Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2014 at 17:22:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coenonympha arcania LC0349.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coenonympha arcania LC0349.jpg
Info Pearly Heath (Coenonympha arcania); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Oppose 1. f/5 for shooting butterfly??? 2. Tornal area of hindwing is blur. Unacceptable for an FP. Entire butterfly should be in focus, except for blur antennae which is normal. 3. Not parallel/level = No wow. --Graphium01:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, situation demands bigger aperture to get enough sharpness in natural light. The choice of aperture depends on many factors, including backdrops. The blurred hind wing is "alignment" problem. I agree with you on "must be parallel". (As far as I know a 150mm (300mm eqv.) on E5 is an excellent combination for macros.) Jee03:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2014 at 17:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:New York Midtown Skyline at night - Jan 2006 edit1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:New York Midtown Skyline at night - Jan 2006 edit1.jpg
WeakSupport. I understand Claus's concerns, but apparently we don't have a similar picture of better resolution. (I'm actually quite surprised given how popular it is as a tourist destination.) We have File:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg but it's a different location and time of day. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I don't like Mfield's alteration of File:New York Midtown Skyline at night - Jan 2006.jpg, which seems fairly crude. The 4MP image wasn't considered large enough by some in 2008 at en:fp never mind 2014 (It was downsampled for technical reasons rather than in order to make a miserly donation). While I'd have no problem retaining this as an FP today (esp if no better has been taken) I don't think this represents the state of the art today. -- Colin (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment on the technicals of the image, it's not easy to shoot this scene hand-held (tripods are not allowed to be used), perhaps that's why we don't have a better image. A 1/40th second exposure at f/1/8 and ISO 800 is actually significantly darker than this image. It was brightened in post and downsampled as the noise was objectionable (as Colin mentioned, for technical reasons). Diliff (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2014 at 22:02:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:10 Upper Bank Street in London, spring 2013.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:10 Upper Bank Street in London, spring 2013.JPG
Oppose Composition doesn't bother me, but Saffron is right about the CA. Also, I'd add that the polarizer left a too-dark and noisy sky up top, along with clipping in the cloud. At the very least it could be retaken at a lower exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2014 at 23:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Motociclista en la Vereda del Lago.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Motociclista en la Vereda del Lago.jpg
Oppose Too busy background. I actually appreciate the mood the people in the background adds to the photo, but the timing of the shot just gives a too arbitrary view IMO. The file page could benefit from a geocode - adds value. Did you ask for consent for publication for commercial re-use from the identifiable people? I had a look at Commons:Country specific consent requirements, but Venezuela is not listed there. Do you (or anyone else seeing this) happen to know what the rules of consent for taking pictures of identifiable people are in Venezuela? That girl on the motorbike should tie her shoes - her shoe laces could easily get stuck in the rotating wheels. --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: Ah, OK. It was not clear to me, when I saw the photo first what the message was. Nor had I realised it was at a playground. But I understand now better what the purpose of the photo is. Perhaps its categorization should also reflect this inability to take care of children, such that re-users who look for such kinds of media files can find them by browsing thorugh the main category structure? Out of curiosity: Is it allowed in Venezuela to drive on a motorcycle without wearing a full helmet? --Slaunger (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Photographer: Yes, I am aware of the crime level in Venezuela. And do not get me wrong, when I oppose this image as FP. I appreciate you bring such subjects in as the material is valuable. We need that much more than pretty 'hoverfly on flower' pics on Commons. --Slaunger (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: I very much appreciate the helpful comments on cons. I'm not a collector FP, I'm a beginner photographer with a thirst to improve, wanting to be criticized because it helps me improve. I understand that many comments against are subjective, I also understand that most of the FP are beautiful and heavenly images. However, in some areas there is not much artistic ability to photograph beautiful buildings, flowers and rivers. The tragic, the violent and neglected despite showing no great wow factor, are those things that make us think as a society to look at us within ourselves and improve our sins. Thus, voting against help me improve my level and I value it more and also prefer this type of photographs sometimes tragic. thanks --The Photographer (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2014 at 07:51:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lilienstein Saxon Switzerland.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lilienstein Saxon Switzerland.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2014 at 06:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 07:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brasil camaroes 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brasil camaroes 3.jpg
Oppose Composition is too tight. The photo needs to be zoomed out to include more of the field, and more of the fans. It's very disturbing that Neymar's boots and that of his child mascot almost got cut off. If the boots problem had been addressed I would have supported. --Graphium16:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2014 at 15:57:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza Mayor de Madrid - 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza Mayor de Madrid - 01.jpg
Well, if you look around on the FPC nomination page it will hardly surprise you, that I have a sweet spot for symmetric buildings in Madrid in February 2014 . I am just perhaps not as good at it as you. --Slaunger (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Haha I see. It seems Commons users are coming to Madrid this year, that's nice! The España building is hard to take good pictures. If you look at the category, I think no one is really outstanding (and I have 17 there), yours is one of the best imo. I have remembered I took one at 13mm, but weather was bad: just uploaded. I'll be back one sunny day. --Kadellar (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadellar: Well, Madrid is a nice city with nice people! It is quite a good one you have uploaded (disregarding the dull light). I agree: You should go back and do it in good weather. Personally, I regret I did not take four photos for a panorama, while I was there. It would have given better DOF and detail level - and made alignment easier. The Edificio España certainly deserves an FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion on QIC, Pezi gently uploaded a new version, but I preferred this one. Shadows were actually hard that morning. --Kadellar (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2014 at 18:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sony A77 II.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sony A77 II.jpg
InfoLow-key lit photograph of the Sony α77 II camera with DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM kit lens. We have many "isolated on white" images of products and although they have undoubted utility, the result can be about as visually interesting as an eBay listing. I've gone for a different approach here with low-key lighting (softbox above, white reflector in front, black background). The result is a deliberately artistic effect rather than documenting every detail, though it captures (and indeed emphasises) aspects of the subject in a form that remains educationally useful. Hope you like it. Created, uploaded, nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your monitor is calibrated and your viewing conditions optimal. For example, the texture of the camera is visible to the bottom and the focus-control knob at the base is a very dark shade of grey. But I think you may be missing the point... -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the black background, the composition and I also appreciate how the lightning manages to capture the texture of the surface of the camera quite delicately on the upper side of the lens and around the controls on top of the house. However, I agree with Moroder and Yann that it could use a little light from yet another lightsource to lighten up the lower part a bit. --Slaunger (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMoroder, Yann, Slaunger: I've uploaded a new version with increased exposure and shadows. I'm reluctant to increase any further as the camera is black, not grey. The lighting style is supposed to have a considerable lighting ratio with typically one key light plus reflector, and sometimes even a substantial part of the subject in darkness (especially a black subject). The intention is not to simply produce this picture but with a black background. Btw, resources for diy monitor calibration can be found here and here. For examples of similar low-key images, see this Nikon advert, this, this, this Sony advert, this Sony leaflet and the latest Nikon 810. -- Colin (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Good quality but I'm having a very hard time discerning which parts of the picture are camera and which parts are background.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk21:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually don't challenge people's opposes, but in this case I am trying to understand why seeing all the camera is important when the intent of the image is to incite a mood in the viewer not provide a stock photo. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvinsong, if too much of the camera is black then either your monitor is not calibrated correctly or is poor quality (see links provided above). However, it is very much the intention that the camera should fade to black. So your oppose, frankly (sorry), seems to indicate you don't understand this very standard lighting technique. See Category:Low-key lighting (NSFW) for examples. -- Colin (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The minor issue of lighting people were discussing appears to have been addressed. I appreciate the attempt to bring something other than a standard product photo. After all... this is SPARTA Commons, not WP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. It looks professional and cool this way, and very eyecatching. I do not mind that much that not all details are shown, or dissapear into the black background. If people get interested they will soon find also the more usual pics, where all the encyclopedic details are shows. The other versions from the same setup are also helpful here. And: Congratz with the new camera!!(?) --Slaunger (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above, because : 1. I think product photography needs longer focal length ; 2. There's too much light IMO for the intended result. Maybe it should have come more from behind. That said it's a very nice attempt, and the result is still quite good (hence neutral ;-)). - Benh (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, and nice as a promo shot, but for the educational value, I'd rather like more light. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, this prejudice that our finest educational images must be fully lit with a blank white canvas is flawed and harmful to the project. To begin with, all notable features of this camera are clearly visible (such that they can be seen from this angle) so more light would not actually make the image more educationally useful. The three-dimensional form of this camera is actually more apparent in the nomination than a conventional Commons photograph. But even assuming some aspects of the camera were hidden by this lighting, does that make this form of lighting unsuitable or suboptimal for Commons? A project who's educational mission extends far beyond providing a thumbnail for a Wikipedia article. Leaf through a professional modern educational publication or website and you will not find endless brightly-lit-on-white product shots. For professional photo editors know that the reader deserves interesting pictures that engage the eye. If "fully lit" were a justification on Commons FP, then we wouldn't accept the countless nighttime shots of city scapes. We wouldn't celebrate silhouette (File:The Photographer.jpg or File:SMP May 2008-9a.jpg). Nor sunbeams (File:Chicago Union Station 1943.jpg or File:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg). And don't get me started on those who reject black-and-white as a medium, for if that was valid we'd miss out on File:Bicycle reflections.jpg and the wonderful File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg. At times, Commons FP has a very small mindset regarding what is excellent educational imagery. Look to see what the professionals use in their publications, not what amateurs have already produced on Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I think you take my comments too personally. As I said, your picture is good, and would certainly be appreciated by marketing people. But it doesn't change anything in my view. Try it as FP on the English Wikipedia if you think I am wrong. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not Wikipedia. But even so, I see no reason why it should fail on en:wp other than for the same misconceptions over what is educational. The reason I raise the issue isn't for my one picture, which I don't care if it passes or not, but to reject the principle you and others have claimed. That somehow a boring stock photo (which is photographed on white traditionally because that makes it easy extract with Photoshop and paste onto other backgrounds), is the only valid lighting for Commons objects. -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 18:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Exakta Varex with bellows and slide copier, one of the very early 135mm SLR cameras. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is extremely soft. Even at 50% reduction (6MP) it isn't sharp. The culprit seems to be the aperture of f/22 for a superzoom lens on a crop-sensor camera. Compare the resolution charts for the 18-200 with a cheap 50mm prime. The prime is not only much sharper at its best aperture but also holds up much better to being stopped down for increased DoF. Wrt exposure/lighting, too much of the lens barrel is blown out (though I accept lighting shiny curved metal is hard). -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review. You are right - this lens was not the best choice here. I'll try it again later with my 50mm f/1.8. --P e z i (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P e z i, see Benh's comments on my own FP nom wrt focal length. I don't personally think the subject looks bad with a 50mm crop lens (75mm full-frame equivalent) but Ben's right that product photography tends to use a slightly longer length (90mm or 100mm on full-frame seems to be common, which would require a 60mm crop lens). I don't know how important that small difference is, though, and suspect the availability of sharp 90/100mm macro or TS lenses is more of an influence on what gets used by pros than the difference between 75 and 90mm. Whether the wide-angle vs compressed-perspective effects are problematic also likely depends on the subject and how you orient it. -- Colin (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that I think you shouldn't stop down this much. I don't think any lens performs well at f/22. I understand you try to maximize DOF, but try to open at sweet spot for your lens, and stack focusing instead. And yes 50mm should give better result than 35mm for product photography because often in such case, you want to minimize perspective converging lines, which means getting farther from your subject, and using longer focal length will force you to do so. If you prefer converging lines, you needn't stuck to rules, forget what we say... - Benh (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, P e z i, I agree wrt f/22, but one can still go a bit past the sweet spot and have a very sharp image with a prime. On my 50mm prime, it is still very sharp at f/13. It's probably sharper at f/22 than the superzoom at any stop. The charts show f/8 is sharpest but if the consequence is lower DoF and a need to stack, I'm not convinced it is always worth it. I wouldn't go to f/22. However focus stacking large objects like this is a bit of a perfection fetish imo and introduces a significant risk of stacking artefacts. If one is feeling flush, a Canon 90mm TS lens is an option for maximum DoF! See also this blog post about diffraction. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I couldn't agree more. I'd suggest to try again with the 50mm, starting out with a series of test shots at different apertures to see at which point diffraction starts to become an issue with that lens. --El Grafo (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks a lot for all your hints! Think I'll try out a series of different f-stops and also different lenses; the 50mm f/1.8 already mentioned and also the AF-S NIKKOR 85 mm 1:1,8G portrait lens will be given a chance. --P e z i (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 23:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nycticorax nycticorax at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds, looking down.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nycticorax nycticorax at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds, looking down.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2014 at 08:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Front de Seine as seen from Pont Mirabeau, 22 April 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Front de Seine as seen from Pont Mirabeau, 22 April 2014.jpg
Support Thank you Paris 16 and all supporters. To be honest, this is my favorite of all my Front de Seine images! --DXR (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2014 at 11:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Sabre in Gibraltar MOD 45151546.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Sabre in Gibraltar MOD 45151546.jpg
Conditional oppose The composition and especially the light is very good. But the CA is bad and needs to be fixed/addressed for me to support the image. I am also confused regarding the time of day ( 23:47:41) of the photo given on the file page. It does not seem right. --Slaunger (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral—Chromatic abberation isn't noticiable until you zoom in a bit, and by then sharpening artifacts are worse than the CA—Love, Kelvinsongtalk21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2014 at 11:12:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reassembly of the Tivoli Bridge, Sète.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reassembly of the Tivoli Bridge, Sète.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2014 at 16:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Another Neptune diagram.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another Neptune diagram.svg
Well I was trying to separate the magnetic & rotational information from the physical features… either way I made it all white—better?—Love, Kelvinsongtalk16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: Kden. 😒 I wasn't even planning on drawing Uranus & Neptune when I made Jupiter, but given the reception on that one I decided to do the ice giants as well. So I guess the lesson here is to quit while you're ahead. & I'm not going to be doing any more planet cutaways anymore anyway. && Btw the real irony here is you're saying I should have made a set nomination when set nominations are currently suspended.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk18:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffron Blaze: Ok I get what you mean but please don't call my pictures something that you are "getting bored of now". It takes a lot of effort to make them and I put a lot of polish on them & I go out of my way to make them efficient and easy to navigate & edit && the least you could do is offer {{Support}} or at least an {{Oppose}} for a better reason than "you already did the other three planets & this one is nothing special".
