first: Nice landscape, I really like the texture of the snow trails and the background is really great. What does not work for me is. 1. White balance: It is a tad too cold/blueish in my opinion. I tried downloading it and play with and nudging the temperature up a bit gave a less artificial look in my opinion. 2. Too contrasty. People are basically just black small blobs, and some semi-harsh shadows. 3. Exposure control of the flat snow-covered surfaces. I realize it is very diffucult to photograph snow, but although there is a lack of structure and texture in the smoother parts of the snow landscape in my opinion, as if it was slightly overexposed. Technically speaking there is no clipping in the histogram, but it stops abruptly as if an attempt has been made to salvage details in postprocessing. All in all, a fine image, but not among our very finest in my opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 to Slaunger's criticisms (reminds me of how my old DP/S used to handle this sort of scene, oddly, when I chose the "snow" setting from its menu); I also feel there's too much going on to settle on any one aspect as the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 13:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cúpula de Edificio Bencich.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cúpula de Edificio Bencich.jpg
Support - I was struck by this in QIC, where I promoted it. We're viewing buildings through the big windows of an empty room of faded glory. It's the stuff of poetry, really. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting composition. Is there a way to fix the tilt/perspective (right side only is leaning in) Poco209:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 11:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Don Quijote de la Mancha en el Teatro Teresa Carreño, Caracas, Venezuela 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Don Quijote de la Mancha en el Teatro Teresa Carreño, Caracas, Venezuela 3.jpg
581
119
350
224
3204
2102
Tiny white specks in and around this area.
2036
105
259
175
3204
2102
Some tiny white specks in and around this area, and maybe a bit further right.
Info This was one of the best theaters in Latin America, I traveled a whole day to attend this work with Beria User, one of the last before it was taken by the dictatorship of Venezuela to hold political pseudo-art events. --The Photographer21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very good picture of the soloist, and good picture overall. However: (1) There are little spots all over the picture. Dust on the lens? In any case, please remove them. (2) I'd rather see the hand of the dancer on our left than the empty space on the right, if that's a choice, though the space is kind of nice. If that's not possible, I think the photo could still be featurable, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I was trying to force the rule of thirds and I did not realize I was making a cut background, now it is fixed. BTW, I tried remove the bizzard noise or dust on the lens, please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer12:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are still a few tiny white spots here and there, but this version is a really harmonious picture with what I consider a great composition, and I give it my strong support for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a try. They're really tiny. The area on the left probably extends down a little; the area on the right, probably a bit further to the right. I don't think it's crucial for you to zap them all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. If you want to be really perfect, I see 6 really tiny specks above the soloist's hands, forming a triangle above her left (viewer's right) hand and a much flatter one starting above her right (viewer's left) index finger. I think you zapped all the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now it look "perfect" :). I remember that this shoot was in really poor light conditions maybe that is dust in the aire creating a reflex with the light, I don't remember (Or simply censor camera noise) --The Photographer13:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it but before I !vote I want to know what Venezuelan copyright law says about whether the picture can be a free image or not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
citing@Fæ: In Venezuela the show producer's rights for reproduction of the performance in photographs or recordings works in a similar way to most other countries (such as the US or UK), going by the explanation given in Chapter II (Performance Contract) in the Law on Copyright, 1993.[1] The costume and stage design rights are reasonably assumed under the show production rights, it is these that would need validation. A release providing evidence of this via OTRS, or a statement about this performance elsewhere (i.e. an official event website which explained how photography is allowed at the event) would be sufficient. And BTW, you can see the author @Laura Fiorucci: (Admin on wp-es) commenting here --The Photographer16:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
De la misma manera muy orgulloso de haber sido invitado a tan majestuosa e impecable obra y haber conocido a tan humilde, talentosa e inteligente mujer! --The Photographer22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good but I compare with your first upload and there's a loss of detail to the main dancer. The highlights are lost on her dress front -- you could see sequins shining against the cream colour, now it is all bright. Also, to incorporate all of the left dancer, I suspect you've been a bit creative with Photoshop and the dancer's friend has lent a hand! It's well done, but should be documented on the File Description page. I'm puzzled about Ikan's complaint about white spots. In the previous versions I can only see them if I turn up the brightness/gamma in my image program -- they are barely visible let alone troublesome normally. I wonder Ikan if you have your monitor adjusted properly and displaying blacks as black rather than dark grey. While these dots are visible also in the earlier noisier versions of the file, they are hidden among the noise. It certainly isn't dust on the sensor (which appears as large semi-transparent blobs) or the lens (which is effectively invisible as it is totally out-of-focus). If it isn't just also image noise that escaped your NR software, then it may just be dust in the air lit up by the stage lights, and in that case, part of the scene. -- Colin (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DoneColin Nice review like always, I restored dress details. About the white dusts, I don't remember any special effect or light effect in the presentation. Please, Colin, let me know if this change is ok for you or if I need do something. I added retouch template information (I forgot it, however, I docummented each change in the history less the hand cloning) Thanks --The Photographer21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Your local brushwork to darken her dress is a little crude but only at pixel peeping magnification (it spills a tiny bit onto her chest). -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Maybe now it is done, also I fixed severals micro pixelation and sharpening problems in her face, I added another tone level. Please, let me know what do you think --The Photographer21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, the front of the stage (below and in front of the surface on which the ballerinas are dancing) sure looks black to me, as does this type, so I'm clearly able to perceive black on my screen. Just thought I'd address that, for what it's worth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muy hermosa foto, @The Photographer: , justo en el momento donde la bailarina está en quinta antes de seguir con la variación... es un momento tan corto... El light effect puede ser que es una escena muy oscura y atrás están los molinos iluminados tenuemente ¿será eso?. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Es posible que sean restos de alguna producción anterior que hayan quedado atrapadas en el puente 2 de luces. Muchas veces caen las de El Cascanueces, que son como cuadraditos plateados de 2x2 cm muy brillantes. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image and although hard to appreciate here great coreography by Laura, member of WMES and long-time and well-known admin in es.wp. Poco209:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 19:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 12:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед кон планината Ниџе.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед кон планината Ниџе.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 19:26:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Minox C 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Minox C 10.jpg
Oppose The spy camera is a very interesting object as such, but I think it has not been well enough cleaned. Moreover, the low contrast between the black holster and the black background does not work well for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 07:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Venus de Milo (replica, Slovenian National Gallery).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Venus de Milo (replica, Slovenian National Gallery).jpg
Oppose per Colin. A shame, because so much care seems to have gone into taking this photo otherwise. But there's no reason this statue should look like someone punched it in the face. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something fishy going on here. romanm's only votes at FPC in last three years have been for two of Mile's nominations. Sporti's only votes on other's nominations ever at FPC have been for three of Mile's nominations. And User:Verde78 only contributions to Commons since June 2016 has been to vote for FPs on three separate days over a ~10 minute period each time, and each time containing an image by Mile to support among a handful of others. User:MZaplotnik is another Mile fan, with 2016 mostly votes for Mile. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See this post by Mile on Slovenian WP. Translation "The picture is very good, the lighting is good and gives expression sculpture. Mal support to Commons would be good." (the word "Mal" didn't translate) where Mile pings lots of Slovenian WP users to come here and support. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin - My count: I've voted for 27 FPC since 2016, 7 votes of those were for photos which are somehow associated with Slovenia because this is the topic I'm mostly interested in. There's nothing fishy going on from my side, I just enjoy seeing Slovene-related photos among FPC and Mile is currently one of the most active contributors in this field. M★Zaplotnik(edits)12:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions indicate a high bias. There are many days where your only FP vote is a support for Mile (8th Jan 2017, 18 Dec 2016, 4 Dec, 27 Nov, 16 Nov, 13 April, 13 Sep 2015 x2). There are a few days where you vote for some other nominations, but nearly only when there's a Mile nomination to support also (e.g. 4th November, 3rd November, 5th May). There's clearly some Slovenian FP canvassing going on otherwise how would you know to turn up? And even if you aren't biased towards Mile, turning up to support Slovenian images isn't neutral either (and Mile's wristwatch isn't Slovenian AFAIK). -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm getting this right: me voting for Slovenian images is not OK but voting fot images other than Slovene-related isn't good either? I don't get it. Ratio 7 out of 27 in one year isn't high enough for canvassing accusation; you have to find other argument to prove your point. How did I turn up? Pages I edit are on my watch list, this is my preferred wiki-account option, so I get email notification. M★Zaplotnik(edits)13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put it another way. Of the 13 days you decided to vote at FPC in 2016/17, 8 were to make a single support vote for Mile; 2 were to support Mile's images and then a few others; 1 was to support a few images and then Mile's image; and only on 2 days did you not vote support for Mile. That's 11/13 days you turn up at FP to support Mile, and 8/13 exclusively so. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Photographer: I do not think this is a correct use of the {{FPX}} template. Users like Yann and Livioandronico2013, who have most likely not been pre-biased from canvassing, had voted support prior to this controversy coming up. And this template is only for the case where there have been only oppose votes. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used when the raison is clear to cancel the nomination. IMHO this is a good example (not docummented) when A nomination is clearly invalid. {{FPX}} apply in this case because "only oppose votes" mean in potential technical vote is planned during the voting and it's not the case because this nomination is canceled not because technical raisons. --The Photographer13:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not clear, and more importantly, putting up such a template will only escalate the 'conflict' and not help resolve it. If you want to help someone taking the right decision after making a mistake, try to make it easier for then to correct the mistake, not harder. Think win-win instead of loose-loose.-- Slaunger (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I underestand your point of view, however, in this case we are not talking about some technical problem where the author could learn about how improve his/her image. We're talking about a well-know bad practice in wiki nominations and a situation where there is a conchupancia --The Photographer13:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (ec) Regarding the canvassing, I do not want to blame the Slovenian WP users coming here to vote. I am sure they mean their vote, although it would be best if they took the time to review not only Slovenian nominations but also more broadly. I do not particularly mind either that other users are notified about something, which might have their interest, even though I would not do so myself, as it is very likely to backfire - as we see here, but if so, the notification has to be kept in absolutely neutral language. And from what I read above, that has noway been the case. Instead the image has been described very positively, which could pre-bias voters to have an opinion before even looking at the nomination. And i agree, the most notable outcome at this stage would be for PetarM to voluntarily withdraw his nomination to avoid any doubt that the voting is rigged. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, I think you are being too kind on the Slovenian WP users (if that's what they all are). The stats on these four accounts indicate a bias that I don't think is acceptable. I think they should be warned that turning up and supporting Mile/Slovenia is not at all what FPC is about. IMO, if this continues, all the accounts listed here, including Mile's, should be banned from FP for a period. There's really no need to play games at FP, especially when one has the talent to achieve this by honest and fair means. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict]: Slaunger, it sure looks like Colin has Mile dead to rights on canvassing, and I no more assume that people with seemingly nationalistic biases are casting genuine votes based on an effort at an honest appraisal than has been the case in Olympic judging of sports like ice skating that are most easily susceptible to manipulation. Without going onto tangents, it's a big problem in political systems when manipulated votes don't get overturned but only get litigated after the fact. If the vote count isn't stopped here and Mile doesn't voluntarily withdraw the nomination, what do you suggest we do? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: I had hoped for a significantly wiser response from Mile. Regrettably he completely denies there is any problem with this. For the nomination here the three support votes are below the noise level, and will most likely not affect the end result. It will most likely fail and it is likely to backfire even more. But, the way to handle it is just to discuss on the FPC talk page and come to consensus. In this case, it is also relevant to discuss sanctions - regrettably. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't think the lightnng is good enough. With one eye in almost complete shadow I get reminded of an eyepatch. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just lost all respect for you right there Mile with your failure to acknowledge that canvassing in the pre-biased way you have done is of course not OK. Slovenian users are more than welcome if they come here with a 'fresh' mind to evaluate a broad range of nominations. Especially considering you contempt for doping, this seem like double standards. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous several FP nominations I looked at at Slovenian WP all had links and requests to come here to vote. The result is we are seeing at least four voters at Commons FPC who exclusively or nearly exclusively support vote for Mile and otherwise do not take an interest at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is my right to choose which FPC I take part in and which I don't. And such dramas about nothing or just personal resentments between two users are a good reason why not to. --Sporti (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think your argument is worth engaging, but I'll just say this: You and the other Slovenes who vote here only when Mile has a nomination aren't the main issue here. It's his canvassing that's the issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is becoming private sector of few man. I dont think voting was fair here, especialy "per-per" part. Are people afraid of my shots ?! Should this become first into a book before renomination like Praga ? --Mile (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it were, you'd be one of the "few men", as you're a regular here, but you don't seem to have felt this photo was going to get enough votes without asking your fellow Slovenes to vote for it out of national solidarity. If this were already in a book, are you suggesting that wouldn't be fair to mention, but on the same level as canvassing a particular nationality for votes? In any event, you've doubtless been here when several new users got featured photos. I personally recall nominating photos of Spain and Ukraine by nationals of those countries who had had no FPs to that point and whose photos were promoted on pretty overwhelming votes. There is definitely a general board taste, but photos that the regulars here consider to be of high quality win, regardless of who took them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mile You could go too far and you could end up as what you want for me. Your arguments are so alien to what is being discussed here that makes me think that you try to divert attention from the subject. --The Photographer22:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get distracted with POTY, where I think it would be hard to recruit 200 friends. That POTY is a great photo. This one is not. Let's all not make allegations without evidence. PetarM/Mile has made lots of bad-faith allegations, and continues to do so, but offers no evidence. Here the evidence of canvassing and of nearly exclusive Mile-support voting by several accounts is quite clear. -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the shadow on the right eye of Venus: it looks like she received an uppercut by Vulcain. I prefer the original statue. The canvassing is obvious and should be punished (temporary ban from FPC). And I think I am one of the specialists of museum photography here (more than 45 of my own FP, many QI, many VI).--Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On image quality. But I do hope the allegations of canvassing and biased voting are not true. That would be very sad for all of us involved in FPC. I'm sure this will be monitored in future. Charles (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 21:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peeping.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peeping.jpg
