Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 15:53:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Head of Nectanebo II-MBA Lyon H1701-IMG 0204.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Head of Nectanebo II-MBA Lyon H1701-IMG 0204.jpg
Good point. I've loosened it a bit, but it's going to be a bit of time before the thumbnail servers catch up, I fear. Rama (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 20:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kleiner Fuchs bei der Eiablage.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kleiner Fuchs bei der Eiablage.JPG
Oppose It is a good catch, and to see the moment of oviposition is refreshing as compared to standard "butterfly doing nothing but looking pretty" photos. But the butterfly looks odd as if it has been oversharpened? Not too thrilled about how the leaf partially obstructs the view to the animal either. Overall, not quite on par with an FP macro IMO, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground leaf is hogging the shot. The main subject is cut in half. Otherwise great focus on the head. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies04:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:58:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pieris cheiranthi qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pieris cheiranthi qtl1.jpg
OpposeNeutral Despite the cropping, I still think there is too much empty space on the left. I'm also struggling with the DOF, which I think is a little too close to use, and it looks like the blur just begins where the eye is at. The right antenna looks great, but that shouldn't be drawing my attention. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to your suggestion, I slightly cropped the image a bit more. Unfortunately, there's nothin I can do about the DOF, though. --Quartl (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mmm, I think it helps. I'm having a difficult time with the image caching issue, so at the moment I can't really see the image in full size. But did you tweak the colors? They look really dark now. The colors were fine the way they were when I commented earlier. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies11:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's difficult to tell, but looking at the thumbnails, it almost seems like the image is getting darker/more saturated with each upload. Is this intentional? I can't compare the images (I can't see a damned thing) because of the caching problem, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Commons server seems to have problems at the moment and displays wrong images in the current version and the thumbnails. Probably we have to wait until the bug is resolved. --Quartl (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changed to support. Finally got around to comparing images. The crop definitely works better; I still wish there were a touch more room on the right, less on the left. And I really liked the original colors of the wings and flower, they were less saturated. Otherwise, looks good. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 21:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carduelis tristis CT2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carduelis tristis CT2.jpg
Support Eye is crystal sharp. My only comment would be on the composition, which seems juuuust a touch too high, but the bird is wonderful. Throw that image into an article already! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some areas are a little darkish, but anyhow a good picture. Good enough for FP promotion, i'd say, which sure is ”quite” good. --Ximonic (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't know why nobody noticed, but this picture is so strongly oversaturated that it even misses details. A postprocessing fail that i would call "Flickr kitsch" --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係10:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, compare the bird of both images, the last version is one degree less saturated, it is at the level I usually put my pictures. For the background, of course, I coudln't work out exactly the same modification. --Cephas (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. That image is basically fine. Just compare the two histograms / wave form diagrams with each other: Zonotrichia, Carduelis
You can clearly see that peak on the far right of the histogram of Cardelius. This peak indicates truncating of the red and green channel, which is clearly visible inside the wave form diagram. Since this does not apply for the blue channel we have oversaturation. Zonotrichia is a little overexposed (all channels) in one part: the white stripe on top of the head. But otherwise it is fine. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a raw with more then 8 bit per channel than you could have imagedata which is not truncated already. I don't know which kind of software you use, but normally you can reduce the saturation while looking at a histogram before saving the raw as JPEG or some other format with only 8 bit per Channel. If this isn't possible you should try to save the image in an format which supports at least 16 bit per Channel (TIFF, EXR, HDR, ...). After that step you should be able to open the image with a graphics software like Photoshop (or the free Blender) that supports more then 8 bit per channel and reduce the saturation until the peak inside the histogram fades out. Ideally histograms have no peak on the left or right side, since that means that some channel(s) is/are cropped, which results in loss of detail. Like the feathers on the front of the bird in this case. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 09:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation2.jpg
Comment --Pretty nice but no color profile embedded (sRGB, AdobeRGB?) and the barrel distortion from the lens, too much visible at the left, could have been corrected. Sting (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open the image in an editor and attribute a sRGB profile, then attribute (and not convert) an AdobeRGB one and you will understand why it is important to embed one, even if it may not be stated in the FPC Guidelines (I didn't check), because the colors aren't the same. This, of course, if you care about how people will look at your picture... And if there's no lens distortion I don't understand why the left column is curved. Sting (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I look pictures with my eyes and not with an image processing software. You have not explained what I have asked. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to be a missunderstanding. I know that a color profil is, no need for private lessons. My question targeted on why you are thinking that here is s.th. wrong with the colors. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you know what a color profile is then you know its importance for the display and printing of a photograph and you know too that when an image comes out from your camera it comes in a color space, usually sRGB or Adobe RGB, depending on your camera and settings. If you take a same picture one in a sRGB space and another in an Adobe RGB space, take out the exif data (and so the color profile information) like in yours, open them in Firefox for example and you should notice that the colors displayed are different. EDIT: Which is the good one? We cannot know as we don't know the original profile. It's illustrated in J. Friedl's page, first row of buttons. What if a visitor wants to print your image? He brings the file to a photo labo (because the image is larger than his A4 printer) and if that labo is serious it will ask for the color space. Embarrassing. But, as you wrote, you know all of this. Sorry for trying to explain my first comment. Sting (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here we get stuck. You did not answer my question for second time. No necessary to go ahead with the discussion. This picture is shot by three single shots and fused by HDR-algorithm together. Therefore you can also not find an EXIF or further informations. I have not set the lights artificial but, they are similar to the natural impression. I see no reason to add the color profil and there is furthermore no need for that. Feel free to oppose the picture. Have a nice day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was following that topic because I feel concerned : Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? And been disappointed because it didn't show up the way you intended to ? I believe there's nothing wrong with the colours of the picture, and I understand neither does Sting, but rather with the colours consistency it might not present to the viewer. But the colours I see might not even be the ones you wanted to show. Small detail for you it seems, but maybe not to people who work in graphic or printing. If we want common to be seen as serious, it's natural our featured pics are faultless from a technical point of view. I think like Sting that a color profile should be embedded in every FP (I should review my own...). - Benh (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? No, never, and I had developed some of my pictures even in a very large scale. For the rest: I don´t agree. It is not the first time and surly will not be the last time that we have not the same opinion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't talk about opinion here, but about technical facts : if your pictures don't show up the way you intended to, how could anyone review them ? Sometime, I work on WB, or to add a little touch of blue cast or anything else, and I'm not happy to see this ruined because some other viewer don't see what I spent time to show, because of missing colour profile, non calibered screen... In short : no one can faithfully review this picture in its current state. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to explain why there's a need for a color space information in an image. If that wasn't your question I don't know what it was regarding your first comment. You may not accept or see the need of the color profile but I think I've answered to this point, even if you're not convinced. “I look pictures with my eyes and not with an image processing software”: and what does display the image? Your computer has settings which show you the image as you want it to be, but what about mine which has for sure different settings, and what about all the visitors, each one with different settings? An embedded color profile allows everyone to see your image with Firefox (for example, as it handles color management) as YOU see it. Many thanks Benh for these explanations, for sure much clearer as mine (unfortunately it seems not sufficient). And no, I never wrote there's something wrong with the colors; I simply don't know which ones they should be. You're right: there's no need for further discussion. Have a nice day too. Sting (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without the need for color profile, exif information, pixel count, white balance, ca, micro tilt, dead pixel under the bushes, a little noise, etc., etc. A good picture is a good picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure... we see so many “good” pictures promoted here with stitching errors in panoramas, white balance off, heavy CA, over-sharpened showing bright fringes, architectural subjects with distortions, etc. I'd like to remember there's also a QI page. People don't have the same perception of quality, even with the guidelines. I only think it's a pity for all those other pictures, almost perfect at least technically, being placed at the same level as the first ones. May be we should create an Outstanding Pictures Candidates page? Just kidding. Sting (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal view of point in general is amount of space here in a candidate. You have still not make clear what problems this image should have. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry to see the bad faith some have concerning the comments of Benh and Sting. I think their comments are very helpful and understandable. Reading the comments was really eye-opening for me at least. It is not something I have ever thought of before - that even with a calibrated monitor what look good one place may not look right the other due to the displaying client having to guess what was the intention concerning the colors. Please understand that they are not trying to say that the colors are off, but that there is no consistent way for a browser to show the image with the intended colors from the creator without the embedded color profile. However, requiring a color profile is not something we have in the FPC guidelines today, but maybe we should.... --Slaunger (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)`[reply]
Comment If you refer to my comments, no bad faith here, just a sarcastic comment on the ways pictures are evaluated in FPC, which is more as a result of personal taste and often irrelevant technical issues that have absolutely nothing to do with photography as a whole, not to mention good old cronism. For FPC in Wikipedia, considering its stature in the cyber world, the amount of good, solid photographers out there, pros and amateurs alike, the statistical amount of good photogrpahy is just not in tune with the possibilities out there, ever wonder why? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Agree with Slaunger (no need for a small type...). At first I didn't understand Sting and Benhr's comments, but because I respect and trust their opinion, I waited for some light to shed. I'm still not sure what we should do about it because I don't know how seriously the lack of a color profile can affect an image in a monitor or printing. But there is no doubt in my mind that the requirement to have one (if aproved) should be extended to QI and VI (at least). Thoughts? Should we open a thread about this issue? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because a color is not only defined by its RGB values but also by the color space in which it should be displayed.
To show one more example of the problem of an image without color profile, I created a map under the Adobe RGB color space, saved it then converted it under the smaller sRGB color space, preparing it for the Web, and saved it under an other name. This is also the common process for photographs taken with most of the single-lens reflex cameras for photographers looking for quality and shooting in Raw.
