Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 14:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frecce Tricolori Kecskemet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frecce Tricolori Kecskemet.jpg
Neutral Quite good capture, but lacking resolution. Why only 70mm focal length? Would'nt there have been any possibility to take the picture at 200mm? Spoiled by the great images at airliners.net, I cannot support the candidature, sorry for this. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2011 at 14:38:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gargano da ISS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gargano da ISS.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality: little detail, white balance off. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2011 at 11:10:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Taraxacum vulagaris.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taraxacum vulagaris.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 17:44:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Sorry, I got the wrong word. What I meant was how does having multiple images add to the educational value? All the birds are doing mostly the same thing. --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 21:02:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Hidalgo de José Clemente Orozco.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hidalgo de José Clemente Orozco.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2011 at 18:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Libellula-depressa-plattbauch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Libellula-depressa-plattbauch.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2011 at 16:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polish Ensign.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polish Ensign.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 17:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poyke.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poyke.JPG
Comment There is nothing in this image to qualify it as an FP, quality is not good at all and it's overexposed in many parts, compare it to these images:
Thanks. I know all these photos, they're great. I still think this photo is special and attractive, since it shows a somewhat extraordinary use of fire, not very common nowadays. By the way, what you think about File:Waldbrand-Bodenfeuer.jpg and where you were when it was up for delisting? :) Tomer T (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2011 at 20:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cistothorus palustris CT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cistothorus palustris CT.jpg
Downscaled? I don't know, I wouldn't know how to do this. I cropped the picture and blurred some of the background, maybe that did somtething to it? --Cephas (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avec plaisir ! Il est peut-être moins "parfait" que certains précédents, mais c'est aussi pour ça qu'il me plaît. Je trouve que tu as magnifiquement capté son attitude, presque un peu étonnée. Superbe !--Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the pose especially. Wildlife is already difficult enough without your objects doing tricks for you! W.S.13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I kind of agree with kaʁstn about it being every so tiny bit blurry, but it didn't bother me. What fascinated me most, actually, is how you managed (intentionally or not) to make a square frame composition with a centered object fascinating. The diagonals of the plants break apart what would otherwise probably be poor composition. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2011 at 10:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Den dětí v Braníku, motorový vůz 801.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Den dětí v Braníku, motorový vůz 801.jpg
Oppose I'm not sure what the point of the image is. The description calls it Children's Day, but I'm struggling to see any obvious children. What's the subject supposed to be, the car? The train station? Unfortunately, the image just has a point-and-shoot feel about it, slightly underexposed, with no clear idea as to what it wants to say. Very busy image, trees, trains, rails, gravel, bridge... – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 13:12:08 (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 3 Jul 2011 at 20:12:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Great detail. It's a little hard to make out against the background, but that's reality, and you've got good DOF separation. --99of9 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2011 at 14:13:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Les Tilleuls à Poissy.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Les Tilleuls à Poissy.png
Oppose Obviously nice, wonderful, remarquable. OK. But I don't understand what is "featurable" here. Nor Mr. Monet neither Mr. Christie's need a promotion in "Commons". It sounds a bit ridiculous IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The issue isn't the artist, but if the photo quality is up to par and if the image is useful. I'm disappointed at the opposes above my vote. -- One, please.( Thank you.)04:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other than that of thinking over the artist's understanding I find this a good illustrative example of a certain painting style and technique. The quality of the photograph itself looks good to me and probably doesn't ruin the output of the artwork. More or less – there still is some historical value – as the original work has been made in the 19th century by a significant artist who probably made a major impact on the evolution of painting. --Ximonic (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2011 at 22:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pless Palace - the Entrance Hall.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pless Palace - the Entrance Hall.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2011 at 09:37:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saami Family 1900.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saami Family 1900.jpg
Comment If you compare the deriv, the editor really screwed up the ground on the far right. Although the deriv is pleasant (with a blue sky), it seems a tad overtweaked, but the ground cloning screw up (also corroborated with the source original) would definitely not get a support from me. I think the current image is stunning, for sure! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might be right. I didn't check out the details so carefully. Yet I like the idea in that one, how the tones have been set. --Ximonic (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 19:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sympetrum fonscolombii qtl7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sympetrum fonscolombii qtl7.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2011 at 19:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20110624 Fonias first Waterfall Pont Samothrace Thrace Greece Panoramic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20110624 Fonias first Waterfall Pont Samothrace Thrace Greece Panoramic.jpg
Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Another version of this waterfall (made also by me but with film camera in 2002) is here. I think that this panoramic version made by stitched images has higher EV because it shows all the landscape. Ggia (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, the old version looks like a day-for-night shot. Either way, nice waterfall, but the composition isn't striking and the lighting, in either version, is too bland. Probably could be a cool image, maybe from a different angle, definitely with the sun lower in the sky, or else a nice cloudy sky. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2011 at 04:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Billy the Kid tintype, Fort Sumner, 1879-80.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Billy the Kid tintype, Fort Sumner, 1879-80.png
Retouched verstion
Info The only known authenticated image of Billy the Kid. Tintype that recently sold for USD $2,300,000, the 4th highest amount for a photograph of all time. Created by unknown photographer.
Info as stated here this image is mirror inverted. in addition to the orientation of the Winchester Model 1873's loading gate, we can verify this information by the orientation of McCarty's belt and vest. The buttons of his vest are right over left (from McCarty's pov if closed) in this mirrored version but should be left over right (from McCarty's pov if closed) - that's what we can see on countless images of the same period. The belt ends to the right (from McCarty's pov) but should rather end to the left (from McCarty's pov). These are two additional inidcators which give proof to the fact that is image is mirror inverted. I'd be happy to perform a digital restoration of this unique item if you could provide a high res tiff scan. Regards, PETER WEISTALK05:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I emailed the auction house and they're sending my request for a lossless image to the photographer who took the digital image of the tintype. Can you tell from the original EXIF metadata whether or not he took the picture in a lossy or lossless format? Scewing (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This digital copy was created using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which could theoretically provide a 21.1MP raw file. Using 320ISO is nonsense - repros should be done at the lowest ISO possible, for the Canon this would be ISO50. Using a 100mm lense is good, because it prevents the image from major distortions. The library of congress mainly useses a P45 digital back for their digitasations. Hasselblad has recently announced the H4D-200MS. There more pixels, the merrier! If they get 2.3M $ for that particular image, maybe they can invest 1 or 2 $ in a proper scan before they actually sell it. I disdain the idea of not having a seriously high resolution scan while this image is vanishing in some sort of private collection. Regards, PETER WEISTALK06:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true, you may choose ISO50 on a 5DII, but it's an "ISO enhancement" setting as the ISO 25600 on the other side of the ISO range for this camera is, AFAIK. The lowest ISO setting on this Canon without any electronic tricks is ISO 100, I guess; ISO 50 being of some use for situations where you need a longer exposure but where a ND filter is not an hand, at the price of not having the last bit of possible detail in the image. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All DSLR ISO works with electronic tricks. There's no film that gets exposed. For clarification: ISO 50 is basically ISO 100 with different metering. It falls 2/3 of a stop short at the highlights. Depending on your setting to digititise an image, this might be handy. On the other hand exposure bracketing might be useful here as well. You can remedy the effects of improper lighting and digitally increase the dynamic range of an image via this method. Maybe we are lucky and they'll do a better scan next time. Regards, PETER WEISTALK08:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After I saw you'd uploaded this, I was hoping you'd nominate it. I too hope for a mirror reversal of a high(er)-resolution version, which I would gladly support. While the continual use of the mirrored image needs to be discontinued, in my opinion (and I was surprised the media still uses it to such a heavy extent), I also believe the disintegration of the photograph is as notable as the image itself. If the restoration is done extremely well, I could support that as well, but the original I think stands on its own for sure. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies01:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've retouched the image and cleaned it a little but I didn't flip it, it still could benefit from more restoration but I don't think it could be up to FP standards. ■ MMXX talk19:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2011 at 22:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Día de muertos 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Día de muertos 1.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 08:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Green Flag West 11-08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green Flag West 11-08.jpg
Oppose not bad, but we usually expect birds to be less tightly cropped, and I dislike the reflection in the middle. I'm also not a fan of the oblique composition. --ELEKHHT07:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 04:22:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saturn's Rings in Ultraviolet Light.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saturn's Rings in Ultraviolet Light.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 07:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpg
Oppose as before: very poor quality. Also please do not overwrite an existing nomination but make a new one when you want to renominate a previously failed nomination. W.S.13:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture is a symbolic reference to an important phase in the contemporary history of Egypt despite the technical issues. -Dyaa (talk)
Support Despite the technical issues it remains a very interesting picture. It represents two Egyptian symbols, the national flag and the mythological lion. I find it very beautiful how these two symbols are in a single shot. Azeri (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I was neutrally asked to comment here). I like this photo for its simple composition of sky, statue, man and flag. It's very poetic and yet also realistic. My preference actually is for this version since it's more balanced with the sky rather than just focusing on the person. That makes it seem more epic to me. It could be a little sharper, but at that distance it's still well done. Ocaasi (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Despites the mentioned technical deficiencies that will probably not let it become a FP, this image carries a great historical value and would be an ideal candidate for the Valued images category! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great photo that is a symbol of the Egyptian people (the man with the flag) and their solid courage (the lion) fighting tyranny and getting freedom. The photo could be cleaned up by Photoshop for better quality. Ahmad Shahin (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the photo is...[speechless]. very piognant of the moment (could very well be the pic for the main arab world protests page). This is my first FP so im not sure of the criteria for it. As the technical peeps have their reasons, for which im unsure what is needed, for saying the pic maybe deficient. but in terms of the value of the image im certainly supporting.Lihaas (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though its quality is not great, what it symbolizes is of importance in the Egyptian history. I'm all for quality, but it shouldn't be that big of a problem here. A elalaily (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is better than the original nomination in terms of composition, but the crop is massive and it looks like you lost a lot of potential information compared to if the current composition had been the actual frame shot in the camera. I also think it still looks too staged and it's not as sharp and crisp (naturally) as it could be, simply because it started off as such a small area of the frame. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photo shows great symbolism at a very important time in Egyptian history. The technical issues are part of the charm, as an example of everyone's participation and using whatever resources are available to make a difference in the world. USchick (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking shot that is quite emblematic of the Egyptian revolution, and I agree that a less-cropped version is preferable, to show more of the wild blue yonder surrounding this action. The lion, symbol of a king in Egypt, is surmounted by a young anonymous citizen protester in blue jeans, who holds the flag of his country above all. And the whole revolution was staged, if by staged you mean noncombatants, after some planning and organization, showing up in public squares with banners and flags so that their demonstrations of civil disobedience would be noticed by the powers that be (that were), and by the cameras of the world. If you mean literally whether this shot was contrived or taken out of context, the other shots in the Photostream it comes from indicate otherwise. Abrazame (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant historical value. Technical imperfections are less important than having images that are of historical and educational value. And, no, I haven't been canvassed. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FPC is not a forum to make a political point by trying to rally people to support a substandard photograph. There are other places for that kind of nationalism (Only judging the FPC process here, not the events). Commons is not a place to endorse political (r)evolution by putting this kind of images on the front page. FPC of national flags (with much better quality, BTW) have been shunned for similar reason in the past. W.S.07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didnt rally anyone to support the image nor it's a matter of nationalism; All I did was ask people on wikipedia english to give their opinion(s) about the image. you can check each of their talk pages on wikipedia if you dont believe. I would also like to point out that the majority of the people that commented here are not Egyptian, rather from different backwards and political ideologies. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked where the canvassing was done or who did it, but it is very apparent. I'm not talking about the people that did the canvassing neither but about the principle. W.S.09:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You call twenty of your friends on wikipedia english, you really think they will have an objective look at your work?--Citron (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually asked people who worked the main main article to comment. and Yes, they remain objective no matter what. Now, If you are going to accuse me of canvassing anyone, please show evidences or put a cork in it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is making wild acccusations, as the notifications you have made are technically cavassing. In my opinion, this would have been appropriate in WP:FPC, because pictures are assessed there in terms of specific encyclopaedic value. But not in Commons because we evaluate pictures in much broader terms, with a special focus on technical excellence. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not vote when your account is less than 10 days old. Thank you. (comments are allowed)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2011 at 21:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-06-27. Nasas na praia de Louro- Muros.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-06-27. Nasas na praia de Louro- Muros.jpg
Comment (poor english) I think, Jovianeye, that I can agree with you. But the marine life, the daily marine life must be considerable in this photo. The marine life of my nation. In spite of this, the image can be not wow, but it will be not wow by photographic criteria. For me, for Galician people, this image can be suggestive, until the image can express an identity (it's a personal opinion)--Miguel Bugallo15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral perfect quality (sharpness, DOF), clear QI. Not really featured to me because of the missing wow and the tight crop. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definite wow for me. Gorgeous photograph, in my opinion, and I'm sure fish traps aren't the easiest thing to make "look good". I disagree with kaʁstn about the tight crop: it'd be tight if it were cropped any more than it is, but there's plenty of breathing room for the eyes to roam about the subject. I love the metallic color, and it made me want to look at the article. The image, by the way, looks great in an article as well. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not the best scenery for the subject. As is looks like abandoned traps, just trash. By the way, 'fish trap' is not the best designation as these artifacts are used to catch crustaceans (e.g. lobsters, not fish. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination: (to Alvesgaspar) Sorry, I thought that “fish” meant “to fish”, not the animal (a fish). Someone must do English corrections in the image.