Info In my opinion Tomas Castelazo is among the best peoples photographers we have had on Commons. Unfortunately, he has not been that active recently. As I was missing him, I looked through his uploads and found this compositional gem, which has not been nominated before. The photo also has humour, for a change at FPC. Created and uploaded by Tomascastelazo - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 08:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wien Zentralfriedhof Kirche Innenraum SO-Seite 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wien Zentralfriedhof Kirche Innenraum SO-Seite 01.jpg
Info Thanks for the hint! I thought that the gallery is curved, but indeed it is not. This is a panoramic, and the deformation is because I used the wrong projection. I have corrected this, which however makes the crop tighter on top. @INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, Jkadavoor, Martin Falbisoner, and Daniel Case: please take a second look to see whether you still can support! --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It actually makes the crop more generous on top in the middle and tighter on top on the sides. The really unfortunate part of that is that it cuts off the corners of 2 mosaics. I don't think those corners are that important, so I don't think this ruins the photo and won't change my vote, but it's definitely a bit regrettable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2017 at 09:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед кон преспанско езеро 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед кон преспанско езеро 2015.jpg
Oppose I feel like the amount of foreground is a bit awkward; either there should be less of it (and it becomes more abstract), or we should see more of it. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. To me it isn't clear what is the main subject of the image and the elements in it do not result in a balanced composition, sorry. Poco211:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 13:35:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Пелистер 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пелистер 2015.jpg
In this case the main subject is the scene, not the people that look simply posing, however, the composition is too simple in general with or without the people. It's only MHO --The Photographer15:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with The Photographer that the composition in this photo is not interesting enough for a feature. The other one is more interesting to me and I would think about it but would have to hesitate somewhat on whether it's one of the greatest photos on the site. It does have a good composition for me, though, and I might or might not end up supporting that one if it's nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 11:01:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyard near Tokaj, Hungary.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyard near Tokaj, Hungary.jpg
Oppose Well-done technically, and as I often say I can see what you were thinking. That road trailing off into the distance is, I admit, hard to resist. But ... unfortunately the trees wind up doing more than just being a nice framing device, they distract us from the vineyard and compete with the road. There's also enough discordant elements within the vineyard itself to disrupt the symmetry the vines themselves might confer. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 16:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I feel like there are many places where you can point your camera at the sun behind the silhouette of trees, and I just don't find this one particularly remarkable. (I don't expect every backlit shot to be as amazing as File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg, but something like that.) -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately per King. I don't know if brighter processing might change my mind? The thumbnail looks rather drab and dull -- Thennicke (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 07:54:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aghveran winter landscape.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aghveran winter landscape.jpg
Oppose - Very poor image quality, also would need perspective correction but that wouldn't come close to rescuing the photo for FP or QI. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image quality is very poor --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 19:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mausoleo de Diri Baba, Qobustan, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-27, DD 08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mausoleo de Diri Baba, Qobustan, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-27, DD 08.jpg
Comment - I tend to agree with Draceane about unsharpness, but this is a very large file. I think I will defer to others on how to judge this photo fairly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of the three images you have uploaded from this part of the monument you have picked the best. I am perfectly OK with the technical quality, but the light is boring and flat and the composition misses a clear idea for me, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally I like the lighting - it gives the photo a depressed mood, which is suitable for a cemetery. The composition is fine too, imo. My favourite part of the image is the grass at the bottom. -- Thennicke (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The area in focus is too small for my taste, at least I would have expect more of the gravestones to be a bit more in focus. Maybe a focus point too near of you, or you were a bit too close. The light and the sky too are a bit boring. Christian Ferrer(talk)17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose There are those pics that we just miss, this one one example. The DOF is too shallow leaving most of the image out of focus - unless the intention was to focus on the grass, in which case I will admit I simply don't understand the picture. KennyOMG (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 15:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tuulegeneraator.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tuulegeneraator.jpg
Comment There are many good things about the image. The visibility is great, the light is great as is the time of day for such a shot, the elevated drone position is potentially very good, and image quality is also fine. But there are two different aspects of the composition that makes it unbalanced IMO. The fact that the straight road is not cropped exactly at the lower left corner, and that one wing tip, protrudes a bit over the horizon. It just does not give me the wow-feeling, the scenary could potenatially give. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2017 at 16:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Goed ontwikkelde ademwortels (pneumatoforen) van een moerascipres (Taxodium distichum) op de scheiding van land en water 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Goed ontwikkelde ademwortels (pneumatoforen) van een moerascipres (Taxodium distichum) op de scheiding van land en water 03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 15:24:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prague 07-2016 View from Old Town Hall Tower img3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prague 07-2016 View from Old Town Hall Tower img3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 20:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Lorenzo (Turin) - Dome interior.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Lorenzo (Turin) - Dome interior.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 18:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 21:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Endeavour after STS-126 on SCA over Mojave from above.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Endeavour after STS-126 on SCA over Mojave from above.jpg
Support A striking view of the Shuttle and SCA, from a most unusual perspective, with spectacular lighting and background -- Ke4roh (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport The symmetry serves this shot well. Quality is on the low side (sharpness, overexposure) but it's not a shot anyone can just walk out and take. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In this case, with a discontinued program, I think we can consider a 2008 picture historic and judge it as great on that basis. If this were a 2016 photo of an active shuttle program, I don't know whether I'd vote to feature it, but given the circumstances, on reflection, it's a pretty obvious one to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 22:32:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orthetrum luzonicum-Kadavoor-2016-10-15-002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orthetrum luzonicum-Kadavoor-2016-10-15-002.jpg
Jee, I'm pinging you in case you'd like to play with the image per Charles' remark. You might not want to go too far, though, assuming that the current levels reflect the light conditions you dealt with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Ikan. Sorry for the late response; I was away and just saw now when returned. Reprocessed to add a bit more exposure and clarity. (This is a juvenile male, showing all marks which will be hidden by pruinescence. There are a lot of other changes including the eye colors. I created a Odonata of Kerala gallery to explain all these things to the beginners upon request. The behavior also different. We can see the adults near the ponds, well exposed, waiting for their girls. But a juvenile will never visit the ponds as they are not matured enough to mate. They have a secret life in the shades of the shrubs away from the water bodies. It is difficult to locate them. So the lighting condition is well matching to their behavior. ) Jee04:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2017 at 17:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète cf04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lido de Thau, Sète cf04.jpg
Neutral This photo is all about the lines, but I don't think it has been taken far enough when playing with those. I think it would have been better if the lines had coincided with the bottom corners, if you had stepped about 30 cm to the left, that would have happened. Otherwise, the colors are great with the same hue of two complementary colors. --cart-Talk20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To take cart's critique even further, the image overall just feels too vertically compressed. Perhaps if the strip of land you had been on was narrower, or your viewpoint higher above it, or there had been higher terrain on the horizon, it might have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, if it is "nothing special" then it isn't FP standard, which requires images to have wow and be among our finest. The voting system only works if people are brave enough to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, I'm going to make another 16:9 crop recommendation (with the thirds line on the horizon). Doing that, I can fill my monitor screen with it and on my high-DPI display I can make out the kitesurfing. Much as I like lines to coincide with corners, the "lines of grass" here are rather fat so I'm not that troubled by alignment. As other note, the colours are nice and I like the contrast between the choppy and calm waters. Shame the kites aren't bigger/closer. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionColin, pardon me and my dumb questions, but why is it so important to have photos here at FPC displayed in one standard format or another? What's the rationale behind it? --cart-Talk21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well partly, if the crop is close to 16:9, then it might as well be because then it looks great full-screen on modern displays that are nearly all 16:9. But mainly I think a lot of landscapes look better in a wider format than 3:2. A 2:1 crop would also work here. I guess 16:9 is a compromise format between a panoramic cinema aspect and the old 4:3 TV standard. You went "wow" at the cinema but not with your old "box" TV. If you are asking why crop at all on Commons, then I think we are presenting a work-of-art rather than just a negative for someone else to crop later. -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Guess I'm just old-fashioned when I adjust my crops to what's in the picture rather than the other way around if the option is free. Working with only predesigned formats can be good in some cases, but I still see FPs more as paintings in a gallery rather than desktop wallpapers. Maybe I'll grow up some day. ;) cart-Talk22:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, I think the argument for a custom crop that suits the image is strongest, definitely. But sometimes/oftentimes there isn't a precise cut that is best and choosing some standard off-the-shelf ratio is an easy way to try alternatives and/or to suggest alternatives. There is something special about an image being frame-filling on one's monitor as then the monitor provides a frame, rather than a black bar or some intrusive portion of Windows. I found, here, that looking at a 16:9 crop fullscreen made me enjoy the photo more than a slightly squarer crop in a window. But that's just me, and doesn't hold for all pictures. The consideration that one should not just accept the 3:2 crop made by the camera, and try wider, squarer or taller crops, is widely made in photography books/guides, and 16:9 sometimes recommended as being a more natural fit for landscape than 3:2. As with all guidelines, it doesn't always apply or make good sense. As Christian notes, this isn't 3:2 anyway, and his crop is somewhere in-between at 16:10. -- Colin (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for info, on the right of the image the water is a former salt evaporation pond, now it's a kind of local nature reserve. The "calm water" between the land and the small wall was a canal for vessels carrying salt. To my greatest despair, there is almost permanently a strong NNW wind in my region (70-110km), and if this is the paradise for all species of windsurfers, it's terribly hard to make the macro photography, just look at the grass, it is always bent and shaken by the wind. Regarding the crop, I just tried the 16x9 crop in my pc, but was not very convinced that it had so much, or in all case the grass with the current 16x10 crop don't bother me, then I prefer to keep my favorite format. This image with a bigger windsurfer is also not bad IMO. Christian Ferrer(talk)05:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of the color version. If you had offered only the black & white version, I might have supported it, but I really prefer the colors, in this case, in part because they're pretty vivid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a (digitaly) BW image is for me the same as a downsampling from a high to low resolution of oversaturated images .... Only true BW (Agfa or Ilford or ... films are true BW with a analogue camera) images are valid for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This remember me some of your previous discussions with Colin, and I tend to disagree with you. BW can be an editorial choice, we always add more saturation, vibrance, contrast or all kind of things that change a bit the reality, why not less saturation? why not no saturation?. The only important thing is not philosophical but the visual message/result. Christian Ferrer(talk)21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A "pseudo BW image"? "Only BW films are valid"? What a load of nonsense. I'm sorry, Alchemist-hp, you cannot say these things and claim validity for them by insisting the are your "opinion". Buy a book on B&W digital photography and learn that digital has many advantages over film for B&W. An exception can be made for large-format B&W film, which still has some advantages over most digital cameras in terms of resolution. Digital B&W is not just about desaturating a colour image. Your dogmatic rejection of digital B&W photography is harmful to this project IMO. -- Colin (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can say it and I did it. This is my opinion! You can not change my mind. Not for us, normal Wikipedia-photographers. Or ... the photographer can me say and justify me: why he did a digital BW photo! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC) P.S.: I don't believe that: "Your dogmatic rejection of digital B&W photography is harmful to this project IMO" too.[reply]
I did an attempt in BW simply because I like digital BW images, I like also a lot the color but I really like digital BW photos, and I would want to be able to make good bw images, that's all. Though with my attempt, my image lose something and indeed the color version is better, but it's because of the subject, light and maybe because of my edition too. The light/mood necessary for a successful BW is maybe not the same that for a successful colored image. I mean all BW images will not be necessarily so good in color, and at the opposite, all good color images can not not be so good when in BW. BW digital photgraphy is a true photographic technique, that begins with a choice of light/subject. For my candidate the light/subject is maybe not adequate for to make a successful BW image. But it is not a question of principle. It is a bit as if an oenologist taste a wine, but they says the wine is not good simply because they don't like the bottle... Christian Ferrer(talk)07:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your wine analogy. How a B&W image is made is irrelevant: only the result matters. Too much stubborn ignorance, I'm afraid. I don't need to change your mind Alchemist-hp, though I'd prefer if you went out and educated yourself on this matter, but I'd rather you stopped opposing for this reason. The WORLD does not agree with you, and your oppose votes on this matter are disruptive. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In result: aganin a nice sample for a BW image that isn't good enough compared with a color image. My opinion in 99.9 % of all our comons BW "digital made" images are not better then a color image. @Colin my opinion isn't ignorance, my opinion is my opinion! You can accept it or not, but this will be still my opinion. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to say an individual image doesn't work (ether B&W or colour) but not to dogmatically reject digital b&w. To claim a picture does not work because of how it is made, is no longer an opinion, but a false conclusion born of ignorance and prejudice that have no place on this forum. It's like saying nearly all famous photographers are men, therefore women cannot take good photographs. That's not an opinion, it's just wrong. Saying "my opinion is my opinion" is just vacuous. -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't help you, I'm afraid. And yes, I would you would "end and exit" with this sort of nonsense. Prejudice is prejudice. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong agreement with Colin and with Christian's point about the wine, rather than the bottle. Side point, though: I don't have the impression that almost all famous photographers have been men. Women have been among the important photographers for over a century. But that's a tangent, and your point is made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 13:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoFrom David's description: A local train from Arosa to Chur crosses the Langwieser Viaduct, Langwies, Switzerland. The train is hauled by an ABe 8/12 "Allegra" EMU.