I then deleted the color profile of both maps and uploaded them on WP. Open the following images in new windows and compare them:
The difference is striking, even more if you have a wide gamut/good quality monitor. Which of them displays the correct colors? That's the problem here. And if you see very little difference... well... you must have a very low-end monitor and I must agree in this case (only!) with the amazing points 1 and 2 stated by Niabot below!
Now download these images on your computer and open them with Gimp, telling the software the first is an Adobe RGB one and the second a sRGB. What do you see? The colors of both images match! That's because I told you what was the original color space.
And what if I didn't tell you like in the case of the FP candidate here? You can only guess what I see. And you may be wrong.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Color profiles describe a mapping between sRGB and something else. But you will loose quality if you use 24 bit formats with other colorspaces as sRGB, when they are converted to sRGB for display. Read the whole story behind this: User talk:Benh#Colorspace_and_profiles --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we mention calibrated screens in the guidelines, I think it would be fine to mention color profiles as well. Opening a thread could be a good idea ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a color profile if the image is in sRGB. This is the default for all applications that don't support colorprofiles or if an image does not contain a color profile.
Colorprofiles for 8 bit per Channel are bullshit. I don't even know why colorprofiles are embeded inside images with 8 bit per channel. Any software that converts between this colorspaces for display on a screen with 8 bit per channel itself is just stupid. You loose a big portion of possible colors, with even worse results.
Images without any distortion at wide angles are unrealistic.
Oppose (will certainly change after some explanations by Niabot) You seem to got some points here (I wasn't aware of the issues you mention) but:
What about if the colorspace of the image is actually adobe RGB or something else, and this wasn't recorded in metadata, and the browser reads it as sRGB ?
Can you explain your issue 2. ? you can use my talk page if you don't want to clutter this nom, or stay here if you want to share.
You issue 3 is not quite right. I believe Image without distortions are more realistic, can you prove me wrong ? - Benh (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentVery notable that Benh said he can not review this picture without color profil but suddenly he can when Niabot supports this picture. But it was clearly before that Benh appear at my candidates not for giving objective reviews. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laisse tomber Benh, le premier a appelé le deuxième au secours. C'est devenu plus que jamais un dialogue de sourds. Bonne soirée malgré tout. Sting (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oui, j'arrête après mon dernier commentaire plus bas. Je pensais avoir loupé un truc (j'aurais reconnu mon erreur), mais apparemment, non. Bonne journée ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very notable you still like to troll on the reviewers behaviour instead of the facts about the pics themselves. Anyways, I thank Niabot for his explanations on my talk page. That still doesn't change what we said so I believe my issues 1 still stand. Since software read any value as sRGB when it doesn't find a color profile embedded, if these value were actually AdobeRGB (or anything else), it will render wrong. So I oppose on basis that this pic cannot be reviewed. I'd also like to mention that even with colour profile, it's likely you won't achieve accuracy. A color profile ensures only consistency in properly setup devices. I think I'll stop here on that topic ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the issue? Are you opposing because you want all QI/FP images to embed a color profile even when they are created in sRGB colorspace? sRGB is default colorspace. Specifying a colorspace because it might not be sRGB seems a little idiotic here. Will you oppose a nomination because the aRGB color profile might have been used by error on an image and that you cannot verify or trust the user who did the job here? Esby (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, It's likely that image is sRGB, and is understood by my soft as sRGB. But what I mean is that there's a possibility that it was something else (like aRGB) and that the color profil was removed during the expo blending process, and the output still had aRGB but is read as sRGB by my soft, since it's the default mode. Niabot mentions on my talk page that the blending soft automatically converts to sRGB (I'm looking for evidence of that for enfuse, the one I use), so that picture would be fine. To summarize, I still have no proof that the colors I see are what Wladyslaw wanted to show (even though I suspect it's fine). In the end, it's easier for everyone that the picture has a color profile, this would give no room for chance or unconsistency. And avoid these endless talks... - Benh (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general you are right. But each image displays a new side of this interesting building; it is not ascertainable with just one image. I know examples of FP from the same object of the same angle at nearly the same time photographed by the same user; I guess this nomination is far away from that. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Wow!! Niabot, you're really amazing! You might be a “master” in theory but you're not worth the practical cases. You're assuming all people looking your images are using low end monitors, IE9 or Safari or FF with the color management mode value set to “1”! For those ones I agree with you, they won't see much difference. But what about all the others? Those using monitors of a little better quality with better color capabilities, much more common nowadays, those using earlier versions of IE or using FF in its standard setting because they don't even know the existence of that configuration page (and don't care about)?!? And what about those wanting to print your images? How will the printer handle those files? They're simply out of your target of visitors? And what for all of this? Gaining some kb on the file weight while it is already 2.48MB heavy?!? Well, that is a stupid approach (using your word)! If the image here had its color profile embedded I would have been able to see it strait ahead with the correct colors, instead of this I saw it over-saturated in FF with standard settings on my wide gamut monitor and Adobe RGB workspace. And there's no need of color profile? Stunning.
And what about the distortions as you were responding to my comment? Numerous great painters studying for centuries the perspective problem, all this wiped out by you in a few words?! Because I never never saw a perspective line going curved on a painting, neither in reality. And I don't think that curved column at the left is showing reality because we're not in a panorama or fish-eye case. Amazing again!
So many people putting their images here are much more concerned about getting the label than trying to set their images to a high quality level, sometimes with further improvements, because they are so sure of their perfection, even sometimes for cellphone-like snapshots. Each comment or what wants to be a constructive critic is considered as an attack rather than opening a way to improvement. What a selfish behavior. I don't think Commons and this label deserve this. That auto-satisfaction will give substance to those who are laughing through the Web about the inconsistency of the quality here, burying the really high quality images under the mass of mediocre ones. But keep going on, for my concern this page is all yours, you and your partner Wladyslaw, as the law of the strongest is on the side of the one demonstrating more stubbornness, even if it's not constructive for the project. Sting (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what to say to those words. But you make some big mistakes in your assumptions. Images that are using sRGB are quite as good as others in LDR format. You think a color profile increases quality when you still only have 224 possible colors? Clearly it doesn't. Even worse, that this color profiles only work on linear sources. As soon you use tonemapping (conversion from HDR to LDR) the color profile is obsolete anyways. Programms are suggested to ignore the profile in further steps, producing sRGB as the default. I might ask why your "super system" isn't able to display sRGB as it is? That might be a bug or wrong configuration on your side. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're attributing to me affirmations I never made or thought. I would just like to remember, for clarification, that FF in its standard settings doesn't manage untagged images. Sting (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then all we would need to do is to add an sRGB profile to the image and anything should be fine. I really don't see the problem. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it sounds like we are nailing ants with WMD. Let me explain. Who know color profiles? All the average commons re-users? No, only those who are dealing in printing should actually be caring. Will this kind of users be able to differenciate color issues linked to the profile? Probably yes. Will he be able to calibrate his screen correctly? Yes. Will he be able calibrate his printers correctly? we can mostly assume yes. Will he be able to determine if the current image needs to be tweaked/ changed for his needs (which might be differents than our needs)? I assume we can. Esby (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I asked for. I meant the exact angle of the lens (FoV) that was used for making the images that were later fused. It is present in the original exifs of each file. Esby (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding. If I have used the focal length of 10 mm (with I guess but I have to look it up to acknowledge) then the FoV seems to be 102,4° (referred to the technical data sheet of my lens) --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
look good but for my eyes it seems to fall a bit on the left side, mathematical accuracy is not every time best choice --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, basically I don't know which version should be the proper one and I mostly don't care. Some people might agree on one and not another one, some might not agree on any of the both, some will agree on both versions. There are also a few parts I was forced to remove due to the distorsion correction of hugin, Imo, The question someone seeing the photography should ask himself/herself: Is the column in the right vertical? Are the columns to the left vertical? Is this kind of tilt / distorsion acceptable or not? Not to mention that any image will still be distorded because you can't map a 105° angle on a plane without having some distorsion visible at some point: you'll always find some bended lines when they should not be if there was no distorsion, This is because you cannot map a sphere (or some big part of it) on a plane without inducting distorsion. Esby (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 10:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wugongshan 8350.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wugongshan 8350.jpg
Oppose It's a pretty shot. But the foreground is full of hill and I'm sort of wishing there were something more there. The house in the distance looks tilted, so the image may not even be straight. Too much sky, though seeing as how there isn't much going on in the foreground, I wouldn't have tilted the camera further down either. Overall, nice shot, but not really valuable. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 21:47:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yak52-Harvard-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yak52-Harvard-001.jpg