I'd probably get bored of pizza if I had to eat it everyday. Regardless, I am not dismissing the effort or the result, but they are repetitive and intensely related. At least as a set we could have conferred a standard across them. I get the dilemma of Commons though... you will always find people that will damn you if you do and damn you if you don't. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I don't really get your logic—if Jupiter hadn't gotten the support it did, Saturn would never have been made, & so forth. && Since it looks like Neptune & Uranus aren't going to pass ( :/ ) I don't see how offering them as a set would make any difference. A major argument against sets was that they were letting in images that wouldn't have gotten FP on their own, so in an ideal set system, nominating all four giant planets as a set should cause all four to fail FP. && Some of the arguments for abolishing sets were voter fatigue from having to review several of the same image, but it looks like that's happening anyway.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk02:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be looking at this as a creator not a reviewer. Call it subject fatigue. If the four gas giants had been presented as a coherent standardised set they would have passed easily. Think of it like this. Someone offers you a small box of fine truffles sprinkled in dark coco. Wonderful and you walk away happy to eat them at your leisure! Now in another scenario, they offer you one. You eat it. Then they offer you another, you eat it. By the time the third one comes around it is getting a bit rich and your are satisfied, so you decline the offer. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I would still eat them all 😋. But anyway each week FPC sees no less than two city skylines, four rustic European town panoramas, five orthogonal stone buildings, three overprocessed landscapes, one marble statue in front of the standard azure sky, two OMG-3-POINT-PERSPECTIVE glass skyscrapers, two church interiors (always from the same angle!!??), half a random sattelite image, two engravings, one small bird (with a great deal of bokeh), and three early-dawn wildflower photos. But nobody is telling the orthogonal building photographers to save all their building photos and nominate them all together as a set (and presumably then never contribute another building pic since "they shoulda nominated it in the set" (nvm it didn't even exist back then). Seriously do you think I draw all the planet diagrams I'll ever make all at once and then spread out the nominations over several months just to tire you guys out? Omg on the next backlit wildflower I see I am so literally going to comment "nice flower but you should really have nominated all your flower pictures as a set!".—Love, Kelvinsongtalk04:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Featured comment of this week. :) (BTW, we need more inputs for the new set noms. See talk.) Jee17:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvin, the problem you have is you think I should care about how much time it takes you or how many you are willing to do. I seriously don't, nor should I. The fact you can't see the difference that "the planets" or "the gas giants" make for a logical set whereas every fucking building on the planet doesn't is your problem. This aside, my original comment was people will get bored of these as they have with other subject matter. If you want to run into that wall instead of availing yourself of a set nomination fill yer boots. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine I'll make a set nomination next time, & when people ask me why I'm violating the no-set-nomination ban I'll direct them to you!—Love, Kelvinsongtalk23:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2014 at 13:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HDR Picture of WWII Spitfire Fighter Engine Testing MOD 45154465.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HDR Picture of WWII Spitfire Fighter Engine Testing MOD 45154465.jpg
Oppose Sorry photographers are humans and have the right to play and having a good time. But the result is (imo) maybe fun, eccentric and different but has no wow for me.--ArildV (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It' a very good picture but I don't like to see these pop-art HDR colors on a WW2 plane. It's not the way these planes should be featured on a site like wikipedia. --Uberprutser (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except this isn't Wikipedia. I wish people would learn and draw the distinction when voting here. This is an art gallery not a museum archive. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the first part of the comment of Ubersprutzer. I agree with the two first sentences of Saffron Blaze, but I strongly disagree with the third. 'Commons' is not an art gallery.--Jebulon (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've had a long discussion with myself about this. I'll spare you the details, but it turns out I'm unable to come to a "reasonable" conclusion. So I switched off my brain and made this a gut decision: it's an awesome picture after all. --El Grafo (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2014 at 11:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong City, view from Kowloon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong City, view from Kowloon.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 11:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zandmotor juni 2014 05.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zandmotor juni 2014 05.JPG
Oppose There is nothing in the composition that makes this the least bit interesting to me. Foreground is needlessly unsharp. The lighting is rather harsh. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see why the S shape appealed but this isn't at FP standard in composition, lighting or technical quality. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Points 10 m higher are in very short supply over there. This is probably one of the flattest parts of a very flat country. Kleuske (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2014 at 18:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry but the image has no wow imo. Half the image consists of a relatively uninteresting ramp/brigde, the category are full with more intresting compositions and viewpoints. The weather and the light are a bit boring, right and left slightly out of focus (or in any cases less sharp).--ArildV (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 02:23:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont du Gard BLS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont du Gard BLS.jpg
Support Excellent. Some DOF issues with the foremost vegetation, but we can't do everything. What's that metal thing in the middle of the bridge? Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame there was no french caption, dear Benh ! No problem with the blurry bird, but there is a small red "thing" (see note) on the ground...--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewers have sharp eyes (FPC is in good hands!). I darkened the sky to compensate for that cloud which casted a very light shadow at the very moment I was ready to shoot. I have a shot taken when no cloud was in the way, and it looks roughly the same (but it's far lower resolution of course). For the same reason, I had to boost contrast and saturation. This probably emphasized the blue in the dark areas. Generally speaking, I heavily process pictures, but try to keep a natural look (when it becomes non natural being a rather subjective issue, and there's also my own tastes to take in account). I hear any constructive review on that matter and will try to fix everything in a single upload. Thanks for feedback. - Benh (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 13:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Jebulon (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 17:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Corocoro frito con Arepas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Corocoro frito con Arepas.jpg
Fork and knife seem at an awkward angle. Red splotch on knife blade is puzzling. I could accept the fish is blue but also the cucumber? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours are much better now, but the cut-out of the fish' tail looks very coarse, and the viewing angle of the fork puzzles me as well. Seems a bit bright, too (white cucumber). Fine overall quality but too many shortcomings to support. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The viewing angle was precisely from above (see original picture in the description). I not altered this dish to create a dish that looks beautiful, with this photograph I conducted respecting best tradition who made this dish, my mom. You speak of many flaws, however, all that your dating is a knife with a wrong angle and a bad cut fish. The angle is exactly as seen from above and the fish was cut because this is traditionally done the preparation, I can not change that.--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really understand the arrangement of Caribbean food on a gaudy Chinese plate cut out "on white" with cutlery floating on the left. I see it is taken from an original with a distracting place mat. I would like to see more food photography on Commons FP but the presentation is everything. -- Colin (⧼Talkagelinktext⧽) 21:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 21:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baia da Guanabara desde o Mirante Dona Marta.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baia da Guanabara desde o Mirante Dona Marta.JPG
Oppose Excellent and Amazing composition but terrible focus problem and noise in sky, I can't understand what happend with sharpening. Maybe uploading RAW file I could help with this, I do not promise anything. Muito obrigado por esta imagem, realmente impresionante --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Olá Wilfredo. Eu também penso que o arquivo RAW ajudaria, pois o ruído na imagem não está gravíssimo. O foco e a nitidez, eu penso, são facilmente solucionáveis (para alguém que saiba solucionar). Infelizmente, eu não possuo o arquivo RAW, porém eu penso que alguém por aqui tem. Saudações :) ArionEstar (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionEstar: Oi Arion, obrigado por sua rapida resposta. Não acredito sim existe alguma forma de contactar com Carlos, e muito importante fazer isso agora enquanto esta candidatura está activa. Um abraço de São Paulo --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 11:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liausson, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liausson, Hérault 01.jpg
Support Yes, yes I know, the village is in shadow (I'm face to the sun), the image is also maybe a little bit noisy, maybe also a bit oversatured... But it's more an image for the mood rather than for the village itself. The image is not so bad and I like this mood, and in more I had pain at my legs to climb the hill quickly to arrive in time for this mood. :) -- Christian FerrerTalk11:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like this kind of picture, with side light, and nice mood... but this picture misses a subject or a pattern to keep my attention on it, and earn my support. But I wanted to comment on it, and say that I think there's not much missing for it to become FP material. If the legs are still in shape, why not going when the light comes from the other side ;) ? Wouldn't it lit the village or is some hill casting shadow at that time?- Benh (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, thanks very much for the comment. No matter my legs, at the end it is a pleasure. And as soon as my job and the weather will be favorable at the same time, I will return there during the latest hours of the sun to see what it can give. -- Christian FerrerTalk05:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 16:45:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 04:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Otto-Wagner-Pavillon Wien.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Otto-Wagner-Pavillon Wien.jpg
Oppose Really impressive detail level, good, but also a bit harsh light. The fence to the right is really ugly and spoils the symmetry. I admit it is hard to do something about, except trying to change the composition. Speaking of the composition, it only gives a quite low reading on my wow-o-meter. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 00:29:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thaddeus M. Fowler - New Kensington, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 1896.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thaddeus M. Fowler - New Kensington, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania 1896.jpg
Support A high quality historical map. It is very interesting to explore for me. I got curious into seeing how the city had evolved and a quick search gave this 'six years later' view from another location, but made in the exact same style by the same creator (Fowler). It is very interesting to see how many more houses have been erected during the period 1896-1902. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 00:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I think that's in the image itself - a slight over-inking, which isn't uncommon. I'm not sure one could fix it "honestly", as it were, since it's really just a little too big of blobs of ink, not a levels thing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2014 at 19:58:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trupial on a cactus.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trupial on a cactus.png
Comment I suggest you convert it to JPEG (lossless compression non necessary here) and try to provide a 2mpix version of it if you can. I remember about a 2mpix size minima over here - Benh (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original upload was a 38.8 mp MB .png file which was unacceptable. I tried to upload a smaller version as a jpeg at 2.2 mp MB, but the uploader insisted on same name/format as the original which is why it's still a .png file, only smaller.Atsme☯Consult 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Atsme☯Consult03:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a 6mpix file and you can convert it to jpeg and keep it < 2mb without downscaling and without apparent loss (blurry area tend to compress well in Jpeg). I did it but don't want to overwrite your contrast and color tweaks. On a more review side, it's a quite striking image, but maybe not on par with the very finest FP birds Commons has (competition is hard on that category!) because of the quality. And the background might be too distracting.- Benh (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per BenH. It seems that the uploader does not know the difference between MPix and MB. Png for pictures is not a good solution. -- -donald- (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do know the difference. My fingers on the keyboard refused to cooperate with my brain. Apologies for the mistake. I just did a strikethrough, and corrected it. Atsme☯Consult03:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's backlight transparency caused by fringed ends of the white and yellow feathers. Look at the white fringing around the wing feathers against the bird's body, and the tail feathers contrasting with the darker silhouette of the bird. It is most noticeable on the white edge of the tail feathers. The image wasn't sharpened - it was shot RAW, and tweaked for contrast and color only. Sharpening would make it grainy, not create a halo. The images referenced above don't show any white around the tail feathers - could be the birds aren't marked exactly the same. The lighting was certainly different. This bird had quite a bit of white fringe around its feathers, even through its neck. I guess if the reviewers don't like trupials with white fringed feathers, the image won't be selected. Not much more I can add. Atsme☯Consult21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2014 at 20:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parlament Wien abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parlament Wien abends.jpg
Comment I think it's overall a good night shot, but I'm per Uoaei1 on the cable issue. Can't this be cloned out ? I'd also selectively brighten the lower part of the image to make up for the cast shadow; and try to fix what I believe to be barrel distorsion. - Benh (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2014 at 17:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I appreciate the rarity, technical quality and suitability of the photo for an infobox. But the setup and composition is very unimaginative relative to FP IMO, and the cropped leaf bothers me. --Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 20:09:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PARAWCS lesce ge team.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PARAWCS lesce ge team.JPG
Info PARAWCS 2014 - Parachute World Cup Series (Bled Cup 2014) in Airport Lesce, Slovenia - one of the Germany teams
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 16:55:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg
Comment Difficult. Geo position and english description missing, leafs in front a little bit blurry, sky looks overexposed, but naturaly. Good wow factor. IMO FP, if geo position and english description exists. --XRaytalk18:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scene and composition are great, with lots of "wow". However, nothing in the image is really sharp and there are rather strong red and green fringes along the mountains (see image notes for examples). --El Grafo (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 18:07:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Layout of CBS, Trichy.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Layout of CBS, Trichy.jpg/2
strongOppose Sorry, I don't want do be harsh, but you won't stand a chance with that here for several reasons. 1) JPG is pretty much the worst possible file format for diagrams. For things like this, SVG would be the preferred format. 2) Serif fonts are not a good choice for diagrams, use Sans Serif instead. 3) No source is given for the little bus icons you used → Copyright infringement? --El Grafo (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the lack of wow and originality, it’s not even nicely done – some of the letters collide, and the bus icons have been put into their boxes at rather random angles and positions. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2014 at 13:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose This photo appears for me to be Overprocessed and does not appear to be a faithful representation of the subject. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Thanks for the information. To clarify my oppose, it is not the color balance I am having an issue with. It is the color saturation, which I find excessive. Sure you have not given it a big nudge up on the color saturation knob? --Slaunger (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Thanks for your advice. I just checked it. I'm using LR and both dynamic and saturation is "0". So there is no additional saturation.--XRaytalk10:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The saturation might not be increased but this long exposure has resulted in an image different to what the eye sees. That's not necessary a bad thing, but I don't much like the orange/blue mix. The left tower has what I can only describe as smudged bits all over it. I have no idea how they occur but it isn't appealing. The right hand side is hidden by a tree (take chainsaw next time you visit :-). I appreciate the effort involved, but I don't think the result is FP. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: IMO the colours are OK. Just for your information: It's the special light that looks orange. The left tower shows the shadows of some of the trees of the square. (There are a lot of trees on the square.)--XRaytalk06:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you have no control over the orange colour or the consistency of lights or trees. But a great picture is a combination of what's there and what the photographer has done with it. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2014 at 16:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spinnekop molen "De Wicher" in de Weerribben 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spinnekop molen "De Wicher" in de Weerribben 1.jpg
Oppose -- I like the light and the rain clouds in the bg. Technical quality is good as well, but I find the almost centered placement of the main subject unfortunate. --Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 15:02:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter-Ording Strand.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter-Ording Strand.jpg
Comment Nice mood, but DOF is too shallow. F/2.8 and 70 mm was not the best choice. Only some mud in the middle is sharp while the most important part (background) is out of focus. --Ivar (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I don't really like the composition as the interesting part is crammed into the upper quarter of the picture (& out of focus). Navy–orange is a fairly cliché color scheme && please don't vignette just don'tt—Love, Kelvinsongtalk18:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 11:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Double Decker Bus Angamaly BUS STAND.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Double Decker Bus Angamaly BUS STAND.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 09:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Large Psammodromus (Psammodromus algirus) in the Community of Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is a good illustration of the species, and the technical quality and composition is good too. For me, the wow is low though. --Slaunger (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found the wow here was that it did not run away so quickly and I could get very close to the animal (half a second later it wasn't there). Thanks for your comment anyway. --Kadellar (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger except I like the pose (it makes the whole thing fits in the frame). Enough wow in the end - Benh (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 09:23:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sharplanina od Vodno.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sharplanina od Vodno.jpg
Comment—very nice overall but the focus of the image seems to be the mountains, yet they are slightly out of focus & the whites are a bit clipped—Love, Kelvinsongtalk18:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2014 at 16:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:L'assassinat de l'Archiduc héritier d'Autriche et de la Duchesse sa femme à Sarajevo supplément illustré du Petit Journal du 12 juillet 1914.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:L'assassinat de l'Archiduc héritier d'Autriche et de la Duchesse sa femme à Sarajevo supplément illustré du Petit Journal du 12 juillet 1914.jpg
Support 1914/2014, june 28. One hundred years ago, almost at noon, the assassination of Archduke Francis-Ferdinand, heir of the thrones of Austria, Hungary and Bohemia, and of his wife Sophie Chotek, Duchess of Hohenberg, by a Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip, in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, was the event that triggered the beginning of the World War One, with the consequences we know. After a first unsuccessful bombing attempt in the morning, only two bullets were shot, one in the abdomen of the Duchess, one in the neck of the Prince, both died a few minutes later. This is a press view, and the design is wrong by many points (the Archduke did not wear such an uniform, but a blue-grey one, with no sash, and his trousers was black with red strips, for instance (see here), and Princip stayed at the other side of the car...), but it is an interesting report picture nevertheless, slightly restored by me. It has artistical, educational and historical very high values, IMO. Especially today, the day I chose for this nomination. -- Jebulon (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback. I've corrected the color balance but look: Papers of newspapers are (and were) of very bad quality, they were not white. The proof is that we have in this picture white parts: the uniform, and the smoke of the gun. Nonetheless, according to your request, I've reduced the saturation of the background, but I wish to keep the "vintage" aspect of this naive picture...--Jebulon (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 07:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clock tower clock in night.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clock tower clock in night.JPG
strongOppose Object tilted, motion blur (double contours), mostly black, no wow at all. Sorry to ask frankly but what made you think this could possibly become an FP? FP ist about the very best images Commons has in stock, the cream of the crop. This is not even a fairly good one, IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 17:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Campus WU EA DSC 1571w.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Campus WU EA DSC 1571w.jpg