Support - Criticisms could be made of this photo, but for me, the wow, the composition and the contrast between the muted colors of the surroundings and the vivid red of the train override them all, to the extent that I don't even want to think about any possible shortcomings. For me, this is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 20:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Window shopping in Mexico City.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Window shopping in Mexico City.jpg
Neutral Nice idea and composition (contrast of poor and rich), however, the "homeless" is cut (tight composition) and look like forced in the scene, btw need vertical fix. --The Photographer23:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is really great to see you back, Tomas! Regarding the image, the idea is very good, but why have you cropped it so tight around the homeless man? Is there somethng distracting to the right of him? The Photographer also has a point about the verticals. A {{Personal rights}} template on the file page is probably also relevant. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Slaunger! Regarding the verticals... the picture was taken from a higher point thus the normal distortion, also, it was not taken head on but from the side... As far as the cropping, I do not remember what was to the right, for it was a quick shot, but the placement is consistent with my composition practice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support After deliberation. The crop is rather unfortunate, and I don't like the unbalanced feeling that the angled path gives. But... wow. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport Seemingly because of the original encyclopedic philosophy on Wikipedia, there seems to sometimes be a lack of images on Commons that try to send a message or make an artistic statement, as opposed to just being technically-sound. This image effectively sends a specific message that goes beyond the literal subject, and as a result separates its self from other images commonly nominated for FP. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 23:01:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:West Indian whistling duck (Dendrocygna arborea) head.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:West Indian whistling duck (Dendrocygna arborea) head.JPG
Support - Yeah, I might well. Tropical weather instead of frigid temperatures. But where's his money hidden? ;-) Seriously, great job! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support@Charlesjsharp: Your edit reduced the chroma noise but it was still too visible to my eyes. I've uploaded a version with no chroma noise - hope you like it. If I've stripped EXIF data or whatever feel free to revert me. Nice picture too! -- Thennicke (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm not sure if this is a bug, or just due to the image being an active FPC nom, but I think the reason they look so similar is that clicking on my version is (weirdly) downloading your version. Compare the beaks of the two latest images and I think you might see that the "10th of January" revision (your revision, incidentally) has noticably less splotchiness. I hope I'm making sense. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This happens to me too. I have to clear cache to see newly uploaded image. I use CCleaner. 11:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 12:51:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 12:30:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Nysa Kłodzka w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Nysa Kłodzka w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 2.jpg
Comment - It's not letting me leave an image note, but I would suggest making your right crop just to the left of the building under construction. Yes, unfortunately, that means cutting off more of the tree, but the construction somewhat spoils the mood of the old buildings. I would be very likely to support the photo if you make this crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 06:40:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Young leaves of Papaw.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Young leaves of Papaw.jpg
Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resolution - see FPC guidelines. Thanks for your contribution --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 15:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Map of the Portion of Abyssinia Tranversed by the British Expedition in 1868.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Map of the Portion of Abyssinia Tranversed by the British Expedition in 1868.jpg
Oppose - I may disagree somewhat with Yann: I consider this map featurable, but only if the resolution (size) is increased substantially and it's digitally restored. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size and quality are too low
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2017 at 07:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Omgeving van het heideveld 034.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Omgeving van het heideveld 034.jpg
Oppose - I'm sorry, I've been looking for a featurable photo by you, and while this is definitely a technically high-quality photo and its composition is good, I'm not wowed by it. The bull is interesting but has a lot of grass partly blocking it and we don't see its eyes; the scenery is pleasant but not exceptional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this. The cow seems to "grow" from the ground up along with the grass. This is not a zoological photo of this breed of cattle but a photo of a scene and I know from experience that such pics are usually sneered at here at FPC. Glad someone had the guts to nominate one, thanks Martin! Colors are excellent and the quality is good. This photo looks like a painting and it brings to mind this rather prominent work of art. --cart-Talk12:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The focus seems more on the foreground grass than on the animal; but other elements compensate it. Jee02:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to say though that I am unsure about the authenticity of these tones as Mile mentioned above. This comment applies also to other images by Agnes. I enjoy very much the scenery overall but many of them just look to warm to me. Poco210:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 09:59:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support You applied a noise reduction in background dividing in layers the bird and the background for apply a gaussian blur in the background, however, in the low layer (a copy of the front layer) there is the bird that now is showed like a dropshadow in the current image. My suggestion is apply a simply noise reduction in the background but not dividing in layers. BTW it's a amazing image --The Photographer10:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this background real, i suppose i could see some more at this EXIF. I would lift bird more up (+bottom px) and try to solve back. --Mile (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added another note more clear (Between white feathers and the background), please take a look and let me know if this dropshadow could be fixed --The Photographer16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not entirely convinced about the composition. For me it would have worked better if the beak more directly pointed towards the lower left corner of the image. As it is now, the crop seems a bit too tight from below and with a bit too much space on the left hand side. Otherwise very good. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee if I was to crop the left, many editors will say (with some justification) that it is cropped too tight. I like where the eye is - rule of thirds on both axes... Charles (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe what The Photographer is calling "drop shadow" effect is really local contrast, likely caused by the "Clarity" slider in PS. Visible but I won't go as far as call it obnoxious. Could be fixed with developing the raw again with a neutral clarity slider, cutting/masking around the bird and using the non-clarity parts as background. KennyOMG (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never actually used the clarity slider, but, as I said, I did 'reduce highlights' of the white feathers in RAW and that has produced a very faint halo - it is much more marked if you process a JPG this way. Charles (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I missed that part, but it's pretty much the same thing (adjusts local contrast and creates halos). Fix is also the same, even simpler (develop without highlight prot and mask the protected feathers on that image). I haven't said it yet but quite the pic otherwise! KennyOMG (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 07:50:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ninomaru Palace, November 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ninomaru Palace, November 2016.jpg
Info View of Ninomaru palace at Nijō Castle, a flatland castle in Kyoto at dusk. While most Japanese castles still have their representative, characteristic, and widely visible keep, the actual residences are almost always lost. Nijo Castle is a rare exeception, here the keep is gone but the residence still exists. What I like about this picture is its calm, detached mood. Usually the fortification is very popular with tourists and locals alike. Shortly before closing, however, the now forlorn palace gets to enjoy the day's last minutes of sunlight in peace. This scenery reminded me at bit of classical woodblock motifs, e.g. this one. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support My immediate thought was that I found the obstructing foreground trees distracting. On second thought the partial hiding of the palace builds up expectations of what will be seen as you traverse the curved path to the place. Excellent light and colours. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 02:31:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prussian Creek Chain Bay, Kosciuszko Road, NSW.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prussian Creek Chain Bay, Kosciuszko Road, NSW.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 00:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Црква Св. Никола (нова) во Маврово (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Црква Св. Никола (нова) во Маврово (2).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 23:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Another set of studio photographs, this time of the Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro DSLR lens. Lighting and flagging setup: Image:Two flash photographic studio for lenses.jpg. 10–25 shots for each setup were focus stacked in Helicon Focus, then masked, dusted and retouched as necessary in Photoshop. Final and only sharpening by highpass filter 1px. all by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I made 2 portrait patterns of money. This will be first. Makroed as possible. Since we dont have any similar. Will be good for money folder, almost empty on FPC. --Mile (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not quite sure that's how COM:DM works; it's generally when the whole work takes up a tiny part of a photo, rather than taking a tiny part of the whole work. There are instances where DM is valid for such cases like Cloud Gate, but it is because the tiny part is just a smooth metal surface which is below COM:TOO, not because of de minimis. By the way, could you identify on the description page which banknote it is taken from? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
♦, lNeverCry This is still the case i have to ask, can i put this file into the Currency of that state...since its Copyrightable. Can be de minimis applied then !? De minimis is because it fell to 1st rule of "Case can be considered de minimis". So its not "crop" which is forbidden, but zoomed in. So merely even Google cant find it. But if i put biger size of banknote, what wont be de minimis, since people might know it. And Google finder also. I might check that also on COM:Currency, but there is one forum for this kind, they answer straight...currency is more for whole banknote. --Mile (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC) p.S. Its not American, its Chinese rinminbi.[reply]
In my opinion Commons:De minimis applies and the image can be kept. Only a small part of the banknote is visible, and more importantly the subject of the image is the printing process pattern. MKFI (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC).