Oppose Image is too soft. Crop isn't all that great and the lack of resolution is apparent for it. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Considering the EXIF data, this is a rather decent photo. As far as the crop is concerned, it might be beneficial to cut away aa few pixels along every edge. Is it right-heavy? It is. But I like it when planes (cars, animals, anything fast moving) seems to escape the frame. Wolf (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Very moody picture with a nice simple composition and lighting. Image is large enough, and it's easily sharpenable so we can forgive the softness IMO. Someone better than me with toshop/gimp can probably get rid of most of the noise. On the cons side, a very strong vignetting...- Benh (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a negative scan for printing and display ar 20"x20" print at 300 dpi, which means that the film grain will be invisible. Magnification of either negative film or digital image will eventually yield either grain or pixels, and lose sharpness. So to judge this type of image under those parameters is obviously a wrong approach. This image has to do with the aesthetics of black and white photography, the zone system and craftmanship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changed my vote to neutral per Tomascastelazo's comment. I'm actually a fan of the image, it's very secluded (seemingly) and looks almost like a diorama. But anyway, can you explain your comment further, just a little? You said the negative scan would mean the grain is invisible, but then magnification would yield grain. I think I'm misunderstanding you. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Film is composed of silver halide particles, which is the grain of the film. When struck by light, and then developed, the silver halide crystals turn black, and when printed on paper, the process is reversed, black on the negative turns into white on paper. Anyway, think of those particles as dust on a surface, at normal viewing distance, you cannot distingish the individual particles, but if you zoom in you will start to see the individual specks of dust. Another way of seeing it is with skin, ar normal viewing distance skin appears smooth, but even the most perfect sking, under magnification, becomes a series of cracks, ridges, etc. In this particular case, when you print the image at 20"x20", the grain is invisible to the eye, for the eye cannot distinguish the particles. In here you see the grain because the image is magnified when displayed at full size in pixels, and in this particular case, the pixels are smaller than the film grain. So it is grainy because it is like looking at the image with a microscope... makes sense? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Great explanation, thank you. Please forgive my ignorance. Okay, I still have another question. The image is a reduced size, reduced rez version of a negative scan, but shouldn't there still be a little cleanup involved? The very top left corner of the image is filled with strange white specks. To the right of the trees, about halfway up, is a large black spot (dirt?). There is also a glaring vertical scratch I noticed yesterday: easiest way to explain its location is that it is in the lower segment of the second rock from the left, right in the center of the rock. And it's a shame there's graffiti on the farthest left rock. (One of my favorite rock parks is brimming with the stuff, thanks to high school kids.) "V.v.s. P.M.S." Should this be painted out? Finally, if you zoom in to the bottom left corner, on the bottom edge is a white hair-like thing. I'm not sure if this is damage to the negative or if there is land directly below and this is a blade of grass sticking up. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are and were absolutely right. I retouched dust, graffitti and other elements. For some reason the old version still appears, but the new one is there. I appreciate your observations. They resulted on a better image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is that so? That is a pretty intolerant statement, especially coming from you, since the art that you propose is also questioned as far as legitimacy as a form of art. Judge on the merits of the discipline. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great analogue photograph. good to see that there's at least one person out there with a decent understanding of film grain. would be great if you could provide additional information on your equipment, film and the technical devices used for the digitasation. regards, PETER WEISTALK11:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Peter. Mamiya C330f, 80 mm lens. Exposed according to Zone System. Tmax film, ISO 100. Normal development (but maybe n-1). Tmax developer. Scanner: Epson V700 Photo. Scanned at 4800 dpi, resized to 300dpi for a 20"x20" print. Photo taken about 20 years ago. Scanned May, 2011. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as quality, it would be nice to know the parameters with wich you measure it. If I look at a 2000 year old ceramic piece, and I am a regular person, the ceramic piece is a useless and fragile cooking instrument, for I am ignorant of its archeological value. If on the other hand, I am an archeologist, a 2000 ceramic piece is a treasure of history, etc., etc. The fact that you do not know photographic techniques and materials and how they express themselves within their dimension does not deny the quality that exists inside those dimensions. Same goes for encyclopaedic value. Things have to be measured and evaluated within their parameters. Judge this from Zone System parameters, from there a series of quality parameters will emerge. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As defined by Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject. So photography is a branch of knowledge, of the human experience, with a set of values of different types, photography can be judged on different variables, such as art, historical record, scientific record, technique, materials, etc., etc. Not all photographs are the same, as not all bones are the same. For example, paleonthologically speaking (this, btw, is a platform of analysis) a collection of bones of a cat dead 1 year may not be of the same interest as a collection of bones of a cat dead 100,000 years ago to a paleontologist. I doubt that under normal conditions, the new cat would be more interesting. To a vet, however, the story may be different. On one level one can say that bones are bones, and chemically speaking they may be the same, but each set of bones acquires relevance by the context in which they are observed. Same as photography. If you judge this image from the technological perspective, from that platform it will be at a disadvantage on some aspects, but even so, technologically speaking, digital, for example, cannot yet render a dynamic gray scale as found in this photograph. Photography is not reduced to pixels, ca, etc., etc., it is much more complex than that. Again, judge from the appropiate perspective. If, on the other hand, you don´t like b&w photography or this image does not fancy your personal taste, just say so. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you still think that an FP on commons must have EV, which is mentioned nowhere in the guidelines (again, you'd better look on en:FPC in that case. I don't know for the other languages). - Benh (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Benh: I don´t know if your comment is directed at me or even if I understand the question/comment. Regarless, my comment: Images, on a figurative black and white level can be thought of as having value or not having value. If an image has any type of value, then it can be thought of as an encyclopaedic valued picture, let it be aesthetic, historical, documentary, technical, sociological, psychological value, etc., for in the broad understanding of encyclopedia, it contributes to the understanding of a particular subject. So in this sense, if an image has any redeeming quality, in the FP context, it has EV. To what degree, how it is measured, etc., is another matter and an entirely different discussion. The problem here is that people evaluate and oppose images not considering the EV value of an image, but rather on personal opinions, lack of knowledge and understandig of either the subject matter or the discipline or both. It is ok to oppose on personal taste, but personal taste must not be a mask for lack of knowledge or understanding --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tomas; it wasn't at all for you, but for Archeo...us, who looks to give too much weight to the EV alone. I'm not discussing whether or not ur image has EV, but even it if were not the case, I find it beautiful, and more interesting from a photographic point of view than a museum object. That's enough -for me- for an FP status on Commons - Benh (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I understand well, it is a museum object ! I find it grainy, underexposed for parts, and I see a strong vignetting. Nothing to say about educational value in this case, but this image does not fancy my personal taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, but at least we know where the oppose springs from. You see, an oppose vote is not necessarily a bad thing, for it can point out to ways to make things better. It is an opportunity to improve, unless of course we choose to make it sterile. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Logorrhea. Please stop trying (without success) giving me lessons about "some important technical aspects of photography" you suppose I don't know, I'm a bad pupil when I listen bad teachers. Who is "we know" ? The oppose "springs" from me, only. Any other suggestion ? It is not a bad, dirty and dishonest oppose. The fact is that you don't support, never, during your history as a "Commons" user, any kind of opposition. Then you use and abuse of irony, trying to disrepute adverse comments with despising and patronizing words. Some wrote to me that I am far to be the worst reviewer here... I'm pleased to trust them... I don't understand why you are so agressive with me, as I am not an enemy (I like a lot of your pictures as they are often a bit "different" and inventive). This is only a photograph, and a discussion about. It seems that you like endless conflicts, therefore I'm afraid you should probably answer... But as for me, I stop wasting my time here, sorry. No problem for me to let you the "last word". And sorry for my poor english, but I hope you'll understand. Regards too.--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jebulon: First of all I sincerely apologize for the appearance of my replies as a personal attack. That was not my intention. Second, I am not opposed to oppose votes in the general sense, but to oppose votes that are either baseless or that generally do not contribute to improvement. As you checked my regular opposition to opposes, also check my ratio of support/oppose votes. I bet it is at least a 20 to 1 ratio. Why? because support reinforce behaviour while an oppose vote, if issued in a certain way, can lead to improvement. I like to err on the side of caution, and if I have nothing to contribute with a negative vote, I opt to not oppose but rather remain silent. However, lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I have at times let the situation get the better of me and have opposed for the wrong reasons. I am human. My apologies, I guess you just got in the line of fire on an issue that I care about. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what ? I agree with you about "oppose votes". We all are humans (I hope so...) This early morning, before to go to work (yes, sundays too...) I made some pictures near Place de la Concorde (nice location, nice weather, nice light, no tourists), and I was walking (almost) alone, thinking to this incident, and I thought that photography and "Commons" are really interesting. At least, we are very lucky to be able to discuss through space about this wonderful hobby. No need of "war". Let's disagree peacefully ! By the way: this incident does absolutely not imply that i'll be a structural "opposer" of your pictures in the future ! Have a nice day.--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I will enjoy more film grain in this image.. if this image will get featured I will try to nominate also a black & white image (film photo - with grain etc)! BTW it is a well balanced composition. Ggia (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because I don't like it (I really don't). Moreover, reasons 1 to 3 do not apply any more! All photographs are grainy anyway, perfect exposure is a utopia and vignetting is a kind of art. Or did I misunderstand? W.S.22:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LOL! That´s a good, clean, honest oppose. Simply not liking it is good enough for me, a nice, naked reason, no further explanation needed. There is so much freedom there. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 22:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Louis-Charles de France, Louis XVII, Deseine méridienne Versailles MV8523 .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Louis-Charles de France, Louis XVII, Deseine méridienne Versailles MV8523 .jpg
Oppose Also noticed the tilt. No wow, nothing special from photographic point of view... in addition to being noisy, small, and having a poorly delimited mask. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is obviously no more place in FPC for this kind of work. I'm not really disappointed cause I had no illusion.
Keep If ever there was a wow factor, this is it. My mistake was clicking on the histogram link, that hanged my browser up forever. : ) If you ask me, stadiums were meant to be oversaturated. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies21:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like it as it is, but wouldn't be easier to make a version with desaturated colors, than making this colorspace animation? (Which I don't understand, I must admit :) --Lošmi (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to fix oversaturation or over/under exposure if the image data is already clipped. You can decrease the saturation, but it doesn't improve the picture. The color information that is lost, is already lost. You will need to invent something new (e.g. new color information), to correct this. No way to go. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 08:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC) PS: I created the animation some time ago, to show differences between oversaturated and not oversaturated images. Just forgot to nominate this image. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係08:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what color information is lost, but nevermind. If you think that image can't be improved that's ok. But, I still like it as it is :) --Lošmi (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oversaturation and over/under exposure in detail I added a little illustration to the right. It shows you what happens when you try restore original colors on an already imperfect source image (top right in both cases). You won't get the original back. You will always get a worser quality as the original could had, if done right. Look at the file description for further details. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係12:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get what you want to say. But, many of FP images are not straight from camera. They are usually processed − brightnes/contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. You can't revert to original colors on them as well. I had something like this in mind when I said desaturate. --Lošmi (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. But within the bounds of sRGB or any other color profile. But if you would look at the histogram of this image your will find anything needed to see that it is completely oversaturated. Since we have no original without manipulation we can't recreate the original image. Not worthy to be featured if you ask me.