Info Campus of the Vienna University of Economics and Business, building EA (Executive Academy), planned by NO.MAD Arquitectos (Madrid); created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm slightly confused by the lack of contrast on the left side. Am I just too used to photos with increased contrast? Or do you use a filter of some kind that makes this worse? The light situation should be ideal. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for rreview. I didn't use any filter, but you are right, it looks quite strange in this corner. Tried to improve and uploaded a new version. --P e z i (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The architecture is very interesting and eye-catching. I am having a little problem though with the arbitrarily placed tress in the foreground partially obstructing the view and the white-and red mast. I get the impression from looking at the Campus WU category, that there are other and better vantage points for taking more unobstructed picture of this interesting building with less distracting elements. --Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@P e z i: Yes, I find that is better, and it is a candidate I would not oppose. I would probably go neutral on that alternative due to its a bit too tight crop for my taste. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 20:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pai Inacio.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pai Inacio.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2014 at 12:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Madrid May 2014-3a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Madrid May 2014-3a.jpg
Info This is just one in a series of photos I took of the ceiling of the Basílica de San Francisco el Grande, Madrid (here). It was painted in the last decade of the 19th centurt by José Marcelo Contreras. It is a gorgeous subject and I suggest the reviewers to first appreciate its geometry and detail before focusing on the obvious photographic shortcomings. Most will notice that all these photos were taken near the limit of what is possible with the present technology, considering the obligation of handling the camera and the poor light conditions inside the cathedral. Without a top quality camera it wouldn't have been possible to use such high ISO settings and still obtain so much detail. After the failure of this nomination, which I consider better than the present one, I hesitated a lot before coming here and face this forum again. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's true that the details are great. Unfortunately, the sides are cut and the upper part is spoiled by the reflections. This make it hard to really appreciate the subject itself (which looks really worth it). - Benh (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your permission, Kreuzschnabel :). But I don't think you understood my point correctly. Not only have I always been humble about the merits of my own work but also have respected equally the reviews of both newbies and vets. That is easy to check on many of my nominations from 2006 on. The most valuable thing we can get from FPC is the feedback from our peers, not the stars. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also never understand those withdrawals just few hours before the regular voting deadline. Ignorable POINTy timewasting, I would say. --A.Savin19:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 08:44:49 (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 13 Jul 2014 at 17:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Distracting bg, not the best colours due to the (midday?) lighting, and seems to be a little oversaturated. --Graphium03:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 05:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Fochteloërveen. Ronde zonnedauw (Drosera rotundifolia).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Fochteloërveen. Ronde zonnedauw (Drosera rotundifolia).jpg
Oppose Sorry, I see nothing featurable here at all. Composition, perspective and lighting do not show anything special for me. (Browsing the category, I find images like File:Росянка_в_НПП_"Слобожанский".jpg, which is way more impressive.) Considering its size below 4 MPix, it’s not even really sharp! --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Information: The special for me is the photo that I had during the trip of a few hours in the nature, but have found a plant. That was a unique experience for me. The photo of Drosera is taken in its natural environment and not vulnerable to plant in a pot.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 02:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Full Pumkin.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Full Pumkin.JPG
Oppose A square framing could have been more accurate IMO. The crop is too tight above and below, a white "thing" above is disturbing. The shadow at right above is too strong. The subject itself has no wow enough for me. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 11:38:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:012 Lechtaler Alpen in Austria - Hintere and Vordere Platteinspitze.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:012 Lechtaler Alpen in Austria - Hintere and Vordere Platteinspitze.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 12:00:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beach Feeling at the Wank.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach Feeling at the Wank.JPG
Comment Sitting in a roofed wicker beach chair in southern Bavaria in about 1.800 m above sea level and having a panoramic view on the beach of the baltic sea - no WOW? ;-) --Llez (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2014 at 16:56:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Ostrog, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 11.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monasterio de Ostrog, Montenegro, 2014-04-14, DD 11.JPG
Info The Serbian Orthodox ChurchMonastery of Ostrog is placed against an almost vertical background, high up in the large rock of Ostroška Greda, in Montenegro. The monastery, dedicated to Saint Basil of Ostrog, was founded by Vasilije, the Metropolitan Bishop of Herzegovina in the 17th century. He died there in 1671 and some years later he was glorified. The present-day look was given to the Monastery in 1923-1926, after a fire which had destroyed the major part of the complex. Fortunately, the two little cave-churches were spared and they are the key areas of the monument. All by me, Poco216:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don’t consider the Lonely Tourist worse than the plastic covering just below. Suggest to take that shot again as soon as that is removed. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bushes are a bit annoying, the angle may not be the best because the object can not be fully observed. However, I believe that the main object has a factor of considerable importance --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 09:53:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Czech-2013-Prague-Street performers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Czech-2013-Prague-Street performers.jpg
17
137
3245
undefined
4000
5142
alternative proposed crop
Info created and uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Nikhil
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 08:48:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Meeting d'Athlétisme Paralympique de Paris - Iris Pruysen 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meeting d'Athlétisme Paralympique de Paris - Iris Pruysen 01.jpg
Qualified support I agree with all the above supports but I think it could be even stronger without all the extra space at the top. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 18:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stars 01 (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stars 01 (MK).jpg
Info Starry sky near Brandenburg an der Havel (Germany), close to midnight. The picture shows ~280° of the sky.Selimabner was so kind to add some constelations, stars and planets as annotations which I linked to the german and english article. The orange light in the middle of the image is the visible light polution from Brandenburg which is ~7km away. The bluish light on the left side is the rest light from the sunset. Regards mathiasK18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I haven't seen a lot of starry skies over here. It definitely has wow factor. I would have loved to know which setting you used to properly review, so I'm wondering if you couldn't have shortened exposition. ISO bumping perhaps? (I'm aware you probably went very high already). Contrary to many pictures on the web, you didn't seem to downscale a lot (if at all), but there might be some little more room for improving noise issue with careful NR. I think stars are good subjects for non too destructive NR. I'll end with composition, which I don't find very sophisticated, but this is just my opinion of course. - Benh (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benh, thank you. The single pictures were taken at ISO3200 with f3.5 and 30sec exposure. So yes, there is allready ISO bumping and not much room for shorten the exposition. The high ISO and the open aperture are necessary to catch as much stars as possible at an "acceptable" exposure time. And, I think I have to disappoint you about the downsampling thing. ;-) Cause of the choosen settings I had to downsample a lot to get the actual quality. But with the now given resolution I have made a 120x40cm print were I´m pretty happy with the result, so I think it is a good compromise between size and quality. Regards mathiasK19:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and for once light pollution looks nice... It really does add some beauty and colours to the already beautiful photo. --Graphium03:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but there’s a stitching / editing flaw between sagitta and aquila, showing doubled patterns of stars. Tried to squeeze a note in. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel: Thanks for the review. As Benh says in another nom: "...reviewers have sharp eyes." ;-) But yes, you're right, there are some double patterns in this area. I don't think it spoils the image that much, but I will try to fix this problem as soon as possible! Thanks again, --mathiasK03:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2014 at 16:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vendedor de Plátano frito, cotufas y maní.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vendedor de Plátano frito, cotufas y maní.jpg
Comment I like the scene and especially the portrait of the vendor, but I think it could have been much better with all the legs (of the man and vehicles) included. Gidip (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 13:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Pen-y-ghent from East.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Pen-y-ghent from East.jpg
Neutral It is pretty and I would love to see it myself. The quality is good too. But it does not quite have FP level IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 07:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Walking the water buffalo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Walking the water buffalo.jpg
Neutral Per Yann. Exotic enough for a "western eye" as mine, and very charming. But I think some parts are too noisy (the face, the hair of the girl), the motion blur is a pity (hand), and the hat is overexposed in clear parts. Unauthorized portrait of a child. Not far from the star, but I remain neutral here. IMHO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Really a nice picture and heartwarming smile on her face, but the technical drawbacks keep me from supporting, considering the image size of just 6 Mpix. Motion blur in the girl’s right arm/hand, denoising/sharpening artifacts in her face. (Motion blur of the animal’s foot does not distract me since that is supposed to move.) Crop is a bit too tight. 1/125 s is quite a long exposuring time for moving objects. At a fully open aperture of f/5.3, you obviously got to the limit of what this lens is capable of ;-) Imagine what kind of pic a prime 150 mm lens at f/2.8 would have made of this situation. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 09:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Црква „Св. Никола“ - Маврово.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Црква „Св. Никола“ - Маврово.jpg
Support I'ved cloned out the cars and tourists in background, otherwise a nice, beautiful, interesting, unusual and rare picture. Technical matters are OK for me.--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—too dark and also very slight chromattic abberation on the cross. && Is there a reason why the whole left side of the image seems dimmed (white level & all)?—Love, Kelvinsongtalk18:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2014 at 17:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eucera cinnamomea male 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eucera cinnamomea male 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 00:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Big Sur Shoreline.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Big Sur Shoreline.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 21:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chapelle Notre-Dame aux Raisins BLS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chapelle Notre-Dame aux Raisins BLS.jpg
Neutral Little attempt while I'm still wandering around... I'm aware it's heavily processed, but I really wanted to enhance the dramatic mood. I also know my venerable 10-22 lens is soft on the corners, and that the three exposures don't overlap very nicely on moving objects (leafs, people). -- Benh (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it but I do prefer the original. Shot from a low angle with a u.w. lens I like to see some perspective distortion. Over correcting, like the second picture, looks unnatural to me. --Uberprutser (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As always, it is a pleasure to see your photography, which has the wow, but the technical flaws you point out yourself plus a quite noisy sky is too much of an issue for me. I would also appreciate a more faithful representation wrt processing (but I respect that you prefer it heavily processed). For me more a photo targeted at a 500px audience. --Slaunger (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't correct the verticals, it really spoils it... my composition is on purpose : worm's view is dramatic, and the perspective lines lead your eye to the dramatic sky which enhances the effect even more. I was just trying to check how audience would react, as I'm on a "processing pictures" momentum. I'd like to point out that although it's heavily processed, the original picture already looked like that. HDR only help to brighten up the church (and again, I try to keep a natural look). I'll upload a pic for comparison if I think about it tonight (and I still have to fix the pont du gard picture as I promised). This is a recurring issue, but the noise (which is very small, but can be fixed) and overlapping issues won't be visible until scrutinized at 100%. Even large print would look nice. Similar FP candidates which were promoted before were all downsampled to 2mpix. - Benh (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Please don’t"? If you do not want your work to be edited and re-published by others, why do you publish it under a free license which explicitly allows to do so? I did not overwrite any of your work, I just issued an alternative. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. My comment was more in an FPC context and "please don't alter the nomination" would be a better statement. This is not en:FPC where you can apply this kind of fix, because it's for the sake of encyclopeadic value. If this photo is to be promoted, I would like it to be because people like it the way I meant it. I think commons FPC is more a ground for that. Sorry for any misunderstanding (I do realise my english doesn't help). - Benh (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you going for something that might grace the cover of a gothic novel? If so, it isn't nearly dramatic enough. Possibly a strong crop on just the church would help. The trees, wall, path and colour all have a taming effect. The sky isn't particularly foreboding. I agree completely with Benh on the vertical "correction". This isn't an architectural shot and one simply can't correct verticals on a picture taken this close without introducing a ridiculous stretching effect. In terms of sharpness/megapixels, I have recently discovered the wiki software lets you create links to images at any size. So one could suggest that the image be "reviewed for sharpness" at a given size, while still uploading/nominating a larger image if desired. For example, it looks sharp at 50% reduction (2.5MP). At 66% reduction (4.4MP) it looks ok. While those sizes would be underwhelming for an architectural nomination, they might be sufficient for an image with enough wow. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everything. Review size should be something automated, but this was discussed a lot already. You may be right for the framing affecting the effect. I've played a little with recroping and the results are interesting. Will think about it (but the picture doesn't seem to attract much interest anyways, so will be for myself :) ). - Benh (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 00:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Ordinarily I dislike these artsier-type effects pictures for their tendency to sacrifice encyclopedic value regardless of their quality. But this is an exception that sort of proves the rule: how else do you capture the very Blade Runner-esque qualities of contemporary Times Square, its bustle and color, without them? It conveys the reality of the place more effectively, I think, than even a video would. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not my taste, and not perfect technically. In this case, I don't know where is the border between "artistic choice" and "strong technical flaws". + we have some FoP issues here, IMO (but I'm not a specialist of US copyright laws).--Jebulon (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 10:50:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:01 United States Air Force, Dornier Do-328-110, Larnaca, Cyprus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:01 United States Air Force, Dornier Do-328-110, Larnaca, Cyprus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 12:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pic de Vissou, Cabrières, Hérault 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pic de Vissou, Cabrières, Hérault 06.jpg
Info The Pic de Vissou (480m), (Cabrières, Hérault, France), and two paragliders. This hill is known in the all region (and more) for the practice of paragliding and of ridge lift. All by me. -- Christian FerrerTalk12:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The paragliders helps in making it a bit interesting, but besides that, the light is dull and the composition uninteresting. A minor technical aside: There appears to be a little color fringing on the paragliders and the vegetation in the transition to the blue sky. A little CA perhaps? --Slaunger (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 18:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2014 at 22:48:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mary, Queen of Scots after Nicholas Hilliard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mary, Queen of Scots after Nicholas Hilliard.jpg
Comment I uploaded Hilliards's miniature of Queen Elizabeth I to Commons myself earlier this year. There seems to me to be a couple of issues here: 1 this is a Coetzee bequest image. I'm not sure it's best diplomatic we nominate these images as "Featured" right now 2 are we really going to list every high resolution image of a work of art as "Featured"? They must now run into their tens of thousands if we take account of Google Art Project and galleries such as NGA Washington, Rijksmuseum, and the Prado, to name but just three that come to mind that make available high resolution images, and then both the major auctioneers and others, as well as a host of smaller institutions who take no special steps against stitching their high resolution tiles. I'm inclined to think we should up the bar for art works to "ultra high resolution", such as this one, a van Gogh Sunflowers I recently nominated at Wikipedia Featured Pictures. One interesting thing about Google Art Project images is that fine as they are, they rarely approach the best available from their source museums. This is so for the van Gogh I nominated. That one comes from the Van Gogh Museum as you can readily check by going to the appropriate museum page. It's much superior to the Google Art project version. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 05:46:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nettipattam of elephant.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nettipattam of elephant.JPG
Oppose Object tilted, top side unsharp, tight crop, white parts blown. Sorry, wouldn’t even be a QI for me. Besides, the pic lacks wow because I can’t make anything of it. What kind of thing is this, and how is it used? Do elephants wear it? Would be nice to see it in use then. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 05:14:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Presqu'île du Rouens, Clermont-l'Hérault 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Presqu'île du Rouens, Clermont-l'Hérault 02.jpg
CommentBenh, thanks to you for this image. After your comment in this page you motivated me to return on the hill. What I made on saturday and I took this photo while waiting for the last hour of the sun to take a picture of the village (it is taken from the same point of view). Unfortunately, as you can see in this image there is some clouds and just after this shoot the sun was hidden, I am quits to go back up again....:) -- Christian FerrerTalk05:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Malheureusement, il manque encore qq chose à mes yeux. La composition est assez simpliste, et le premier plan est en fait malvenu et n'apporte rien (contrairement à la nomination du canal ci-dessus, qui guide le regard). Ça pourrait être compensé par une jolie lumière, comme sur ta nomination précédente, mais ici, ça semble pris à 18h. À cette heure là, en été, la lumière n'est pas assez rasante et ne crée pas assez d'ombre pour donner une ambiance magique. Juste mon avis ! Quelques examples de photo pour illustrer mon propos : [1] ou [2]. Dommage qu'on ne voit pas plus de photos comme ça par ici... - Benh (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 20:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Natural History Museum, London (long exposure).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Natural History Museum, London (long exposure).jpg
Neutral Striking, overall good quality, and UW angle provides a good feeling of how big it is. But the ghosts are really an issue here. There's just too many of them. - Benh (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As with Benh. Personally I'm not scared of ghosts. If someone can persuade me that the rest of the world really shouldn't be afraid of them either, I'd be happy to support. Such an excellent image. High, high praise. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 13:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monday James Hammarby April 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monday James Hammarby April 2013.jpg
Oppose Sorry, I think the background is too distracting. I would have recommended a larger aperture to get better separation between subject and background, but you are already at f/2.8, so not much to do there. Otherwise nice. --Slaunger (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2014 at 10:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Borgo a Mozzano Ponte della Maddalena.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Borgo a Mozzano Ponte della Maddalena.jpg
Support My humble opinion: very good composition, very nice light, excellent subject with a lot of value(s). (Maybe) I've removed the electric wires in the sky by cloning out, and (maybe) a little over exposition on the white parts of the second arch (loss of details). Anyway, a FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNot sharp, and Not enough wow because the entire bridge from end to end should have been included in the photo. Sorry. --Graphium03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Following Jebulon's advice, I have removed the electrical wires in the sky and treated the brightest areas; I have also sharpened the image a bit. --Myrabella (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info From this bank of the river, the view on the right side is obstructed by a parapet and alas, I did not have an ultra wide angle lens yet (you can see the situation in that former FPC). So I did my best to get a composition that emphasizes the harmony of the water reflections in spite of this difficulty. However, from that bank, other compositions are possible, without an UW lens (example). I am so sorry that my photo doesn't manage to charm you, thanks for the reviews anyway :) --Myrabella (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was not voting for this image in the photo challenge, mainly because of the crop I think. But when I look at it again, everything (composition, colours...) are very nice. --ArildV (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 12:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The lighting is a one source light from above, thus the uneven nature of its look. Quality? Its 20mp image. Which part of the image lacks sharpness? In the museum with their limited light sources and the beacon secured in a glass cage, this happens to be the closest to best I could achieve with my camera.