The "nasas" (... traps?) are used, but the "nasas" aren't abandoned traps or trash: Do you know the effect of the sea water on wood? I can understand that you can say that. I can't understand that this can be a objection to be a image FP (español: te pasas)--Miguel Bugallo00:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand. I think that you don't wan't to say that the thinks important to me are trash, but you say that of the object and of my life (you must read my comment in this discussion)--Miguel Bugallo01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- O que eu quero dizer, Miguel, é que o cenário não é o mais apropriado. Tal como estão, no meio da vegetação, os covos (nasas) parecem abandonados. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assim dito é muito diferente. Os covos estão na praia (o fundo da imagem é areia), o lugar normal para deitar os covos não é a areia, é a terra firme, pelo que estão em erva, mas erva seca, na beira da praia. Eu penso que o dono vive em lugar próximo e os covos estão entre a vivenda e a embarcação.
Não há problema. Retirei a imagem pelo erro na categorização (fish trap), tras as suas palabras evidente. Não compreendo a sua agresividade. Depois eu sentin-me más agredido (trash). Só posso dizer que não compreendo ser tratado como delincuente. Isso sim, a imagem, para mim, não tinha futuro em FP. Para mim o importante é escuitar críticas e apreender, não medalhas. Mas não há problema: disposto a colaborar com você quando quiser. --Miguel Bugallo22:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desculpe o meu português. Levo 25 anos sem escrever e/ou falar em português (sem contar cuatro ou cinco conversas em Commons). Uso Flip para escrever melhor, mas agora não está activo--Miguel Bugallo23:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: to me, a more appropriate scene is impossible; only on sea or in the sea, but it's not the same--Miguel Bugallo23:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Há aqui um mal entendido, Miguel. Eu não disse que a sua foto era lixo (trash) mas sim que as nasas pareciam ter sido deitadas para o lixo (trashed). Não há qualquer agressividade nas minhas palavras. Now in English for everyone: there is a misunderstanding here. I didn't say that your photo was trash but that the traps looked like having being trashed. There is no agressivity in my words whatsoever. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Alvesgaspar. My level of English is too bad. It's normal that I must use translators to understand. (Writing with a translator, because I don't know to say this:) I must be more careful and patient: I am able to learn and to improve. Thanks--Miguel Bugallo22:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and obviously I was too lazy to check. Still I like this image. I like that we have an image of a nice, sizeable cube of the stuff which also visually demonstrates how it is solid enough to maintain its shape instead of perhaps melting like warm gelatin which it kind of resembles. -- One, please.( Thank you.)22:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 15:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vipera aspis aspis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vipera aspis aspis.jpg
Support I'm not convinced that's motion blur, though; the viper seems to be holding relatively still, but it has its own streamlined pattern that, when blurred, almost looks like its moving. I sort of wish there were less blur on the "jaw" (not up on my snake lingo), but the eye is incredible. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 17:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bust of emperor Caracalla-IMG 9815.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bust of emperor Caracalla-IMG 9815.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 18:06:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Esztergom and Sturovo from Esztergom Castle (panoramic).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Esztergom and Sturovo from Esztergom Castle (panoramic).jpg
Oppose I don't like the framing. In my opinion, this should have been cropped to remove the foreground elements on the sides. I also feel frustrated to see only part of the closest building, at the botton. No wow, and horizon isn't straight. - Benh (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view but poor quality and not optimal angle of view, building parts on left and right are disturbing as well here, sadly the church is truncated --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBenh: I cannot accept "I don't like framing" as an argument. It could be "I don't like colors" next time. Nevertheless, I accept the point about the cropped building. What do you think, what could I do with the horizon to be more straight? I tried to find a workaround, but couldn't. --HoremWebPlace of Auditions19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, unfortunately, judging a picture involves some "subjectivity". I don't have the right to say the framing is not good, because other people might like it like that. But I have the right not to like it. I like taking panoramas too, and when I end up with similar disturbing elements in the foreground, I would keep only the center part of the whole thing. Using alternate projections might help to get more of the panorama. I don't know the exact conditions under which you took the sources photos of the panorama, but I believe you should have set the camera a bit farther ahead to avoid most of the elements in the foreground. This would have helped getting most, if not all, of the closest building at the bottom. To my knowledge, fixing the horizon is easy, provided your sources pics are aligned correctly (if you went through some sort of automated process, this might not be the case), and provided you use decent software such as Hugin. It's most of the time a matter of setting the "viewpoint" (hope I name it right) correctly. - Benh (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I add that although it could be considered a subjective matter, leaving the foreground elements like what we see here is to me due to a lack of practice (or just a bad habit) in taking panorama pictures, hence my oppose. I wouldn't oppose because of colors, unless it looks really unrealistic or whatever. - Benh (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTaxiarchos: could you explain what do you have against the quality? I understand and accept your remarks on composition, but I would like to learn how to improve on quality side. --HoremWebPlace of Auditions19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all who took time to vote, and especially Benh for the explanations. I still in trouble with the horizon because it is not tilt but bent. I will check out for the software you've suggested. --HoremWebPlace of Auditions21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 15:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agnus Dei Prophets Florence Baptistery.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agnus Dei Prophets Florence Baptistery.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 20:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Julie Delpy 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Julie Delpy 02.jpg
Comment The border isn't even straight. The image itself might be a scan, I'm not quite sure—it seems really soft, and yet grainy. So maybe it's supposed to look like that. Anyway, back to the border, my understanding was that images aren't supposed to have borders if it can be helped. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I think the annotation may have disappeared. It was originally pointed to her left arm squeezing against her body. What was the issue again, was it poor cloning or something? I'm not sure I see a problem. Her cleavage—the very top part—has a similar look, sort of an out-of-focus blurry line that her left arm seems to create also. Would this not be natural somehow? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My question still stands for anyone, but I'm not seeing any problems with the left arm pressed against the skin. I find the image beautiful and well done. The border crop really makes it look much more professional. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 20:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Louvre and Tuilerie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Louvre and Tuilerie.jpg
Support Rare photographical view of a now disappeared Palace, destroyed by the civil war of the Paris Commune in 1871. High historical & encyclopedic values. There is a project to re-build it.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe high encyclopedic value, but quality is not the best as a "photo d’une photo". Otherwise the nomination could have been more careful too: surely Lord Of The Rooms is neither creator nor uploader. Instead of one file description mixing English with French two separate description would have been preferred. --ELEKHHT07:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Question This is of course a very important and valuable document about historical Paris. But is it the best possible reproduction of the original photo? And what about copyrights? It's public domain, yes indeed, but the uploader (Paris 16) is not the person who made the reproduction (P.E. Malissin and F. Valdes: do they know and agree that their reproduction work is on Commons?). -- MJJR (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think copyright should be fine, as a faithful reproduction of the original image with no added element of originality, the reproduction itself cannot be protected by copyright, per Template:PD-Art. --ELEKHHT09:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 11:45:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2011 at 16:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Image-Nuova 500 interni.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Image-Nuova 500 interni.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of massive reflections and very poor photographic quality
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 9 Jul 2011 at 16:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral It's a crystal sharp image, but I really dislike the white background. Fortunately, Weis mentions that the white background was added later. Maybe a dark studio backdrop can be used instead? White may be fine on printed portraits, but on a bright LCD screen, it really bothers my eyes. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sadly no. The setting was rather unprofessional - we didn't use any backdrop at all. File:2011-06-23-dora-heyenn-by-RalfR-11.jpg shows pretty well how we photographed in front of mere wallpaper. Applying a dark digital backdrop would be harmful to the details - you might want to look at the category to verify that. Several people have dark hair colours or wear dark clothing. I agree that using a black backdrop and a different lighting would've been nice. My intention was to create a uniform background for the images I took, so white is more a pragmatic solution than an astheatic one. Regards. PETER WEISTALK08:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 15:15:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NYU library2 crop.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NYU library2 crop.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2011 at 22:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ORP Wdzydze.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ORP Wdzydze.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2011 at 16:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sturnus vulgaris no.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sturnus vulgaris no.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2011 at 12:41:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toldboden detaljer 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toldboden detaljer 4.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2011 at 05:23:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spheniscus magellanicus 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spheniscus magellanicus 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2011 at 16:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:L'Hiver François Girardon Versailles MR 1864.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:L'Hiver François Girardon Versailles MR 1864.jpg
Oppose Central object is not very sharp, this is so distracting and so strong dark, black background, which I strongly dislike. Alexdiscussion18:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want real transparency you need to upload it with an alpha-channel (not JPG). If you make the black areas in this image transparent, you will also have transparent parts inside the figure or no good antialiasing at the edges. Definitly not usuable for transparency in this way. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係16:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 17:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maid-of-the-Mist.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maid-of-the-Mist.jpg
Oppose The original image is crystal clear. The editor who reworked this version did so much noise reduction that the image is blurry, and I actually thought the boat name read "Lost", when on the original, it very clearly states "Mist". Way too over-corrected, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Keraunoscopia. I wouldn't go as far as saying MIST now reads LOST, but for sure details have gone away, and we lost contrast as well. Very nice otherwise. - Benh (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2011 at 13:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schönebach 27.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schönebach 27.JPG
Neutral This picture is making me so uncertain... Nice, yup. But I have the kind of feeling that this picture could be from almost anywhere in the mountains – so I believe there would be quite a huge amount of similar pictures which had similar chances of getting featured after this one. Just by looking at this photo I'm not sure which is the main subject of it: the stream, the mountains in the background, perhaps the entire valley or the type of vegetation? Perhaps I would have liked more to see either the direction where the water is coming or the direction it's going... SO, a pleasant picture to watch, but I'm not really sure what is the thing I would be supporting this for. --Ximonic (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2011 at 00:44:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cruceiro en Corcubión - Galiza-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cruceiro en Corcubión - Galiza-2.jpg
Comment Ok. The next photo of this class that I will propose will respect the rule of two thirds. In this case it was impossible, because there are buildings and trees at right and at left. Thanks, but I need more opinions--Miguel Bugallo12:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very good quality, informative image. It has good exposure and focus, detailing the erosion of the stone. Light was at the right time of day, enhancing volume and texture. Composition is the best under the circumstances. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias Tomascastelazo. Me gustaría preguntarte lo siguiente: ¿Tú crees que sería preferible que en vez de centrar el crucero (el sujeto de la fotografía), lo desplazase para respetar la regla de los dos tercios? Yo creo que no, creo que en imágenes como esta no procede, pero la próxima vez que sea posible tomar dos imagenes diferentes, lo haré, e intentaré proponer las dos. ¿Debería tomar estas imágenes un poco de lado y no de frente? Gracias--Miguel Bugallo01:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miguel, la regla de tercios, aunque se llame regla, es solo una guía, no es algo inflexible. En este caso lo mejor que se podía hacer es exactamente lo que hiciste, en mi opinión. Muy probablemente yo hubiese hecho la misma toma. Aunque de alguna manera estás respètando la regla, al situar el transversal en el tercio superior. Respecto a tomarla de lado, la imagen tal vez se haría un poco mas dinámica, al inclinarse el transversal. Si te desplazas a la derecha, por ejemplo, el lado izquierdo de la transversal baja y el derecho sube, y viceversa. Sin embargo, si te hubieses desplazado a la derecha, hubieses perdido algo de volumen, pues las sombras tenderían a disminuir. A la izquierda, las sombras se hubiesen incrementado. Lo que yo hago, con objetos estacionarios, es siempre explorar el punto de vista y tomar varias fotos, a distancias diferentes, alturas diferentes y desplazándome alrededor de la imagen. En fin, esto de tomar fotos es como aprender los cambios manuales en los autos, se convierte en una segunda naturaleza. Una práctica que yo hago, es evaluar rápidamente los elementos gráficos de los sujetos y acentuarlos, tal como color, volumen, contorno, textura, etc. Lo que si sugiero es que le des auto levels en photoshop, se mejora la imagen.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2011 at 09:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iris sibirica in natural monument Novoveska draha in 2011 (17).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iris sibirica in natural monument Novoveska draha in 2011 (17).JPG
Oppose I think portrait format might have given a more aesthetic result than landscape. Also the depth of field isn't really sufficient to capture the main subject sharply. --99of9 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2011 at 14:56:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dunluce.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dunluce.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small (1600x1200), sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 09:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hochmoorgelbling Colias palaeno.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochmoorgelbling Colias palaeno.JPG
Info The Moorland Clouded Yellow, Palaeno Sulphur, or Pale Arctic Clouded Yellow (Colias palaeno) is a butterfly in the family Pieridae.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 09:34:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:King Penguins (Youngs).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:King Penguins (Youngs).jpg
Oppose quality: sharpness so-so, shallow DOF, disturbing motion blur; very poor light; overall interesting, but not very good crop --kaʁstnDisk/Cat10:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a nice image, but please think about it, do you want it in FP galleries? it is not by any means up to FP standards... ■ MMXX talk20:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really cool! Mitigating circumstances for the quality, this is not your run-of-the-mill mountain landscape or yet another church. Wow epitomized! W.S.05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imagine one of the most southern places in the world, imagine that you are no longer the king of the world, no longer the master of the universe, no the more superpredator, imagine a world where animals (young) dominate, where their land is not yours, where sanitized has no place where the smell of penguin shit makes you sick. Imagine that in looking at this photo taken during a snowstorm where the wind and humidity destroy your hopes. They do not have our questions, they survive. We should do the same ... Butterfly austral (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Motion blur on falling slow is a good thing. I think the other quality deficiencies can be overlooked given the mitigating circumstances. Rare, unusual, and informative. --99of9 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2011 at 00:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spilosoma canescens caterpillar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spilosoma canescens caterpillar.jpg
Comment For those interested in this guy, I've uploaded a closeup where you can even see barbs down both sides of the hairs. --99of9 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2011 at 12:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Christian Bale, Natalie Portman, Melissa Leo and Colin Firth 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Christian Bale, Natalie Portman, Melissa Leo and Colin Firth 2011.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2011 at 18:42:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican paper mache horses 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican paper mache horses 02.jpg
Comment Assuming that the artist copyrighted his work, being original and not a style of toys made by countless artisans, yes, you could say it could be derivative work. However, these paper mache horses are generic, not original to the people that make them but a style and tradition of generations. I think it would be easier to copyright the shape of a pizza. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2011 at 21:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Motocross guanajuato.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Motocross guanajuato.jpg
Oppose So much photographic information is lost to whatever happened there. The shadows are so dark, and the colors are so overtweaked, it doesn't even look real. No one's helmet should "glow fluorescent" like that, not in the daytime. I can't even make out the details of the tires, though I know I should since the image was snapped fast enough. There are also lens spots and/or dirt. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Dark objects in a shadows are... dark.