For further information i appended the histogram as well with the wave form diagram of this image and the desaturated version from Lošmi. If you compare the two wave forms (histogram for each channel and line), then you see, that desaturating the image does not remove the issues. Instead you get blury results due to an additional JPEG compression. The clipping of the color channels remains. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 08:57:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Balaeniceps rex - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 09-2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaeniceps rex - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 09-2010.jpg
Oppose It's close. The lighting on the body of the bird is dramatic, coming from the left. But I can't see the eye, it's really set back in his own shadow. Unrelated, he reminds me of Pixar's For the Birds. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caprella mutica 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caprella mutica 2.jpg
Oppose Thanks to nominator and supporters. This image is however no FP material. The largest of the two amphipods (NOT shrimps!) is about 10 mm long and they were photographed life in a small aquarium, lit by a few cold light beams. They are constantly on the move so a stacked photograph was not possible. It is a good illustration of the species, but not all good pictures are fit for FP, so Benh, I would rather you withdraw, with all respect. W.S.20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will not, even though it looks not on the path to promotion. This picture is in focus where it matters, is certainly harder to take than the thousands of shells or museum objects on black background we see too much around here, and I think it looks beautiful enough. I admit aperture could have been slightly narrower. - Benh (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand why W.S. asks for a withdraw of a nomination of picture created by Biopics... Did I miss something ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 21:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Helmhornvogel WVP2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Helmhornvogel WVP2010.jpg
Oppose well, this is certainly a beautiful bird, but the image is apparently shot through the caging, which yields nasty distortions, and it is heavily overprocessed (oversharpened). --Quartl (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had to familiarize myself with a dozen other images of this bird to get a feeling for the saturation of the colors, and they actually seem pretty on-key. The image may have been shot through caging, but the only distortion I see comes from caging in the background, which somehow yields a rather distinctive, sparkling emerald-city type background that's kind of interesting. Unfortunately, it's also distracting. In addition, I don't know what was done to cause the image to be so grainy, maybe corrected underexposure, maybe something else. I was really teetering on supporting the image, but I think the grain, an overwhelming over-contrasting, and a sense of underexposure are largely at fault here. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 10:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kiril Lazarov 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kiril Lazarov 06.jpg
Comment This one is better in my opinion that the one I've nominated few weeks ago. It's not cropped badly, and the full object is in front of the photograph.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 02:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Water Turkey in Flight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Water Turkey in Flight.jpg
Oppose I like the idea here, but there are some problems. First of all, I don't think all the room behind the bird adds anything (no problem - can easily be cropped out). However, there are more grave problems: for one thing, the bird isn't exactly razor sharp, and the crop is too tight on the lower wing. --TheHighFinSpermWhale04:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 22:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I like the idea, but the end of the bill is out of focus. In addition, the crop on the left is a tad tight. This one might fair a bit better, but again, many parts are blurry. What lens are you using? This doesn't really seem like a D7000 image. --TheHighFinSpermWhale02:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with pretty much everything The High Fin Sperm Whale said. The image is too tight and restricting, and the DOF is too narrow. There is simply too much empty space at the top. I feel the frame could have been filled a little better (with the bird) at a different angle. Gorgeous eye color though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support what I like at this image is that it's different. Here's a wow / a cool factor. Excellent composition (e.g. the standpoint), interesting and good quality (I really like the short DOF here, focus point not perfect but ok imo). FP to me --kaʁstnDisk/Cat14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sometimes blurring parts of a body while keeping the head sharp works, sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately I think this one falls into the latter category. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 10:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 20:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Elisabethkirche Schneeberg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Elisabethkirche Schneeberg.jpg
Update 2011-05-31. Due to an unforeseen event (my twins were born 10 weeks early just now), I have tocount on the community to edit the image for better noise / tones, so the criticism can be addressed. Please find the CR2 file at [1]. It is available under the same license as the jpg. Thank you very much for your understanding and support. With regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2011-06-01:Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I hereby withdraw the candidature. There is a consensus that the image could have the potential to be acceptable as featured image, but it also requires significant amount of post-processing (noise control, tone mapping, contrast, etc.) in order to satisfy the requirements. For the reason mentioned above, I am currently not in a position to execute the necessary improvements. With kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know how this happened, but somehow the noise on the structure, the people around and the grass got worse. Did you sharpen it? This will make the noise come out more. --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat and image quality is suboptimal. I do agree with some post-processing this image could be considerably improved to be FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed with delister's comments, though it's more the lack of sharpness that affects my vote, along with overall poor composition and the intense chromatic aberration. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it isn't great by today's standards, but I think that this is part of FPC history, and thus should only be delisted if it is really, really awful. I don't think we should delist unless an image didn't even meet the standards back then. --TheHighFinSpermWhale18:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep in mind this is a 1997 digital picture, which is pretty good for the time for such a long exposure. It's not like we're ever going to get another chance to photograph this comet since it's next perihelion is estimated around year 4385. Keep it in prospective here, 14 year old photograph, long exposure, and an event we won't witness again for another two millennia. — raeky(talk | edits)02:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 10:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dactylorhiza majalis in natural monument Vojovicka draha (6).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dactylorhiza majalis in natural monument Vojovicka draha (6).JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 10:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Martinac bukovy 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Martinac bukovy 2.jpg
Oppose -- Sorry Chmee2, but quality is on the poor side (lighting, sharpness). I would have taken the shot from a larger distance (to increase dof) instead of using F/20, which causes difraction softness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to be sorry, it is life :) I think so it is good to have another opinions about it, cause I or Tlusťa can learn more from it and improve our skills for future shots. Thanks for your vote anyway. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 10:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Honour decoration for Merit of the Republic of Austria.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Honour decoration for Merit of the Republic of Austria.jpg
Oppose I don't believe this type of image should have dramatic lighting, as it were. There shouldn't be any shadows. Also, it appears the DOF is shallow enough, or perhaps it's an aberration, where the bottom of the ribbon goes out of focus. Pleasant backdrop. Perhaps rephotographing it in more even lighting? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me the lighting helps bring out the 3d shape of this object. Aesthetically I think this may be the best way to present this object. Slight DOF issue, but I checked and could see all the details I wanted. --99of9 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 11:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Varanasi Munshi Ghat3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Varanasi Munshi Ghat3.jpg
Support Almost like a painting. Good timing with the guy holding the towel up. I'm wondering what the blue dish leaning against the wall on the right is? Otherwise, I found myself staring into every nook and cranny, good job. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the image is a tad soft, but I really believe it works for this image, not against it. It gives the image a slightly misty, creamy and painted feel to it. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies14:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 08:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haeckel Calcispongiae.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haeckel Calcispongiae.jpg
Comment Nice, interesting and valuable. I tend to support. Nevertheless I'm not sure about sharpness (could probably be better), and maybe could you correct some white spots in the black background ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 15:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Testudinata Richard Bartz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Testudinata Richard Bartz.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 23:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Demonio mercado de guanajuato.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Demonio mercado de guanajuato.jpg
Oppose Very busy image, and it's difficult to separate the background from the foreground. Nice colors, but slightly confusing image, especially if it's supposed to be a portrait of a single object. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 19:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:360° Hochalppass Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:360° Hochalppass Panorama.jpg
I am very happy if you liked my picture. The snow has fallen during the night and shows one of the rare recordings in the Commons. --Böhringer (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image is so sharp, it can cut you! (borrowing the phrase from another reviewer....) Excellent composition, great lighting conditions, fantastic job! --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not too impressed. Awkwardly cut foreground and oversharpening are minuses, while amount of detail for the size and lighting are pluses. W.S.07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 06:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mouthfull Heron.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mouthfull Heron.jpg
Weak supportNeutral Obviously an important moment (for both the bird and the fish) and a fascinating capture. Educational value definitely tips the scale. My dilemmas with the image are the busy background (fortunately the majority of the bird's head is over a dark area), and the extremely strange cropping. Lots of headroom, but no feet. I would almost prefer a tighter crop to make things "right". – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies14:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral, perhaps a different crop would work better. I agree, the composition really isn't great. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 11:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dlouis-crpd.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dlouis-crpd.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 12:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zebrasoma flavescens 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zebrasoma flavescens 01.JPG