The lighting would not really be a problem for me. Uneven lighting in this case enhances the readability. The image *is* unsharp, however. View the image at full resolution to see. Kleuske (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2014 at 16:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hans Gadamer.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hans Gadamer.png
Support Remarkable and impressive portrait of the German philosopher. Similarity well achieved, quality of drawing, encyclopedic approach. - Dvdgmz (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is a good and valuable portrait. The stains on the paper are rather ugly though and I think an attempt should be made to make a digital restoration prior to considering nomination for FPC, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a deteriorated paper. The author included digitally this background to give texture to the portrait.--Dvdgmz (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2014 at 22:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BEP-GIRSCH-Declaration of Independence (Trumbull).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BEP-GIRSCH-Declaration of Independence (Trumbull).jpg
Support High value, and of course very good timing (Happy birthday USA !). I'ved cleaned out more spots, but a very good and clear restoration, IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you give some details of the restoration technique and how was it photographed/scanned? And what did you use as the source? I think all this should be specified in the file. Gidip (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2014 at 21:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sarah Vaughan - William P. Gottlieb - No. 1.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarah Vaughan - William P. Gottlieb - No. 1.jpg/2
CommentLast nomination got six out of the seven supports needed for a quorum. As it is featured on four different Wikipedias, I suspect it's suited for Commons as well, despite the minor flaws of a candid photograph. And it's taken by a notable photographer, so that's a plus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support editing it out providing it's a documented separate file linked to the original. I'm not sure it can be within the guidelines. And besides maybe she was really being 'lifted'... It is pretty intrusive I have to admit. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2014 at 21:48:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model 1098, manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg
Oppose We can't really have two FPs that differ only in the file format. I assume PNG was the original and someone created a JPG. From the previous FP it appears the original had a colour profile embedded in it that was for printing on coated paper, and someone just removed the profile to make the file smaller. This JPG has no colourspace metadata or profile so the colours are arbitrary. I know it is not a particularly colourful image, but colours are important. It is also rather low resolution (3MP) for a product shot (which these days, would probably have been taken with a 50MP medium-format camera). So too many problems to be "finest". -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, they are different. Still, I don't personally see much merit in featuring a remarkably similar image. My other comments stand, and I'm quite familiar with the guidelines, which are just that: guidelines. The 2MP guideline is a very low bar and 3MP is quite unacceptable for a product shot. Nobelpeopleuploader, I suggest you consider what "Finest" means in terms of contemporary photography, rather than arguing about rules. Actually, I'm surprised the PNG was accepted as FP as it is not a optimal choice for photographic images. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Colin: I'm not arguing about rules, I'm just trying to make something clear. And my way of judging featured picture candidates is always based on the guideline for featured pictures and my own opinion. If my opinion on some points is completely against the guideline I respect the guideline made by the Wikimedia community. I'm not going to raise my very own opinion above the guideline. If every person who vote does that, then the guideline is nothing worth and the voting process is like the Wild West. If you perceived my previous info/comment as an insult I apologize - that was definitely not my intention. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No insult taken. Just you seem to be arguing I should support because it passes the guideline (e.g, 2MP) or that I can't oppose on some issue the guideline has a lower threshold on. The guideline is just the base of what we all agree should apply (with very few exceptions) to all images. But beyond that everyone is free to set their own standards and they should be higher than that! I might consider a difficult bird-in-flight photograph to be fine at 2MP but a studio or landscape photograph is unlikely to impress anyone with that little detail. Compare my own product shots (iron, camera) with far more detail and only an entry-level DSLR rather than pro kit. This piano image lacks any detail in the wood and is actually quite noisy. The award of FP is based on consensus rather than following rules. It is a bit random at times. The overall judgement is whether this is among our finest images. I don't think a rather plain product photograph at 3MP is anywhere close to the expected standard. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see we two have a difference of opinion on how the guideline should be understood and how the voting process should be performed. I don't think we can come to some sort of an agreement on that. Så let us leave it for now. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: Regarding your opinion "This piano image lacks any detail in the wood..." - that is because the actual piano does NOT have any detail in the wood. The lacquer is very thick - between 1,0 and 1,5 millimetres. The finish of the piano is called "satin" because of the details in the lacquer, which can be seen in the photo. (Here you have a picture of a much cheaper piano with a thin layer of lacquer resulting in visible details in the wood: www.steinway.com/pianos/boston/upright/up-118s-pe). --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think my interpretation of the guideline is out-of-sync with consensus, whereas... well nobody else is supporting this. That other photo looks like the sort of "black ash" wood effect that was popular for cheap hifi in the 80s. Perhaps this isn't real wood finish either (the website seems to indicate that paying for a veneer is an option for discerning customers.) -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that nobody else is supporting this picture. That is of course because of the long discussion and not because of the picture. Candidates with long discussions usually don't get supported. There is too much to read before people can make a vote so it's easier just to jump to some other images. I still don't understand why you think "This piano image lacks any detail in the wood..." when the actual piano doesn't have the details you want in the wood? --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty FPs (some my own) with long discussions. What makes you think people need to read other voter's opinions before making up their minds. They may often do so, but it is the image that is important. Nobelpeopleuploader, this is quite important: the FP guidelines do not describe the minimum objective criteria for FP. Indeed, the objective criteria are identical to QI (which this image wouldn't qualify due to authorship). The subjective criteria are judgement as to whether this is among our "finest" and the need for "wow". I can't underestimate how important "wow" is (though sadly often forgotten by some voters who think "nice" is sufficient). A 3MP standard studio product shot that is not creatively lit or presented has no wow. The fact that the detail is insufficient to determine the finish accurately, just emphasises the deficiencies in the image. -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. It's among finest, because it's not just a common sharp touristy shot, but it suffers from the comparison with the similar subject (compression artifacts all over the place, jaggy lines probably coming from bad downsampling algorithm...). Also, IMO this is a case where PNG is preferable to JPEG. - Benh (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is about the quality of the picture itself (again, over compressed jpeg, and jaggy lines). My reference to the other similar (not identical) picture was to show what this picture misses to get FP label IMO. - Benh (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you mean by "over compressed jpeg" and "jaggy lines". I'm not able to see that. When I look at the picture with zoom 100% the lines look normal to me. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In my opinion (and I may be wrong), the 2MP limit is there because there might be scenarios (especially action shots in difficult scenarios and scientific imaging) where a higher resolution is almost impossible to get or useless. For a studio product shot, the resolution should be much higher. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very well done studio shot, but the low resolution kills it. Look at the highlights along the edges of the piano: Even at full resolution they look like stairways. --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not able to see that. Will you please specify what you mean? Maybe I could learn something. I can't see that "the highlights along the edges of the piano: Even at full resolution they look like stairways". Hope you will tell me. Thank you. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just above the 2MB limit is way too small for a high-quality studio shot IMHO. Poor detail, pixelating edges. It’s a nice image but nice is not wow. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 10:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Merfeld, Wildpferdebahn, Weg am Waldrand -- 2014 -- 7923.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Merfeld, Wildpferdebahn, Weg am Waldrand -- 2014 -- 7923.jpg
Comment So, if I get it right, you want this image to be featured for showing outstandingly little to be featured? LOL. Now I’m at least convinced that FPC is not my cup of tea at all. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2014 at 12:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iziko World Wars Statue 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iziko World Wars Statue 02.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: great loss of detail due to compression artifacts, perspective distortion and clipped whites on the house --Kadellar (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2014 (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 20 Jul 2014 at 04:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Fantastic to see others seeing SuperJet International's photos are featured quality. Can only support this too. russavia (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 11:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau Luynes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau Luynes.jpg
Support@Tomer T: Once again, thank you so much, Tomer! @Iifar: Yes, I find it better with your editing, thank you! I am used to be light with sharpening (if any) but your edit is perfectly fine by me. --Myrabella (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 08:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Good work balancing the sometimes jarring contrast between the natural and artificial light one encounters with these (Is that the actual background? Or is it something you swapped in? It just looks so clean). Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not special enough for FP. Not especially detailed (low resolution and not super-sharp) and I dislike the "floating in space" substituted background. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 11:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de los Remedios, Kotor, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 29.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de los Remedios, Kotor, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 29.JPG
Oppose I have a problem with the big white water part it looks blown out. For me it unbalances an otherwise very nice picture. --Baykedevries (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it is no real overexposure, its still disturbing. The composition and the environment is exciting, but the weather conditions was probably not good enough for FP imo.--ArildV (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 13:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Pen-y-ghent from South.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Pen-y-ghent from South.jpg
Comment I'm sorry but what is Pen-y-ghent? Could you please add a decent description? I find a good description very important when making the decision if I find a picture feature worthy. --Baykedevries (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a photograph of a mountain, I think it’s decent enough to give the mountain’s name along with the geocoding and point of view. What else do you expect? For further information just look up its name on Wikipedia. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was about to say the same. A wikilink in the nom or information page is always handy but my browser has a search box. There's a geocode link too. I'd much rather nominators explained why they think the image is among our finest, which is something I can't find out for myself with a click. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure I can do a search, but I'm not going to. If you think a picture is feature worthy you can take the time to add a decent description. For me a good description is important and At some point I'm going to ignore pictures without. I'm making a point here. Don't take it personally :) But to many pictures are missing descriptions --Baykedevries (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I haven’t understood your point yet, let me ask once again: What do you expect? Or maybe point out some of the active nominations that do have descriptions after your liking (most don’t have any at all, just "c/u/n by $NAME", without you complaining, AFAIS). I really don’t know what you mean. The picture shows the Pennine Way climbing a mountain named Pen-y-ghent from its southern side. That’s what my description says, so IMHO it’s a proper description of the photograph. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Baykedevries that often file descriptions (on the file page - it is those that matters) are inadequate as important information is often missing regarding the particular image, but this is not one of those cases. The file page is adequately categorized to e.g. Pen-y-ghent and Pennine Way and if you follow those links, there are interwiki links to articles in several different languages (after I have added them, that is, as they were initially missing). If the nominator were to copy that information to the file page (in how many languages?), it would just be maintenance of redundant information. It would contaminate, not add value. I do think though that it is generally a good idea if nominators check that main categories are adequately linked to wikipedia articles, such that the relevant information can be found fast and efficient. The interwiki links are often missing on Commons categories. --Slaunger (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a pretty picture of good quality, but it does not stand out for me as extraordinary. Background is a little soft in focus. --Slaunger (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasant composition and a reasonable QI (could be sharper). The 4:3 ratio isn't generally good for landscape IMO and it is too ordinary a result to be featurable. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the 4:3 ratio is quite an issue with the micro 4/3 cameras (obviously !). Shooting 3:2 is an option but you loose quite some resolution in the process of course... How sad for those otherwise nice cameras. - Benh (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 05:10:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Request How about a tighter crop on left side to get the main object out of center? Would look more interesting. Altogether it’s a bit dull for me, maybe not the best light. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Since you're doing requests, would it be possible to photoshop the spiderweb thread out? They bother me a bit. --Baykedevries (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't like the crop. If you see here an imitation of a face with two eyes - emphasize it by more lead room on the right (if possible) and a tighter crop on the left (and maybe on bottom too). If, on the other hand, it is just a plant with no reminiscence of other things - go for an upright crop that emphasizes the shape of the plant. Gidip (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2014 at 22:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Belfast with rainbow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Belfast with rainbow.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 07:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Specially the scientist is noisy (it must be a very dark room and it's backlighted) but it has lots of wow and a great composition and EV. --Kadellar (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image of a interesting subject. The noise doesn't bother me. For a second I thought the guy was standing in front of a giant VCR! --Baykedevries (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 07:24:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruhrschleuse Mülheim 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruhrschleuse Mülheim 2014.jpg
Oppose QI, but fail to see any special wow, lighting is not particularly interesting, the gate on approx. 1/2 of the frame is rather distracting than any special, the close lantern masts do not do the composition good either. --A.Savin11:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really pity that the photo does not gain support up to now. @ A.Savin and Slaunger: IMHO the composition with its symmetry and repeated elements is good enough for FP (that was the reason for the nomination) but surely I respect your comment. Another reason for nomination was that the motive is somehow different than other nominations. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Symmentry and repated elements is nice here, but its so many disturbing object (signs, poles, buildings) that draws attention.--ArildV (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2014 at 19:33:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tartu raudteejaama veetorn, 2010.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tartu raudteejaama veetorn, 2010.JPG
Support Can't quite tell if some of the deficiencies are the result of the snow or not; picture is otherwise so well done I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2014 at 22:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kolonáda na Rajstně (Reistenkolonnade) - by Pudelek.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kolonáda na Rajstně (Reistenkolonnade) - by Pudelek.JPG
Oppose A QI but not FP. One third of the frame is dull grassland that fails to lead the eye and a shadow in the bottom left. I suggest a little more room left/right and clone out the distracting little birds. The image is only 5.7MP yet not sharp. We've had plenty 36MP+ images get torn apart for sharpness or noise so nominating a 5.7MP architectural image that isn't super detailed is going to have to make up for that deficiency in other ways. Which this doesn't. -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Colin. Also, I don't think that the symmetry helps here, it makes the shot very flat and isn't supported by the surroundings. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 16:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Excellent. Drunk as usual. For complicated reasons I'm sure are not very scientific, I'm reminded of a line from Kung Fu Panda 2 where Mantis, pondering an imminent doom, reflects "I never imagined it would end like this ... thought I would meet a nice girl, settle down, get my head eaten ... so sad". Happily Po rescues him in the nick of time. Just thought I'd mention that before passing out. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See category Category:Zygoptera and use Dschwen's tool for viewing existing QI/FP [though watch: some of the FP are wiki-FP not commons-FP and some wikis have low standards). It's a QI but the background is too distracting despite the f/2.8. And even a macro lens isn't sharpest wide open and the DoF rather narrow. Suggest smaller aperture and try for better subject isolation naturally rather than just via aperture. (Your camera + lens should be capable of an image twice as detailed as this with a lovely smooth background.) -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The EXIF says f/16; not f/2.8. I think the busy background may be due to increased subject distance. These damselflies may not be friendly for a close shot. And 100/105 is not the best lens to shoot them. Jee03:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, it's f/16. And this young lady was very fearful and was not allowed approach. -- Christian FerrerTalk 04:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC) I was a bit far from the subject and now I think maybe f/10 would be better for these conditions. -- Christian FerrerTalk04:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must have got confused with several windows open. Well f/16 would explain the busy background. Jkadavoor, do you recommend 150mm instead? Can you get teleconverter for macro? I've read that shooting early morning when cold is good for getting close to insects. But I've no personal experience here. -- Colin (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2014 at 11:57:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toris inari 7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toris inari 7.jpg