Colors are not tweaked, that´s the way they are, helps people see them... much like construction vests, the idea is to be seen.
the tires are slightly blurred... motion blur, that is not a photographic fault.
luminosity values are what they are and reproduced according to their value in the dynamic scale. Can´t expect white to be shown as gray or blue, for example.
Comment You are correct, but I chose to leave it like that for two reasons, one practical and one for composition. On the practical side, the image can be cropped by the end user if they don´t need the sky, but if they do, to place text, for example, it is there. On the composition side, it gives the bake space into which to fly. Personal choice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Correct. This is one of the shortcomings of digital photography. If neither extreme exposure is right in this case, it is because the luminosity of the scene, that is the dynamic range of the scene is wider than the dynamic range of digital cameras. Consecuently, the exposure is in the middle values. To have overexposed to bring back the shadow detail, would have meant to push the highlights even further out into more over exposure, and to under expose the sky would push the shadows into even darker values. There is a dynamic range for existing light conditions, for film and for digital. The shorter scale is the digital one. Digital works great when that scale is short. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm almost sure the sensor's dynamical range was wider than this jpg image shows. Do you have the RAW? If so, I believe this can be done much better with the right postprocessing. Feel free to send it to me via mail if you don't know how to accomplish that. -- H00510:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both of you are correct... and this is how one learns! I did not use flash because of the sync speed, it would have created a double image. And yes, the raw file can yield a bit more, but guess what? I did not shoot raw! In any case, my intention was to freeze the moment considering the contour or outline of the subject, expose for a half decent sky and I did not concern myself much with shadow detail, for I think it is irrelevant in this particular case. The graphic element here for me is contour and the photographic concern was to freeze motion. Sometimes in order to privilege certain things, one has to sacrifice others. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic mood, well composed, good detail. I'm not too fussed about the exposure - it may even add to the drama. --99of9 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 22:36:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MS Georg Büchner HBP 2010-03-07 front.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MS Georg Büchner HBP 2010-03-07 front.jpg
370
348
2788
4161
3168
4752
crop suggestion
corrected WB, with the raw-file it would be better i think, cause the burned part at the ship and the black area in the front are now more visible. rework out of original dng file. Thanks to Grand Duc for providing it.
Sorry, I prefer the image with corrected WB. Now I don't like this image, I like the other. As Leviathan1983--Miguel Bugallo01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a fine picture, sodium vapor against stormy night sky, but I'm just not sure the frame has been used to its fullest potential. There's a lot of dead space, and an incredible amount of emphasis on the reflection. I would almost rather see the ship taken from starboard, even if that means you have to boat out there to get it, and fill the frame with more ship, less sky and water. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies01:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the image, but I think it should be cropped using the same 2:3 ratio. (see image annotation) The empty space on the left can be removed and the ship can be off-centred. --Jovian Eyetalk12:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the WB is totally off, the composition with that current crop isn't excellent imo. See my edited version. --mathiasK13:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This site and large areas of Rostock are illuminated by night with yellowish street lamps, sodium-vapor lamps, I think. Is it wise, then, to alter the colour rendering to get an impression of bright white light on scene? I recall exactly this yellowish hue of the location as depicted when I took the photograph. The edited version could not be seen as such in reality, IMO. As for the licensing theme... Well, what is the "spirit of Commons"? This file is free (due to the GDFL 1.2), Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia explains the reusing of GDFL-licensed material before dealing with the CC, so there is nothing against any "spirit of Commons", here. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC) PS. Mathias, you'll get soon my DNG raw via Wikimail.[reply]
Comment I've uploaded a new version with the corrected WB. Thanks again for the original dng file. It's a hard decision with the colours at such a situation like this. For me who don't knew the lighting there, it's just a wrong WB. Even if the lighting situation is more like your picture, the colours are not like this in reallity. For my taste i prefer the corrected colours, or a version between yours and mine, but the nominating one is to heavy for my taste. Regards mathiasK11:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2011 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Ellinor, Mount Washington Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Ellinor, Mount Washington Panorama.jpg
Oppose I find this kind of pictures usually quite interesting to explore, especially all kinds of small details they have. But would this be a FP for me? Unfortunately, not. For me the main disturbance in this case is the crop below: I would have liked to see more what might be down there where the border comes. Especially in the middle of the picture there seems to be a kind of a valley which I would have liked to see a bit more. The cropped out rocks below on the right are also somewhat disturbing. The sky above the summit on the left is having somewhat different tone compared to the rest of the sky (I don't think it is natural but a cause of brightening the summit). At some mountain edges there are also some very obvious white fringing strengthened by image sharpening (these would, however, be really easy to fix with darkening or cloning tools. I've often been reminded of this also). --Ximonic (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2011 at 19:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Muammar al-Gaddafi, 12th AU Summit, 090202-N-0506A-324.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muammar al-Gaddafi, 12th AU Summit, 090202-N-0506A-324.jpg
Comment Perhaps I have a short mentality. But do you think normal (and neutral) that a image of an alive dictator it was QI or FP? I hope that it is not image of the day in Commons--Miguel Bugallo01:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His people have nothing against him. He is not a dictator and this fake revolt of few groups of rebels has been imposed from outside - states like: France, Germany and USA, which could be called a real dictators. --Alexdiscussion13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comment just above is only an opinion. It is completely out of scope, useless regarding the assessments of pictures, and should be deleted. The (so-called) "Community" here really don't care with the author's point of view in international affairs matters. FPC page is really going wrong... --Jebulon (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition but this picture is a bit too much on the soft side in my opinion. The focus is quite narrow. Comment Indeed this is not the right place to argue about political (etc.) opinions, or who is wrong and who's right – it is not what Commons is about. Just keep it neutral and focus on the pictures as pictures. By the way, I personally wouldn't have anything against a featured picture of any dictator (or not a dictator, however you see it. I don't mind!) if the picture was good enough and met the FP guidelines. I just accidentally dropped a cucumber from a bread into my fish soup. --Ximonic (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's right, Ximonic, good photo-critic is what we need here. I'm sorry for your lunch :) I'm sorry but I had to react, because I was kind of provoked by Lmbuga. Alexdiscussion18:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Alex, I did not want to be provocative. I only wanted an answer so that I clarified my doubts. My doubts are about publicity and about of if commons can do publicity with a person--Miguel Bugallo22:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree about the DOF issue, but the scene is still fascinating, his whole appearance fits perfectly to his unbelievable insanity. -- H00510:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are great! Because they show what he sees at that very moment, from the perspective of his eyes! That's one of the things that makes this image so special. -- H00509:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*****Haha, lol. It's just paperwork on a desk (maybe authorizing the killing of innocent civilians). But anyhow, must we have a portrait of every dictator in the featured pictures list? I don't think so. —stay (sic)! 15:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC) The previous comment has been stricken-through, due the partiality and non–neutral point. Alexdiscussion14:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 20:28:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nikolai Vinnichenko IF MOW 06-11.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nikolai Vinnichenko IF MOW 06-11.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2011 at 01:46:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parc de Versailles, parterre de Latone, bassin de Latone 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc de Versailles, parterre de Latone, bassin de Latone 05.jpg
Oppose Not the easiest topic for a pano. Unfortunately too many shortcomings: a few stitching errors left, stretched people at the extremes and a general (but especially visible at the edges) lack of sharpness. And might I finally mention some striking twins. W.S.05:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wanted to support at very first sight, but the twins are really unfortunate (and easy to fix). And the whole pic looks a bit too greenish in my opinion. I'd also clone out the few leaves on the foreground. Otherwise, lovely composition, nice quality (despite the stretching mentioned) and girl with a nice smile in the foreground. - Benh (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moving my vote to support, but maybe you should compress the jpeg a tad more, it takes forever to download. - Benh (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MediaWiki has an issue with the image thumbnails... It still shows the old picture and the nomination page and on the details page. - Benh (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 15:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:TombSalimChisti.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:TombSalimChisti.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 16:00:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2011 at 11:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fumihiko Maki 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fumihiko Maki 2010.jpg
Oppose Better, but a strange crop and the blurriness still appears on the right. Would a clone job have been better, though probably extremely difficult or time-consuming with the vignetting. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmmm, nothing really impressive or extraordinary here. The image doesn't look like featured material to me. —stay (sic)! 04:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2011 at 11:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lambertibrunnen-Prinzipalmarkt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lambertibrunnen-Prinzipalmarkt.jpg
Oppose the object Lambertibrunnen is not clearly visible here and for an interessting detail shot it is not clear which details the photographer wanted to show here, furthermore the image is rather noisy and the technical implementation is not as good as could be (balance between light and shadows) --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the image here, but it is somewhat too dark in several places. Also the windows in the middle, far left side are too bright or overexposed. I think HDR correction might have been better. In short, beautiful image, but poor lighting. —stay (sic)! 04:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2011 at 22:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hochalppass Panorama .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochalppass Panorama .jpg
Oppose Beautiful picture and reasonable quality, but yet another, similar looking mountain pano. W.S.05:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Extremely dark mountain and background, very difficult to see details, entire image overall looks just a touch underexposed, crop feels constricting and it's a strange aspect ratio, and to be honest, the image really isn't all that impressive or interesting. I also somewhat agree with W.S., an above-treeline snow-filled pano does not an FP make. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support wunderbare Landschaftsfotografie, nicht nur Schalentiere und Gliederfüßler bilden eine Grundlage für exzellente Bilder, wie so manche glauben --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like iced charcoal, and my monitor is fine. This image is too dark, whether your monitor is fine or not. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have calibrated monitor, and the parts are still dark. I think it's overall (a bit) underexposed. The histogram looks a bit too balanced for a picture with snow. Per other opposers otherwise. - Benh (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only I find it much too dark too, I also see a strong tilt - look at the clouds to the left. -- H00520:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Böhringer, you have many interesting panoramas, but this is not as good as others. maybe it could be improved in Photoshop or by restitching. ■ MMXX talk08:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support darkness is appropriate. the arrangement of light and dark areas is very natural. the valley has lots of shadows, yet one can even see the shapes of the fir trees. a polarizing filter was used to darken the skies - the top of the Großer Widderstein was affected by this as well. one could easily lighten this area and slightly increase global contrast - neglectable if considering the overall quality of this images. regards, PETER WEISTALK09:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't be so sure a polarizer was used. On a 180° pano, you normally see the unevenness yield by a polarizer ; unless the picture is taken when the sun is at zenith, which is normally not the case here at time generation of EXIF. I also never seen that polarizer affected this much rocks (top of roßer Widderstein). - Benh (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you so sure something was done to it? I rather believe it simply hasn't been exposed long enough to have a medium-bright blue. Look at the snow, it should be somewhat white on a sunny day like this, but it is grey. The dynamic range of the scenery is very wide, difficult to catch without good and balanced postprocessing from the RAWs. -- H00510:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This effect looks rather unnatural to my eyes. Vignetting might be another answer to the question - yet I don't believe this is a realistic depiction of the sky. As for the colour of snow: ever thought of the clouds and their soft shadows? Luckily we don't need to theorize, Böringer is here to answer our questions (is he?).