Oppose Chromatic aberrations (was this shot through a glass panel/wall?), soft subject, and "flash" exposures (bright subject, extremely dark background). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Naturally it was shot through a glass, otherwise the camera would have got wet and unusable! And do you really think that it would be better if the subject wouldn't be bright and the background lighter and more disturbing? --Llez (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My question rephrased would have been, was the fish photographed through a glass aquarium wall? Obviously underwater images can be taken with the camera in a watertight box, and obviously all images are shot "through glass" (the lens), so I think my original question was pretty clear in its meaning. Depending on the aquarium and the thickness of the glass, I would think any light would be overly refracted and the resulting image would not be crystal clear, as I believe the case is here—though I don't know if this was taken at a homemade water tank or a massive city aquarium. Either way, I think the glass is interfering with the light. As for the flash comment, flash photography can sometimes produce a rather unrealistic range of exposure, with slightly blown out foreground and extremely dark backgrounds. If it looks like flash photography, then I think that can be distracting and unprofessional. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you ask the question above? It is very simple, just read the description. BTW: It is strange. W.S. has dissappeared, at the same time Kerαunoςcopia appears. Nearly the same voting behaviour, the same vacous user-page. Are you an "old friend" with a new identity? --Llez (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I can tell u almost for sure that Kerαunoςcopia is not W.S., who is by the way one of the most valuable contributor around (which is why criticisms on him annoy me) - Benh (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm W.S. because my user page is vacuous, you found me out. :) Anyway, sorry for missing the "museum" bit and for not putting two-and-two together. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I found the lighting really, really horrible, I would oppose. However, the lighting here really isn't all that bad. The rocks could be dark just because of their colour (they weren't that far away from the subject, so I don't think that flash light would dissipate that quickly unless you're using a really tiny guide number). And if the fish looks flat, there's a good reason: yellow tang are flat. --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 04:45:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Abolish child slavery.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abolish child slavery.jpg
Oppose All I see are two girls standing there wearing banners. I'm not really "moved" by the image or its message, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the image isn't inviting me to read more about it... the only difference between, say, this image and a picket rally (to me) is that this image is older. But that doesn't change its somewhat relaxed appearance. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 09:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chelidonium majus vlaštovičník větší 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chelidonium majus vlaštovičník větší 2.jpg
Oppose Maybe it's poor lighting and deep shadows, but the flower looks wilted and dying, at least compared to the other image on the article. Not very pleasant to look at. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies16:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 15:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Changed to oppose. Is that someone's forehead above his shoulder? I never even noticed that before. And after looking at the image again a few more times, the concrete block/building in the background is really distracting. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing outstanding here: this is a centered close up portrait anyone can take. I don't find background aesthetic either. - Benh (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cluttered background below, too bright above, producing too much scalp shine. Unexceptional composition. --Avenue (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VeryWeak support The background is a bit disturbing and the crop is maybe a bit too tight, but I like it. Great quality, EV. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as my above vote. Nice work for sure, but the small elements cloned out really don't change anything to me. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I actually didn't realize there was an alternative here... any way to get rid of that concrete block in the background? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 14:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Microgravity Burning.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Microgravity Burning.jpg
Question I'm not very familiar with the use of NASA images. The image is in the public domain (with restrictions), but what about the text in the description, is that also in the public domain? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies14:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see the value of this picture with such an limited description. Its a very special case, but it worth nothing without knowing exact parameters of the picture. What is red, what is yellow, what is blue? Whats the mapping of the colors? What kind of fuel was used? Not sufficient description for encyclopedic context. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係10:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the legend I struggle to understand what is presented. The central plane of symmetry, appears to have an aesthetic character. The encyclopedic value seems very narrow. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mosteiro dos Jerónimos 0424 - doors in the arcade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mosteiro dos Jerónimos 0424 - doors in the arcade.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, lighting problems: too dark at places, too bright at places. Bad composition. --Tomer T (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support to contest FPX. It is not the most amazing image taken, but in my opinion composition is not that bad to justify FPX and surely we don't want to have only HDR images where every part of the image is equally (boringly) bright. bamse (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp, a lot of detail is too soft. Left edge isn't straight. Nice play on falling light and if it were sharper, it could be a great study on texture. But it's a weird composition. I agree with bamse, I don't have a problem (in this case) with the light and dark. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 07:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moth 01 (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moth 01 (MK).jpg
Support as the author. Thanks for the nomination. The picture is pretty dark, but I promiss there is nothing going on what you can't see. ;-) To the picture: It is a fokusstack of 19 pictures taken at f/8 and 0,4 sec exposure each image. The moth was still alive (!) during the whole session and was set free after it. So thanks again and best regards mathiasK15:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image. The reflection adds information on the bottom face of the subject and is clearly distinguished from the direct view. -- Rama (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pico de Fogo & summit of 1995 erruption.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pico de Fogo & summit of 1995 erruption.jpg
Info Pico de Fogo is a 2,829 metres high stratovolcano in Fogo, Cape Verde. In front of it there is a minor summit which was formed in an eruption in 1995. This volcanic landscape has been taken in 2010 December.
Support I like it! Only two hiccups - the composition seems a little off-balance to me, with the volcano so close to the top and the left edge, and the shadows in the foreground on the right seem too dark and imposing. Apart from that, great photo, great volcano. --TheHighFinSpermWhale17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard for me to say if is the picture really tilted. The sure thing is the terrain certainly wasn't flat and horisontal – hilly every way around. But I have used a water balance thing which is included in my camera. I can fix the seeming tilt if it disturbs too much though. Also the image can easily be cropped every way, but maybe I'd like to wait for more opinions about it so I can be sure where to crop (or clone more sky). Thanks. --Ximonic (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add, for the record, that I never saw any tilt, but I know what Whale is referring to. I live near mountains and it can be frustrating when you pictures are level, but the mountains going off into the distance, plus varying heights, make the image look like you can't hold a camera for your life. But in this case, I never saw it and I still don't; but if anyone does see a tilt, it's definitely because of the landscape. If it bothers too many people, obviously it can be fixed. ; ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this terrain can make it very confusing. If you say that the bubble metre said it was level, that's good enough for me. As for the softness around the top, I think that it is just haze. --TheHighFinSpermWhale03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNeutral I think the "tilt" may be the terrain; I don't see anything it can really be judged by. I'm hoping the soft blur at the top is smoke from the volcano? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The soft blur... Atleast it can't be made by me. I don't know, huh? :D I don't remember that kind of stuff so it must have been really hard to notice if there were smoke. Atleast it is an active volcano. --Ximonic (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, definitely not you, but it looks like a very fine dark cloud of ash or smoke right dead center. I don't think there's anything that can be done about it though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, maybe it is you. Is this image composed of two images stitched together, and did you use a polarizer filter for these images? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a stitched panorama. I didn't change the camera settings between any picture. No polarizer was used, just the lens itself. --Ximonic (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the panorama is something like 150 degrees wide so I guess the changing of the sky is natural and can't be avoided (unless by digital manipulation). --Ximonic (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you didn't use a polarizer then that rules that out. I suppose it is just haze. Unfortunately, I find it really distracting and I'm not sure why, so I'm really on the fence. But it's still a nice shot! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand this at all... Commons does not show the right picture in the previews at all! It doesn't show the updated images after the first release. However... --Ximonic (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Up to date now. --Ximonic (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like an oversharpened resize of a multi-image panorama. Pano's should be mentioned in the description, BTW. W.S.22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 20:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yoke decoration shape as a horse-MBA Lyon X254-IMG 0611.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yoke decoration shape as a horse-MBA Lyon X254-IMG 0611.jpg
Oppose I really don't know what I'm looking at. I don't know what a "yoke decoration" is, and the image isn't in any articles to help clarify. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 11:00:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Joakim Noah and JaVale McGee.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joakim Noah and JaVale McGee.jpg
Oppose Very clear, well exposed, nice action sports shot. But the crop is too tight... and the referee eating butt... – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 06:44:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quito Centro Histórico.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quito Centro Histórico.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 17:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Viljo koirarannalla 18.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viljo koirarannalla 18.jpg
Oppose Looking at this picture by itself, it's a point-and-shoot shot of a dog running through water, nothing I can't find at the local park lake about five minutes away from me. Looking at it as part of a series of images, what I see is someone uploading 20 images of their dog, using the images only on their talk page, and nominating them for "quality images". I find this kind of disturbing, but whatever. These are nothing more than non-educational look-at-my-dog pictures that are absolutely nothing special. Having said that, I do think you picked the best of the bunch. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Albeit I would probably have phrased it a little bit more gentle myself I sadly have to admit that I agree entirely with the review of Kerαunoςcopia. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we should be reviewing the image, not getting sidetracked on user conduct (especially when the image's creator didn't nominate it). Other forums are better suited to that, if it's needed. Getting back to the image, it has some appeal, but IMO the composition isn't ideal - a bit cramped on the left, and quite remote for a fun subject. I think a couple of the others in the series have more impact, if still not quite FP material. --Avenue (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- I remember assessing (and supporting?) this picture, or a similar one, before. But I can't find the link. Am I having visions? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 20:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weibliche Große Pechlibelle, Ischnura elegans 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weibliche Große Pechlibelle, Ischnura elegans 4.JPG
Neutral Did it just go to the bathroom? What's the thing beneath it? It's a beautiful shot, but I'm frustrated by the eyes... the closest one looks really out of focus. The wings look fine. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but since we have several shot of this kind (I don't know the exact species, but definitely they look similar), I now expect something top notch to support. This one doesn't seem in focus where it matters, especially the left eye. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To have a "wow" factor in these kinds of images, there must be a clear separation of foreground/background, not just on focus but also on contrast. Here the background is too dark, which clutters the composition. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 07:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Etropole-Monastery panorama .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Etropole-Monastery panorama .jpg
Comment I'm afraid there's an unfortunate stitching mistake right in the yellow slide in the middle of the picture. Furthermore, the contrast is a bit harsh imho. --MAURILBERT(discuter)02:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 12:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shirvan Domes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shirvan Domes.jpg