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Pundit - I got absolutely fascinated by this shrine complex in Fushimi Inari Torii in Kyoto. What do you think? -- Pundit (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the bottom of the columns at the left side - they look rather distorted. The columns are not fully straight in real but also not that converging as the photo implies (take a look on other photos in the same catgegory). But the main reason for my oppose is the massively blown red channel not the perspective. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colors are definitely in vivid mode and may be overdone, I'm curious though what could I have possibly do better next time to make the columns more straight? Do you think that the lenses distorted the actual view? Pundit (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you used a tripod in combination with a leveler? Have you done any perspective corrections on the computer or is the photo "out of the cam"? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have Nikon Capture NX2 and it's default Distortion control of 10% has a barely noticeable effect on the image. The saturation isn't "massive". It's comfortably within 10% in NX2 I would say and a glance at the category confirms the image is not deceiving the viewer, the FP criterion. There's no such thing as the "right" image in photography (lesson 1) and I'm worried that criticism at this level might be alienating ordinary contributors with realtively unsophisticated equipment or resources. It's essentially elitist in my view, and while it has it may have place amongst established contributors of images on Commons, I do think we should be wary of discouraging new contributors. The image looks great. End of. And my comment about composition is quite right, as you can readily confirm looking through the category. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no such thing as "the image looks great" (lesson 2), it just may look great for you. Please allow others to have entirely different views and opinions. And de gustibus non est disputandum. For instance, I don’t approve of candy colours at all. My nomination of Pen-y-ghent from the east looks great too for me, but nobody seems to like it. So what? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Called "wow" here (lesson 3, there really is such a thing). You're not raising issues of taste but technical matters as if they preclude nomination prima facie . And of your two nominations of Pen-y-ghent I supported the first but not the second from the east, which is quite ordinary lacking all wow. What I didn't do was post an "oppose" saying it was nothing special in my own view and opinion to which I'm surely entitled. I would only do that, and probably as a comment, if I felt the image was receiving inordinate praise. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colors are over saturated and when you tilt the lens you will gets perspective distortion. When it looks good, what's the problem? Seems like that perspective is the new noise to complain about. --Baykedevries (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's roughly what I would expect after doing an eighth the evening before and not exhaling ( to quote an amusing joke of the lately departed Stephen Gaskin RIP). I mean the whole point about this image is that it is saturated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over saturated such that red channel is completely blown. Strange vignetting in corners. It is a subject that could have wow, but I'm not convinced the camera framing is doing the best here. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 23:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
@Fotoriety: Thanks for the review. Regarding the foregound and surroundings in general I left some space around to allow the building to "breathe". For me the featureless foreground helps the main subject to stand out. Is it correct that you think it should have been cropped tighter? I am sorry you do not like the lightning. I really like it myself and how the sky and coads are partially reflected in the curved ceramic shields surrounding the building. Anyway, there are so many possibilities for taking photos of this building regarding the vantage point, time of day and weather conditions. It is almost like a chameleon to me. If you look at the other photos in Viborg power plant, are there any elements in the framing, light vantage point in some of the other shots which are worthwhile to explore further in your opinion? I live close by, so it is easy to take new shots at it. Or, are you just non-wowed by this building in general? --Slaunger (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: It's hard to say how i would like this photo to be taken because i don't know the dynamics of the environment. However, i agree that a tighter crop would help; as would perhaps lighting such as the bright glow from a sunset also being reflected in the facade. Perhaps also if the photo could be taken at a higher level to give greater depth, that may improve the composition. However, i realise it's a power plant, so room for manoeuvre may be limited. Hope that helped.Fotoriety (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm sorry K, it's a very good quality picture (a no brainer QI) but there has to be something else for FP, imo. Maybe a more dramatic lighting or sky ? I believe a polariser would have given you a terrific sky here. The right building also ruins it IMO. To end with a positive note, I like the composition and the angle you took it from. - Benh (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd have gone for a tighter crop, avoiding the right building altogether. I'm puzzled why exposure bracketing was necessary since the overall image seems to lack large dynamic range. I agree with the suggestion to go when the sky is more dramatic (or make it so with a polariser). Do you think f/11 was necessary? If doing it again, I suggest taking advantage of your stitch to downsize/sharpen/+clarity to make the image look sharper while retaining high resolution. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose no wow here for me even although it is a good QI. I recognize your work with panorama and exposure fusion. But the quality (sharpness, detail level) is probably slightly lower than a single images taken with a D600/D800/5D Mark III and a good lens. So the technical quality is not outstanding enough, we need WOW also. I like the reflections you mention, but it's not enough WOW for me. From a composition point of view, I think File:Viborg Kraftvarmeværk N view 2014-07-06.jpg is better.--ArildV (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fotoriety: , @Benh: , @Colin: , @ArildV: . Thanks all for your helpful comments, and sorry for the late response: Just back from Berlin/Brandenburger Tor being German for one day while seeing a certain highly profiled football match:) I follow your critique. I have never tried using a polarization filter, I will try experimenting with that. Concerning bracketed exposure, I had used a non-optimal set point for the exposure, which did not optimally use the dynamic range, and I should have waited until later to get more dramatic light. I am torn about the crop. One of the architectural ideas with the building is that it should give associations to a ship cruising on the ocean, and to do that one needs some 'ocean' , to give the context of the surroundings, but that building to the right is distracting and ugly I agree. Fotoriety: A higher vantage point is regrettably not possible. ArildV, you are right. The quality is depressingly low when considering the effort of stitching 6 photos each with 3 exposures. I am really disappointed with my kit lens, and I should really get some better glass. But I just have to try harder. The building is nearby, and eventually I will manage to create a photo of great wow of it, as the subject really deserves it. It is actually very wow, when you pass it, I just need to figure out how to capture that. --Slaunger (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend getting a 30mm prime, or thereabouts (a 50mm is less useful on a crop camera for landscape stitching). My 30mm (which is also, bizarrely, a full 1:1 macro) is very sharp. It is a little plastic crop lens so wasn't expensive at all and very light on the camera. Don't know if there is something similar for Canon. Of course, if you have plenty money and don't mind the weight, Sigma do some very nice Art lenses. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: . Thanks for the advice. I actually went down to the local photo shop today after reading your proposal. and tried out different lenses on the 600 D. I ended up preferring a 40 mm prime f/2.8 from Canon wo IS (I normally disable IS anyhow when using a tripod for these shots)! The lens is quite inexpensive, but is not a macro lens though. It's called the pancake lens because it is very thin and light-weight. It is now on my wish list:) I also ordered a graduated grey filter to try and use that to get a better sky - they did not have the correct adapter ring, so have to wait a few days...-- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 10:40:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vincent van Gogh - Tree Roots and Trunks (F816).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vincent van Gogh - Tree Roots and Trunks (F816).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2014 at 20:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:5 boerenzwaluwen op een rijtje.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:5 boerenzwaluwen op een rijtje.jpg
Oppose Very "lucky" moment regarding the arrangement of the chicks and good composition. I do not like the frontal flash light and the background though, sorry. Still a nice shot though. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, the flash light is a bit harsh. But it was very dark in the shed, the camera had a hard time focusing, and the build in flash was all I had. Maybe I should get one of those softboxes that fit over the build in flash, that shouldn't take up much room in my small camera bag. Next nesting season I will be prepared :) --Baykedevries (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Birds are fine but the background spoils it for me. Of course you cannot just take the birds before a nicer one, still that keeps me from supporting. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 18:47:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor5.jpg
Comment I don't know if this makes sense, but I don't understand the composition (I don't want to sound rude at all). The foreground hill and the background hill (the lighthouse) seem to be together as one because of the colours, but they are not, and this is confusing imo. I don't know if you wanted the lighthouse to be the centre of interest of the picture, but if this was the goal, I think it is too small in the final composition (the foreground hill takes too much attention). Maybe if you had shown a part of the road, it would have helped to lead the eye to the lighthouse. I hope this is an useful comment ;) --Kadellar (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. It's not rude but good argued some good points and I undertsand them. My main intent wasn't to center the lighthouse but it was more or less inevitable. Main idea was to showing the interessting diagonal line that is formed by the foreground mountains and the sourrounding of the lighthouse. In my eyes this image is impressive because this diagonal is interrupted by the cap (background) framed by the sea and sky in different shades of blue. The lighthouse centered and closer from the same position we see here File:Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor4.jpg. I have different versions of this image (not yet published) and I can see if there is a way to show this impressive landscape without haveing the lighthouse centered. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several dust spots (see notes about some ones). The horizon is not stright only at left (see note): Barrel distortion?--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 02:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little underexposed, flat light and a small hill in the way of a composition that would work for me. The diagonal line, in my opinion, doesn't work because there is no contrast to support it, and it leads nowhere. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the diagonal works because we have a strong contrast between the scraggy landscape and the clear blue sea. But for sure this doesn`t impress all persons in the same way. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I've suggested a crop (approximately) where the image is large enough to see the snaking road and the composition is more satisfying imo. However, such a crop isn't very large for FP. -- Colin (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2014 at 19:50:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monumento a la Libertad, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 13.JPG/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monumento a la Libertad, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 13.JPG/2
Info The Freedom Monument is a memorial honouring soldiers killed during the Latvian War of Independence (1918–1920) located in Riga, capital of Latvia. The 42m high monument is considered an important symbol of the freedom, independence, and sovereignty of Latvia. It was unveiled in 1935 and is made of granite, travertine and copper. This is a re-nomination (see first one here) after having addressed the mentioned issues back then. All by me, Poco219:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a fine image and I'm happy to support editors who make the effort to upload their images. I do get all that stuff about saturation and frankly I don't give give a damn. And that sky is gorgeous. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours/light but not especially detailed of the statue itself and the composition not better that tourist shot. (Please can you save the file in sRGB colourspace). -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I don't know how to make the composition better than a tourist shot. I don't think that everybody would be as patient I was to wait until there was nobody in the square in one of the most crowded corners in Riga. Can you please elaborate that comment? Poco216:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC) PD: The version nominated here was exported in sRGB (olders maybe not).[reply]
I mean the arrangement of the subject and other components seems arbitrary and not rewarding. The tree on the right is particularly disturbing as it is so blurred and bright: it keeps attracting my eye. It upsets the balance of the image. Cropping out the right (including the Costa Coffee building) is an improvement. Your File:Monumento a la Libertad, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 18.JPG is better balanced, framed and considerably sharper (making it clear how blurred this one is). In that, both the trees and the perspective on the buildings lead the eye towards the monument. I'd support that one, despite the ghosting. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response Colin. I understand what you say but removing the tree on the right and the Costa Coffe building would result in cropping out all buildings on the right, and I am not convinced about that since then I'd believe that the picture is then unbalanced. I do also like the alternative picture (ghosting there is though and issue to me), but I tried to provide in this one some perspective of the monument and of the square. Poco210:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try the crop and see. The tall vertical monument balances the horizontal trees. It isn't symmetrical but has a different balance imo. But it is your pic :-). Shame about the tourists. I don't suppose you've got a picture of the same scene where the people were in a different place, and you could eliminate them with some Photoshop. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did, it is interesting, but different and not what I was targeting. Unfortunately I don't have either a second shot of the other version to get rid of the ghosts. Thanks anyhow. Poco221:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2014 at 02:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Budapest, St. Stephen's Basilica C12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Budapest, St. Stephen's Basilica C12.jpg
Oppose In recent times we had a lot of nominations of church windows (party techincally at a very high level). My everlasting problem with such nominations is, that the personal contribution of the photographer is difficult to recognize in that case. From a technical perspective the photo here is imho only average. It looks rather soft and on the left side there are bright border areas which are distracting. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid image. Stained glass an accepted 2-D category on Commons. Can't follow "personal contribution". Of course if the editor knows it's not a faithful representation, that's another matter. No reason to suppose that is so here. Straight enough for me. Perfectly straight probably too straight. All these fantastically straight images ultimately tedious IMHO. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 01:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frans Hals - Portrait of Aletta Hanemans - Mauritshuis 460.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frans Hals - Portrait of Aletta Hanemans - Mauritshuis 460.jpg
Comment Sorry, but I think you are currently exceeding the two nominations limit defined by the guidelines. You should probably withdraw one of the images and perhaps nominate it at a later stage. --DXR (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 12:03:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alise-Sainte-Reine statue Vercingetorix par Millet large.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alise-Sainte-Reine statue Vercingetorix par Millet large.jpg
Oppose It's a good quality picture, and subject is almost placed following rule of thirds, with room on the right for his eyes to look at. But appart from that, lighting is dull and I don't feel like this picture has that sparkle which makes stand above the crowd (dust spot removed or not...). - Benh (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With its melancholic mood, the light of this somewat gloomy afternoon fits well with the subject IMO, an isolated statue in a quite desolated landscape, remembering the end of an epic—Vercingetorix's one as well as Napoleon III's one in fact. --Myrabella (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of light is obtained at any time of any cloudy day. And I don't call "desolated" a landscape this green and with this many visible trails. It's obviously fertile and busy. - Benh (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "desolated" is not the most accurate word? Nevertheless, I found the place windy, chilly and a bit sad. There are visitors but noboby lives here, on the top of Mont Auxois. --Myrabella (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 10:19:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lilium bulbiferum var. bulbiferum 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lilium bulbiferum var. bulbiferum 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 09:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:VIS - Vienna Independent Shorts 2014 Stadtkino Künstlerhaus Jennifer Reeder.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:VIS - Vienna Independent Shorts 2014 Stadtkino Künstlerhaus Jennifer Reeder.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2014 at 12:58:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Полонина Григорівка.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Полонина Григорівка.jpg
Support Despite a very simple landscape, photographer achieved a very moody image. Beautiful composition and light (although the sky seems to be heavily darkened, but I think it's an editorial choice). Wish I see more pictures of this kind over here. - Benh (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gets so much better when you realize that curve upwards at the right is not an effect of the stitching but the way the land actually is. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 07:18:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Butter-Tubs-Pass-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butter-Tubs-Pass-1.jpg
Comment The Cliff Gate Road itself winding around the hillsides being the subject of this image, I found it hard to put it upright to increase fascination. There were some sheep hanging around on the road behind me but one of them in the foreground would have been just distracting. --Kreuzschnabel (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 11:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lac du Salagou, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lac du Salagou, Hérault 01.jpg
Neutral I hope you won't find my review discouraging... You always listen to feedbacks, and yet I still don't give support. So what's wrong in my eyes this time? Framing! I see nowhere to focalise on on that pic... I admit it's really subjective though. I would have use the tele end of the 70-200 and framed the upper middle/right part of that picture. Or go for a panoramic format maybe? Also, I'd try to tone the pic with warmer colors. Sunset light is more orange. Maybe the WB is off. But It's really the kind of shots I'd like to shot personally more often. Very nice light and mood. - Benh (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, No problem, it is me who hope not to bother too much you with my photos. You will see in some time that it is more or less impossible to discourage me especially when we are so kind with me. -- Christian FerrerTalk04:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 06:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Garibalbi Lake BC.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Garibalbi Lake BC.jpg
The image appears slightly tilted but when I tried to correct it the result still looks tilted. Help from other editors would be appreciated. --Pine✉07:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Water is a great tool for tilt correction because a reflection should always be on the same vertical line as the original object that is reflected. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)07:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly, the low quality of the optics has introduced a lack of contrast and the noise reduction has killed most of the subtle detail. I think this is quite far away from FP quality standards. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)07:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 06:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cheakamuslake.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cheakamuslake.JPG
Neutral very atmospheric scenery which has wow for me, but technical quality is not sufficient (too soft, dark areas, ...) --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea and composition, just the low technical quality keeps me from supporting. Pity. Photographer is in dire need of a better gear. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace (please overwrite); but such AGF edits by original author don't need a D & R. You can simply overwrite the file (IMHO). Jee17:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is a very elegant behaviour. And it is better not to overwrite promoted pictures. Now, it will be "official".--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I appreciate Gidip's honesty. But a D & R need to be manually closed (I closed this; there are too many entries). It will popup again in next year's POTY, too. So I think it is good to avoid such etc. workloads. Jee03:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COM:OVERWRITE used to contain a lot of nonsense about not overwriting Featured or Quality images. I eliminated that a few months ago and suggested care be used: "The image creator may make minor changes where they feel this would be uncontroversial wrt the promotional status (for example, removing dust spots or fixing a minor tilt). Potentially controversial changes should be discussed with members of the forum that promoted the image." So I consider this discussed and approved but agree an alternative informal mechanism would be better. Please Gidip, just overwrite the original with the superior version and request the duplicate be speedy deleted. I strongly do not approve of generating a new FP (or POTY candidate) nor does Commons need two images: a flawed on and an improved one. The easiest way to seek approval is to go ahead with the change in-place and then seek forgiveness (as one can always revert) rather than uploading extra images. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 17:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support – I like this photo very much and I don't agree with Uberprutser. The photo shows the subject's natural lightning conditions in the bottom of the forest. The subject is celarly visible because it has a contrasting colouring. The quality is good and it shows an interesting natural phenomenon. – Dreilinden (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure if that would be hard to get, but I'd much prefer a side view to this top view with a relatively small part both bright and sharp enough to be helpful. That would also present an opportunity to give the shot some kind of composition. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine image, deserves the QI badge, but lacks wow. Centered composition and up-down view are both nothing but boring IMHO. A FPC should show something surprising. Camera level with object would score much higher here :-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 00:47:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saksofon altowy Serie III GP firmy Selmer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saksofon altowy Serie III GP firmy Selmer.jpg