Question 1: What's the reason for the dark skies?
Question 2: Did clouds cast their shadows on the snow (explaining the greyish snow tone)?
mein englisch beschränkt sich auf Google translate :-) Vielleicht hilft dieses Bild weiter. (Exif) Die selbe Einstellung und Uhrzeit. Bitte beachten sie, das dies der mittlere Teil des oberen Panorama ist und dieser auch ideal ausgleuchtet war. Zudem ist das Bild im Querformat.: --Böhringer (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sprich das doch. Kein Problem, dann schreibe ich gerne noch mal auf Deutsch, um was es hier geht. Es gibt mehrere Kritikpunkte an deinem Bild von Seiten der User: Verzerrung des gesamten Bildes, nur ein Panorama unter Vielen, allgemein zu dunkel, unterbelichtet, Schnee ist zu Grau, Himmel und Spitze des Großen Widdersteins ist zu dunkel (stimme ich zu). Die Fragen die offen sind, sind folgende: Warum ist der obere Teil des Himmels so dunkel? Ist der Schnee deswegen so grau, weil die Wolken einen Schatten geworfen haben, oder hat das andere Gründe? Welche Ausrüstung wurde genutzt um das Bild zu machen? Welche Bearbeitungen wurden durchgeführt? Beste Grüße nach Österreich und regards, PETER WEISTALK22:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
die Fragen habe ich soweit schon verstanden. Dazu habe ich das Bild nebenan hochgealden. Dort sieht man in den exif Daten die Einstellungen der Panoramabilder. Es gab bis auf das Zusammennähen mit PTGui keine weitere Bearbeitung. Dass die Schatten im Schneefeld von den Wolken stammen, sieht man ja im Bild selbst. Warum der Himmel oben so dunkel ist weiss ich nicht. Vermutlich habe ich zu viele Bilder oder eine zu grosse Überlappung beim Erstellen des Pano gehabt. Eine Verzerrung links in den Wolken kann ich beim besten Willen nicht sehen. Für mich gibt es keine geraden oder schiefen Wolken ?!? --Böhringer (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Den Kritikpunkt "Verzerrung des gesamten Bildes" kann ich so auch nicht finden in den Kommentaren, ist meine Anmerkung "I also see a strong tilt - look at the clouds to the left" gemeint? "Tilt" ist aber keine Verzerrung, sondern eine Schiefe. Und der linke Teil des Bildes sieht mir sehr schief aus. (Anders als das Detailbild rechts - das ist gerade!) -- H00513:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
diese und andere Ansichten nehme ich als gegeben an, da werde ich nichts ändern können. Trotzdem danke ich für die rege Anteilname an der Bildbewertung. --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2011 at 19:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bobtail squid.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bobtail squid.jpg
Oppose Lack of wow is in the central composition, not in the pretty squid. Sadly DOF is not so good neither so only very little of the critter is actually in focus. W.S.11:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2011 at 01:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Cool image, great composition, great subject, fairly decent crop. But the image is extremely "dry", I thought it was shot on film on an older stock (or perhaps overkill HDR) and was surprised to see it was done with a D90. I think the problem for me is the harsh lighting and the lack of fill light on the subject (obviously not always the easiest thing to "bring"). I feel like maybe some recovery was done in the shadows. I also feel the image to have a strange oversharpness/softness effect I can't explain, so perhaps the lens was no good or the image was over-processed. The rear end of the horse might be a little overblown, along with the cuirassier's left knee/thigh. Interesting background, interesting overall image, so I couldn't oppose, but I couldn't support either. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No HDR was done (in fact, I've never tried this technique) and sure, it may be time for me to consider buying a better lens. --Myrabella (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the HDR "thought" was only for a flash-moment. People HDR images of moving subjects (rivers/water, boaters, etc.) all the time, and while I cannot vouch for its technical authenticity, one simply has to create a second or third image of varying contrast/brightness from the same image. If an original RAW file can contain up to 11 stops of latitude within the photographic image, then the information can probably be filled and/or recovered to, say, one extreme or the other (overexposure and underexposure) with the original being properly exposed (for example). These three images can then be combined and an HDR look achieved. I've never done it myself; I'm assuming this is how it's done otherwise. With a single RAW image, simply filling in the shadows by brightening them even gives a sort of HDR appearance; so only one image is used. The information is already there. I do that all the time, for better or worse. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2011 at 21:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bizkaikobatzarnagusiak.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bizkaikobatzarnagusiak.jpg
Neutral Very interesting document with undeniable encyclopedic value. The tilt and the fish eye give the image a true dynamic effect. Nevertheless, some flaws - especially the overexposed lamps and their reflections - prevent from promoting this picture as FP. -- MJJR (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 21:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte della Maddalena daylight.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ponte della Maddalena daylight.JPG
Comment uploaded a new version and renominated it. If you viewed this image before with your browser please clear your cache. -- H00520:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should not overwrite the old nomination page. The bot does not know that this has changed, and will try to keep closing the nomination as out of time. Next time it is better to make a completely new nomination page. --99of9 (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For what it's worth, I think the footpath and wall make it difficult to get an outstanding composition here. --99of9 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2011 at 17:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vietcongsuspect.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vietcongsuspect.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 12:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fourth of July Fireworks at Washington DC - 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fourth of July Fireworks at Washington DC - 1.jpg
Comment I personally do not think it is too dark. It is quite difficult to manage the exposure since you cannot guess the colour and intensity of each firework. Any higher exposure would only get the fireworks over-exposed. Of the 60 pictures I took at least one third had the fireworks over-exposed. As far as I could search, I found only two FPs on fireworks File:2007 Nagaoka Festival 004 Edit.jpg and File:Ignis Brunensis Macedos Pirotecnia 2007.jpg. Regarding the crop, I have nominated another image which has still better framing. --Jovian Eyetalk23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't stunned by this in thumbnail, but the full version looks very nice. Nice clean lines. A notable place, and good composition on the fireworks. The dynamic range in a night time firework display is obviously going to be hard to deal with, but I think this exposure is appropriate. I think this is the better of the two you have put up on offer. --99of9 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark, you can not appreciate the landscape. Not everybody has been to Washington, so not everybody knows what that landscape should look like, are those houses, trees, buildings?. This could have been easily solved increasing the exposition time or increasing the ISO. Also, the fireworks portrayed are not aesthetically remarkable, there are much impressive fireworks pictures around. Also, why do you propose to feature two very similar pictures token at the same spot and at the same time? Repeatability of pictures makes them lose their value, did you know? Why a picture should be featured if it is not unique? A featured picture has to be unique. (Gussisaurio (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment It is quite easy to make such criticism. The subject here is not the landscape by itself, but along with the fireworks. The monuments are marked as annotations in the image. Regarding the exposure, this sort of subject is quite challenging. I chose ISO-200 to keep the noise low. The aperture was kept constant in all shots and f/9 was chosen to optimize sharpness. The shutter was chosen after a few trial and error attempts to 1/2 second. Despite these settings, a lot of the images were over-exposed. This is because of the luck factor I guess. I was unable to move from this spot which I reserved by arriving at the location 3 hours in advance! I fortunately have the RAW file and am planning to renominate the image after adjusting the exposure. --Jovian Eyetalk12:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2011 at 09:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Lack of wow lays, IMO, in the central and easily reproducible composition (Those ships are displayed at fleet days several days a year. I just participated in one for the last two days.). But I agree with THFSW about the lack of quality. CA e.g. is quite notable. W.S.11:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice start then. We had Latvian (P05), Estonian, German (M1067), French, Moroccan (Bin An Zaran), Dutch (A802) and of course Belgian ships. Only the American (USS Ramage) came back on his promise to let visitors on board... W.S.15:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 22:58:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hercule et Cacus Bandinelli Florence Signoria.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hercule et Cacus Bandinelli Florence Signoria.jpg
Comment Thanks for nominating, but I think you're mistaken: it is only a picture of a work of art, not a mountain panorama, nor a damsel, neither any bug, therefore no chance of success here.--Jebulon (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Jebulon is right about the cute-bug-bias. There is also a fast-moving-objects bias. Nevertheless, the composition is not FP for me here: if the image is to catch the artwork in its (urban) context, than obviously the street level is missing. If is intended to be focused on the artwork on its own, than is not well differentiated from the background. --ELEKHHT10:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2011 at 16:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Acropoclipse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Acropoclipse.jpg
I'm not sure what do you mean by "digital shadows", perhaps I phrased my comment badly, anyway, IMO image is still very interesting and valuable. ■ MMXX talk21:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 23:36:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:EC-135 SP-HXX HEMS.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:EC-135 SP-HXX HEMS.JPG
Oppose Sorry, but dull background, lack of clarity necessary for this type of image, and the need for a faster shutter speed to capture the blades without the blur makes me oppose. theMONO01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infoas regards blur: Mind you, dear friends, zero rotor blur is generally considered a flaw. Basically the same rule applies here, as it does for panning. The blur is supposed to indicate movement, and whereas in panning background blur indicates movement (of the object in relation to the background), the movement of propellers or rotors is generally the only way to indicate the status of a helicopter of propeller-driven airplane. Too little blur would be a valid reason to oppose, though far fetched. The presence of blur as a reason to oppose is far beyond the threshold of insanity. While the two opposing votes below are sound - I may agree with them or not, but they are sound - the demand for zero rotor movement is an insult and a half. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) PS File:Mi-2 Darłowo 2009 .JPG 1/1500, still blurred. Even with 1/2000 the blade tips would cover about 2-3 cm within the period and at 1:1 scale the blur would STILL be visible.[reply]
Comment I agree with Airwolf's analysis, blur is sometimes a good thing, and this is one of those cases IMO. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, thank you for explaining, and that makes perfect sense. I was actually looking at motorcycle pictures (in some magazine) and studying the wheels and they too were as crystal clear as possible while retaining an element of blur, and I realized without that blur, I would have thought the motorcycles stationary. Thus, exceptions excluded, blur would almost have to be essential. I've struck out my comment below. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry also :( Something about the image really bothers me. I don't like the crop, and it looks like a crop, if that makes sense. The helicopter seems just a smidge unsharp. I'm not familiar enough with heli images to know if rotor blur is unwanted (for the majority of times) or not, but I have to agree with Mono that here it doesn't seem to work, and I also agree that the background is kind of dull. I appreciate a non-distracting background, of course, but in this case, the lackluster steel color and the strange "smudge" shadow of waves make the image, overall, look kind of dirty. I think the copter is banking to the right, but it would be nice to have something to clarify the copter's motion through the sky. Wonderful red and yellow colors, interesting copter "shape", but really not something that stands out to me as a "great" copter image. (The color sure stands out, of course, but the image holistically just seems to be lacking.) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the central composition with flat background (no element of scale or height) somewhat boring and less than outstanding. --ELEKHHT07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 23:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fourth of July Fireworks at Washington DC - 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fourth of July Fireworks at Washington DC - 2.jpg
Oppose Too dark, you can not appreciate the landscape. Not everybody has been to Washington, so not everybody knows what that landscape should look like, are those houses, trees, buildings?. This could have been easily solved increasing the exposition time or increasing the ISO. Also, the fireworks portrayed are not aesthetically remarkable, there are much impressive fireworks pictures around. (Gussisaurio (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2011 at 15:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lac du Milieu de Bastan Hautes Pyrénées 02 BLS.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lac du Milieu de Bastan Hautes Pyrénées 02 BLS.JPG
Comment Thanks for the nomination. Since I wish it's promoted, I've brightened it a little to fix the underexposure issue (but this doesn't seem to reflect on the thumbnail). - Benh (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2011 at 22:08:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moriarty-IMG 6846.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moriarty-IMG 6846.jpg
Comment some disturbing elements (see annotations), a bit noisy in the background (but not too bad imo), the musician looks past the camera. Not sure it it's really featured. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really like the crop at bottom, but the new version is much better, although it still needs a little clean up to even the color difference in BG. ■ MMXX talk20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2011 at 20:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Summit cross of the "Saukarkopf".JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Summit cross of the "Saukarkopf".JPG
Oppose Can't really say this image is stunning. A cross figure on a mountain range isn't much of a wow to me. —stay (sic)! 09:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2011 at 00:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vespula vulgaris portrait.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vespula vulgaris portrait.jpg
Support While checking out our insect head collection, I came across this. I think it's a fabulous close-up with great detail. The author is in the scientific illustration business, so I hope this might encourage him to return and share more of his work. -- 99of9 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As much as I love the image, I cannot support as the quality is very poor here, especially near the edges. There is chromatic aberration, noise, and blurring. Doesn't really compare to this, this, this, or this. --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is very good and illustrative, but I cannot support images with visibile technical errors, in this case from, I presume, overly strong selective denoising. --Quartl (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2011 at 06:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chungara Lake and Volcan Sajama Chile Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chungara Lake and Volcan Sajama Chile Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg
Request Look at he height of the grass horizontal segment, it is not the same height than the sky segment's. This unbalance breaks the composition and forces the viewer to look at the grass. This effect is not desired because the mountain at the horizon is much more remarkable than the grass itself. However, the peak of the mountain is almost touching the frame. This is a misleading composition. Can you please re-crop the picture so it gains the required balance, making the grass section of the same or lower height that the sky segment's? That would turn this in a much better and remarkable picture. (Gussisaurio (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 15:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old Moscow ,oil on canvas.30x40sm.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Moscow ,oil on canvas.30x40sm.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2011 at 20:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I'm fine with this nice architecture picture. Nice hardware yields nice quality ! (and it's neither a panorama, a bird, a macro shot or a musuem object ;) ). I'm a bit surprised author didn't go as wide as he could. - Benh (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is big, it is more or less symmetrical (you almost have to measure to find the faults) but the blown windows/lights and the lack of the elusive WOW make me oppose. W.S.11:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be such a great image if it weren't for the overly bright windows. I guess some sort of HDRi or exposure blending would have been necessary here. -- H00521:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please consider reading the image description page. the highlights in the windows and chandeliers were an explicit decision for this image. even the darkest version (-2ev stops) didn't feature any detail for this particular area. although technically possible the correction of this "flaw" (as some people tend to see it) wouldn't harmonize with the image as a whole. moreover this is what you'll experience when on location. regards, PETER WEISTALK23:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2011 at 13:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Worker of Korea Party Monument.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Worker of Korea Party Monument.jpg
343
786
1744
2562
2336
3504
Picture doesn't do justice to this HUGE statue... It is massive, in the typical Korean fashion.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2011 at 23:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reassortment.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reassortment.svg
Support Nice image. Educational: I learned from it. Good quality. I don't have any recommendations to make it better. --99of9 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Incompréhensible pour les non-anglophones. " Commons" est censé être multilingue. Cette candidature serait plus appropriée dans les images remarquables de la version anglaise de Wikipédia. Je soutiendrais une proposition multilingue, que j'appelle de mes vœux. Merci.--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Commons is multilingual, but I Support because this a vector graphic image and not raster. If one knows how to edit a vector graphic file, you will be surprised to know how easy it is to replace the English text with a language of your choice and that too with minimal effort. --Jovian Eyetalk01:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly! That's de whole point of the SVG format: scalability and translatability. Even a good image as this I would have opposed if e.g. in PNG or JPG format. As it is now, text can be replaced without touching the quality graphics. W.S.05:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought you were French? Can't you translate then for your 'compatriottes'? I can tell you how to adapt the svg then...W.S.20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to translate precisely enough, as I'm not a physician nor a biologist. Une traduction serait bienvenue, certes, pas seulement pour mes compatriotes, mais aussi pour certains Belges, Suisses, Canadiens, Africains etc...--Jebulon (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info If someone could provide the translated text, I'll make an additional version in this language; that's my job ;-) You can contact me on my talk page. --Mouagip (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2011 at 17:16:54 (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 26 Jul 2011 at 11:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tosno River near Ulyanovsk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tosno River near Ulyanovsk.jpg
Oppose - There is a big overexposed area in the lower part. Also, the green of the grass appears to be blown-out, and the whole composition (side view from the bank instead a straight view from a bridge or similar) is not really interesting. NB: I suppose, you mean Ulyanovka and not Ulyanovsk? - A.S.17:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above. Tomer T (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2011 at 14:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yelagin Island pond.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yelagin Island pond.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the overall quality is low, e.g. with blown highlights and much noise Tomer T (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2011 at 12:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balaeniceps rex (Gould, 1850) 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaeniceps rex (Gould, 1850) 2.jpg
Oppose Don't like 1. technically - the oversharpening yielding strong haloes everywhere around the bird and 2. biogeografically - the obvious non-African flora in the background (e.g. the Myosotis). FP is for the best we can offer, not for this type of images, which though excellent, are not the bees knees. W.S.11:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support W.S. got the point, a bit oversharpened. Background could be desaturated since its taking focus. Otherwise bird is nice. --Mile (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with W.S. This guy is very easy to shoot (been there, did it), so for a FP the image should be more special. --Quartl (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bridge over A4 (part).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bridge over A4 (part).jpg
Oppose Great view and perspective, I like the colours, but it's not sharp and crisp enough and too many dark shadows. -- H00520:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 13:15:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gebäude der Patriotischen Gesellschaft, Karl Kaufmann IMG 6421 6422 6423 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gebäude der Patriotischen Gesellschaft, Karl Kaufmann IMG 6421 6422 6423 edit.jpg
Question is it a HDR photo? Why? It looks very flat for me. The colors are false for me too. And why f/10 for a flat subject? The best resolution will be at f/2.8 or f/4. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, this image has been achieved by exposure bracketing. the the camera's sensor was not perpendicular to the painting, due to it's position on the spot. that's why i'd chose f/10. the lacking perpendicular was remedied by using photoshop's lense correction tool. the best resolution for the EF 85 mm f/1.2L II USM is at f/5.6 regarding center, border and extreme measuring. diffraction won't be an issue below f/11. as for colours: repros (especially on here commons) feature considerations on this issue. since this is a non-professional reproduction (due to its daylight exposure, non-use of a colour seperation guide and other criteria) of the painting and i being a sceptic on faithful reproductions, i suggest to see the image on location. regards, PETER WEISTALK19:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 10:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kamal Abbas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kamal Abbas.jpg
Support I'm an involved editor, having worked on this article as well as several others related to Egyptian activism. BUT, it's a stellar photo: it captures the piercing, sober presence of a lifetime activist--a standout man amongst a crowd. It's crisp, well cropped, the black and white adds to the sense of history and iconography... the only defect I see is a bit of glare on the glasses. But then this man is always in the line of fire, directly in view, so he probably wouldn't have it any other way. Ocaasi (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 18:26:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista parcial do Parque Ipanema, Ipatinga MG.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista parcial do Parque Ipanema, Ipatinga MG.JPG
Note: In my opinion, this image is appropriate to featured. Sorry, I'm not a professional. But I hope ratings. --HVL(talk)18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Something can be seen in the air, it's not the clouds, but I'm not sure what that (flying?) black spot is. And the image looks a little grainy. I'm guessing someone may point out other flaws, but to be generous, I'm not opposing. —stay (sic)! 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my opinion, that kind of ruins the image for me, unless the kite was able to be seen more clearly up closer. —stay (sic)! 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry and not too fond about the composition (cut off tree on the right, horizon in the middle, too much sky). Might be worth taking in another season (with greener grass), in different weather conditions and at different time of day (early morning or late afternoon). bamse (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg
Comment Why did you move the nomination to the top of the stack ? I moved it back to its original place. I think you're pushing a bit too hard for promoting it...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2011 at 12:30:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Sexten Dolomites.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Sexten Dolomites.jpg
NeutralSupport Quality still isn't great, but it is OK for FP. However, I don't really like the composition, and that dark rock face on the right is too imposing. I suggested a re-crop. --TheHighFinSpermWhale19:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2011 at 15:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lago Selvaggio2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lago Selvaggio2.jpg
Support The image is at approximately 6.65 megapixels. Not sure if it was cropped, but the quality is acceptable as a FP. —stay (sic)! 06:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2011 at 16:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Motocross in Yyteri 2010 - 55.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Motocross in Yyteri 2010 - 55.jpg
Oppose not bad but not featured quality. Unfortunate overlap of wheel with ground/brown line and head with tree. --ELEKHHT11:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photographer tried to follow the motorbike giving the background a moving effect but did not succeed, making both the background and the subject unclear. Could have been solved with a higher aperture, though. (Gussisaurio (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2011 at 16:10:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus sylvestris Yyteri.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pinus sylvestris Yyteri.jpg
Oppose This picture's aspect ratio means that it is what was saved from a snapshot, which is of much lesser value than a very well thought and composed picture of the same subject. Why a fragment of a snapshot has to be featured? (Gussisaurio (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose There is a reflection in the water on the left that does not appear on the land. Leave both or edit out both but never just one. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2011 at 16:11:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis.jpg
Oppose What is the bird looking at? It mortifies me not to know, the bird makes me think that what it is looking at is much more important than itself, the subject of this picture. Composition could have been much better, imagine this picture in landscape orientation with the subject at far right and the remaining space filled with the blurred background, it wouldn't still show what it is looking at, but definitely would have been a much better and pleasing composition. (Gussisaurio (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2011 at 19:09:06 (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 20 Jul 2011 at 23:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rick.A2009290.2020.250m.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rick.A2009290.2020.250m.jpg
Support A beautiful image of the second-most powerful E. Pacific hurricane while at its peak strength. Mother Nature's fury. —stay (sic)! 06:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 11:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow July 2011-3a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow July 2011-3a.jpg
Oppose There are some points that i dislike about this image. At first it is huge in file size. That is ok. But it looks upscaled to me. No point inside the image is sharp. That means it is a bit unnecessary large (size as well as file size). The second thing are the colors. They have very low contrast, even if i consider the color washed out. On the other hand there are very dark areas which are immediately black. The next point is the perspective. I can assume that perspective correction was applied. But it is overdone, giving the pillars a strange, distorted look. (Shot from close below, corrected as if shot from far away, doesn't work in this case) Additionally i dislike the crop at the top. Overall to many flaws to be a featured picture in my opinion. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係15:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fifteen images on the D80 would give 150 megapixels to start with. Even after downscaling to 50 megapixels (approx 3:1 downscale ratio) The top portion of the image lacks sharpness. As Niabot also points out, the contrast is quite low. --Jovian Eyetalk16:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- No downscale at all, poor mathematics ... and a clumsy assessment. A typical high quality jpeg image on the D80 is 2.5 Mb and 15*2.5=27.5 Mb (not 150). Moreover in most panoramas there should be substancial overlap between adjacent images, close to 25-30% in both directions. I never downscale my images nothwidstanding the fact that they would appear sharper that way. The reason for that should be obvious to all competent reviewers, as this subject has been discussed more than a couple of times here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not that simple. We've to take into account the overlapping area. Let assume it's a 5x3 mosaic of landscape photos with 20% overlapping area, as often recommended. My calculation give me 8500x8800. If I'm right, this picture is not downscaled, but only cropped. Since it looks to use rectilinear projection, the soft upscaled parts can't be avoided. - Benh (talk)
Comment Yeah, clumsy calculation on my part! I just did rough calculation in my head and not a precision simulation. But, lets not be clumsy and confuse megapixels with megabytes (which I was not referring about) [10.2*15=153 megapixels]. --Jovian Eyetalk22:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral tight crop in the top.. but I dislike most the prespective correction.. these quality/sharpening issues is not a problem.. we shouldn't accept as FP only images with the latest high-tech low noise digital sensor, or the highest quality lens.. Ggia (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I will prepare a new nomination addressing some of the issues. As for the tight crop, no chance of doing it otherwise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 15:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:American Lady Against The Sky.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:American Lady Against The Sky.jpg
Oppose The composition is striking, but unfortunately this is low quality compared to some of the insects captured with good macro lenses. --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flower is not complete, which is perturbing since the butterfly is not centered, this means the subject are both the butterfly AND the flower, but the flower, again, is cropped. This mistake is unforgivable in composing a picture. (Gussisaurio (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 15:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Enallagma cyathigerum 13(loz).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Enallagma cyathigerum 13(loz).jpg
Info A male Common Blue Damselfly (Enallagma cyathigerum) showing a very pronounced cold color, in the first light of the morning. All by Loz-- Loz (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That blue background is absolutely hideous. Just compare this picture with others around with the same subject but with green background. Why to feature this picture when we can feature one of the other more pleasing to look at ones. (Gussisaurio (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Info 've pulled up the brightness a bit, grudgingly, although the picture is better now, the mood of the morning is gone. Thanks for the hint with the vertical structure.--Loz (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 15:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ischnura elegans 18(loz).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ischnura elegans 18(loz).jpg