Support Not all our FPC images have to be bright, vivid colours. This is better than an oversaturated one. And saturation can easily be increased. --TheHighFinSpermWhale04:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is actually a very nice image, it just needs a little tweaking in Photoshop, to make it absolutely perfect. Grandmaster17:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition, but quality is soso, even for such a small image. A bit "washed out" and dull. Also looks tilted to the right. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image needs some post-processing, definitively. It could greatly be improved by adjusting the levels, to start with. There's a lot of range being lost as it is now. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 14:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg
Comment Maybe I'm being dumb, but this is already a featured image, isn't it? I mean, it says so. Also, not sure how you know the background is fake, looks real to me? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies14:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is not a "faked" background. It is an artificial one, but it makes the subject better IMO. I like both, background and subject, very much --Jebulon (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background highlights this Shiva in a good way. I don't mind it being "fake" – atleast the sculpture is not fake which counts for me. --Ximonic (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't have any problem with the background - on the contrary: it works very well! Nice job! -- MJJR (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 07:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Volcán Tungurahua 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Volcán Tungurahua 2011.jpg
Oppose Well, that's better in terms of exposure compared to your other nomination, but the exposure looks like it was pushed in post-processing, resulting in a lot of noise. Also, nothing in the frame seems to be in focus, unfortunately. Nice composition and framing with the silhouetted trees, though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:49, 31 May 2011 (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.Tomer T (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 22:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carpodacus purpureus CT3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carpodacus purpureus CT3.jpg
Support Wow, Cephas, your bird pictures are amazing. You can even see the landscape reflected in the bird's eye. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 21:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Very nice. My only wish is it weren't so bright in the top center, we lose a lot of detail. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's nice, but not the most beautiful rose I've seen, and the background looks weird (The patterns look like a badly compressed file). Some small parts of the subject (mostly the edges) are blurred and it feels like it was added over the background in post processing. Is it because of the stack focusing ? - Benh (talk)
InfoFocus stacking is a digital image processing technique which combines multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than in this image. The hazziness in a resulting image may have one of three reasons: 1) The used image is on this place out of focus and there is no second image with the right focus on this point. I used Helicon Focus and 21 images taken at different focus distances. Maybe Helicon Remote takes more images and solves this problem. 2) There are some images (also sharp images) with different focus laying one on top of the other like a sandwich. The problem of Focus stack is: images with different focus have different sizes. The resulting sandwich-image is sometimes blurred (there are different images not congruent on the same place). Therefore I put copies from the sharp images to all blurred places. 3) The edges may sometimes be blurred, because images with another focus are looking over the edges and hides the background, because they have a larger size than the sharp image. Then it is needed to restore the background. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the lighting, and the sharpness is generally good. But I agree with Benh about the image's problems, and I think some of the blurred edges haven't been healed well (e.g. the wide stripe on the yellow petal outlining the central group of petals). --Avenue (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pico de Teide.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pico de Teide.jpg
no much wow or surprising about your vote, but you are definitly wrong with the estimation this picture is a centered composition. where is harsh lighting? there is nothing overexposed, expert Benh. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was overexposed ? If you have time, u could use it to fix ur previous nom instead of judging people over here (obviously, wasn't as easy as you first thought...). - Benh (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't bother me as the pillar on the left makes a nice contrast with the centered mountain, but I have to agree about the lighting. It's uninteresting lighting, and a bit hazy. Can it be re-photographed at sunrise/sunset? The sameness of the colors makes the image seem flat. Maybe a polarizer could cut through the haze. Just my suggestion. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
commend Benh says the lightning is harsh, Alvesgaspar thinks it is too flat. What is the truth of this contradict opinions? Maybe non of them. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No contradiction that I see. The light coming from above is strong and flat, a little like a flash aimed directly at the subject. This results in harsh shadows but little structure and detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 13:03:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ötlingen - Blick auf den Tüllinger Berg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ötlingen - Blick auf den Tüllinger Berg.jpg
Nor should it be grounds for incivility, but we both see it, don't we? Anyway, I do like the image, but I think the sky is a touch overexposed. The framing of the trees and the foreground on the left is a wonderful play on the perspective, but the village is too "tucked" into the leaves. Had the photographer stepped a little more to their right, removing the strange crop of the road on the right and shifting the village over a bit, then the image would be much better. The sky can always be corrected. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The buildings attract the eye, but are partially obscured by the foreground tree. This spoils the peaceful scene IMO. --Avenue (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNothing special; rather flat lighting ; attempt to make an interesting composition, but the element in the foreground are unbalanced and partially obstruct the village, which is annoying since it looks to be an important subject of the image, and that is where we look ultimately (per Avenue). - Benh (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 15:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aglais urticae qtl4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aglais urticae qtl4.jpg
Info This picture is not supposed to be an advertisement for Marlboro cigarettes, nor does it depict a Small Tortoiseshell in its natural environment. It just shows that nature sometimes manages to live side-by-side with what humans to do it. The image is no collage, this small butterfly chose that old package to rest on and I liked the contrast. Let's see what you think about it. --Quartl (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The butterfly's colors are overpowered by the red of the cigarette box, so even if I know there's a butterfly there, my eyes are drawn to the white of the box. I'm sure there's a nice message with the "nature and garbage" artwork, but I don't see the value of the image at all. Where would this even be used, what Wikipedia article? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I posted this figure to my social network and my friend said that it looks like a hidden promotion of the smoking. I don't know. May be he is right :( -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A promoter would've probably used a shiny new package, not an battered old one, but I see the point. --Quartl (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 14:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:C. Bechstein Poster, about 1920 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:C. Bechstein Poster, about 1920 edit.jpg
Support A nice example of the poster as an art form, where even commercial promotion was in tune with art. Art Nouveau, Art Deco, constructivism, Bauhaus, etc., etc., were a golden age of graphic communication. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hard to review a scan when I don't know how the original looks. I see banding artifacts (even more obviously on the thumbnail), and a lot of "grain", noise, but this doesn't kill it IMO. - Benh (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see the banding. It's a shame the piano's manufacture stamp (or whatever it's called) doesn't appear to say "Bechstein"... just looks like some random alien letters. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 21:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Making Death Mask Edit 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Making Death Mask Edit 4.jpg
Oppose Wow, this is a highly interesting photo. Creepy, great focus on the work on making the mold. Intriguing really. However it is far below the 2 Mpixel guideline. At the original source there is a 7056×5505 pixel 37 MB tif scan available for download. I think that would make a much better starting point for a high resolution restoration. Given that better possible strating point I really cannot mitigate for the size it has here. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree completely. We should not be restoring reduced resolution images, much less featuring such restorations. Restorations should start from the best quality image available. (I've now uploaded the original image in its full resolution.) --Avenue (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 12:27:58 (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 11 Jun 2011 at 15:57:15 (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 Jun 2011 at 08:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Because of the coastal mountain range and excellent wind conditions, es:Crucita attracts paragliders from beyond Ecuador. Please, be aware that this country is "poor", though rich in its people, culture and nature.
Oppose Awkward stacking of objects in frame, signs growing out of towers or the boat anchored to a tree, etc. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The featurable thing: I believe it to be the entire scenery, as such, with its geometry and colours, and with what it tells us about the place. --Cayambe (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 06:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Volcán Tungurahua3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Volcán Tungurahua3.jpg
Oppose Exposure is too dark, awkward framing (lots of wasted space on the left), simply not all that interesting. I prefer the exposure of File:Arenallong.jpg, for example. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 01:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpg
Neutral I feel like I'm going to curse myself if I oppose an Adams, but I really kind of agree with Benh... trivial is a good word. If this image had anyone else's name on it, I wouldn't have given it a second look. The frame-within-a-frame-within-a-frame may have been a novelty in the 40s, but it's really nothing amazing today. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Kerαunoςcopia: Precisely. We can't fault Shakespeare for being unoriginal when he says, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet" or "The course of true love never did run smooth," just because they're clichés now. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 23:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Butcher at guanajuato market.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Butcher at guanajuato market.jpg
Oppose Difficult to understand what's going on at first. Also looks a bit like an advertisement for the company named on the wall. Very busy image. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, imo. I like the contrast between the head of a slaughterer pig, and the happy face of a drawn pig. Doesn't look like an advertisement to me. --Lošmi (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great Geysir (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Geysir (2).jpg
Neutral I think it is refreshing to see a geyser from a distance. The combination of colors and the scene is interesting. The light is a bit too dull though for my taste and the overall image quality not quite FP quality IMO - seems like the saturation knob has been turned a tad too much on a slightly underexposed photo - leading to some color noise - although I am not sure. --Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unsharp and not enough "wow" factor. In general, landscape shots taken on cloudy days only work if the clouds are especially dramatic, or the sun comes out approaching sunset (producing a bright/gloomy juxtaposition), etc. IMO. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 19:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The eye is in perfect focus, the mouth is open, and the overall color theme is wonderful. The only thing I find weak is the composition, which is a touch unimaginative. The snake is just a straight line (somehow didn't realize the snake's body is in the background!) and the photographer obviously kept the eye dead center. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies21:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition seems not really featured to me (leave is die bottom right; head centered), red colour cast. Two minor issues are the DOF and the flash light (and light conditions in general). Overall the image is not bad, but not more. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat12:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only a interesting. Overall, a space unbalanced. Missing separation background and theme, same color. Absent "Golden ratio" 1:1,6 --W.Rebel (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not a killer and I quite like the colours, but harsh flash speculars and too shallow DOF make me oppose. W.S.07:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 01:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tarsiger rufilatus - Doi Inthanon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tarsiger rufilatus - Doi Inthanon.jpg