Comment You still haven't categorised the image to indicate what banknote and what country it is from. I'm not convinced by the opinion of one random person, though. If banknotes are copyrightable in your country then this image here is certainly displaying enough artistic expression to be copyrightable itself. I also think that someone familiar with the banknotes could identify which one, so it fails the test. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All is stated there, so if you think you are correct, go there and ask more opinions. And who told you i had to name the money, thats is why de minimis exist. Name it. --Mile (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I remove photo, since some doubt fell within de Minimis. I will replace image with different one, till this one get approval or disapproval from "Copyrights". If OK'ed i will put it back latter. --Mile (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 03:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·（二道門）.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·（二道門）.jpg
Info The first gate of Beijing Dongyue Temple. The gate is located in Chaoyangmenwai Street, Beijing, China. And it is one of the MHCSPNL (Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level) created by Legolas1024 - uploaded by Legolas1024 - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas102403:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a good subject and you're using a good camera, but for these kinds of low buildings you're almost always best using a landscape orientation. The processing is not great either, but that just requires practice. Also, at 1/30th of a second, you'll struggle to get truly sharp images. One thing I do like about this image is that it's quite symmetrical, and it's great to see nominations from China - we don't get enough of them. If you'd like more feedback to improve your photography skills, have a look at commons:Photography critiques -- Thennicke (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The symmetric view through the gate is good, but the light is dull, the sky burns the leaves of the trees and the portarit aspect ratio is not the adequate choise. Actually, a square crop may have been better. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 20:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Emelie January 2017 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emelie January 2017 01.jpg
Info The ferry Emelie arriving in Henriksdalshamnen (Stockholm) a very cold January day. I think the beautiful winter weather, the reflections in the ice/water and the lines in the sky and the ice makes the image special (and something more then just another ferry images). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good things: The light and colors are good, and I agree the ice helps. Less convincing for me: Very strong highlights/reflections of the sun from side of ferry. The main subject being the ferry seems to fill a disproportionately small area of the photo and the almost centered composition does not work so well for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your comment. I don't mind the highlights, its natural for a sunny winter day with low sun and reflections (and no important details are lost). It's a little unusual composition, but it works in my opinion and the eye is drawn to the centre of the images (with the ferry).--ArildV (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this picture is great and by no means just a picture of a ferry. I would have nominated this if you hadn't gotten around to it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't like the composition and execution, with the boat (in the middle of the picture) lost against the buildings. And the reflections on the boat are unfortunate. Charles (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2017 at 13:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ivan the Great Bell Tower in Moscow Kremlin 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ivan the Great Bell Tower in Moscow Kremlin 1.jpg
Comment@Charlesjsharp: Yes, a view from the Sobornaya (Cathedral) Square (I think you mean it) is more informative: for the whole building is seen. This view isn’t so informative, but (I suppose) it has some “visual advantages”: the picture of the white tall tower “growing from the forest” can create a certain mood. Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per Dmitri. "Qualified" because I think a crop of a lot of that empty space on the right would help, but if the photographer has a reason for it, I defer. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed either. The main subject is centered, the left towers are not really contributing to the composition since they are significantly visible but only partially (that's somehow irritating). Charles is probably right and lighting/sharpening are not outstanding either as Ivo mentioned. Poco217:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 12:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Little banana tree.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Little banana tree.JPG
Oppose - Nice tree, but the light is a little dull, the crops on left and right are closer than I'd like, and the focus on the tree should be sharper. As a new member of Commons, you might consider trying to nominate some of your photos at COM:Quality images candidates. I've seen a number of relatively new members improve their skills through nominations and discussion there, and several of them have started getting photos featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the technical quality (sharpness, crop, light, composition) falls short of FP expectations. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 11:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lantana camara-Silent Valley-2016-08-14-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lantana camara-Silent Valley-2016-08-14-001.jpg
Support - Impressive closeup. I would have loved a slightly wider view, so that the top four leaves didn't get cut off, but you can't have everything. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, Jee, but I do not think it is on par with our other two lantana camara FPs, when it comes to the composition and the light. You have a slight clockwise rotation of the leaves, which gives, together with the slight crop of the leaves an unbalanced composition in my opinion. Moreover, I think the light is too harsh (flash?), with reflections in the leaves and washed colors of the flowers. Isn't the Lantana camara actually an invasive species in India? With 'wild' do you mean, not a cultivar and thus less bright colors of the flowers? -- Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger: 1.This is original lantana camara as confirmed by the experts in India. Since it is a popular ornamental plant, we can see it in gardens; but they are hybrids with boosted colors. This FP is 'Patty Wankler' as mentioned in description. The other FP is indeed a hybrid. This seems original; but can't confirm unless we know from where it was photographed. (It is also a hybrid.) The difficulty is our garden cultivars will escape to wild and mix with originals. Here the current nom is photographed from the core of Silent Valley National Park (1300 m a.s.l.) where no human settlement or activity. (Disclaimer: I'm not an expert; just sharing what I learned from experts. I do post my works in expert groups and read all related discussions before making a nom here. I know here we expect less subject specific reviews even compared to EN wiki FPC. I had read this and this too before making this nom.) 2. "You have a slight clockwise rotation of the leaves.." Not me; it's by the nature itself. We are not going to see the two leaves in the horizontal plane in real life. And I prefer this position more beautiful than with artificial straightening. Jee03:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jkadavoor the reason I asked about invasive species was from reading Lantana camara, where it says Lantana camara, often planted to embellish gardens, has spread from its native Central and South America to around 50 different countries, where it has become an invasive species. From this I get the impression that it is an invasive species in India? But thanks for clearing that up regarding the hybrids vs non-hybrids. Yes, the leaves are not naturally aligned with the leaves - you have a point there, but the crop, composition and light is not good enough for FP IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of invasive species is bit outdated. We are victims of excessive use of herbicides and insecticides; no more consider human economy over environmental harmony. The modern concept is weeds and pests are good and there are a lot of passive benefits from them to the crops too. One will be an issue if it is overpowered to affect the biodiversity in that region. Lantana camara is unable to compete with trees; so less a threat compared to Mikania micrantha. (I'm happy to withdraw this nom; but not happy to see two photos of ornamental hybrids are highlighted as the best works of a Tropical plant.) Jee03:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 19:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Biblioteca Central de la Universidad de Bucarest, Bucarest, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 97-99 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Biblioteca Central de la Universidad de Bucarest, Bucarest, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 97-99 HDR.jpg
Oppose All is well, until we hit the black tiled roof. If I zoom to fit my screen, there is a purple noisy halo around the roof, most dominantly at the left and right towers. If I zoom to a reasonable review resolution of 10 Mpixel, the technical quality of especially the left and right side roof structures are bad - very noisy and very little structure/texture. I am a little surprised this was promoted to QI by Jacek Halicki back in september. It seems like shadows have been boosted much more than justified. I think HDR merge of bracketed exposures would have been a better technical choice given the large dynamic differences in light in the scene. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco: OK, it was not evident for me from the EXIF, the categories, any other information on the file page nor the picture. Which exposure times did you use? I recommend using the {{Photo Information}} for HDRs, see this for example such that you can indicate the exposure times. It is useful information for photographers interested to learn. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed 'HDR' was part of the quite long file name, sorry. I do not find the exposure times/EV step/number of brackets info in the file name though. I usually do not pay much attention to the file name as its primary role is to be unique identifer and secondly not be directly misleading. I pay more attention to the file page. But thanks for your intend to add the metadata to the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Excellent building picture and I will change my vote if the noise aura generalized and noise in the left side is fixed. Please, compare the building right side with the left side. I added a note. --The Photographer23:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lit areas of the building are blown out. Since it's an HDR I presume you've shot frames where they aren't lost right? I think those areas should not be so bright in the postprocessing. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, he problem comes from Lightroom, it takes the exposure time from the first frame after the HDR merge. As I documented in the file description page the exposure times were 0.3, 2,5 and 30 seconds. Btw, in the last version I've removed the (airplane) lines Poco220:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If so, your last version isn't showing up. I still see plane lines after reducing my cache to nothing. I think my overall opinion is that I like the building very much but find the blown lamps too distracting. I'm really not sure why or what you could have done about that, but it is so far making it impossible for me to feel "wow" from this photo. I won't oppose but don't feel impelled to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will upload a new version this evening I see indeed room for improvement but right now the Lr catalogue is crashing when I try to rework it, as said, will look into it later Poco207:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks like the shadows have been lifted quite que bit (and Canons suck when it comes to this so it shows). Wonder what your HDR pipeline is exactly. Strange you get this much noise. Also I don't like the prominent stars/glares. But it's still a very nice night architectural. We have worst FP.- Benh (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The edit helped, and thanks for the added metadata on the file page. As benh I am surprised you are not getting a better quality, assuming your HDR processing has been done right. Have you had a look at each exposure and verified the quality is allright prior to HDR combination? And I find the weird lightbrown jagged lines in the sky mystic. It does not seem plausible that they are trails from aircraft over a 20 s period to me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Okay, there's noise, but in the FPC rulebook, supporting is allowed if the "wow overrides technical defects". The lighting and symmetry, along with the fabulous architecture, and impressive sunstars on the lamps, wow me enough. I think this deserves the star - just my opinion -- Thennicke (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I don't really get the nitpicking here. Is the subject good? Yes. Are the lights good? Mostly yes. Are there minor technical issues anyone can nitpick on? Sure. But I could go back to any given FP, even those getting the "support trains" and point out problems that could be improved. Same goes for the "distracting red lights", gotta be kidding there... Why weak support then? I'm not a fan of the sunburst effect, personally think the aperture was way lower than should have been. Apart from that I'd like to see a more gentle roll off of the whites, much like in v2-3-4. The reds were a bit over the top burning here and there but not much and should be easily corrected with little effort. Most importantly no artificial darkening of the sky because simply burning it will leave a halo around the building. Pull the sky down to dark and if part of the roof goes with it, then be it. The statue is easy to mask out to keep the details there. IMHO from the peanut gallery. KennyOMG (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Thennicke and KennyOMG. I think the criticism is much too harsh. Might be that there's still room for an improvement but all in all it's an excellent picture and surely one of our finest. --Code (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 06:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hamadruas sp 05600.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamadruas sp 05600.jpg
Oppose Not only per Charles (although I should add the color is very nice) but because the leaves unfortunately get in the way of appreciating the spider. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 17:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fünfseenblick.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fünfseenblick.jpg
Oppose - Much respect to you: This is a really well-done panorama, a fine photograph and very valuable. But what it doesn't do, relative to other panoramas, including some of yours, is wow me. That's basically covered by KoH above: There just isn't that much to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 20:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palácio das Indústrias (São Paulo city).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palácio das Indústrias (São Paulo city).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 21:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 26.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 26.jpg
Info Bottom view of an iwan in the Jameh Mosque of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. The mosque, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is one of the oldest still standing buildings in Iran and it has been continuously changed its architecture since it was erected in 771 until the 20th century.