weakOppose There are a lot of burned-out highlights, but that's obviously difficult to avoid with an object like this. I think I could live with that, but the reflection of the studio at the bell is pretty disturbing once you noticed it. Also, the removal of the original background looks a little bit sloppy at least at the bottom. --El Grafo (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2014 at 22:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Veluwse Papiermolen in het Openluchtmuseum van Arnhem.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veluwse Papiermolen in het Openluchtmuseum van Arnhem.jpg
Oppose Nice comp but looks definitely overexposed to me (right side of building). Top/bottom crop very tight while too much empty space on the right, maybe portrait orientation or square framing would have done better. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say nice comp but then start to complain about empty space and a tight crop, aren't those mutually exclusive? If I had under exposed the image chances are you would complain about noise in the shadow areas. Your own eyes would have had a hard time seeing some details on the right side of the building. So a view overexposed patches seem rather natural to me. Sigh. --Uberprutser (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not really working for me, and I agree it is overexposed (bright sunlight in woodland is especially hard). There's too much side and not enough waterwheel. -- Colin (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's quite hard to read due to the complex shadows, and in such a case, I'd prefer not to also have a reflection with almost the same amount of definition and contrast. The overexposure is also quite noticeable. I think this shot would be far easier to get right in less sunny conditions. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 20:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Los Amantes, Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 06.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Los Amantes, Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 06.JPG
Info Coffins with the remains of the Lovers of Teruel in an attached interpreting center of St Peter's Church (es), Teruel, Aragón, Spain. The Lovers of Teruel is popular due to a romance story (read more here if you are interested) that is alleged to have taken place in 1217 in the city of Teruel. The remains of the lovers were buried side by side in one of the chapels in San Pedro Church and in 1555, during some building works in this church, the couple’s remains were found buried together. This love story has inspired writers such as Tirso de Molina and Juan Eugenio Hartzenbusch, musicians such as Thomas Breton or painters such as Antonio Muñoz Degrain (es). All by me, Poco220:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's sharp, but I don't think the composition does justice to the subject, with the rather low point of view, the wide angle and the tight framing. - Benh (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my defence I have to say that the coffins are pretty high, the place is very crowded and there was no material way to take a shot from a further distance and that having a tripod was only possible with especial permission. Poco219:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Je pensais bien que ma formulation était ambigüe... Mais je crois que tu as très bien compris mon propos ! Je ne suis pas triste d'avoir à suivre ton opinion, je suis seulement triste d'avoir à suivre ton opinion ! La nuance est pourtant claire !:)))--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2014 at 07:08:07 (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 25 Jul 2014 at 18:45:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chester Cathedral Choir, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chester Cathedral Choir, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Support All your church interior shots are incredible, this I don't need to say (but it's almost free and always good to read I guess). There's so many details to browse at on this picture. I must find little niggles so, I'd just go for the slight leaning to the right which is noticeable on the left part, and the slight overprocessed look (but given your records, I think this is not your signature, and that the church just looks like that). You should nominate here more often also. - Benh (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if someone would mention the overprocessed look. As you say, I go to a lot of trouble to actually avoid this, and I think you're right, it might just be that the church looks like that (it's always hard with multiple light sources and different colour tints also). I process all my HDR images quite similarly, and some just look more processed than others! I can't always explain it. :-) As for the lean to the right, I'm not sure... These old buildings are never completely straight to begin with. I agree that many of the lines that you would assume are vertical seem to lean slightly to the right, but I've also found a few that are vertical and one that even leans to the left. Diliff (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would you just share why f/13 and ISO 500 ? I can sort of understand f/13 because you try max DOF, and maybe FF allows you bigger f number before diffraction gets in the way. But ISO 500 ? Is the MkIII this good at handling noise? Is this a kind of sweet spot for dynamic range? - Benh (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main reason for these settings is that it's a compromise of a few different things. Yes, f/13 for DOF, and because I downsize afterwards, the slight diffraction effects at f/13 are not an issue. ISO 500... Well, I usually use between ISO 320 and ISO 640 for my stitched HDR shots, and the reason is that around ISO 100 takes too damn long. ;-) I shoot usually about 10-15 frames, each with 5 bracketed exposures. With these settings, the longest exposure in the bracket set is usually around 15 seconds, so you can imagine that a 5 bracket set will take about 30 seconds in total to shoot (I often use -6EV, -3EV, 0EV, +3EV and +6EV). If I used ISO 100, the total time for the bracket would be almost 1 minute and would probably bump against the 30s maximum before it could even reach the correct bracketed exposure for +6EV which would be annoying. The 5D Mk iii is good enough at these ISOs. Another thing to realise: the tone mapping uses all exposures to build the image, so if you want to brighten the image, you aren't actually having to dig into the shadow detail like you would with a single exposure, you're using the information from the brighter exposures in the bracket instead, therefore it doesn't get as much noise at a given ISO. Make sense? Anyway, a long story short: ISO 500 is to make the whole panorama take less time to shoot, and to avoid hitting the 30 second limit in the bracket. Diliff (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for these valuable insights. I never realize because I go -2, 0 and +2EV. I probably will reconsider that after seeing your results. - Benh (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The books look a tiny bit more colorful/saturated that I'd expect them to look in a place like that, but that's by far not enough to oppose. The ornaments remind me of Peter Jackson's version of the gates of Mordor ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 15:04:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Italia vs Suiza - 2014 CERH European Championship - 08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Italia vs Suiza - 2014 CERH European Championship - 08.jpg
Info Davide Motaran and Patrick Greimel (Italy vs Switzerland), 2014 CERH European Championship. I'm 1,5 m away from the action. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2014 at 16:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jacques-Louis David - The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jacques-Louis David - The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2016 at 05:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Vierge au voile, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Vierge au voile, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2014 at 14:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nave of the Ste Cécile Cathedral - 2014-02-22.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nave of the Ste Cécile Cathedral - 2014-02-22.jpg
Info HDR interior of Albi's cathedral in France. It is said to be a very simple cathedral without lots of details and ornaments in order to convinced the unfaithfuls. — (c/u/n) all by PierreSelim -- PierreSelim (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ccw tilt and underexposure should be fixed at least. On a personal taste, The perspective is quite interesting, but I would try to fix verticals, and crop most of the top if necessary. The star here is the rood screen, I wouldn't take the viewer's eyes away from it. (message personnel, si tu as une photo haute résolution prise du même endroit, de la partie inférieure gauche, je suis très intéressé pour boucher un trou d'un panorama que j'ai pris de ce même Jubé il y a 6 ans ! Je n'ai rien trouvé sur Gogole... ) - Benh (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to support if some the technical considerations above are addressed, and on this occasion certainly the tilt. Metadata doesn't indicate any digital processing at all. It could benefit from some. Not sure I would want to see the top cropped. That's one of the most interesting thing about the image, which is generally extremely fine I think and should meet the criteria if some work is done on it. -- Coat of Many Colours 16:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment Just to share that in case some people don't know, this is one of the very few rood screens which have survived to the present days. It's very well preserved and is full of fine details. That's why I mention it should be the star here. But you are also right about the ceiling, it's quite striking as well and also deserve to get a prominent part on a picture. - Benh (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree tilt needs fixing. It is hard to tell if underexposed since I wasn't there, but I guess most people would prefer a brighter picture just to see the wood/ceiling in more detail. If the raw file is available then some adjustment with e.g. Lightroom might bring out the best of the image. Also if raw file available, then please save as sRGB since AdobeRGB is not suitable for internet JPGs (and not a good choice for JPG at all, frankly). If you just have the JPG then please change your camera settings to save as sRGB in future. I disagree with the suggestion to correct verticals: if n quality image of the rood screen was to be created, one wouldn't have pointed the camera at the ceiling. I'm sure that screen would make a fantastic picture, but that's not this picture. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does make a fantastic picture ;) but my mosaic of it has a tiny hole that I've tried to fill from findings on Google... but nothing so far ! - Benh (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the picture, with a small rotation, a change in the colours profile and also I've tried to retrieve more details from the shadow parts. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a wow subject and photograph. There's strong "distortion" but in an explicit way that doesn't confuse anyone (unlike some "corrected" wide-angle rectilinear projections which can be deceptive). I accept this is taste and some tastes are conservative. I compare to Pierre's File:Cathedral of Albi - Nave and Organ - 7029.jpg and Benh's File:Albi Cathedral Nave Wikimedia Commons.jpg (which is excellent and unfairly rejected at QI imo). I do wonder if in lightening this you have lost some local contrast and saturation. The blue in particular is paler than the other images - but you were there and I don't know which is more accurate. Certainly in comparison to the previous version, this is preferable (the previous now looks over contrasty and saturated). PierreSelim, you may want to ping anyone who you would like to revisit the nom after your upload, as I nearly didn't spot you'd done this. -- Colin (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. It's pleasant to scroll through the image to observe fine details. I support the choice of point of view and the no-corrected perspective. --Myrabella (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 15:10:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tea Plantations in Valparai, Tamil Nadu.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tea Plantations in Valparai, Tamil Nadu.jpg
Oppose Very soft, noisy, and spoilt by JPEG compression (visible artifacts in background mountains). Which is a pity on this fine image. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 17:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal sig.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Aranha-de-prata (Argiope argentata) se alimenta, antero-dorsal sig.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2014 at 14:28:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lahn, Allerheiligenberg.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lahn, Allerheiligenberg.JPG
temp: Oppose this image have a sharpness problem. A lot of areas are too soft. Can you try to fix it? And why do you vote only Abstain ? Do you don't like your own image? Why do you think other voters like the image more then you? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness on the poor side (I don't think it's sufficiently fixable afterwards); not particularly interesting comnposition (not sure what shall be the eyecatcher: the bridge, the rocks, or the church), though the "stormy" weather is well captured. --A.Savin23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2014 at 20:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support This is outstanding among the other many pictures of Notre Dame. Just one comment: I would prefer a less tight crop on top. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just great. For Uoaei1, imo the crop is perfect because if you continue going up you include more elements and they'd be disturbing (gothic details are everywhere). --Kadellar (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. I see this twice a day, and your picture is really a success. Beware of overcorrection: both sides of the Cathedral are leaning out a bit in real, due to the weight of the towers. Quizz: where is Viollet-le Duc ? (not for XRay, he knows the answer)!--Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2014 at 10:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2014-10a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo January 2014-10a.jpg
Comment Looks nice, but I would crop a bit of sky so that the horizon is at 1/3 of the height from the top. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 !! Tripod, stopping down (and/or ND filter) and I believe you'd flood this page with FP to be. I'd also try with wide angle, but at the risk of endangering your life ;). - Benh (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice scene, but the details seem to be rather soft, a bit like too strong denoising. Have you done something like that to the image (or is it a .jpg out of camera)? If yes, I am wondering whether you would consider uploading an un-/less treated version --DXR (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes I was about to point the exact same issue : too strong NR as far as I can tell. also, to complete my previous comment : [3], [4] and [5]. - Benh (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange. Does the software you use maybe do some NR by default? This looks as heavily NR-edited as a jpeg directly from the camera. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)20:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too lazy to use Raw. I'll check the settings again, thanks. Anyway I remember well this stormy day and there was haze on the air. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2014 at 10:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seagull July 2014-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seagull July 2014-2.jpg
Support I was waiting for this nomination since I saw this picture on your user page... Up of the bird bar, no doubt.--Jebulon (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 13:21:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Südmähren Warte.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Südmähren Warte.JPG
Support Lighting IMHO is very appropriate. I’d have turned the camera even more to the left to get more of the shadow but it’s an impressive image for me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 10:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wesel, Alte Eisenbahnbrücke -- 2014 -- 676.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wesel, Alte Eisenbahnbrücke -- 2014 -- 676.jpg
Oppose because the whole bridge is in shadow. The sky is nice but this is not the time of the day to take this shot most succesfully. Noise reduction (or something similar) a bit strong too. --Kadellar (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 20:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Enseada Botafogo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Enseada Botafogo.jpg
Comment Impressive view, the cut road on bottom. left and right is a pity. It is a bit soft and there are traces of red CA, that should be fixed. Poco215:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine shot and composition but visible CA towards the edges, buildings on the left leaning in, and overall focus too soft for me considering the image size of just 7.5 Mpix. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 22:28:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Cap Figuera1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Cap Figuera1.jpg
That's pretty darn offensive. Unlike many editors, i always make an effort to state why i reject (or support) any FP candidates. Just because you have a photo that shows azure waters doesn't mean that you have taken an FP. To me, apart from the waters, the photo has zero wow that is expected of an FP.Fotoriety (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just your personal opinion without a comprehensible and without an answer to my specific question. I'll bring your attitude to discussion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Removed unhelpful comments about the creator as requested on both the talk page and COM:ANI. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)] If you require further enlightenment about the lighting (if it isn't already obvious enough), then let me inform you that i consider it to be very flat. Furthermore, you have a nominal foreground that adds very little to the framing of the photo and adds minimal depth; you have a headland that has minimal breathing space above it; the scene should evoke feelings of relaxation and leisure, but is instead emotionless and static. [Removed as well --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)] Fotoriety (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
composition is poor because of? A similar view like File:Pollença - Ma-2210 - Cala Figuera 09 ies.jpg I have already made and will upload this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The < shape seems unbalanced and the blunt headland looks oddly contrasted with the sharp triangle at the bottom. The left crop seems rather arbitrary. There is a lot of sharp detail but at screen-size the view of the cliffs are rather flat: the lighting is not bringing out the shape of the hill. The image is so detailed I wonder if another crop might help -- I'll play around with it tonight if I get a chance. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is a great shot in the bottom left area and a good one on the right, but together, they don't work well in my opinion. It's hard to explain why, but a lack of sky might be a factor, as well as less depth than many other possible compositions. Unrelated to the composition: The rock has halos. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that more sky would be positive for the impression (looking on a small thumb shows why) at all. I'll add some sky this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not impressed with the composition and light. The sky has several dust spots and retouching marks. --Ivar (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To give a little more detail regarding the light and my previous comment:
What I mean: It is obviously not coming exactly from behind you, but the general direction of the sun appears to be within maybe 30 degrees of the direction of shooting. A higher sun angle also usually doesn't help. It actually hurts in that it increases light-shadow-contrast. More on that further down.
Why I believe that it creates bad lighting: If the light is not noticeably coming from either side, shapes that have some kind of non-flat shape (round stones, the general rounded shapes of most landscape subjects) are not pronounced at all. With the sun almost behind you, it is very hard to tell the three-dimensional shape of objects because there is no difference in brightness depending on the surface angle. For good surface rendering, a sunset on either side of the photographer with soft and very directional light would be ideal, as it would have a contrast between light and shadow side of an object that is large enough to define shapes but low enough to be easily captured with the dynamic range of a camera. It also creates a difference in light temperature, which makes shapes even more beautiful to look at. At the other end of the spectrum would be an aerial photo in the middle of the day, straight down. No matter how the surface changes direction, everything will be equally bright and equal in light temperature and if a small shadow appears somewhere, it will be almost black and have sharp edges so that it can't define a rounded shape. Your photo is of course not equivalent to the second scenario, but it is somewhat close. The left part of any hill-like shape is almost equally bright as the right part of the same shape and shadows have very sharp edges and are pretty dark (they still have detail, but in the general composition, they don't help defining shapes because they are more or less binary: Shadow or no shadow, nothing in-between).
Now I'll note that there are of course scenarios where this kind of light doesn't hurt at all or is actually helpful. For more complex materials like shiny things or water, this doesn't matter, and in cases where there are no interesting round shapes, it might also not be necessary to have soft side lighting. But for a majority of subjects, and three-dimensional landscapes are among those, I think flat midday light is not great. It's obviously a question of taste to some extent, nothing is right or wrong in photography, but I feel like many people agree with the general idea that softer and more angled light produces more pleasing results.