Oppose per Jupiter's eye. Maybe we should have an inter-Ischnura elegans competition (same for the other multiples) and only pick the really best of the (admittedly all excellent) bunch, so that the featured pic ("There can be only one") is finally the best commons has to offer. W.S.14:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 08:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ischnura elegans qtl13.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ischnura elegans qtl13.jpg
Oppose Very good technically does have a wow factor, but how many Blue-tailed Damselflies are we going to feature? I was browsing through the FP gallery on Arthropods. We already have 1, 2, 3 The files listed are all Ischnura elegans. For Enallagma cyathigerum we have another bunch. --Jovian Eyetalk11:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule that we cannot have two or more featured pictures of the same subject? We do already have, for example, four featured bald eagles, mallards, moons and Frankfurt skylines. Please note that the females of these damselflies come in five different color schemes (see Ischnura elegans#Females), this one is the violacea form. --Quartl (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, but per other opposers. There's a feeling of déjà vu. Not the hardest macro subject also (probably a reason we have so many FP of similar subjects). - Benh (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 11:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leopard in Heat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leopard in Heat.jpg
Oppose There is a nice sharpness here, but this tree in the front of leopard is in appreciably bigger focus then the main object (this leopard); and the composition isn't so great, also. Alexdiscussion15:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 16:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mountain biking .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mountain biking .jpg
Comment For God sake, what is bike accidentally doing there, on Mountain biking.JPG, and even in foreground ?! ...so Request Mr. Werner, please take full review before voting. --Mile (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is creative and the compo is not bad but technically it lets you down: lots of CA (on the bike and on the treetops) and also some oversharpening haloes. W.S.14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As B.W. Terrible combination - nice nature of mountains and metalic monster, which causes problems to normal walking tourists all the time now! --Karelj (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the creator purposely placed the bicycle on the foreground for a reason. Otherwise the file wouldn't be named Mountain biking. —stay (sic)! 11:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 08:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orthetrum cancellatum qtl2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orthetrum cancellatum qtl2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2011 at 08:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Quiraing Isle of Skye Pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Quiraing Isle of Skye Pano.jpg
Oppose The sky appears to have too many shades of blue for what seems to be a partially sunny day. Also how come the clouds do not leave any noticeable shadows on the ground? —stay (sic)! 06:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info It’s very interesting what some people can read everything from a picture. For the bright colors and different blue in the sky is a polarizing filter responsible. God for the clouds ;-) The colors can i reduced. I’m not going to paint shadows on the ground. --Ritchyblack (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the image too, but something doesn't feel right here. Maybe you've edited or Photoshopped the picture? —stay (sic)! 09:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is composed and tonal values corrected wiht "Gigapano" and gradation curve edited wiht PS-CS3 and some bad crossings repaired. (Sorry, i do not speak English. I use google translator) --Ritchyblack (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo. Colours ok for Scotland (I presume you did not push them artificially). Some cloud shadows on the ground can be seen indeed. (And no sign of HDR Kitsch). -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although I support, I might suggest to drop some strength from the yellow color. I haven't been to Scotland yet, but I believe the yellows are still a bit too strong or saturated aren't they? The use of polarizing filter doesn't bother me this time. --Ximonic (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm removing the weak from my support now when I realized that you've reduced the saturation a little. To me it doesn't look as artificial anymore, and I really hope it is truthfully depicting the reality. But I find it quite good now, thanks. --Ximonic (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having been there I can confirm that those colours are a most unatural treatment for the area. The odd thing is that the more natural burnt orange of the ground cover is even more striking! Not sure why the author would feel the need to make the change we see here. Great picture though and I love the lone individual way off in the distance standing near the cliff edge. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 15:22:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris July 2011-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris July 2011-2.jpg
Info Stree artist at La Place du Tertre, Paris. It was a surprise to realize that these people are probably the same artists I found there in the sixties! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't this a copyright violation? I don't see the permission by the artist and can't consider the drawing de minimis. FOP would not apply anyways. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係16:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm no specialist in copyright but it is obvious that the subject of the photo is the act of painting, not the drawing. I will obviously accept the veredict of the community but a proper DR should be started (I removed the tag someone inserted in the file as it is not applicable). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I opened a deletion request. Im not sure about this, but after German law it wouldn't even fall under FOP. Since France does not have FOP at all, we should make sure to decide whether or not. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係19:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2011 at 12:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anna Calvi-IMG 6062.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anna Calvi-IMG 6062.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2011 at 19:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpg
Support -- File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg was recently promoted to FP. As suggested in that FPC discussion, this is a version with the frame cropped (and some additional metadata). All existing uses of alternative images have been replaced with this one, so it has 19 uses in articles on 16 projects. I'm proposing moving the FP tags from File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg to this new version. Although both should be retained, I think the version without the frame is more appropriate for use in most articles and for featuring on the front page. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to think that way some faces from Picasso would have strange proportions (which is true, but do we really care ?) - Benh (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you are pointing me to but but it seems to me that here, the emphasis is given on the colour, texture and mood more than perspective accuracy (might be wrong of course). In manga drawing, issues on proportions and perspective are more annoying. - Benh (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably certain this image accurately depicts the distorted perspective used by van Gogh in his original painting. There are several nearly identical versions from various other sources on Commons, as shown below. Dcoetzee (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I looked at the "with-frame" version and saw that the border between the painting and the frame is not perfectly linear. If you crop the frame out, you also crop out bits of paint. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, any rectangular crop will always remove some of the painting, because no painting is perfectly rectangular. Nevertheless most paintings on Commons are rectangular crops. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 17:19:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I love dredgers and the ship itself is not bad, but what happened to the sea? Processing has made it look ... solid!. W.S.17:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 17:19:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question Is it an "alternative" version ? I think it is another picture (lighthouse...), therefore another nomination...--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is another picture, of the same subject. I thought it can be regarded as an alternative. Maybe I'm not sufficiently familiar with the rules. You can cancel the alternative suggestion, as I know the number of nominations by the same user is restricted. Tomer T (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2011 at 09:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vladislav Korshunov 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vladislav Korshunov 6.jpg
Support A clear background means this is a studio picture, very rare in Commons pictures. Thus, should be featured. I love the harsh lighting and strong shadows. (Gussisaurio (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment A clear background means, that Mmxx has edited it that way. I liked the original upload featuring vignetting and a scratch on his forehead. Please consider using {{Retouched picture}} to explicitly communicate any changes to an image. A short notion in the file's changelog is not really self-explanatory. Regards, PETER WEISTALK06:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some scars from his forehead and arm, do you think I should upload the retouched image with a new name? I'm not sure if they were some temporary scars or permanent ones (which could be part of subjects personality) ■ MMXX talk19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I strongly recommend this for each and every derivative of an original. It'll help people to refer to an original, and they don't have to look anything up in the file history. Especially if working with archival material, this becomes handy. You must not destruct the integrety of original works by simply overwriting them. Since we don't have a capacity issue here on Commons you can invest some extra bytes in uploading new images instead of overwriting the old ones. There are various systems on how to denote your edits in a proper way. I tend to use the aforementioned template for retouched versions and add "original" or "edit" to the image's filename when appropriate. Just a suggestion - see other works to find out what works best for you. Regards, PETER WEISTALK23:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2011 at 08:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Villa Ephrussi de Rothschild BW 2011-06-10 11-24-41.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Villa Ephrussi de Rothschild BW 2011-06-10 11-24-41.JPG
Oppose The water mirror is not centered, neither is symmetrical, this means this is just a snapshot instead of a well thought and planned and composed photograph. This picture as it is is not remarkable, thus I vote not to feature it. (Gussisaurio (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Support A little bit soft, but otherwise very good. The discussion about the (not) centered composition is rather funny, because centered compositions are mostly declined here as being "boring" and "uninspired"... -- MJJR (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Symmetry is the main feature of the object, so it should be photographed accordingly. I understand it might not be possible here, but still it is a shortcoming that prevents it from being good enogh for FP. -- H00521:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 10:03:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose To me, nothing different with other bugs mountain panoramas. I find here nothing visually "special". Horizon is in the middle, and I've read sometimes here that it is a major composition issue, enough for an "opposition" vote... Almost all the quarter below has only sad grey stone to show, and it is not very pretty. I understand this picture is probably a technical feat, I know I'm not able to do this, but it really don't "speak" to me. I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. A good quality photo, but a boring composition and lighting (Although one have to reach the place and summits are annotated) - Benh (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 01:59:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Arnoia. Río Miño-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Arnoia. Río Miño-8.jpg
Oppose This is a rather bland image with little value and odd distractions in the foreground that negatively affect the mirror image effect. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 16:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anosino Monastery 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anosino Monastery 04.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 11:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baltimore Inner Harbor Skyline Night Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baltimore Inner Harbor Skyline Night Panorama.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2011 at 21:56:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:US Declaration of Independence us0036 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Declaration of Independence us0036 03.jpg
Neutral Has very high educational value, important and historical document of a country. But I think Commons is not an American-centric project. —stay (sic)! 09:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Agree. Commons definitely should not be American-centric, but the United States Declaration of Independence is one of the most celebrated manifestos for human freedom and self government in the history of western civilization. We shouldn't let its country of origin detract from its worldwide historical value. Scewing (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThanks to PW for the link just above ! As French, I agree (especially today, 14th of July, Bastille day as you say in english ), that "Commons" must not be an American-centric project. Moreover, as for me, it is not. But I think that this document has a worldwide very high historical and educational value, and is a precious treasure of (and for) all the mankind, like this one maybe. And the version seems to be "the best "Commons" can offer" IMO. No problem for a support vote.--Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This declaration is very valuable i think, so perhaps one more missed rule in VI scope. Those who set it should seriously reconsider some "updating". Otherwise not much FP here, even bad IQ - I dont see any use of huge resolution seeking chemical substance. There is one Feautered on EN.Wiki at normal-more than enough-size. --Mile (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's really that important to change the guidelines - there's nothing that prevents you from doing it yourself. Start a discussion on VI, on village pump or ask directly those who edited the current guidelines. As for high resolution: possible usages of high resolution images are very obvious. Printing, digital wallpapers, derivative digital art and scientific research are just a few examples where high resolution images comes in handy. This platform is not a mere image deliverer for wikipedia - it's about people and their projects, their needs. It's always possible to downscale a high res version of an image, whereas upscaling comes along with a massive loss of quality (lossless image formats). Regards, PETER WEISTALK07:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I judge just what is seen, not what could be seen. Primary use is Wiki anyway. Those working science out of it will surely get on the spot, with some other $$$ equipement, otherwise migth be ending-up hobby class is delivering to science class - pharse. --Mile (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what makes this a featured image. It is valuable, but not pleasing to the eye. A bunch of text and some signatures... --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg
Comment Why did you move the nomination to the top of the stack ? I moved it back to its original place. I think you're pushing a bit too hard for promoting it...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 17:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Me109 at Airpower11 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Me109 at Airpower11 07.jpg
Picture of a Messerschmitt Bf109, the standard fighter of german Luftwaffe during WWII. This is an original BF109G owned by EADS. The picture has an interesting view into the cockpit, much details (pilot, antenna) as a nice addon you can see the shadow of the cockpit on the left wing. The aircraft is sharp but you can see the moving propellor. Exif data is available, coordinates as well.