Support - Yes, another photograph of the Jameh Mosque in Isfahan, though a different part of the mosque than we've featured before. I said "Woooooow!" out loud when I opened it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadow-sun dont go together here, neither part of sky. This could be done when without sun, and would also cut sky out. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you interpret his objections, then? It sounded like he was trying to argue that a night photo that somehow excluded any sky but yet had the complete iwan would be better than this. None of that sounded possible, but then maybe you understand what he meant better than I did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate question, though it might be related if his reasons for voting against photos by Poco make no sense. I don't know whether this time, they make no sense or whether it's just a language problem. Probably best to discuss this elsewhere, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 03:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:National Gallery from SW, Canberra Australia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:National Gallery from SW, Canberra Australia.jpg
Support - I was thinking this building just wasn't featurable from my point of view, but your edits to brighten and crop the photo have made a huge difference. It's funny how relatively small a change can make the difference between a decent photo and a really good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I'm not wowed and I don't get the wide support. It's just a good photo of a notable building. It's of course QI (though some remaining CA's at the left still there), but it was taken in plain midday light, so that the grass looks fade-out and the scenery rather boring. I also don't find the architecture particularly special. To get a wow photo of this, maybe a good idea to do it on Blue hour like on this photo (which itself is technically poor, but could maybe serve as a source of inspiration). --A.Savin17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: I'm still deciding what I think about this review, but in the meantime, thanks for providing it; it's making me think more about how important the subject or the lighting are for making "wow" in an image. I'd like to point out that a lot of your own architectural images are also taken in harsh midday light though -- Thennicke (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; when on travel, there is very limited choice what to photograph at which time of day. But nominating a photo on FPC is quite another story. --A.Savin10:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess that makes sense - fair point. I guess there's a taste element to it, but I happen to love harsh light (reminds me of summer), and for this image in particular, chose it deliberately. Also to be consistent with other similar images. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 15:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Virmalised 18.03.15 (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Virmalised 18.03.15 (2).jpg
Support - Quite beautiful, and the dark silhouettes of trees look quite realistic in terms of what a person would be likely to see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a noise reduction version, however, I reverted myself, if you think that this version is better you can set it on top. Nice image --The Photographer13:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 17:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Legion of Honor at night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Legion of Honor at night.jpg
Oppose We have a lot of building FPs but I don't think this is quite there in among our finest. It isn't really that sharp, and not exceptionally high resolution that I'm willing to forgive. The blue-hour sky could do we being a little lighter/earlier. The lake occupies too much of the frame, imo, and isn't really a mirror reflection worth keeping. The image is slightly asymmetrical, though that's not bad enough to be an oppose reason. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness could indeed be a bit better. I do like the colors though, I also don't mind the rather late blue hour lighting. The composition is absolutely fine with me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 14:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - I respectfully agree with Colin on this. QI and also should be nominated for VI as a subject of historic and encyclopedic importance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 07:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin, Denkmal für die im Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Sinti und Roma -- 2016 -- 5594.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin, Denkmal für die im Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Sinti und Roma -- 2016 -- 5594.jpg
Oppose While it may represent an important memorial, I find the photograph itself lacking. Low overal contrast, distracting reflections of the trees, distracting floating leaves hanging on the side of the memorial. It looks like a snapshot to me. The context of how the whole puddle looks is also missing, IMHO this should have been included. --LB09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Looks like a shapshot". :-( Never seen snapshots like this. It was made with tripod and I'd choosen a long exposure to accentuate the trees. IMO the the cloudy day is good to show the memorial in autumn. --XRaytalk09:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Good to know that you took care when making the photograph, and I respect your decision to render the trees sharply, but still, I find the composition lacking and it doesn't represent the memorial well enough for my taste. I would have liked to see the whole puddle and its decoration around it. As it is, you kind of included the edge of the puddle, but only a bit, and not enough to give someone a good idea of how the whole memorial looks when standing in front of it. --LB15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: Mile, I know you're not a native German speaker, but neither am I and yet I can clearly tell from the filename that this is "Memorial to the Sinti and Roma victims of the Nazis". As such I can only assume that you were trying to make a joke, and honestly it's in poor taste given the real purpose of the memorial. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is description in English : Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten (Dani Karavan, 2012), Berlin, Germany. --Mile (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: "Ermordeten" means "murdered". I rather think that expressing disapproval of trivializing a crime against humanity like that is the grown-up thing to do ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'm looking at photos in Category:Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten, and what I notice is that this part of the memorial is in water, so every photo of it includes a reflection. How do those of you who think this photo doesn't properly reflect the "simplicity" of the memorial propose for people to photograph it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Looking at the first days of nomination there is no chance to get FP. Thank you for your reviews. --XRaytalk05:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 18:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 108-114 PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 108-114 PAN.jpg
Comment - I think this is a very valid point. I still think it's featurable, because it's such a huge, sharp panorama with interesting things to see, and not every photo needs to be of a sunny day or some amazing cloud formations. But it is definitely a valid point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's possible people are opposing this photo or declining to vote for it because it isn't one of Poco's best panoramas. And that might be a legitimate reason to oppose it, actually. In other words, maybe we're spoiled, or maybe you (that is, Poco) helped set a new standard for what a featured stitched landscape/cityscape panorama is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that, Ikan, I don't believe that I'm setting any standards. When I observed this panorama I enjoyed it a lot but the result was just not what I expected, maybe the weather, the construction sites, the architecture, not sure. Poco219:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 16:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - I just read a bit of the history of this bunker, and it's quite interesting. However, this photo is too small for FP (and QI) and could be clearer, too. The absolute minimum size for FPC noms is 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being careless. I still think it's pretty small for FP, though, and it would have to be a lot clearer to have a chance to wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not think the technical quality is quite on par given the modest imge size. Especially the kA and V-meters in the foreground. Interesting subject though. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 09:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sand sculpture - Puerto de Mogan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sand sculpture - Puerto de Mogan.jpg
Comment I do not fancy the angle too much, but won't oppose either as it is refreshing. As The Photographer suggest a photo taken from a lower level would have been more interesting. I realize it was a busy beach, but I think an interesting position would have been to get the camera to the ground level, put on a zoom or a macro lens and make a detail shot of some of the sand houses showing just the sand castle elements with no traces of the normal beach and background. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Composition is pretty good in my opinion, but I'm supporting this mainly for uniqueness, though of course the picture quality is high, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this AOV here as it cover a lot of details which we will miss in a lower position of the camera. This looks like an areal view of a castle. The light is harsh; but I can understand as it is from a beach. Jee04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MNBA aos 80 anos 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MNBA aos 80 anos 01.jpg
Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MNBA aos 80 anos 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MNBA aos 80 anos 02.jpg
Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lens, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 00:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info My studio photographs of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lens. All were taken with a Canon 6D with Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM lens (lighting and flagging setup: Image:Two flash photographic studio for lenses.jpg). Settings: f/8, 1/180 s, ISO 100. 10–25 shots for each setup were focus stacked in Helicon Focus, then masked, dusted and retouched as necessary in Photoshop. Final and only sharpening by highpass filter 1px. Created by Lucasbosch – uploaded by Lucasbosch – nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is not the kind of subject that most interests me, but I'm super-impressed with this work! I love all the detail and the light. Really great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a straight educational product catalogue shot (vs advertising where the image has to have desirable appeal) this is as good as it gets, with even lighting and a totally clean subject. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 17:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Minox C 8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016 Minox C 8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 17:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches set from 6 to 19 mm. This is a shift panorama using the Canon TS-E 90 mm because my acrylic plate wasn't large enough for the whole set, additionally it's a focus stack of 5 to 6 images. Post processing to remove dust and make the background pure black. Created by Lucasbosch -- uploaded by Lucasbosch -- nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: What makes you ask? Could be that I missed to set it appropriately, but there seems to be no place to check that as far as I can see. What would happen if it is set wrong? --Lucasbosch12:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: For my taste it looks fine the way it is and it is more space saving when being placed on the right side of articles. Also, the majority of the text on the wrenches is oriented this way, so it's easier to read. --Lucasbosch14:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 07:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Komatsu bulldozer pushing coal in Power plant Ljubljana (winter 2017).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Komatsu bulldozer pushing coal in Power plant Ljubljana (winter 2017).jpg
Support Just like Kabellerger's shot of the train going across the bridge, the color pops against the natural winter monochrome behind it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image is good, but I feel uneasy looking at it because you seem to have rotated it to make the bottoms of the tracks horizontal - really, what needs to be horizontal is the bucket, because that is what is in the center of the image - and at the moment the bucket is tilted heavily to the left. Which would be fine if the dozer was going uphill, but the composition does not contain clues to that, and therefore this is uneasy on my eyes. I also think this is slightly overprocessed - too much contrast. Good, simple composition though, and Daniel's comment about the colours is spot on. I'll definitely support if you fix the problems I've noted -- Thennicke (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thennicke Good, first, i couldnt say is bulldozer in normal position by nothing here seeing vehicle alone, but look i have some luck. See note, there is part of high building on right side, you can see vertical line is positioned good. This was one of quick images, nothing much to change, contrast same, but offset changed to my taste to -0.0124. Offset and crop. So, no rotating, this path goes some 10-12 % uphill. --Mile (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that you point it out I see it. However, a person looking at the thumbnail will not notice it, so that isn't good. And for that reason, I stand by my statements. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 20:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Auxerre.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Auxerre.jpg
WeakSupport. Lovely scene. It's only a moderately sharp 17 MP image when we frequently see more than that here, but great wow factor. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My problem with the photo as is is that I don't really like the right crop, which cuts through a boat (and also what seems to me to be a concession stand, but I care less about that). However, I'm not sure if either of the two suggested crops solve the problem for me. My main hesitation in terms of Martin's crop is that although it's neat, cropping out the tall tree might have an adverse effect on the form, making it unbalanced between right and left, plus I'd just miss seeing that tree and its reflection. Something similar to Mile's crop might be helpful, but I wouldn't suggest bisecting the reflection of the trees near the near right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Whilst this is well-processed and it's a lovely image, the right crop is too bad and I don't think this can be rescued in post. This kind of thing needs to be thought about in the field, unfortunately. Turning the camera a little to the right would have saved this. The reflections and processing are definitely impressive though. I hope my review is helpful. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Gut feeling: Even with this crop, this is a good to very good picture but not one of the most outstanding on this site. No offense intended. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral An attractive picture (I love the autumn colours of the trees on the right), but it's a bit unbalanced with the left side "higher" than the right. I also find the NR (?) smears too many details away. - Benh (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 03:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·（二道門）.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·（二道門）.jpg
Info The first gate of Beijing Dongyue Temple. The gate is located in Chaoyangmenwai Street, Beijing, China. And it is one of the MHCSPNL (Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level) created by Legolas1024 - uploaded by Legolas1024 - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas102403:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a good subject and you're using a good camera, but for these kinds of low buildings you're almost always best using a landscape orientation. The processing is not great either, but that just requires practice. Also, at 1/30th of a second, you'll struggle to get truly sharp images. One thing I do like about this image is that it's quite symmetrical, and it's great to see nominations from China - we don't get enough of them. If you'd like more feedback to improve your photography skills, have a look at commons:Photography critiques -- Thennicke (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The symmetric view through the gate is good, but the light is dull, the sky burns the leaves of the trees and the portarit aspect ratio is not the adequate choise. Actually, a square crop may have been better. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 00:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orange hibiscus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orange hibiscus.jpg
Support - You might have moved the blue chairs (I think they are) away, but they arguably add interest to the background, and pro or con on the chairs, this is a great closeup of the flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background elements. Center of flower is not as crisply resolved as I would anticipate in a a flower FP, sorry. Colours are good though, and it is refreshing to see other topics than church interiors nominated by you. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Slaunger, but unfortunately it is a rumor. I have [2] FP of paintings, statues, panoramas etc ... it is logical that something is more common as many people have more of FP of flowers, insects, or ... churches. Greetings.--LivioAndronico(talk)19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 03:44:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Halbinselpromenade Seeblick nach Osten 11012017 6019.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Halbinselpromenade Seeblick nach Osten 11012017 6019.jpg
Oppose Per Colin, sorry. I think the image could have worked for me, if there were a solitary tree or isolated trees but these cut off branches on the right break the harmony for me. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You are absolutely right. Those scares were also mine, a reason why I hesitated with the nomination so long. Anyway, I thank you all for your honest opinion. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 09:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Well, Thennicke, you said we should have more China FPs, and then you found this ... wow! Can't find a more Chinese landscape than this. I hope I get to go back there again, and when I do I want to see this place. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 06:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:De zon probeert door de mist te breken. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:De zon probeert door de mist te breken. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 05.jpg
Support - I like the combination of the traditional "landscape-in-fog-mood" and the double sun; it gives an almost surreal expression. --Pugilist (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 12:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Worker in São Paulo city.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Worker in São Paulo city.jpg
Strong support The monochrome brings out the grittiness of his work, and the chaos of his space is nicely contrasted with the geometric orderliness of the surrounding facade. Another great bit of street photography. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The B&W adds a nice sentimental touch, but when I ask myself "Is this the best we have to offer?" I think it falls short. His pose and facial expressions are all rather ordinary. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - If you had cropped this closer, I might want to feature it. But as it is, the door to the worker's right (viewer's left) distracts me too much, when what I'd really like to focus on is the scene in his workshop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had talked about it to him. It is from some tree parts. It is appreciated if someone having good processing skills help to remove it. Jee12:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a photo of a bird in flight / docking, at 420mm, and at around 10MP, this has good sharpness and is an excellent catch. I can forgive the slightly noisy background from ISO 1600 which really shouldn't concern us at 10MP wildlife photo, and would rather that than crude smoothing that risks losing detail round the birds. Shame the shutter speed changed between photos, but strangely the one with the longer exposure is darker. Were they processed the same? If the raw file is available then I can have a go, but am reluctant to process the JPG any further. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plenty of wow-factor for me, and if Colin is good with the technical aspects, I can't see any reason not to support this impressive pair of images (and birds). lNeverCry20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! For technical information: The different look of the two pictures is based on different WBs, so if you adapt them (the right one is colder), they look rather similar. And there is some CA. --PtrQs (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought about this for a long time, and ultimately, I agree with the others that capturing a great moment like this is worth a little motion blur, which I figure is unavoidable in this situation, anyway. But harmonizing the white balance of photos taken just a moment apart would be the right thing to do, in my opinion, if you can do it without damaging anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jee has sent me the raw files. I had a go at reprocessing them and sent him some draft copies, which he liked. I have fixed the issue where the exposure level is inconsistent, and also cropped them both such that the second picture is positioned relative to the first. I have lightend the exposure a little for both, as it seemed a bit under-exposed (shout now if you feel the exposure is currently correct). I haven't uploaded anything as I still have to Photoshop out the brown blur on the RHS of each, and hope to find time for that tonight. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 04:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:08A112 in Chasha Depot.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:08A112 in Chasha Depot.jpg
Again I made the mistake of judging on my 1366x768 laptop while forgetting I was on my laptop, and assumed it was large enough because it filled my whole screen. Switching to Neutral due to being minimum resolution without anything to compensate. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Perfectly good QI, I think (I guess it would remain to be seen whether it would pass if nominated at QIC), but compared to the great photos of trains in nature by Kabelleger, Poco and others, this palls. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose On the one hand, I would like to strongly encourage more photos of trains or rail vehicles from above or below the view plane rather than on it ... as this shows, it can add more interest. And I love all the cool colors.