Neutral it's obviously taken from a skilled photographer, and yes the place is interesting and the intensely blue water is calling for a dive, but I was about to point the same issue as other opposers : harsh noon lighting, giving both flat subject and washed out colors, which is noticeable especially on the upper left part. IMO, the same exact photo at sunrise/set (should come from the right on the picture) would be a no brainer FP, but maybe author can't return there this easily... - Benh (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noticed no color profile is embedded in the picture. I think it's an easy fix which can only do good to the picture. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 16:56:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baleia Jubarte.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baleia Jubarte.jpg
weak Oppose. Not bad but focus is not perfect (I think it is just behind the whale). Some noise from over-sharpening.--ArildV (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2014 at 11:58:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porton de entrada Cementerio de Colon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porton de entrada Cementerio de Colon.jpg
Oppose per A.Savin. The foreground objects and background multistorey cut by the frame ruin the composition for me. Not a bad shot but doesn’t reach FP level. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2014 at 12:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chucho Valdés & The Afro-Cuban Messengers - 29.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chucho Valdés & The Afro-Cuban Messengers - 29.jpg
Info Reinaldo Melián, trumpeter of Chucho Valdés & The Afro-Cuban Messengers, at a concert in Teatro Circo Price, Madrid, Spain. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well, let me pile on another one: great moment, lightning and framing, no disturbing elements in the background → Like it! --El Grafo (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 11:30:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:OY-DIZ SAI KZ IV landing Danish Air Show 2014-06-23.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:OY-DIZ SAI KZ IV landing Danish Air Show 2014-06-23.jpg
Info The only still functional KZ IV ambulance aircraft with registration OY-DIZ landing at Danish Air Show 2014. Built by Skandinavisk Aero Industri with first flight on May 4, 1944. Restored to its wartime configuration after a crash in 1977. In 1949, the OY-DIZ was christened with the name Folke Bernadotte in honour of the Swedish count who had used this very aircraft to make a diplomatic visit to Germany to negotiate for the release of Danish prisoners in German concentration camps near the end of the war. For more information about the technical circumstances of the photo, see this discussion from EN FPC, where it has just been promoted.
Comment Too much grass however you can't crop it more because it is already promoted in EN FPC and already a cropped picture (and maybe you don't want). -- Christian FerrerTalk 21:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC) and the 131mm increase (IMO) the effect of the perspective and give too much importance to the grass. -- Christian FerrerTalk21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you review. No, I will not change the crop in this file, because it is already featured elsewhere, but of course I could upload a new file, which was cropped. But I like the grass as it is. Gives balance to the composition in my opinion in accordance with rule of thirds. --Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: You mention how the 131 mm focal length affects the perspective (in I suppose a bad way). I am sorry, but can you elaborate? What would have been a better focal length in your opinion? --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessarily the focal length the problem, here it is more the association of this focal lenght and this centring and/or crop that makes the composition a little bit unbalenced, I feel as a baby fox who is obliged to raise the head by above herbs to see the plane. In summary the grass is here an obstacle to the reading of the image. How to avoid all this : if I find an answer be sure that I shall tell it you. The no-cropped version is better IMO -- Christian FerrerTalk22:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] And if you possess a 200mm or higher of course it would have been better. And if you don't have a 200 or 300mm, a photo one or two seconds before, with the plane a bit more in the sky (=less grass) would maybe have been better. -- Christian FerrerTalk22:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply] And in more there is only horizontal lines (plane, grass, sky, background) whitch is certainly increase by your choice of crop....I go to sleep....:) -- Christian FerrerTalk22:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Thanks for your detailed response, Christian. I really appreciate that:) The lens I used was actually a 250 mm, and I could have zoomed more, if I were better at panning:) But I wonder if the end result perspective-wise isn't approximately the same after cropping at 131 mm? It was not really possible for me to get a photo when approaching, due to the presence of very enthusiastic aviation photographers with huge tele lenses standing on small ladders and partially obstructing my view:) You could argue, correctly, that if I had been a bit more pro, I would also have brought a small ladder, and I would have arrived as early as possible to get the best possible position, but this was my first air show photographing. Anyway, sleep well, Christian. --Slaunger (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slaunger, to develop just a little more my point of view the comparison with the image above is very well. The both images have a centered position of the main subject, the house with the first and the plane with yours. The both images have also 1/3 of sky, 1/3 subject and 1/3 grass on the foreground. However on the first the use of 50mm give an effect of depth. It is typical of the telephoto lens of to crash the different areas (background, subject, foreground, ...). In this one you can see how focal length affects perspective and in more in this exemple we see only 18, 34 and 55mm, imagine with 130, 200mm... -- Christian FerrerTalk05:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: Thanks for taking your time to elaborate further. I understand much better now what your point is. I do not agree it is a problem in the nominated photo, but I understand what you see as being the problem with the focal length. Anyway, not really something I can change in the nomineated photo, so either you like it as it is or not. And it appears most don't really care, actually, as there are no votes yet. --Slaunger (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 23:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saxo bateau port Vannes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saxo bateau port Vannes.jpg
Support Something (somebody) different. A man. A saxophonist simply playing music, on board of an old boat, harbour of Vannes, Morbihan, France. I hope you will like it.-- Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As they say (in German and in English): "less is more". I see a mess of distracting objects here, the musician almost drowned by the two lifebelts dominating both in colour and size. Fine atmospheric image for a suitable context but no FP for me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There are too many objects in the picture, its quite distracting. I also dislike the white coloring in the upleft corner. I do like the posture of the musician. Azeri (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 08:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ionian Academy - Corfu.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ionian Academy - Corfu.jpg
Oppose Not so good composition, colors are a little washed out, and the white statue with the white cloud in the background is unfortunate IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 20:03:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fabienne Keller par Claude Truong-Ngoc avril 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fabienne Keller par Claude Truong-Ngoc avril 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2014 at 17:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl with a Pearl Earring - Mauritshuis 670.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl with a Pearl Earring - Mauritshuis 670.jpg
Support -- A drop dead gorgeous image from the newly revamped Mauritshuis.
There is already a Featured Picture of this painting here at Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) - The Girl With The Pearl Earring (1665).jpg, but this image has several serious issues in my opinion 1 unsourced and undocumented 2 revoltingly saturated, our poor little meisje in the last throes of terminal hepatitis, and 3 (astonishingly) cropped at the right. An attempt by me to overwrite it with the new Mauritshuis was met with resistance from City Hall, so I am following the letter of the guidelines and offering a new file and a fresh nomination. This enterprising legacy high resolution file File:Johannes Vermeer - Girl with a Pearl Earring - WGA24666.jpg would also be worth attention were it not for the inauthentic rosy complexion, harbinger this time perhaps of the dreaded Plague so rampant in cities of the time not to mention the editor's personal preference in erm ... pink.
Current project (City Hall permitting) is to engage with others writing up the Mauritshuis collection for Commons and I may bring some others here depending on the progress of this nomination Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Thanks for that. My damn eyes and drinking too much I expect. Oh well. The Commons administratot will actually make the adjustment., It's really very difficult for me to cope with that kind of thing, so I would appreciate it if someone could make the adjustments for mew. I think stuff might have got lost here. 20:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Coat of Many Colours (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2014 at 16:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Raymond Poincaré officiel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raymond Poincaré officiel.jpg
Support New in "Commons". This is a photogravure (heliography) of the presidential portrait of Raymond Poincaré (1860 - 1934), which was the head of state of France during all the World War I (1913 - 1920). He had no real constitutional powers, but he managed very well several governments, and achieved in maintaining the unity of the country. In France, he is a symbol of tenacity during difficult moments. Restored by me. High size, quality, and value(s), IMO.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2014 at 23:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Curit - Shinkolobwe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Curit - Shinkolobwe.jpg
Support +1 to Klaproth, especially because it's really hard to get any good pictures with idiomorphic crystals of Curit. -- Ra'ikeTC16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
StrongOppose Very noisy, nothing really sharp, disturbing out of focus foreground elements. What are those lines of points all over the image??? Also because of possible canvassing. ---Kadellar (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to join Kadellar here. When I look at the image in full scale, I see lots of mini-blurs and the vertical black drip (?) lines in several places that are clearly not part of the crystal structure but are some artifact of the photographic process. When I look at an image being considered for FP I should never find myself saying, "Huh??" But I did here. Which is a shame, because the crystals look like they are amazing! I just wanna seem them all "crystal clear" (ugh, sorry!). KDS444 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 18:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liverpool Anglican Cathedral West Window, Liverpool, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liverpool Anglican Cathedral West Window, Liverpool, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 21:55:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gaspare Fossati - Louis Haghe - Vue générale de la grande nef, en regardant l'occident (Hagia Sophia - Ayasofya Mosque nave).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gaspare Fossati - Louis Haghe - Vue générale de la grande nef, en regardant l'occident (Hagia Sophia - Ayasofya Mosque nave).jpg
CommentGaspare Fossati was one of the two brothers in charge of the renovation of the then-mosque (now, perhaps, better known as the Hagia Sophia) in the late 1840s.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 23:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Raymond Monvoisin - Retrato de Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raymond Monvoisin - Retrato de Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg
@Yann: The version linked to is not the one I used for restoration. I used the Argentine government's official image (see [6], which is linked in the description page of the image file). The one you link to, which is also the original upload, is very blue and has lost much of the coloring; the subject looks almost violet, almost as if he was choking (or holding his breath too long)! Best regards.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 03:06:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yogapith, Mayapur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yogapith, Mayapur.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2014 at 09:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Znojmo a Dyje (Znaim und Thaya) - panorama.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Znojmo a Dyje (Znaim und Thaya) - panorama.JPG
Comment I really like the left side with the river and dam but the right side is not really appealing, maybe a panorama with more of the violage would have been better Poco221:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 19:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aterro do Flamengo visto a partir do morro da Urca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aterro do Flamengo visto a partir do morro da Urca.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2014 at 20:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Enseada de Botafogo e Pão de Açúcar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Enseada de Botafogo e Pão de Açúcar.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2014 at 05:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rubus ulmifolius, flowers and buds, Vias, Hérault 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rubus ulmifolius, flowers and buds, Vias, Hérault 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 19:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pantaleón, Ohrid, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 35 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pantaleón, Ohrid, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 35 HDR.jpg
Info The Saint Panteleimon monastery is situated on Plaošnik, an archaeological site and holy place in Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia. It is attributed to Clement of Ohrid, a disciple of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius at the request of Boris I of Bulgaria in the 9th century. Apart from the monastery's many reconstructions during the Ottoman empire, it has recently undergone extensive reconstruction and excavation. Reconstruction finished by August 10, 2002 and most of Saint Clement's relics were returned to the church. All by me, Poco219:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting subject, good work with HDR. But I would crop the roof at right (what is it?): this modern construction spoils the nice atmosphere. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 21:57:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Velejando nas nuvens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Velejando nas nuvens.jpg
Oppose Clearly Overprocessed. What happens when you don't yet realize the Shadow/highlights slider has its limits, and more is not better. Daniel Case (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 16:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agua azulada e limpida do Poco Azul.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agua azulada e limpida do Poco Azul.png
Oppose Good idea, and it looks a very special place, but the rock is really overexposed. I think you need some HDR technique to cover the large dynamic range. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The overexposure of the rock is justifiable (and fixable). Probably the rock is reflecting the light that shines in the cave. Regards, ArionEstar (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann. Thanks for the comments and it is a fact, but due to the short time without tourists (I held six for few minutes) and the instability of the access deck, I was not able to make more photos(only two) with other expositions. Unfortunately. -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 20:44:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dampflokomotive 997243-1 der Harzer Schmalspurbahnen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dampflokomotive 997243-1 der Harzer Schmalspurbahnen.jpg
My explanation as requested: Probably a good photo in the family's own photo album. I think the family members love to see the family's son and dad (I guess) together in front of an old train. But that doesn't make it a featured picture. I think the photo is a little uninteresting. Furthermore, I think the man's black backpack dominates the picture too much. For me the train is the interesting part of the picture and that is unfortunately "pushed back" in the up left corner because of the two persons in front. And a cropped version with the train only will not be good because the two heads are blocking for a part of the train. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the "subject of the image" is narrowly construed as the locomotive, father and son are distracting. If however the subject is construed more widely as "steamlocomotive and admirers" or "museum railway and interested visitors" the image speaks for itself, due to the composition. Compliments. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to both file name and file description given, only the locomotive is meant to be the subject. Nothing "construed" on that interpretation. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 01:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frans Hals - Portrait of Jacob Olycan - Mauritshuis 459.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frans Hals - Portrait of Jacob Olycan - Mauritshuis 459.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 14:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gloriette Schönbrunn Wien (Zuschnitt).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gloriette Schönbrunn Wien (Zuschnitt).jpg
Support I prefer this version, because no reflection in the water seems better than the incomplete one. But I would also support the alternative. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, the nominator has to chose first between alternatives when he nominates. Alternative versions is for improved pictures after comments. --Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't want to influence the voters and I didn't want to conceal the alternative! I prefer the first one because of the incomplete reflections of the alternative. :-) -- Wolf im Wald22:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ich hasse das Bild :P! Im Ernst: Ich finde das Bild ohne Wasser mittlerweile cooler, weil die Reflexion - wegen der Rasen-Reflexion - so weit unten ist und sie zudem aus technischen Gründen unschön abgeschnitten ist. Daher habe ich ursprünglich nur das Bild ohne Wasser zur Wahl gestellt und schließlich das andere nachträglich ergänzt, weil es sowieso ergänzt worden wäre und ich es den Abstimmenden nicht vorenthalten wollte, damit ein authentisches Abstimmungsergebnis zustande kommt, welches nicht zustande kommen würde, wenn das andere Bild erst nach Tagen ergänzt werden würde und somit einen kürzeren Abstimmungszeitraum hat. -- Wolf im Wald22:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 20:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guerrero a caballo, Skopie, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 107.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guerrero a caballo, Skopie, Macedonia, 2014-04-17, DD 107.JPG
Info The Warrior on a Horse statue is one of the main symbols of the Skopje 2014 project and is located in the center of Macedonia Square in Skopje, capital of the Republic of Macedonia. Although it is not officially named for him, it is typically thought to depict Alexander the Great. The statue was sculpted by Valentina Stefanovska and completed on September 8, 2011 to commemorate 20 years of the independence of the Republic of Macedonia. The bronze sculpture is 14.5 m tall and it sits on a cylindrical column, which itself is 10 m in height. The column consists of three large ivory sections containing reliefs, each separated by a thinner bronze ring. Each section contains reliefs. The column stands in a fountain and at the base of the column there are 8 bronze soldiers, each 3 m tall and 8 bronze lions, each 2.5 m tall.. All by me, Poco220:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but there was IMHO no better angle to photograph the monument. I have spent hours there and have uploaded multiple pictures. The sculpture is not lighted in the top, I cannot change that and for composition purposes it was important to achieve a certain symmetry in the fountain (with the lion in the middle). Furthermore from this angle there was the better composition in the background. Poco219:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 13:49:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca sylvanus at the Ouzoud Waterfalls (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca sylvanus at the Ouzoud Waterfalls (1).jpg
Comment Could you please try to get rid of the overexposed background somehow, e.g. by cropping the left side etc. The face is very good, but the background is distracting. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see every single damn hair on this monkey's head! This is an amazing photo! With this kind of detail? Lord, if it had fleas, you'd know by this image! Technical perfection, in my book, and plenty of elusive "WOW"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDS444 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 10:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:POL-A1a-Bilet Skarbowy-5 Zlotych (1794 First Issue).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:POL-A1a-Bilet Skarbowy-5 Zlotych (1794 First Issue).jpg
Info Anonymous creator, historical Polish official treasury note from the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution, scan by Godot13 - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Maire -- Maire (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Polish "Bilet Skarbowy" (treasury note) - 5-zloty, dated 8 June 1794. This note is from the first issue of banknotes by the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and was authorized by Tadeusz Kościuszko. The file is already a FP at en-wiki and a part of a valued set here. To anticipate certain doubts - the cut-off top is actually a feature. As an anti-counterfeiting measure, in those times the top margin was cut off and kept together with the serial number of the note, so that by comparing them later to the rest of the note it could be determined if the note was genuine or not.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 12:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pilatus P3-03 P3-Flyers HB-RBP OTT 2013 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pilatus P3-03 P3-Flyers HB-RBP OTT 2013 02.jpg
Abstain as author. I nominate this photo as one of my favourites from this occasion because I really like how the smoke from the previous display creates contrast for the prop and undercarriage and makes the silhouette stand out. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Julian H., and of course don't take it personaly, but I feel the exact opposite sensation: I find the smoke really disturbing (thumbnail, full size, before and after reading your explanation), even if your plane is very nicely taken and absolutely sharp. Just my opinion. (I've often noticed that a first negative vote prevents other votes, a fortiori support votes. Please to other reviewers here: don't be influenced by my "contra", and feel free to support: I'm interested too in hearing opinions !)--Jebulon (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Jebulon that the smoke does not do much good to it, but I think still think it has good wow, because it is taken in flight at low altitude, the light, colors and detail level are really good, and the aircraft model is interesting. I also like, that the wheel are being retracted(?). The file page is really good too. --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the smoke adds an interesting dimension to the picture, a hint of mystery that makes it stand out more than it might without the smoke. It makes me want to know more. Full support on that basis! KDS444 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 06:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support the blurred leaves are the result of a deliberately shallow depth of field-- the whole point is that the FROG's HEAD is in IMMACULATE focus! An image blurred at the edges like this has its own kind of built-in frame to help the viewer see the ah HA! And I do, and I did. You can even see the reflection of the photographer in the frog's left (our right) eye. KDS444 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 19:34:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tarfala valley panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tarfala valley panorama.jpg
You can see Sweden's tallest mountain, and several famous glaciers (notably Storglaciären, which has the world's longest data record). The phenomenon on the left is just a normal consequence of the panoramic projection and the fact that you don't have a straight horizon. Another thing is that the valley increases in altitude from left to right in the panorama. The picture also gives a overview of the research station's location. Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I find it interesting, that it has a big contrast alternating very much between almost white and almost black. I am wondering if the contrast is a little too high? Does it really look so black and white? I seems some features are missing, especially in the dark areas, where I believe shadows could be highlighed more. The researh station buildings has very little colors. Are they really colorless or could the image simply use a little more saturation? --Slaunger (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's how the place looks like during summer - large albedo variation everywhere. Of course, if I did a vegetation-only shot, I would have used the Levels tool to tweak the photo, but doing something here would just create an unrealistic picture. If you want a closer look at the research station and the vegetation (the whole valley is above the tree line), see the Tarfala category that I made... Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2014 at 18:21:40 (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 5 Aug 2014 at 19:49:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The pose is good, but I find the background distracting and the light flat. Regarding the EN:FP status of this (zoo) shot. It only barely got promoted back in 2010. I think the bar for bird FPs is somewhat higher nowadays. --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 09:06:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose A no-brainer QI. Excellent light and colors, very low noise, very educational, crisp and clear. But sorry, the wow is just not there for me. --Slaunger (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think complaining about the shadow is appropriate here. The light is very good, and with a strong side light which add relief to the sculpture, there needs to be a shadow on the side. Digitaly removing the shadow will certainly not improve the image. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think digitaly removing the shadow is good. Before taking the photo there should have been a lamp placed at left giving light in the left part of the photo. I know that would probably not have been possible for the photograher (a museum visitor I guess). --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an afterwards removal of the shadow wouldn't improve the image; a shadow is not necessarily an evil, but this one is simply too harsh for me, which is hardly avoidable with an object placed so close to the background. --A.Savin21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 09:09:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coventry Cathedral Interior, West Midlands, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coventry Cathedral Interior, West Midlands, UK - Diliff.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2014 at 14:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Französische Botschaft Wien.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Französische Botschaft Wien.jpg
762
1063
732
958
8758
4490
maybe unavoidable, but very eye catching and disturbing...