Support Very nice. It's a shame the left leg is out of focus, the DOF seems just a touch too narrow. The dead-center bird and slightly square framing is a little off-putting for me, but John Singer Sargent was criticized for his very square portraits too, sometimes : ) Nice mossy bough, too. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors. If author happens to read me, is it a crop ? doesn't seem as sharp as the other pics despite the size (I'm thinking about Cephas). I'm also surprised it's still this sharp at 1/30sec, but I guess the (huge) lens rests on something. - Benh (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a crop, and getting sharp images at 1/30 with such focal lengths is a challenge even with support, so there probably is some motion blur in there. Even if the tripod was perfect the bird is still moving around. The Cephas pictures are taken in the sun at 1/400, which is a different ballgame to a dark jungle. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was aware I must have been quite dark (f/4, ISO 400, 1/30) and that Cephas' pics are under better lighting. I was just a bit surprised a high end 500mm couldn't do better than a far cheaper 400mm f/5.6. Thanks for the explanations. Benh (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was a situation where lens sharpness wasn't really a limiting factor. On a few occasions it was even worse than this (like 1/10 F4 ISO 1600). If I did it again I'd have taken some flashes and wireless triggers for these situations (this was taken from a portable blind). JJ Harrison (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 17:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Heliconius-hecale.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heliconius-hecale.jpg
Oppose It's nice, but I'm not too keen on the very harsh flash lighting, with background appearing very dark. - Benh (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's got the wow factor I think, but I agree with Benh, the lighting is far too harsh. Try placing a thin fabric over the flash to diffuse the light some, though something like this should probably be taken with two-source lighting (I'm just guessing, I've only seen a few behind-the-scenes bug shots). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 15:18:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ostriches Kuhnert.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ostriches Kuhnert.jpg
FYI, a crop is also a way of presenting an image, not necessarily a cutting technique. Here the crop is not good, to put it gently. W.S.21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 06:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Physicsworks.oggCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Physicsworks.ogg
Info created by MIT staff for Prof. Lewin, the lecturer it features. Via the MIT OCW project, which is starting to release video clips under a free content license. Uploaded by Sj - nominated by Sj -- --SJ+06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- as nominator. This is a clip from a highly popular youtube and OCW series - a visual and visceral demonstration of air friction and conservation of energy, with a appreciative audience. --SJ+06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't wait to see it, but it gets "stuck" (?) at the buffering stage and will just sit there for about a minute, before I give up on it. Other videos I found in a Google search started up immediately. So I'll try your video later. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't get the video to play. If one is supposed to wait several minutes, then maybe that's fine for them, but I'm an impatient web cruiser. If someone can say how long it took for the video to buff for them, that'd be swell. Otherwise, sorry, I can't vote one way or the other. :( – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A recored lecture, but I don't see anything to be featured in it. Just a plain, regular lecture with really nice experiment and explanations. Masur (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can hear the sound with some browser/OS combinations (e.g. Firefox 4.0.1 under Ubuntu 11.04), but not others (e.g. Firefox 4.0.1 under Windows XP). --Avenue (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have problems with for instance WinXP and FF 4.01 - in contrast to youtube videos. Can you fix that, otherwise I have to oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 22:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carpodacus purpureus CT4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carpodacus purpureus CT4.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:32:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Very pretty, but it's a typical sunset shot. The glare makes it hard to see what's going on, and the foreground is underexposed. But it's a road in the hills heading toward the setting sun. Very Chaplin-esque, but nothing extremely special for FA. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sky is definitively improved, but you still have the problem that the landscape is underexposed. The main focus of your picture is the blown out sun, that's where the eyes immediately goes to (at least mine). So yes, it's an improvement, but still not FP IMO. But don't take what I say at face value, put it up as an alternative if you want and let people vote. --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too much of an HDR look. I really like the clouds and crepuscular rays though, and I would prefer the first version but with the sun blown out (currently it's flat at ~230 RGB which looks really unnatural). Don't worry about blown highlights, it would be weird if the sun were not blown out for all but the last 30 minutes of sunset. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm, I kind of like the HDR look here, though I'm not familiar with how HDR images are approached at FPC. Very pretty, much easier on the eyes than the original. Someone above said the sun attracts the eyes, but the opposite happens to me: it's so glaring on the computer screen, I can't help but stare at the foreground. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's anything valuable about the image, but I think it's much better in terms of foreground exposure and glare/haze removal. I'd be proud to have taken a photo like that. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find that the lighting and composition of this image in general are very nice, so I guess I'll Support some version of this. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 08:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I suppose it is a stitch since the EXIF is gone. Would you mind detailing in the file page what camera settings were used, the software you have used for the stitch and the number of frames used? I suppose the faint white elongated dots in the sky are stars? --Slaunger (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the metadata. I did not know of the nice {{Panorama}} beforehand, but now I do. I do not have strong opinion about the stars. I just asked because I was in doubt if it was birds in the far distance - that was when I still did not know the exposure times... --Slaunger (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the blue hour, but I am inclined to think this was taken a little too late, when it was getting a little too dark. But very interesting architecture and light. Good technical quality and nice stitch. --Slaunger (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S. Nicely fixed, but in the end, and as per my previous vote, most of the building is in the dark, with only a small part actually lit - Benh (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your previous vote does not mentioned that you think it is too dark. Strange that the building is good visible although it's dark. Your vote indeed is not strange, it has already tradition and I would miss it if you wouldn´t vote blanket against my pictures :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
quote from myself from the previous nom : "Only a fractional part of the building is lit". And when someone mentions that something is there to an "only" extent, it means that he thinks that this something is missing a little. In that case, light. Hmmm. Next time please read the whole thing, before complaining. - Benh (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
U're kidding right ? u're always the one shifting the subject off from photo (as if you don't have argument otherwise, and the above about lighting issue is just evidence of that). Please leave bad faith aside just a few second. But it's true I always fall for that. Not anymore, hopefully ;) - Benh (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 14:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canaletto - The Piazza San Marco in Venice - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canaletto - The Piazza San Marco in Venice - Google Art Project.jpg
Comment Hard to judge. First of all, there seems to be some remnant or orphaned HTML tag in the description of the image. Is the tower supposed to look "bent" like that? Was the image created by a high-end scanner or is the tower suffering from a wide-angle lens? I would imagine the painter to paint it straight, but some painters had some incredible powers at reproducing bizarre lens-like landscapes. But it doesn't seem like that would be the case here. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard to judge but presumably good for a 400-year-old painting. I say more credit goes to the painter as creator. The photographer gets credit as the uploader - or at least that's what I always do. -- One, please.( Thank you.)15:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 15:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HahnEcho GWM.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HahnEcho GWM.gif
Comment I'm not saying this to be rude, but is there a way to have this image represented by a still image somehow? I keep swinging by the FPC page and then my browser will hang for 30 seconds while the gif is trying to load, and I keep forgetting it's here. If this isn't possible, then ignore me : ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1) What is the meaning of the green arrows at the bottom? 2) If I understand correctly, the pi/2 (90) and pi (180) pulses are something that you apply to the system, while the echo is something that you measure. In this sense, having both in one "graph" is a bit counterintuitive and possibly confusing. Also don't see the reason for having the "graph" in 3D. bamse (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) The green arrows at the bottom show that the time "t" between the 90 and 180 pulses is the same as the time "t" between the 180 pulse and the echo. 2) As you say there is a difference between the applied pulses and the echo. They are the same in the sense that they are all pulses of electromagnetic radiation with the same frequency (generally RF for NMR and microwave for EPR). I like to have them together to show that the two times "t" are the same. Many experiments produce data with the pulses and the echo together such as figure 3a from my recent Phys Rev Lett paper here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.3431.pdf . I did the green graph in 3D because I thought it looked nicer. GavinMorley (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and congratulations to the PRL. 1) So the arrows are pointing at the centers of the respective peak/plateaus (hard to see in 3D in my opinion)? I am not sure that these green arrows are the best way to illustrate that it is the same time interval. Initially I thought it was somehow related to the direction of the spins (which are also represented by arrows. Unfortunately I don't have a good idea of how to improve it: maybe some kind of bar instead of the arrows or adding a label "T" or something. 2) OK as for plotting them together. A problem of the 3D graph is that the p/2 pulse does not appear to be half as wide as the pi pulse due to the projection. Can you remind me what determines the shape (width and height) of the echo peak? Well done and very useful illustration btw! bamse (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) yes. 2) The echo height depends on things like how many spins are in the sample, the relaxation times, the spin polarization etc. The echo width depends on the width of the pulses, the relaxation times, the inhomogeneities in the experiment etc. If people want I could render the animation with all of the green stuff rotated so that you are looking at it head-on. GavinMorley (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always support animations, because they are best to describe things, that hard to be explained in words. But this animation is need additional explanation in words, so I can't support it. Technically: a) animation does not show, what we "did" and what we "get"; and b) the green arrow of time looks like it is assigned to X axis. -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why does it need to be so dark and to have such strong colors? After all it looks a bit after "I didn't know how how to make it better". I would suggest to use a 2D-Graph and a brighter illustration of the angles/vectors on top of it. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係10:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the black background because I thought it looked best but I can change it if people want other colours. Last week I put up this version http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GWM_HahnEcho_GreyBgd.gif which has a grey background. Why would it be better with a 2D graph? What do you mean by "a brighter illustration"? Red arrows on a blue background seems very bright and I thought that your complaint about "strong colours" meant you wanted less bright colours (closer to pastel shades) rather than the current primary colours. GavinMorley (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im currently rendering an alternative. I like the idea very much, but i changed some details. I will upload it as an animation, if it is done, and that PC is slow, very slow. ;-)
Thanks, but I much prefer the strong colours of the original. Also there are a couple of inaccuracies in your physics: the echo shape is not smooth enough and the accelarating and decelarating precession in the xy plane would require a changing magnetic field. These experiments are conducted with constant external magnetic field.