However ... as King notes the small size works against it, and I also think that large cloud flattens the light and distracts from the train a little. There are also perspective problems apparent at the right of the image.
"Digital point and shoot". In other words the type of low-end digital camera widespread before the advent of the smartphone. A lot of my early pictures here on Commons and Wikipedia were taken with one. Some of them actually made QI, but I'd never dream of nominating them for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got one which might one-day make FP if I edit it a bit. It's hard to get to FPC-worthy images with DP/S cameras, but not impossible (often involves luck) -- Thennicke (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 00:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heaven Shall Burn - Rock am Ring 2016 - Leonhard Kreissig - 25.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heaven Shall Burn - Rock am Ring 2016 - Leonhard Kreissig - 25.jpg
Oppose The singer is in a strong pose, but the background is unattractive. This would've been better if he was at left in the frame and some of the audience took up the right of the frame. lNeverCry01:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a good and expressive concert photo, and I like the background stage illumination. It is as if it pushes the singer towards the audience. The crop of the foot could have been better but oh well. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 22:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Window detail De Bazel Vijzelstraat Amsterdam 2016-09-13-6627.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Window detail De Bazel Vijzelstraat Amsterdam 2016-09-13-6627.jpg
InfoDe Bazel is a monumental building in Amsterdam named after the architect Karel de Bazel. It was completed in 1926 and stands as an example of Brick Expressionism. This nominated picture is a detail of the facade, including four windows, and shows how bricks are used as ornamentation in complicated patterns. Today, the building houses Amsterdam City Archives. Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 20:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Natural nude tree.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Natural nude tree.jpg
Well, I could tell you it is a study on texture and volume, or that the forms on these trees are interesting, or that I and some others have a dirty mind... ;) Please see #REDIRECT[[3]] and #REDIRECT[[4]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, it was clear for me after a split second, why you nominated this, Tomas. Hahaha. Well spotted. A brilliantly illuminated trunk, nice texture and shape. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - So ultimately, I think this is a moderately funny joke, since it was explained to me, but the composition doesn't really add up for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpg
Good shot of interesting stuff. I would decrease sky noise a bit, and put into description is it active or a museum. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I slept on this photo, and my verdict is that it's beautiful. Decreasing the sky noise would be fine, but it's a very fine grain that doesn't bother me at all. I really like the texture of the wooden chapel and fences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree. The main subject is literally in the "spotlight" this way. I'm not sure whether it would have resulted in a better outcome had I waited for afternoon sunlight to also shine on the palisades. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delicate light and colours on the main subject and very balanced composition. I do not mind the fence in shadow. Sky could be selectively de-noised, but it is really only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 19:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sala de Conciertos, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 22-24 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sala de Conciertos, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 22-24 HDR.jpg
Support - You could try for slightly more noise reduction for the sides of the building and neighboring buildings, but I find this a very harmonious photograph, regardless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 08:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Candle (Slava celebration).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Candle (Slava celebration).jpg
Support While we do have lots of candle photos on Commons, this one is pretty well done, and I don't see anything similar already FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Возење чамец на Езерото Матка.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Возење чамец на Езерото Матка.jpg
Neutral Thank you, The Photographer, that was very kind of you to fix the image. However, it still doesn't convince me to support it as FP but I'm willing to abstain. Perhaps others will support it now. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite The Photographer's work to improve it there is still a little bit more noise than I'd like. The area on the boat behind the man looks blown as well, something you wouldn't expect in this kind of light. And, frankly, the composition has too many clashing elements for it to work for me even if it were technically perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The composition doesn't quite add up for me. I think it might if the boat were further to the right. The most interesting elements of the photo to me are the shimmery water and the reflections of the boat, oar and man, and I wish the reflections weren't cut off or nearly cut off. Of course you can't have everything, and you have to take a photo of the image that presents itself to you. But that doesn't automatically make it featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose There is a botched cloning stamp job right in the center. Follow the road in the background of the cliff and the two intermingle, the cliff in the foreground dissolves... --Lucasbosch15:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for pointing this out. There's a lot of support for this picture. Do you guys think the nomination should be withdrawn? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Under the circumstances, I'd like to withdraw the nomination, but I have a question for everyone: If I withdraw and then Chensiyuan fixes the problems within a couple of days, can the nomination be reopened, since the deadline for voting is January 27? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I would advise you just use the "I withdraw my nomination" tag (search other nomiantions for an example code snippet) which closes the voting and renominate the image (see the rules), which is a cleaner process than making all the users above reevaluate their votes. – Lucas18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I think Chensiyuan is offline. If the problems with the photo that are noted above are eventually corrected, it could be nominated at a later date. For now, there are other photos I could nominate. Thanks for your votes and your eyes, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kids playing Pallanguli.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kids playing Pallanguli.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 09:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ANZAC Parade from the Australian War Memorial, Canberra ACT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ANZAC Parade from the Australian War Memorial, Canberra ACT.jpg
Weak Support Nice composition but the background is not (due to weather conditions) really sharp. I'd also crop more at the bottom and correct the slight tilt cw Poco209:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: Thanks, it's nice when someone leaves constructive feedback. The tilt of the foreground is natural, compare it to the buildings in the background. Maybe the workers should have done a better job at levelling it ;) -- Thennicke (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 07:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Cables in foreground and lamppost to the left leans distractingly much. Main subject itself is quite nicely lit, but the overall composition does not convince me, sorry -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support I have faced this same dilemma so many times myself ... great angle but for the wires. And so many times I've sighed and put the camera down. So молодец for trying where I usually give up. And for doing your best to make them less distracting instead of cheating entirely and cloning them out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 08:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade Westbucht und Pyramidenkogel 11012017 6006.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade Westbucht und Pyramidenkogel 11012017 6006.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reflection of Parque Cultural Paulista building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflection of Parque Cultural Paulista building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil.jpg
Support - This grew on me. I like the interaction of the windows and the sky. By the way, I don't consider this photo minimalist in the slightest. If it reflected a cloudless sky, that would be different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 13:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpg
Oppose - I like the water in the foreground, but the form doesn't really work for me - I think that to relieve the eyes, more sky is needed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winter-Regnitz-PC310004.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winter-Regnitz-PC310004.jpg
mild support missing something in the foreground (a duck, a branch, a small part of a shoreline, or what else) and the photo will be works much better for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Unsharp foreground on the left is slightly distracting to me and might be cropped out, but I don't know what that would do to the composition. And the composition is the main reason I support this picture. It's a kind of lovely miniature landscape, with the cobwebs between the plants accentuating their formal relationship in the picture frame. It's best viewed at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still doesn't work for me. There are a lot of in-focus plants on the ground, so I don't think there's any way to fix it by cropping. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is the first time I realized that you're objecting not to out-of-focus plants but to in-focus plants! You're considering this a macro of the two plants, not as a miniature landscape. I don't think in a landscape you'd normally want everything but 2 large trees to be a blur, would you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I like the image but I'm not wowed. The colours don't "pop" enough - everything seems too dull. Probably changeable with different processing though. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 19:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo de Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-04, DD 41-46 PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo de Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-04, DD 41-46 PAN.jpg
Info View of the Castle of Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, Spain. The castle was built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop and stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory. The castle was never conquered and was successfully defended against the King of Castile in the 13th century. The successful completion of the Reconquista at the end of the 15th century ended its military significance. Poco219:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LOL, Alchemist! I don't think you'll get any complaints about the sky or unsharpness with this one. It's just a pleasure to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stunning image, but the bushes on the bottom right of the image are significantly more blurred than the ones on the lower left. Are they out of the DOF? I made a note in the image. --Lucasbosch22:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose as per discussion above, one or more of the source files are more blurred than the others, and the seamline between sharp and blurred images is visible. See image notes for an example of a blurred spot. I'm jealous of your 5DS R though. --Lucasbosch11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is that big of an issue on such a large picture though and probably that most wouldn't see even on a moderate large print. The blurred area doesn't cover parts of much interest. - Benh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And depending on what kind of shots you do, you really needn't be jealous of the 5DS. As it's been discussed, If you are a macro, or still object guy, it won't bring you any much advantage over any other FF or APS-C given sensor of same generation. - Benh (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Benh: 1. I would love to support this image, but the different levels of sharpness and visible seamline because of it are bothering me. Would this image be of less resolution then it might no be visible even at 100%, but given the resolution, these shortfalls are visible. 2. I haven't followed these discussions. I'd love to have more resolution available for my studio shots, just for the sake of seeing more details, so I'm jealous. --Lucasbosch12:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lucasbosch, I agree a high-resolution sensor has an advantage for single-shot photos such as your studio. We try to avoid penalising photographers for uploading full-resolution photos or huge stitches like this. Try the 50% downsize I link below. That's still 28MP and very sharp. If you'd support that then there is no reason to not support this. Opposing over 100%-size pixel peeping of a >100MP image just encourages folk to downsize prior to upload, and then we lose detail that can never be retrieved. As I'm fond of saying, if your monitor is a standard 100DPI, then this image is over 4 metres wide, and you'd probably view it from a couple of metres distance at least, rather than normal monitor distance. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Thanks for your thorough explanation, I strike my oppose. I would welcome allowing/encouraging photographers to upload downsampled images instead of full sized ones like this, to hide flaws better and avoid pixel peepers like me. In fact I would have downsampled this in secret if I were in the same situation, as the resolution is plenty even downsampled. But I understand that having sharp parts of the image is considered more desirable for the Commons project than having less pixels but with the whole frame being perfect. --Lucasbosch13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lucasbosch, if the software can downsize on-the-fly then why downsize on upload? Actually, for huge stitches most photographers already downsize a bit to ensure the detail is sharp, which it is for most of this image. I don't see the point in uploading full size if it is soft/blurry all over, and for big stitches there is no value in making people download a big file that is not sharp. When we get folk uploading 6MP landscapes that pass FP, it isn't really fair to to penalise others who don't downsize. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: You say yourself that some people already downsize so others don't have do download a panorma that isn't sharp corner to corner. I don't think this image is any different, albeit being much more resolution. My opinion is that such a panorama should have equal sharpness over the full frame, and not rely on downsampling to achieve this. If there is a soft part, downsample until everything is constistent and thus the seamlines become invisible. I find a 100MP image which is soft on some spots and sharp on others kind of more wonky than a pristine 6MP image. I see your point, too, that you throw away detail on parts of the image in the process. So I wouldn't want to penalize him for not downscaling, but the different levels of sharpness which reveal seamlines, and I don't want to see seamlines. I believe in a pixel perfect uploaded file not reliant on downsampling to achieve even sharpness. Even if this requires downsamling before upload. Agree to disagree ;) --Lucasbosch14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you don't want to see the seamlines, and I wish the stitching was better. But you have a choice to examine the image at this level of detail. Nobody forces you to download the full size image and then display it on your screen at 100% while examining it closely. A good review test might be to judge the whole image fullscreen on your monitor, and then to examine for flaws at some intermediate resolution. If you'd support this at 12MP, say, or 24MP, say, then any extra resolution is simply a bonus. I think that unless the image was huge and very soft/noisy all over, then I'd be reluctant to complain about the size being too large. We have a culture here of pixel peeping that harms people's generosity in uploading/creating high-resolution images (vs Flickr where many images don't even fill one's screen). The result is some photographers really do upload 6MP landscapes from their 36Mp cameras and get and expect to get FP. Of course, minor errors only visible at 100% on a large image may be worth pointing out to see if they can be fixed. If you have a high DPI screen, then much of this pixel peeping concern simply disappears. Our standard 100DPI monitors are the equivalent of taking a magnifying glass to a print. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That bottom right is an issue, but given where it is and the image resolution, I think it can get away with it. -- KTC (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a flawed frame and perhaps the stitching could be improved (IIRC you just use Lightroom - have you tried PtGui with SmartBlend as the blend tool?). But the resolution of 111MP makes this visible at 100%. A reduction (see this link to a 28MP 50% downsize) hides such sharpness problems and the whole image is very sharp indeed. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a new version where I cropped the right side a bit to get rid of the area that somehow wasn't as sharp as others. If the result is not satisfying I can offer also this other version with a far wider view. Thank you Benh and Colin for making understandable that images with more resolution are not always comparable with lower ones and users of a camera like 5DS shouldn't be punished for that. It is indeed not as easy as it was with the 5D Mark II to get all images sharp. Poco218:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin did most of the lobbying :) And, pardon me if you already knew, but If your pipeline gives you access to the seam mask, it's very easy to edit it and soften the transition from sharp to blurred area. This would give a better result I think, but this take for granted the "common" area between the source pictures is large enough. - Benh (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new crop doesn't just chop off a bit on the right, but introduces some to the left. I like the road on the left, but this is a different enough picture that I think you should ping all who have voted so far. It isn't like you just removed a dust spot. As for the other one you link, it is far too wide and also has quality issues. There is still an issue with a seam (to the right of the rocks) that could be handled better if, like Benh says, you took control over the join there (or used Smartblend, which I find is often better are placing seams and not crearting blurred seams). -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, I like the second crop the most. Now the main subject is no longer centered, and this is a bit weird IMO (but this still has my support). I don't garantee anything, but just in case, I offer assistance to implement the above mentioned solution. - Benh (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the crop from the time of original nomination. There's still a visible seam in the new crop, which wouldn't go away unless the you crop much closer to the rock. While now the rock the castle is sitting on is actually centered, the castle itself is now a bit off to much to the side to me. Then again, if the new crop was the only version offered, I would still had supported so I'm certainly not going to object now. -- KTC (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great location and image quality. The tree at the bottom, second from the left, is cropped though - which prevents this from being a great photo, IMO. It's almost always possible to try a different location/perspective and avoid such problems. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded another version with a bit more of image on the right and with no unsharpness (I got rid of the last frame from the panorama and realized that the result was better than the previous one). I don't feel that I've to ping all 27 voters for the new version, but can do it if something believes that is required. Poco216:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I think this is an outstanding drone picture. My only hesitation in nominating it is that I hope people don't vote against it because the angle of the photo makes the ground diagonal, instead of straight, but I nominate it, anyway, to see what you all think. P.S. I didn't see a category for drone or aerial pictures; if you know of a good subcategory to add to the "Category" line, please feel free to add it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support No, I find the ground fine; as long as the horizon is level, which it appears to be. Great find too! Really lots of wow, and for a drone pic image quality is ok, but could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really should involve myself with Photo Challenge more, but I wish there was some "QI" barrier to the nominations or something - unfortunately some of the winners are shocking from a photographic perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's because the judges have to work with the submissions they get. When they get higher-quality submissions, the results improve. Quite a few FPs have been among the top 3 results in photo challenges over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No argument on "no wow", but to me, anyway, the subject seems obvious: the bright area smack dab in the center of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: The file name is, mainly, "Caye Caulker Belize", which describes the islands, so already the file name is not optimal/confusing if the white thing is the main subject. Also the white thing seems to be only captured in part, there is a missing part on the bottom left, confirmed by satellite images. --Lucasbosch19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info i monitored the whole discussion :) The subject in the middle is called the split:"A narrow waterway known as the Split divides the island in two. Some people state that the Split was created by Hurricane Hattie in 1961 which devastated Belize City, however that is a myth." You can read this here on wiki (eng.). I made some photos of caye caulker from different perspectives. You can find them in wikimedia too. In this photo i wanted to show how caye caulker is divided. The focus here is not the split-- dronepicr (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 02:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mohsen Makhmalbaf at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mohsen Makhmalbaf at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre 2011.jpg
Oppose An interesting portrait and good composition, but the technical image quality is just too bad (noise and lack of detail) --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 09:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière cf01.jpg
Oppose All water reflections of trees are beautiful. I think this picture is missing something, like brilliant colors or an outstanding composition, that would set it apart from the others. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors are nice, but nothing quite worthy of FP in terms of the subject IMHO, it's not so interesting. I would have liked better separation of the trees in front and the background trees, to make it more visually appealing. --Lucasbosch14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Llez. I also have to say, particularly in response to King, that having looked at more than my share of water-reflection images while creating and populating those categories, this one did make me stop while scrolling through here. What to me works is that the trees sort of suggest a colonnade, and a slightly irregular one at that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 09:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpg
Comment I know this is just a b&w image, but can you restore the EXIF information and colour profile please. Perhaps a stage in your stacking workflow is removing the EXIF data. It is possible to copy EXIF from one file (tiff, jpg, etc) to another using EXIFTOOL. Btw, if these are thin files, why is focus stacking necessary? And how would a 20mm increment help -- surely they are less than 20mm thick? Also, information about stacking and stitching is best put on the file description page, and there are templates to help with this. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Done 1. I restored the EXIF as you wished. Which is a bit important as this image is not grayscale, it does contain color. 2. Focus stacking was necessary because at f/8, the best aperture of my lens, the DOF wasn't large enough. The 20 mm increments are from left to right in the image, not in depth, I moved the camera along the files to get more resolution. I added that info to the description texts.– Lucas13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and great, but could you please make the annotations smaller? Right now they cover most of the picture at thumb size and that makes it hard to actually click on the image (when used in articles) to enlarge it since you only hit the annotations. It would be sufficient if the annotations covered just half the files, the handle part can be left out. A similar change would be appreciated on the other version as well. --cart-Talk18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Even the foreground doesn't really look sharp to me. It is harder to appreciate it in B&W but I miss details here. I undestand the choice of B&W in some cases but not sure about a natural landscape. Poco209:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recently I'm experimenting a bit with B&W. In this image I opted for this because these winter colours were quite boring: a bit of green grass, fog, clouds but rotten wood and wooden textures. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris-7957a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris-7957a.jpg
Support Stunning. I love the way the moon appears. Quality could be better especially on the right side but sufficient for FP. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like composition, perfect moon-clouds situation. Its not so sharp, but saw camera is not the latest model.--Mile (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It either is or is not an FP, based on the results, regardless of what equipment is used. And in this case, I think it's too noisy and unsharp to be one of the greatest night cityscape pictures, although the composition is beautiful. I would welcome any efforts by idobi to address these issues, because I'd love to be able to support this picture, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 10:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Love of Paris and Helen by Jacques-Louis David.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Love of Paris and Helen by Jacques-Louis David.jpg
Question I don't understand the frame crop, either you show it enterely or you don't, but just a portion is not a goot solution IMHO Poco209:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 20:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I don't know the spot but the crop looks fine to me. The light is just dull and the result is IMHO that the images lacks texture. Per Daniel the subjet itself doesn't compensate that. Poco208:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2017 at 22:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drainage water from a forested area dripping into a ditch 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drainage water from a forested area dripping into a ditch 4.jpg
Info I'd been watching this little miniature landscape with a small "waterfall" and all for some days. The sun is very low this time of year and between 2-3 pm the sunlight hits the water and the whole thing explodes with color and the structures come alive. There is no saturation or any color post fix made. The photo is made from five exposures with the most appropriate ones for each part in the pic selected. (Additional info: Believe it or not, but this is a very scary photo. Normally in late January, we are knee-deep in snow and ice in this part of Sweden and we are longing to see things like this sometime in spring (March-April) This year however, winter and spring have alternated on a weekly basis. In all my life I've never experienced anything like it and neither has anyone else I know. When this photo was taken, it was a balmy 6 °C (43 °F) instead of the normal freezing temperatures. I find this very worrying.) All by me, -- cart-Talk22:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, in what way is it not realistic? The different exposures were to reduce the highlights on the reeds and turn up the shadowy parts of the cliff to the left, the central bit with the water is untouched. Please compare with the this one-shot photo where the falling water is the same. --cart-Talk10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've highlighted an area which I guess has been stitched/cloned and some water drops are not falling vertically. It's no big deal and could be fixed I'm sure and of course I would cancel oppose. 11:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm simply puzzled by this and I have to check the originals when I get home tonight. It was a bit of a challenge to correct the tilt of the photo since the different "lines" of water were not all falling straight down. Some had a different angle since they "followed" angle if the grass they were dripping from. --cart-Talk12:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I realized that I still has the photos in my camera so I could check them here. I've uploaded the two original photos I used for the cliff with the water and the for the pool. It seems like Mother Nature is playing a little trick on us since the water is indeed falling in all directions, just like in the resulting photo. If you still want me to remove that part, I'll do so of course. --cart-Talk13:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good Valued image, but the information, that spring has come to Sweden very early this year in not enough for FP nomination.--Karelj (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahum... that is not why I nominated it, that was only additional info. The nom is for this little miniature landscape with great colors, I've clarified it now. --cart-Talk10:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you misunderstood, I'm not objecting to your oppose, that is perfectly fine. :) I just wanted to clarify the nom. Colin proposed that the nominator should explain a bit about their nom and I simply wrote too much. Thanks for the VI suggestion but I'm not that used to that section and I wouldn't know which scope to place this in. --cart-Talk13:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand why you nominated this picture: As you say, you find it a miniature landscape by itself. However, I really prefer the composition of File:Drainage water from a forested area dripping into a ditch 1.jpg, with the diagonal and the bit of sky that puts everything into context and gives my eyes some relief. Perhaps the brightest highlights in that photo are blown; I'm not sure. But otherwise, I find that a good, interesting, featurable photo, maybe with just slightly toned-down highlights. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find that the water dripping itself is not very well visible, and this is kind of the main purpose and action in your photo. Also as mentioned above, the ghosted water splashes are another detriment for me . The overall image is lacking contrast and separation between objects (like shooting straight on a grassy slope), while the lighting is good. Sorry, not FP level IMO. – Lucas T 13:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 12:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Figurative to me. :-) But I like it, too. Instead of calling it abstract, I'd say it has a very dynamic, flowing, satisfying structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the image doesn't impress me enough. The crop is quite narrow, so there only are so many leaves in frame, instead of a whole side of a house. I can imagine the rest, but I'd like to see it to be more impactful than that. --Lucasbosch14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's pretty, but I'm not really sure whether the subject is supposed to be the leaves or the drainpipe (Or is it supposed to be some kind of woodwork? See what I mean ...). Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Facade of ARD-Hauptstadtstudio in Berlin-Mitte. ARD-Hauptstadtstudio is a television studio in Berlin operated jointly by the members of the federal broadcasting network ARD. All by me -- Code (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Code: I see what you mean, but IMO unless the actual building is curved, the image should either have drastically curved lines for effect or have perfectly straight lines. I'll see what others say about it. – Lucas18:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Miha and Poco, but since no-one has the courage or conviction to oppose, I won't stand in front of this racing locomotive, either. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - This is one of two beautiful interiors of parish churches you recently nominated to QIC. The near corners are unsharp, so you might consider a crop if it doesn't damage the composition, but otherwise, it's great. (Aside: I really like the fresco in the dome; do you have another picture that includes the whole thing and/or do you know who painted it?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about Fresco
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you. I've made a 360° panorama of the church which offers a full view of the paintings. Unfortunately I don't know much about the church. I tried to find some information about it in the Internet but there doesn't seem to be a lot. In the church itself there wasn't any more information to find as well. Regarding the crop: I really like the view this way and I don't think that the corner unsharpness is really disturbing so I'd prefer to keep the picture as it is. I still could downsample it a little bit to increase the sharpness but that would reduce the level of detail. --Code (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't downsample. I don't love the unsharp corners, but they don't come close to ruining the photo, so if cropping would cause more harm than good, leave well enough alone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the link. How do you like the scene in the fresco with all the serpents falling out of the sky? That's not a common subject for a fresco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found it very strange indeed and I don't really know what it stands for (which is a shame as I'm catholic myself and probably should know it). The interior of the church is for some reasons interesting: The church is named after the holy cross but you find a lot of different saints in there, the man on the right side is probably Saint Lawrence on the left side you can see Saint Sebastian. At the left side of the high altar you can see Saint George with the dragon. I dont' really know why they all appear there. And who's the guy with the arrows at the right side of the altar? Anyways: It would be nice to know much more about the church. Maybe an Austrian Wikimedian could try to gather some more information? --Code (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo and sharp from left to right. Wrt Ikan's comment, the only bit "unsharp" are the corners of the nearby pews, which are out-of-focus. That's to be expected and in no way harms the composition and square framing. I'm really not sure why one would expect or need them to be in in focus. Are we going to start focus stacking church interiors now too? Please, let's accept reality a little. Having some parts out-of-focus is an indication they are not important and the eye is led elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about DoF