Neutral Very high detail level, good colors and composition. Wow not quite as high for me as in your nomination above. The pole is a little distracting as well (yet unavoidable). The crop of the sky is also a little tight for me. --Slaunger (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the edit, thanks to Paris 16! Question Can I simply overwrite the original image, so that only this edit is nominated? I think that the edit is clearly better than the original image and nobody will think different. It would be better for the servers only to have one version and to delete the other one. -- Wolf im Wald05:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Für mich sieht es unterbelichtet aus. Versuch mal, den Weißregler etwas zu verschieben. Für Lightroom könnte ich dir das Vorgehen genauer beschreiben. Schick mir einfach eine Wikimail, falls Du Lightroom benutzt. Dann schicke ich dir eine Anleitung zurück. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 12:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Korsö February 2013 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Korsö February 2013 03.jpg
Info Korsö torn (tower), Korsö island, Stockholm archipelago. Originally built as a lighthouse in the late 1700s, later used as a military observation tower. The images was taken from a chartered helicopter, as part of Wikimedia Sweden aerial photo project. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice pic. Perhaps a little boring centered composition. Weird. When I look at the cliffs in the foreground they appear duplicated or motion blurred. In theory it could be because the vantage point was changing during the shot, while you were focusing on the tower, but I would be surprised if this happened with 1/1000 s exposure unless the helicopter was moving very fast? It could also just be because of the f/4.5 aperture and the associated low DOF. --Slaunger (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger: even a pro lens as the 24-70 has weakness. The border sharpness at long distances is the weakness here. DOF should not be a problem here, because of the distance to the object (at least 200 meters altitude above the sea, and some distance from the tower and the island). There is no downsampling and almost no crop here, normally you do not see 24mp aerial images. Here is a 3 mp version of the same photo, looks very sharp.--ArildV (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 11:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Menshikovsky Palace in Oranienbaum 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Menshikovsky Palace in Oranienbaum 01.jpg
Info Main building of Grand Menshikovsky Palace in Oranienbaum. Built in 1711—1727 by Giovanni Maria Fontana.
Question Very good light and very colorful. Tending to support. Seems a liitle overstaurated to me. How much has been done in postprocessing? Why only 10 Mpixels with a 16 Mpixel camera? How come the sky is so dark at 2 pm? --Slaunger (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was edited, cropped and resized a bit, of course. But anyway, I think 10-12 Mpixels is enough for most cases. Such tone of sky can often be seen in our latitudes. --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, that a slight crop above and below could improve it a bit. But please, only a little such that you get 1/3 lawn, 1/3 building (up to beginning of tower), 1/3 sky (including tower and top of trees). --Slaunger (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contrary to the image down, the 50mm make the proportion of the image more acceptable (IMO) and decrease the effect of pile of the perspectives -- Christian FerrerTalk21:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2014 at 14:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shirvan Domes.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shirvan Domes.jpg/2
Comment Very interesting and valuable photograph. Composition is very good too but I'm not convinced of the technical quality and the small size. It also seems tilted to the right.--MrPanyGoff15:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think its the terrain or even the structure that is tilted, as you can see in the background the graveyard is located on hilly terrains. Azeri (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2014 at 05:34:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Butter-Tubs-Pass-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butter-Tubs-Pass-2.jpg
1270
2396
1577
666
4608
3072
The tall flowers here look really weird as most of them appear to be detached from the remainder of the plant as if wearing some kind of invisibility cloak. --Slaunger (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Alternative view on the Butter Tubs Pass from a different point of view, showing the road not that dominant in the foreground. Light has changed a bit during those few minutes, not for the worst I think. Hopefully, the sheepfold in the lower right is interesting enough a detail. Oh yes, and this one is cropped to 3:2 ratio as well for those who don’t like µFT’s native ratio :-) On support, I will withdraw the other nomination.
Comment Well, they’re unsharp, so the stems melt into the background grass. I don’t think cloning them all out would improve the image. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2014 at 08:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral DoF is a bit shallow (right edge is unsharp) but the cut-by-the-frame tree on the right is what really keeps me from supporting. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically very good (sharp, light colors, framing). The background is a little distracting, but this is, I believe, inevitable. Wow is low for me though. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Slaunger. No wow, and don't see what separates this picture from a QI : Well taken, but I don't like the composition and I don't wonder "how", "when", "what a timing" ... - Benh (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 08:24:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Nearly perfect and featurable without doubt, just some small blown areas near the top of the bird’s head. Can you fix this (raw file)? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2014 at 10:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lijiang Yunnan China-Naxi-people-carrying-baskets-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lijiang Yunnan China-Naxi-people-carrying-baskets-01.jpg
Comment I'm surprised that morally opinions are part of a FP review. Might it be, that you just love to attract attention? For a photographer, a critics about technique or composition is acceptable, but this kind of opposition is kind of hurting, to tell you the truth. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant as a joke. I thought a position as absurd as being morally opposed to empty baskets was transparent enough. Apparently not. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Blaze, in a multilingual project such as Commons, it may not be evident for all non-native English speaking users, or users with other cultural backgrounds, what is intended to be a joke. In honesty, I was in doubt too, if you were joking or not. I think, that if it was meant to be a joke it would have been more reasonable to add it as a comment instead of an oppose vote. Due to your single joke-oppose, the FPC cannot be speedy closed after five days, but now have to stay open the full period. The 5-day rule for no-brainer FPs is intended for cleaning up clutter on the FPC page and let reviewers focus on the images, which actually need more attention from reviewers. Thus, I think the criticism raised by Cccefalon is justified. In addition getting a "clean sheet" promotion is kinda like an extra acknowledgement. Something I have never achieved myself, but which I have great respect for when happens - when it is justified as in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took it as a joke too but remember your "joke" keeps this nomination from swift featuring. Put as comment it would have been funny but an oppose (which will be counted as serious by the bot) is ridiculous. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2014 at 14:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Corpus Christi College New Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Corpus Christi College New Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg
It's not barrel distortion, it's vedutismo/panini projection. The image has a very wide angle of view and this helps to control it, but does give the slightly curved look in the grass. Diliff (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice subject and execution. I think it's a good idea to add actual FOV + projection used in description page, so one fully gets the reasons behind the distorsions. - Benh (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I just take so many of these that I can't be bothered explaining all of them! ;-) I've uploaded about 100 panoramas in the last month and I often can't even remember all the technical details by the time I've uploaded the image. Diliff (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 08:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kickxia floribunda 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kickxia floribunda 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 15:14:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Due to missing light the structure of the plant is imho not brought out well. As ArildV said composition is nice. But Nobelpeopleuploader an insect on a plant is not a serious reason for your oppose, is it? Tell me it's just a joke. Insects are not very seldom despite you go into a greenhouse. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I think your comparison is misleading. The structure of shadow has much to do with light and can be controlled by the photographer due to intelligent flash light usage and shooting time. An insect on a plant is a natural component you usually find in the field. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gree on your comment that "An insect on a plant is a natural component you usually find in the field" so let me repeat what I have written before: "A shadow is also a natural thing, and natural things can be reasons for opposing, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:City Palace detail 01 - Berlin.jpg". And by the way, people in museums are also natural "components" you usually find in museums, but you don't see persons on many pictures of museum artifacts. --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 06:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Leuchtturm am Kap Formentor6.jpg
Comment There is a remarkable variation of sharpness in this stitching. I've marked two unsharp parts (one at 2/3, the other one at the right border). Surely, you have border unsharpness with wide angle shots, but with stichtings it is avoidable. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the blurred areas are caused by lens corner (lack of) sharpness, but maybe by a dirty lens. It's repeated on the horizontal axis at regular intervals. There are a few stitching error as well (with some "duplicated lines" on low mid left area). Like two other previous noms of same place, light comes from above and is harsh, and makes for a very flat subject. But composition is nicer here. Consider my oppose void if the stitching issues are fixed. - Benh (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2014 at 23:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info An illuminated path in the largest limestone mine in the world, Mønsted limestone mine in Denmark. The limestone mine has been excavated over a period of almost 1000 years from the early 11th century untill 1978, mainly by using pickaxes or other handheld tools. The mine has over 60 km paths of which 2 km are illuminated. Some paths are like huge halls, others not passageable by a grown man. In the path shown here is clearly seen how thick layers of limestone alternate with thin layers of flint. The photo itself is an exposure fusion between three bracketed exposures with exposure times of 6, 15 and 30 seconds using CA corrected raw files as input into PTgui. In hindsight, I should have had an even shorther exposure time on the most underexposed photo as the point light sources are slightly burnt in even the 6 sec exposure. Done with an aperture of f/10 and ISO 200 (if i go higher I begin to introduce notieable noise with my camera). I have spend a great deal of time playing around with the exposure fusion to highlight the layered structure, which is not quite as evident when you are in the mines, as well as make the representation faithful. It appears lighter than it really is, as the light sources are weak. A ghost is seen in the long time exposure shot wearing a handheld lamp leaving a light trail. Almost unavoidable due to many guests in the mines.
Oppose The encyclopedic value of such a shot is undoubtedly high, your explanation is very interesting and one can guess that the shooting conditions were challenging.. But from a pure photographic viewpoint I cannot see FP aspects here: I cannot get a compositional idea, the motive is visually not interesting (no interesting stone formations, no interesting colors), the bright lights distracts from the structure of the mine which should be the main motive. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuxyso: Thanks for taking your time to review the photo and provide a detailed explanation. A photo of a limestone mine will of course be rather limestone colored all over with no particularly interesting stones. I think the layer formation between limestone and flint is quite notable in the photo formed in a surprisingly complicated process. But of course, taste differs, and I respect you do not think it has it. --Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport. I share a few concerns with Tuxyso, namely the lack of interesting colours or rock formations, although I am still wowed enough by the image to support. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2014 at 19:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ottoman surrender of Jerusalem restored.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ottoman surrender of Jerusalem restored.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2014 at 06:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Richard Skuse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Richard Skuse.jpg
Info Pearly Heath (Coenonympha arcania); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose 1. f/5 for shooting butterfly??? 2. Tornal area of hindwing is blur. Unacceptable for an FP. Entire butterfly should be in focus, except for blur antennae which is normal. 3. Not parallel/level = No wow. --Graphium 01:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for your review. This image is a banner of the inability to care for the children in Venezuela. This motorcycle was going full speed in a playground, only to stop a moment and start again. After taking photos of this type always ask their permission to parents, however, this is only informally. --The Photographer (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Claus (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
. I am just perhaps not as good at it as you. 
--Slaunger (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Neutral Now it looks perfect but sincerely imo it is not FP --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Done
_01.JPG)
_In_Nederland_zeldzaam_bolgewasje.JPG)
chromatic aberration is fixed I will change my vote --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Overprocessed and does not appear to be a faithful representation of the subject. --Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg)
Delist and replace --Paris 16 (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Question Isn't this a DW of the Inception poster? Is this covered by FOP? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Bavaria 12:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Request How about a tighter crop on left side to get the main object out of center? Would look more interesting. Altogether it’s a bit dull for me, maybe not the best light. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
_-_by_Pudelek.JPG)
.jpg)
_se_alimenta,_antero-dorsal_sig.jpg)
Abstain -- Kleuske (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
_-_panorama.JPG)
ArionEstar (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
_01.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
![36 File:Spinnekop molen "De Wicher" in de Weerribben 1.jpg, featured](#File:Spinnekop_molen_"De_Wicher"_in_de_Weerribben_1.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_se_alimenta,_antero-dorsal_sig.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_panorama.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_05.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
_01.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/July_2014#c-Uberprutser-2014-06-27T16:32:00.000Z-File:Spinnekop_molen_"De_Wicher"_in_de_Weerribben_1.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![03:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/July_2014#c-Jkadavoor-2014-07-07T03:17:00.000Z-File:Spinnekop_molen_"De_Wicher"_in_de_Weerribben_1.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://img.earthshots.org/2014/full/135.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek.JPG){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg){kind=link}
_se_alimenta,_antero-dorsal_sig.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_se_alimenta,_antero-dorsal_sig.jpg){kind=link}
_se_alimenta,_antero-dorsal_sig.jpg){kind=link}
_-_The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Earring_(1665).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://mnba.gob.ar/img/coleccion/obra/alta/1913.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panorama.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_panorama.JPG){kind=link}
_-_panorama.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_panorama.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
Not donePoor results in the adjustments without way to recover the loss of details in the overexposed area(within my knowledge). Sry -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 18:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){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,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_05.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_05.JPG){kind=link}
_05.JPG)
_05.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_05.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_05.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