Oppose Size in Mb is irrelevant. Resolution is, and here more than OK. Technically this image fails however. It is very soft (no details) and has some disturbing CA. W.S.13:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm sorry: is this plane an original, as said above, or a replica, as described in the file description page ? Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg
Comment Why did you move the nomination to the top of the stack ? I moved it back to its original place. I think you're pushing a bit too hard for promoting it...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2011 at 06:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tetes de veaux.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tetes de veaux.jpg
Support and now for something completely different! not the best image from a technical pov, yet it's unique and has a high ev. regards, PETER WEISTALK15:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2011 at 04:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Agree with H005, proper ID is not vital in this picture, which represents just a detail of the whole animal. Excellent technical quality (focus satcking plus the Canon 65mm macro monster, I suppose) and stunning picture, of high educational value. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg
Comment Why did you move the nomination to the top of the stack ? I moved it back to its original place. I think you're pushing a bit too hard for promoting it...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2011 at 00:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Casa merida.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casa merida.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2011 at 14:40:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question As I'm nor an anatomist neitehr an ophtalmologist, I have a question: is this picture complete ? Is there nothing else than eye and his muscles to be shown only, is it normal for the bone of the skull to be "naked" like this ? I'm not sure about the full educational value of this design... Moreover, the blue background is noisy...--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right, for sure, regularly around the eye there are many tissues (as you know there are epithelial tissue, connective tissue, muscle tissue and nervous tissue; specifically for this presentation we need muscle and nervous tissue, to highlight the main point — the eye and its connection to brain.) The author has wanted to present only the anatomy of the eye (the sclera, cornea, retina, pupil... ...and nervous connection of the eye and brain, that's the optic nerve and retinal blood vessels) — we need only muscle and nervous tissue here, so showing complete facial musculature around the eye would be pointless for educative experience of the picture. I hope u're getting this. Alexdiscussion22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I am 2nd class student at High Medical School, I can very precisely figure out what's good on this photo. It is about a very well and creative illustrated image of human eye anatomy. Also, it's kind of remarkable resolution and sharpness, but that noise could be fixed in alternative version. Anyway, this is amazing and I'll support it in advance. Alexdiscussion21:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support For educational value regarding human anatomy. The noise in the blue background can easily be cleaned out. —stay (sic)! 00:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2011 at 02:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hairpin turns on Kapsodasos to Kallikratis road.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hairpin turns on Kapsodasos to Kallikratis road.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg
Comment Why did you move the nomination to the top of the stack ? I moved it back to its original place. I think you're pushing a bit too hard for promoting it...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2011 at 23:45:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yucatan capilla.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yucatan capilla.jpg
Oppose You do excellent work, Tomas, but the angle of this shot looks crooked. The focus also gets fuzzy on the left side of the photo. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The perspective is the issue. This is true DSLR sharpness! The mild fuzziness in the corners is expected from a lot of lenses. --Jovian Eyetalk02:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2011 at 14:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stéphane Guillon Montreux Comedy Festival 2010 (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stéphane Guillon Montreux Comedy Festival 2010 (2).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2011 at 20:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Long time I haven't self nom, but I really love this one, and it's a bit different from what we usually see over here. Hope you share my opinion. - Benh (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it's a view of the inside of the envelope taken from near the throat, but it's hard to tell... especially since this shot makes it look like the largest balloon I've ever seen if it is indeed taken from the inside. I would like this specified in the description. From a technical standpoint, it seems kind of titled CCW, and there's something in the upper-left of the shot. –Juliancolton | Talk20:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a view from inside, which I forgot to mention. I fixed this. As for the tilt you talk about, I'm afraid there's not much I can do.. That's just the pattern from how the envelope lies on the ground. If worth it, I may try to clone out the "something" on the upper left, which is part of the "throat", or nominate an alternative. Thanks for the review. - Benh (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer that alternative to this one. The wider, seemingly more open view is more appealing to me visually, but it's your decision. Nice pics regardless. –Juliancolton | Talk02:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Oppose interesting, but there are two disturbing points (IMO): 1. the top left corner and 2. the fact that the man is oof (needed a smaller aperture, then a longer exposure time, then a tripod and then the man would be in motion blur... very difficult :-/) --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was lucky that I caught the moment, before being chased away :) I don't even remember if I took the time to set the camera... :) - Benh (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea, nice picture. That's an extra-ordinary situation and photograph, a very little bit noisy. I prefer the alternative version due to the "thing" left above which is a bit distracting from the symmetry, but it is (another time) a very good shot in my opinion. Maybe a crop or a cloning out of the "thing" ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I cloned out the annoying part on upper left corner, but it doesn't show on any thumbnail (Mediawiki looks to have issues with images caches it generates) - Benh (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different. Either version would do, but I slightly prefer this one. The OOF man is a little blemish. W.S.07:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the wider view, but I'm missing the pose of the man and here the crop at right is really bad. The other version is much better! --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I prefer it as an alternate - there's no way we should feature *both*, even if both have >7 supports. --99of9 (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg
Comment Why did you move the nomination to the top of the stack ? I moved it back to its original place. I think you're pushing a bit too hard for promoting it...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2011 at 15:44:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil (black and white).jpg
Comment Why did you move the nomination to the top of the stack ? I moved it back to its original place. I think you're pushing a bit too hard for promoting it...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2011 at 12:57:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spider crab in SPb aquarium.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spider crab in SPb aquarium.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2011 at 19:40:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:JackXArik.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:JackXArik.png
Comment As an example for shōnen ai artwork, I think the picture is of high artistic and also illustrative merit. We do not have much images for illustrating this sujet and its a good example for an picture made with copic marker and pencil.
"I" don't talk about what you call "shōnen-ai", even if it is, as usual, a very major feature of contemporary japanese culture. "You" did. To me, something looks wrong with this kiss (is it a kiss, or something else, in the contemporary japanese culture ? Sorry if I'm wrong, I'm not a specialist as you may see. But I've some ideas about kisses...). Well, the position of the mouth and of the lips looks unnatural to me. Maybe could the uploader answer ? --Jebulon (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@both: Where are the problems? The lips of the right guy are on the lips of the left guy, so you can only see the lower lip. And the left arm of the right guy is layed around the right, hands on his neck. Try this with a person within reach, you will succeed! And last its not the purpose of the picture to be anatomical correct in all details, it shows cartoon characters. --Don-kun (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My friend Niabot isn't far! =) Try to imagine where would the elbow, rejoining the hand and shoulder. You want a drawing? Otherwise I find the image quite good!--Citron (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I see a trivial drawing of a boy kissing a girl. What makes this picture special other than the allegation that these are two boys kissing? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2011 at 20:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kuppel Kleine Hagia Sophia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kuppel Kleine Hagia Sophia.jpg
This image of the dome is shot by me yesterday (19 July 2011). Natural day-lighting was coming from the circular windows of the dome (the lights inside the Mosque were turned off). It is clear that in this nomination the white balance is wrong and the image has a general pink color which is not natural. Greetings from Istanbul. Ggia (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking metadata, improper notation of digital editing (please consider using {{Retouched image}}), symmetry could be improved, the subject has almost no structure and its colours look rather flat, sharpness could be more crisp. regards, PETER WEISTALK08:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the middle there s a cord which is hanging a lamp from the dome that you removed.. look here. and seems the colors flat - over-processed.. Ggia (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I did take a note that the cable was removed (see upload history)! The colours in my image are as close as you can get to how they really look, that other image you linked to has awful colours that aren't even close to how it really looks there! (Compare it to all the other pictures on Commons.) As for the "crispness", please note that the painting itself is rather soft in many areas as they tried to make it look three-dimensional through artificial shadows. -- H00521:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the colors of the other image are close to the lighting conditions the time the image has taken.. there is no comparison between the two image.. And it is not mentioned that the other image has to get the FP status instead of this one. Ggia (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The removal of the cable was not that easy and was quite successful. But it looks tilted (although it is a ceiling). It should have been rotated so that symmetry is perfect. Also, EXIF can be restored from the original. W.S.17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to all for their comments. Unfortunately it was impossible to take the photo in full symmetry because you'd have to go directly under the top point of the dome, and then the lamp hanging down would cover the center od the painting. I will nonetheless try to improve the symmetry by manipulations. As for the white balance: This is made from a raw file without changing the white balance. @Ggia: Other images found on the internet have various colours, but check out e.g. a Google search [5] - I believe that most images are closer to the colours of my image than to your photo from Tuesday, but you find both. It may be a matter of the actual light falling in through the windows. It was a cloudy day when I was there IIRC. -- H00522:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2011 at 16:04:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Птенец белой трясогузки.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Птенец белой трясогузки.jpg
Neutral Something looks wrong with the color saturation or white balance, and there is a distracting, out-of-focus leaf in the foreground on the left. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2011 at 07:46:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía, Valencia - Jan 2007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía, Valencia - Jan 2007.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 06:13:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dom Berlin 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dom Berlin 01.JPG
Question Would you share what settings and processing was done to achieve this ? I think it really has the potential for FP, but I wonder how it ended up this soft. - Benh (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is the ceiling of an arch, about as this [6], and this was also the form of the original. The correction to right angle was done by using the perspective correction of photoshop elements successively several times (It was not possible to do the correction in one step because of the strong curvature). --Llez (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In my opinion, the curved surface is a mitigating reason, and the votes were a bit unfair. Would be worth nominating it again in the future. - Benh (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2011 at 23:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SAR speedboat.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SAR speedboat.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 16:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anosino Monastery 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anosino Monastery 05.jpg
I'm not that lucky to have eagle's eyes, but I wonder which argument Kallerna, who (randomly?) opposes all of my candidatures, will think up for my next file to candidate. - A.S.11:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haloes on light/dark interfaces originate in camera but are often quite limited to absent. They are however reinforced by sharpening an image and can the become very visible, as is the case here (assuming it was sharpening). About the othe part of your comment, I don't believe Kallerna is targeting anyone, he is only a bit more critical than most here around (I'm even worse), trying to raise the standard of promoted images. W.S.11:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The territories to the south of the cathedral are not allowed for visitors. Besides, it is possible that the tower of the gate church would then disturb in the background. - A.S.08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2011 at 18:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Luang Prabang Monks Alm Dawn 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luang Prabang Monks Alm Dawn 01.jpg
Support It's soft, noisy (no choice, but pushing ISO as far as I could given low light conditions), and maybe I should have stepped on the left, but I haven't seen similar pictures over here lately, so I hope you won't mind too much. And do we have FP from Laos ? -- Benh (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This situation had the potential for a great picture, despite noise and technical shrotcomings. Camera position and the timing are not the best to qualify this as FP. The person on top of one of the monks, the cut oof group on the right, the position of the faces, etc. Valuable, yes, FP no, IMO.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2011 at 13:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sainte-Sophie - mosaïque de la Déisis - Pantocrator.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sainte-Sophie - mosaïque de la Déisis - Pantocrator.jpg
Support but it will be nice idea to be present as FPC with a full set of images (with the left and the right figures from the same mosaic). Ggia (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was yesterday in Aya Sofia and I have shot these mosaics.. the left figure was half under shadow but the right was ok.. when I will be back home I will upload some of them. I just mentioned that here because this is a good example of how a set of 3 images could be nominated for FPC. Ggia (talk)
Oppose shows only part of the mosaic, and quality could be better (I guess it was perspective fixed, since it's taken at 28mm). In the end, it doesn't really make justice to how beautiful this is (I was there as well). - Benh (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 17:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Do-IMG 7046.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Do-IMG 7046.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2011 at 04:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment -- Hmm, I don't think it's just a big picture; see, this is the only point where you can see both cities, and the sea. This particular lookout is quite interesting to people, also because Caracas city is situated 1000 mts a.s.l. You can notice the height difference in the picture. The Avila chain separates Caracas from the sea, all along: is not just a mountain. I thought this could be interesting, mostly due to the lack of material and decent pictures for the Avila National park. -- Paolostefano1412 (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- How could I, in your opinion, achieve better framing and composition in this spot, any suggestions? (Panoramic can't be taken from top of the mountain because plants and trees block the view). I'm planning to go back to this place soon. -- Paolostefano1412 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think it`s a matter of light. Most of the picture is dark gray and blue. Should add some EV. And to do so, I would need a cloudless, blue day, which is highly difficult to have on top of that mountain. As for the composition, I would add a row of images on the vertical axis. Crop came too tight I think. Then I could play with the curves in the composition. But as I said, climate is very unpredictable in this place, maybe you are right and a FP won't be possible from here. We`ll see how wheather behaves next time I climb to the top. For now, I`m retiring the nomination.-- Paolo (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves. Tomer T (talk) 13:08 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2011 at 04:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caracas City from Bello Monte.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caracas City from Bello Monte.jpg