Thank you, Colin, I fully agree regarding the out-of-focus-parts. The problem doesn't appear in all church interiors, it depends on how small the church is. The smaller it is, the harder it will be to get everything in focus when the single exposures are done with 50mm focal length. I already thought about trying the 85mm lens for such pictures but I think this will only work in really large cathedrals (if it works at all). Maybe I should rather use the 35mm lens for smaller churches but then we won't get the level of detail we have with the 50mm lens. Maybe Diliff, DXR or Benh can share their opinions on that? I remember that DXR did some of his excellent stitched interiors with a 35mm lens as well, but maybe I'm wrong with that. The idea of doing focus stacking in churches is funny. I'm already doing between 75 and 140 single exposures for such a picture. With focus stacking how much would we have? --Code (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I supported the picture; I simply gave a reaction that I don't love the out-of-focus places in the foreground. And what I'm reacting to is the fact that the closest areas are not out of focus to the naked eye. My reaction is based on that reality, not the reality of photographic lens construction and behavior. Sometimes, it's good to deal with the limitations of lens capabilities by cropping out the areas of the foreground that are unsharp; maybe this time, it's best to leave them in the picture, but that doesn't mean there's something wrong with my mentioning them, just because the limitations of lens technology will cause a degree of unsharpness to occur in the near corners. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about "the limitations of lens capabilities" but about reality. Close one eye. Stick your finger up at arms length. Focus on something distant. Your finger is out-of-focus. That's reality. If we artificially extend the range of focus then, as Benh notes, it ends up being "computer generated imagery". For a still image that does not change as you move around it, one must accept that some parts are in focus and some parts not. -- Colin (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to criticize you, Ikan Kekek, sorry. It's perfectly ok for me that you mention the unsharpness of the nearest parts. I just wanted to explain the technical limitations. --Code (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I once again agree with User:Colin. This is not computer generated imagery, and not everything can be in focus. Second, who gives a shit about the OOF benches? There are plenty of other benches which are in focus and help mentally extrapolate. And to Code, I've yet to figure out the relationship between all the variables (focal length, relative aperture, absolute aperture and DOF) so right now I've no opinion on the matter, but this is a really interesting question. I'll get back to you if I figure it out. For now all I can say is that one must use hyperfocal distance focusing to get the most DOF out of such scene, but I'm pretty sure you do that already. - Benh (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. And to take it further, sometimes a little out-of-focus foreground makes an image all the more special too (I'm thinking more about landscapes than architecture) -- Thennicke (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being late on this (and well, being quite passive these days). Yes, indeed I did many shots with a 35mm and I personally feel that it is better suited for narrow churches with detailed benches. In general, the differences are not too huge between 35mm and 50mm, especially if good lenses are used. 50mm almost always requires a smaller aperture than ideal in such conditions and so the theretical resolution advantage is somewhat lost. I do not feel that the unsharpness is too distracting here (in fact, I find the slight asymmetry more annoying, another common pain caused by super wide angle panoramics...). --DXR (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I understand that the light conditions are challenging here but some important areas of the pictures are too dark Poco209:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really don't like the style of the church (imo Baroque is quite messy in general), but well executed photo --DXR (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:54:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Stanislao dei Polacchi (Rome) - Ceiling.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Stanislao dei Polacchi (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg
Comment The contrast on top and right just look to heavy to me (in other words the darker areas are too dark), the result is overprocessed. It doesn't happen in the middle. Poco209:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 20:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F-22 Raptor flies during the AirPower over Hampton Roads Open House at Langley AFB Va., April 24, 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-22 Raptor flies during the AirPower over Hampton Roads Open House at Langley AFB Va., April 24, 2016.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 13:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2017 E-papieros mod 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017 E-papieros mod 1.jpg
Comment I'm in favor of turning it to be vertical so the display can be easily read. Which would also require removing the drop shadows and creating a mask for a pure white background. I can do it, but I'll give Jacek Halicki a chance to do it himself. – Lucas17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas: I think it's a bad idea. Vertical photo will look unnatural due to the line of the fluid level in an atomiser. Besides in Wikipedia look better horizontal photos. As for the background is I do not like pictures of the cleared background, IMO look unnatural, in practice such a background does not exist. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not convinced about the orientation, would have preferred to have the top higher than the body. Furthermore the subject itself is not wowing to me Poco209:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The orientation and presentation fails to inspire me at all. Wrt Lucas point, I don't favour such photoshopping as extracting an image with a mask. It nearly always looks fake and is hard to do without tell-tale edges. Better to learn how to shoot an object with a white background in the first place. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with the others here. Vertical would've been better in my opinion; if you stood it on its end, and made it symmetrical. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2017 at 01:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2017 at 07:21:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose An impressive statue to say the least, but the light is not doing it any favors. The face and much of the body is in shadow and that makes it look flat and uninteresting. Sorry. --cart-Talk19:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination cart is right. A photo of this statue that has the same composition in fuller light would be an FP; this is not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 01:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I don't love the bushes in the near right corner, but in the context of this huge panorama with great light, they almost don't bear mentioning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's slightly unsharp and noisy at 100%. So what? It's 124 MP for crying out loud! Lovely scene, beautiful colors. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. Still I wonder why it has to have a size of 80 MP80 MB. Reduzing it to 20 MP would not mean a susbtantion drop of quality (specially considering that the size is influenced by the noise) Poco209:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, yes, I meant 80 MP. I corrected it above. It is not the world but there is no point in doing it like this IMO --Poco211:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Breathtaking scenery, and very good timing for the shot. A bit noisy, but it looks to come from a lack of postprocessing and is not distracting at all. Could be improved though if author is willing to get back to the raws. - Benh (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Babylonia spirata 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Babylonia spirata 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 21:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iridium-1 Launch (32312419215).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iridium-1 Launch (32312419215).jpg
Support - Technically good photo with decent composition + great encyclopedic and at least potentially great historic importance = a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exposure/midtones should be brighter. I understand that the image was underexposed to capture the rocketry, but the rest should have been lifted in post. It looks unnatural right now - too dark. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - I quite like this composition, but please crop out the stray bit of wood near the near left corner. I'm also wondering what the photo would look like if it were extended a bit further to the right to encompass more trees. I'm guessing that's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Nothing like this nice summery scene to grab my attention on a wet and cloudy January day. However ... it would be better if the purple tinging on the clouds could be fixed or somehow ameliorated. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like that wooden bell tower, and the rest of the composition - especially the light and clouds (the purple doesn't bother me - I've seen purple-rimmed clouds with my naked eye) is good enough to satisfy me. I think this photo is special enough to be among the elite. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 16:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marmora Formation closeup.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marmora Formation closeup.jpg
Oppose I don't fully agree with the other opposers; this could have potentially been FP if it was processed properly. Contrast - or rather, the lack of it - is the big issue this image has IMO. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 13:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Igreja do Bonfim, Porto, Portugal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Igreja do Bonfim, Porto, Portugal.jpg
Oppose Sorry. A smartphone isn't a good choice. The image is not sharp enough, JPEG artifacts and the image needs perspective correction. --XRaytalk15:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the perspective, and having been taken with a smartphone
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 11:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Olympian Zeus Athens Greece 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Olympian Zeus Athens Greece 2.jpg
Comment Decent quality and pleasant light, but some little perspective corrections are needed, I mean the verticals in background should be vertical (the building at far left, and the street light on the right) Christian Ferrer(talk)19:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but not very imaginative neither exciting. I think that better can be done with this wonderful building. Looks like a postcard. A very good one, but a postcard. My taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 14:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Historical part of Porto, Portugal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Historical part of Porto, Portugal.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I really like the peaceful natural scene, the light and the birds. The mood is somewhat spoiled by the plane and its contrail, and that's the only reason I didn't nominate the photo, myself. I think we should accept this as part of "nature" as we humans have made it, but that's a decision each person has to make, and it's really the major element of content in which the innovation of the Impressionists like Monet in "Impression: Aube" deviated from the tradition of idealistic depiction of pure nature for city people that goes back to ancient Rome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I won't change my vote, but I consider the new crop unfortunate, because it crops out a higher-flying bird that was flying in the other direction. I think the composition was better and more peaceful with more sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no problems with standing on the tracks since it is explained in the description that these are museum tracks used only in the summer. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Composition and ligthing, but still missing some wow. Cannot tell you though what I'd have done differently here, maybe getting closer to the rails to strength the perspective and get a higher score there, not sure. Poco209:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Flat lighting = no wow for me, sorry, especially given how the castle is backlit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment If the subject is the stainded glass window, it appears to be cropped at the bottom. That wouldn't be accepted for a painting. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Question - Are those really analogous? I'm tempted to oppose per cart's argument. I think it's quite possible to carefully clean an old camera; do you think it's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
cart-Talk 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Neutral pending nominator's decision. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
White cedar in sun shower
White cedar in frost fog
--cart-Talk 11:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg)
. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Done Geotag added.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
_male_underside.jpg)
.jpg)
_female_head.JPG)
Fixed the CAs. --Laitche (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Overprocessed A great picture otherwise, alas. Daniel Case (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
but that is only 4MB and is no problem in small size. cart-Talk 10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
_en_omgeving_04.jpg)
_male_with_Oxpecker.jpg)
.jpg)
_male_Dry_Sandford.jpg)
,_S%C3%A8te_cf05.jpg)
Oversaturated And it takes a lot for me to say that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
chromatic aberration around the patches of snow. These things are most prominent on the left side. cart-Talk 14:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC).jpg)
_-_Intern.jpg)
--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_van_een_moerascipres_(Taxodium_distichum)_op_de_scheiding_van_land_en_water_03.jpg)
. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)_van_een_moerascipres_(Taxodium_distichum)_op_de_scheiding_van_land_en_water_01.jpg){kind=small}
_-_Dome_interior.jpg)
_head.JPG)
_head.jpg)
_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE_(2).jpg)
Front view
with tripod ring
angled view
with tripod ring
with lens hood
backside
with tripod ring
AF switches
with tripod ring
front element
rear element
.jpg)
.jpg)
19:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Front view, horizontal
IS+AF switches
Back side
Looking down by 20°
With lens hood
.jpg)
_en_omgeving_05.jpg)
Parent approaching with food
Transferring the food
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_underside.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_head.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_en_omgeving_04.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_with_Oxpecker.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male_Dry_Sandford.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf05.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_van_een_moerascipres_(Taxodium_distichum)_op_de_scheiding_van_land_en_water_03.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome_interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_head.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_head.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_во_Маврово_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_en_omgeving_05.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Aesbachtal_--_2015_--_4550.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_dzwonnica_01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg){kind=link}
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_underside.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male_underside.jpg){kind=link}
_male_underside.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_underside.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_head.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female_head.JPG){kind=link}
_female_head.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_male_head.JPG){kind=link}
_female_head.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_en_omgeving_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_en_omgeving_04.jpg){kind=link}
_male_with_Oxpecker.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male_with_Oxpecker.jpg){kind=link}
_male_with_Oxpecker.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_with_Oxpecker.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male_Dry_Sandford.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male_Dry_Sandford.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Dry_Sandford.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male_Dry_Sandford.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf05.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te_cf05.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf05.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète_cf05.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg?markasread=4187485#File:Venus_de_Milo_.28replica.2C_Slovenian_National_Gallery.29.jpg11:53){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=4740843&oldid=4740648){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_van_een_moerascipres_(Taxodium_distichum)_op_de_scheiding_van_land_en_water_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_van_een_moerascipres_(Taxodium_distichum)_op_de_scheiding_van_land_en_water_03.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome_interior.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome_interior.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome_interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome_interior.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_head.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_head.JPG){kind=link}
_head.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_head.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_head.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_head.jpg){kind=link}
_head.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_head.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_во_Маврово_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_){kind=link}
.jpg,_){kind=link}
_en_omgeving_05.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_en_omgeving_05.jpg){kind=link}
Request Removing that brown blur on the right side of the left image would make these two instant FP for me. --Lucasbosch 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enterolobium_cyclocarpum_01.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enterolobium_cyclocarpum_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Aesbachtal_--_2015_--_4550.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Aesbachtal_--_2015_--_4550.jpg){kind=link}
,_Aesbachtal_--_2015_--_4550.jpg)
,_Aesbachtal_--_2015_--_4550.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Aesbachtal_--_2015_--_4550.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg)
_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg)
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&diff=742460589&oldid=742378226){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_dzwonnica_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_dzwonnica_01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_dzwonnica_01.jpg)
_-_dzwonnica_01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_dzwonnica_01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.Innenhof.3.29135.ajb.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