Neutral I was originally going to oppose due to the murky details and haze, but when I viewed the full resolution version, I was pleasantly surprised by how little sensor noise there was in the image—enough to change my opposition into neutrality. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2011 at 15:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metz Porte des Allemands R07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metz Porte des Allemands R07.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2011 at 12:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruwenpflanzen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruwenpflanzen.jpg
Plants in the Ruwenzori Mountains, SW-Uganda, Bujuku Valley, in about 3700 m altitude. Center back, hung with lichen, a high tree-Erica, way forward both hands "trees" with bright green leaves (Dendrosenecio adnivalis) and Lobelia, and in front of straw flowers
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: below size requirements Tomer T (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2011 at 19:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cervino (3).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cervino (3).JPG
Oppose A pretty picture of a wonderful mountain. However, I would prefer a much better quality (even the resolution does not really retrieve it) in such a view. In my opinion, the mountain is so popular and much photographed piece of rock that it really needs a higher quality picture to be featured. Interesting thing in this picture is that it hasn't been taken from the most ordinary direction. But I would still like a FP to be somewhat more sharp so it would overcome the other Matterhorn pictures. --Ximonic (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2011 at 21:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Morgendliche Krinnenspitze.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morgendliche Krinnenspitze.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The mountain Krinnenspitze with some lighted parts of the rising sun seen from the small Austrian town Nesselwängle (Tyrol, Austria).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2011 at 15:21:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stirling - George Evelyn-Leslie, 13th Earl of Rothes cropped.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stirling - George Evelyn-Leslie, 13th Earl of Rothes cropped.jpg
Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Claus - nominated by Claus
Oppose As author. Thanks for the nomination and for your interest, but I don't really see anything special in this picture. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 09:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Geranium sylvaticum, gynoecium.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geranium sylvaticum, gynoecium.jpg
Oppose dust spots, faked meta data, disturbing elements in the composition (see notes), noisy, focus seems good to me but the DOF is really, really much too shallow (too many unsharp parts). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2011 at 20:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neil Armstrong.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neil Armstrong.jpg
Support as nominator. The technical quality of the photo is nothing too special, but the historical context is of deep significance. Armstrong had just finished his Lunar EVA, becoming the first human to walk on the moon. After Armstrong took off his helmet, his fellow astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin took this photograph, showing Armstrong's disheveled but exhilarated expression. No other photograph in existence captures this purely human side of the first lunar landing. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The version I nominated is substantially restored and enhanced compared to, e.g., this version and this version. I'm not sure much else can be done without blowing out the lighter portions. Here's a quick mock-up of a brighter version, though I'm sure there are many people in Commons more qualified to do this than I am. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very valuable picture indeed, but for FP photographic quality is inevitably required. Consider nominating it for VI. -- H00515:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 13:07:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Water Museum in Spb (summer day).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Water Museum in Spb (summer day).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2011 at 15:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anadarko Tower.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anadarko Tower.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2011 at 22:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow July 2011-4a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow July 2011-4a.jpg
Info Saint Basil's Cathedral, Red Square, Moscow. Erected in 1555-61, on the order of Ivan the Terrible. Photographed from west, under a beautiful evening light. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Yes, I agree that the crop on the bottom is way too tight. But the alternative was worse, as the space in the foreground was crowded with tourists. Not only they were too distracting for the gorgeous subject but stitching those photos would have been close to impossible. A shame, really. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there was no crop at the bottom, then all the mass of people in front of the cathedral at this day time would disturb, I suppose. The other possible camera perspective which provides good light at early morning (own example) is less fortunate than this one, due to less available details of the cathedral facade. - A.Savin11:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image but.. I don't like the shadow in the right bottom. I think it is feasible to have an image from the same angle without this shadow. Ggia (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadow and the tight crop do disturb, yes, but not nearly enough to discredit such a beautiful pic. It's to be featured imo. Tourists can't just disappear, could be the best crop possible at day. Paolo (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2011 at 10:23:55 (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 Jul 2011 at 10:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coreopsis July 2011-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coreopsis July 2011-2.jpg
Oppose three centered overlapping flowers on an image with shallow DOF and a disturbing background are not featured to me, sorry. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The picture is gorgeous, as the flowers. Nice colors and technically very good in general. But then, there's so much distraction in the background, and I've seen so many pictures that received several negative votes for having disturbing objects in the bottom, that I wonder which criteria should apply here. --Paolo (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2011 at 23:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Bradley - The Menahan Street Band (Jazz Fest Wien 2011) 14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Bradley - The Menahan Street Band (Jazz Fest Wien 2011) 14.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2011 at 20:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marmotta alpina (2).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marmotta alpina (2).JPG
Oppose This specific camera seems to be renowned for its aggressive smoothing of the details in order to hide the noise from its sensor. This picture demonstrates this shortcoming. --MAURILBERT(discuter)21:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2011 at 21:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mont St Michel 2, Brittany, France - July 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mont St Michel 2, Brittany, France - July 2011.jpg
Oppose for the original version because of missing contrast and low sharpness the edited version because of unrealistic colors the alt. version because of very poor lighting (too shady) and unsharpness --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the original version; Support for the edited version; and Oppose for the alternative version. The colors in the edited version look more appealing to me. However the bright clouds in the alternative version are distracting from the main subject. —stay (sic)! 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC) See below.[reply]
Alvesgaspar is right, I'll make a new section for edited version, please move your votes to the appropriate section, thank you. ■ MMXX talk16:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to mention that the photograph seems to be tilted clockwise a little, not as straight as it could be. Everything is a little bit leaning to the right. Something makes me see it even if this occured just very little. --Ximonic (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the edited version, the colors simply look more "colorful" to me (sorry my vocabulary is really bad to think of a better word). Although I've never been to Brittany, I don't see why the edited version looks unreal. —stay (sic)! 02:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2011 at 21:24:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fontainebleau, France - July 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of Fontainebleau, France - July 2011.jpg
Oppose: nice motive, but I don't like the crop at left, also the distortions are a bit disturbing, IMO. The lighting so-so (very nice sky; the right facade is completely shady; at the centered facade, the light is very harsh) and the whole image is oversharpened. Overall really not featured. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sharpness, you can't have it both ways. This hasn't been sharpened, only downsampled. And when I don't downsample as per the Mont St Michel image below, you say it has low sharpness. How can anyone please you when you're picking apart an image like that? ;-) Diliff (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think may be tripping on acid, but the distortions are what makes this image particularly special. —stay (sic)! 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any image with a wide panoramic projection 'doesn't look like that', but that's not the point. There's no other way of capturing and displaying images with a wide view on a computer screen. When you view a panorama, you need to accept that you're sacrificing 'geometric realism' for the ability to see a wider view of the subject. The alternative is a more realistic view that doesn't actually show you nearly as much of the building. You might have a preference for that but it doesn't have the same purpose. Diliff (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though at least minor error stitching left. Easily the best photo of the castle in the english article. And I more than agree with David on the projection issue... how come no one complains about Antartica being so huge on earth maps ? On the other hand, I also have to admit the square shape information go the castle is kind of lost here (at least hard to figure out). And we have to give credit to author for getting the sun window, the weather is horrible in July in Paris and around... - Benh (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you support/sympathy Benh. I thought I was quite lucky at least get the shadows mostly even on both sides, as it's impossible for two opposing sides to be sunlit and overcast days are never very aesthetic. I was cycling across France for two weeks and I think it rained 11 of 14 days, sometimes very heavily. Not great for photography. :-) Diliff (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2011 at 00:03:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Snow covered branches covering some sacral building? No FP-worthy content imho, neither is the technical quality (heavy CA in border regions) - Any1s (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2011 at 11:50:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of Yellow-headed Amazon Parrot.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of Yellow-headed Amazon Parrot.jpg
Oppose eye oof and overall low sharpness (I think because ISO 1.250), the beak and IMO too much of the head is hidden by the disturbing trunk --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like your camera has a crazy pixel. There's a very saturated green dot, at approx. one inch NorthEast of the eye. It's really easily clonable though. If it's to be featured, the pic should be corrected, and maybe you can focus the eye a little more too. I don't mind the peak not showing completely, the pose looks fine to me, it kinda looks like the parrot is looking over his shoulder. Very human-like. Interesting. --Paolostefano1412 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beak unsharp and eye OOF. Also not happy with the crop, but not sure, not having seen the whole bird, how it could have been improved. W.S.08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The composition could be better. Perhaps the bird could have been photographed in a different posture that avoided blurred feathers. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2011 at 12:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RJF at RIAT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RJF at RIAT.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2011 at 01:36:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple Saint Sava.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple Saint Sava.jpg
Comment I must disagree here. You could oppose for little detail, poor light, tight crop or other more important things in this picture, but halo effect really is not a problem here. Maybe in the thumbnail there seems to be a little HE, but in the actual size there`s almost no halo effect. Maybe some CA, but very little as well. Anyway, I`m not disagreeing just to disagree: I think critics should be fair. --Paolo (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you at liberty to give this image to a support. It is a very nice photo, but for me not technically perfect. I think it's fair. Further deficiencies. Denoise the drawing detail is lost. CA has already been mentioned. I look at the 100% view. The preview is perfect.--Ritchyblack (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info all by Łukasz [Wolf] Golowanow (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Łukasz [Wolf] Golowanow (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Neutral Quite good capture, but lacking resolution. Why only 70mm focal length? Would'nt there have been any possibility to take the picture at 200mm? Spoiled by the great images at airliners.net, I cannot support the candidature, sorry for this. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Good, but not extraordinary enough to be FP. Perhaps with a higher focal length and a different angle. -- LeavXC (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Comment All the photos are pixelized. And why does this call for a photomontage? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Weak support Might be better if the gender were equal. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 08:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination H. Krisp (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Question Is this downscaled? --Jovian Eye talk 23:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Keep Seems rare so I say keep unless there's a better alternative for the subject. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 13:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
1, 2. Tomer T (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
resolved.jpg)
Abstain as author. -- Grand-Duc (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
_2.JPG)
. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Request Look at he height of the grass horizontal segment, it is not the same height than the sky segment's. This unbalance breaks the composition and forces the viewer to look at the grass. This effect is not desired because the mountain at the horizon is much more remarkable than the grass itself. However, the peak of the mountain is almost touching the frame. This is a misleading composition. Can you please re-crop the picture so it gains the required balance, making the grass section of the same or lower height that the sky segment's? That would turn this in a much better and remarkable picture. (Gussisaurio (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC))
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
chromatic aberration on the mountain ridge. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Photo by User:Szilas
Repro from artbook
No source given
wt-group.com
), that "Commons" must not be an American-centric project. Moreover, as for me, it is not. But I think that this document has a worldwide very high historical and educational value, and is a precious treasure of (and for) all the mankind, like this one maybe. And the version seems to be "the best "Commons" can offer" IMO. No problem for a support vote.--Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
![75 File:Summit cross of the "Saukarkopf".JPG, not featured](#File:Summit_cross_of_the_"Saukarkopf".JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_2){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_3){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_4){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_5){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_6){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_7){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_14.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.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}
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/5f/20110628132037%2120110624_Fonias_first_Waterfall_Pont_Samothrace_Thrace_Greece_Panoramic.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_fea){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_fea){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.JPG){kind=link}
_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
![20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/July_2011#c-High_Contrast-2011-07-07T20:05:00.000Z-File:Summit_cross_of_the_"Saukarkopf".JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
![21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/July_2011#c-George_Chernilevsky-2011-07-17T21:00:00.000Z-File:Summit_cross_of_the_"Saukarkopf".JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2.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){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Fuwafuwa-chan.jpg#File:Fuwafuwa-chan.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:JackXArik.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Dojikko.png){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_2){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_2){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_3){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_3){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_4){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_4){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_5){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_5){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
DoF is appropriate. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_6){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_6){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_7){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured_7){kind=link}
_dome_Istanbul_Turkey.jpg)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arc_de_Triomphe_mg_6853.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_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}
_14.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg)
_14.jpg,_not){kind=link}
_14.jpg,_not){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
Fixed and thanks! --Jovian Eye talk 23:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