How smooth should the echo shape be? "the accelarating and decelarating precession" Currently it is non linear in this animation. Should i change it to linear instead? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係16:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, as usual. And for not working GIF -- at 540x540 resolution it should be 42 frames length to fit 12.5 MP limit. ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will hardly get something usable (42 frames, 250 frames at 222x222...). The filesize itself is 1,3 MB. Compared to other images this is small. I can only assume that the limit is way too low. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not even completely sure what it is but these are so demonstrative it's easy to figure out what it's attempting to teach about echoes/reflections. I like the reflections shown here. -- One, please.( Thank you.)15:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 03:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Racing at Arlington Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Racing at Arlington Park.jpg
Support -- I thought this was an awesome shot. I do agree that the crop is too tight, but I think these are the edges of the frame. You can't really get the horses to back up:) Thought it was an amazing result given the time window. Froggerlaura (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is it a photo finish or an oil painting? :D Great shot. However, it looks slightly overtweaked. A lot of noise in the background and expecially in the greens, and the legs of the horses look like they're suffering from a sort of sharpening effect. I also find the bulk of the image to be slightly underexposed. Lastly, the crop is way too tight, unfortunately. Great image otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the image quality fine. But the framing is really, really tight, with parts of the legs cut out at the bottom. - Benh (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 13:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sweetgum Seed closeup.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sweetgum Seed closeup.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image quality is much below FP standards: out of focus subject, noise, artifacts, distracting bakground. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2011 at 19:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - Unsharp. In general, for landscapes the best aperture to use is somewhere around f/8. If you use a larger aperture, you will get limited depth of field and corner degradation; if you use a smaller aperture, the overall quality will be limited by diffraction. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I really like the subject, the composition and the colors, I also recommend to use a smaller aperture like f/8, as the sharpness of your 18-55 zoom will greatly improve. Please make sure to hold your camera level, your picture tilts about 2° to the right, as you can see on the horizon line. I am looking forward to see a new version of this picture, which I would like to support, for sure! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I confirm the image is straight now. :-) I still think you will need to shoot the picture again, with the parameters I mentioned in my earlier comment. Also use ISO 100 with such a good light. And a tripod for maximum stability. And be sure to order such nice weather again... Good luck! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 20:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:SeebrückeGöhren2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:SeebrückeGöhren2011.jpg
Oppose I now feel guilty to spoil the party, again! But let's see the positives, nevertheless:
Great light and colors - you really caught the right moment to shoot the subject
Composition - I like the "no frills" approach
You got the horizon straight this time :-)
On the other hand, I have a number of possible improvements for this image:
Noise - why 800 ISO? There was plenty of light to work with 100 ISO.
Sharpness - The EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 II is simply soft wide open (the IS version is better). Stop it down to 5.6 or 8.0 whenever you can.
Composition - Let the handrail on the right side "fly in" from the corner. This diagonal leads the viewer's eye and improves the perspective impression.
I hope you understand that for the given reasons I cannot support the candidature. Finally, I also struggle to see the encyclopedic value/signification of this building. With kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 23:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GabelRum01 ST 07.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GabelRum01 ST 07.JPG
Support Best possible composition in horizontal 3rds, great afternoon colors on a clear day. Could only be improved through a more advanced camera for better sharpness and resolution, and maybe some little white clouds here and there? Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 00:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hypercube construction.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hypercube construction.gif
Oppose The EV, but this isn't really the best Commons has to offer; it doesn't make you sit back in your chair and say, "wow". A bit simplistic. --TheHighFinSpermWhale03:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extremely valuable in comparison to the thousands of images of hypercubes out there. I do have a suggestion for improvement, though: the last frame should last longer than the frames preceding it. Hold the "pose", as it were. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 22:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Igrexa parroquial de Doade - Lalín - Galicia-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Igrexa parroquial de Doade - Lalín - Galicia-2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 06:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leptophis ahaetulla Snake Eating a Frog (Craugastor gollmeri).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leptophis ahaetulla Snake Eating a Frog (Craugastor gollmeri).jpg
Support I love action shots, and couldn't go past this from my friend Brian's current expedition to Panama. -- 99of9 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stunningly beautiful snake. Unfortunately, the frog is impossible to see (I didn't even see despite the mouth consuming it) due to the somewhat camoflauge aspect of the background. If you'd be willing to do something about the background (lighten it/darken it, whatever), I think it could have my support. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that there is little contrast between the frog and the background goes to show that it attempted to hide itself, and failed ... -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Very nice photo, but the file description is very sparse. Is it a zoo or wild-life shot? Where was it taken? What camera, lens, exposure, aperture, ISO (unfortunately no useful EXIF on the original flickr upload). Except the retouch done by 99of9, has any further postprocessing been applied? --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hopefully Brian will give us full details, but usually his non-studio pics are from expeditions, often at night, to collect frogs. This trip was in Panama (the Darien I think). I don't know about the camera technicals, except that this was taken with a flash (hence my retouch removing the flash reflection from the eye). I don't think he does retouching in the field (this was uploaded while he was still in Panama). --99of9 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Toby. You are probably correct in everything you state here. I hope Brian drops by, such that he can confirm/fill in the blanks - perhaps also add a geotag. --Slaunger (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the nomination guys - it was taken in the Mamoni Valley near Chagres National Park Panama, Cannon D7, 100mm sigma lense, external flash, F 1/14, ISO 100, 1/250 Sec, 5/28/2011 _ have no idea how to add this to the image properties on wikipedia.
Comment Thanks Brian. I've added it as text in the image description. I guess it could be put into the metadata, but having the info anywhere is what counts. --99of9 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 10:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of a monk-MGR Lyon-IMG 9873-black.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of a monk-MGR Lyon-IMG 9873-black.jpg
Info Portrait of a monk. Japan, 16th century. Lacquered wood with rock crystal incrusts for eyes. On display at the Musée des Confluences exhibit of the Musée gallo-romain de Fourvière. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 20:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stairs at Du Loup.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stairs at Du Loup.jpg
Neutral I like it, but it's a strange composition. Perhaps it was meant to be a horizontal frame. There almost seems to be too much floor. Otherwise, I like it. I personally would go so far as to paint out the weird fire alarm thingy on the far back wall, I find it to be one of those modern blemishes that appear all too often in beautiful locations. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with painting out the fire alarm thing. I think photographs meant to be used in an encyclopedia should not be modified in this manner, because they lose documentary value. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, that's a fair point. I suppose an image on an encyclopedia would have a different raison d'être than a picture hung on a wall of someone's living room (or whatever). Anyway, for the record, the fire alarm thingamabob would not affect my vote. My "neutral" is definitely for the beauty of the staircase, the flow of the wood, but the lack of a fitting composition. : ) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I greatly appreciate the composition and B&W generation. On the technical side, I would have recommended to use base ISO, as there is a fair amount of noise. Also, stopping down the lens to f/8 could have improved the sharpness. As you used a tripod, the resulting longer exposure time would not have been a problem, anyway. Therefore, if you have the possibility to shoot the scene again, I would support a new version. Alternatively, a PP for noise control and sharpness would do to get my support. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the composition and light - the way the light reflects on the floor is very nice. Noise seems a little excessive. The file description is insufficient IMO for an FP: Which castle in Belgium? I noticed the dirt on the floor, which gives the impression that it is a deserted castle, but is that right? --Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 11:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 17:44:25
Info It's a good picture, but I don't think it's up to current standards. There isn't such a wow effect, and the composition is mediocre and has some problems, such as too tight crop on the right. Just an oridnary fire shot. (Original nomination)
Keep It looks wonderful and is hardly to imagine to take such photo. Also, I can't see a logical reason behind the delisting votes without any comment.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 16:46:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg
Neutral per the Whale. I was about to mention the download link when I found out the largest downscaled size is 1024px. There should be something in between these extreme ends ! - Benh (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support forgot the interactive viewer link to avoid downloading it all. A clear support now. - Benh (talk)
Neutral I downloaded it and it's a wonderfully crystal image, cracks and all. I have two concerns, though. The painting seems to have been photographed and I see curvature on the frame. I would've preferred the painting be scanned by a Better Light or something more suited to exact reproduction. The image seems to have been passed through Photoshop CS5 already, but the image should be losslessly cropped to remove the background and canvas. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the people who voted here: I plan to upload a cropped version of this image without the frame, but don't want to upload over the original. It seems a couple people here would prefer an image without the frame. Should the featured tag be moved to that image or what? Dcoetzee (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 09:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Big Sur McWay Falls May 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Big Sur McWay Falls May 2011.jpg
Oppose I don't like the "refreshing" composition. I hardly guess the subject is the falls, but I've to thank the title. Long exposition was a good idea I think, but it wasn't long enough in my opinion. Might be overexposed on the falls as this renders as a large bright stain. I'm also skeptical about the white parts of some rocks. What are they ? - Benh (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removed "white parts rocks" part of my comment after cross checking with other pics. The framing really doesn't make justice to the beautiful place... - Benh (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If these waterfalls were commonplace I would have to oppose. However, it is a very unusual waterfall that is hard to reach, which I feel outdoes and quality problems. And rocks can be white. --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rocks can be white, but I was just wondering (hence the question mark) if this wasn't bad processing, because it looked weird to me. - Benh (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the EnWiki article on this. Or maybe KOH took this from the road? Either way, we don't have many pictures of this place and it is very special and rare. --TheHighFinSpermWhale19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing with google maps it looks like being close to a highway. As far as I understand it is only difficult to get to the bottom of the falls or to the beach. bamse (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I admit the image had to "grow" on me a bit. I also struggled with the short long-exposure, but in the end, I like the creaminess of the waves. However, this image absolutely complements the other FA image on the article, which barely shows the falls or where it's coming from. I like how the image is "broken" into burnt umber and seagreen by the white foam. Unrelated to my vote, I didn't know about tidefalls, very cool. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies21:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 16:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:കെട്ടുവള്ളങ്ങൾ-കുട്ടനാടിന്റെ മുഖമുദ്ര.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:കെട്ടുവള്ളങ്ങൾ-കുട്ടനാടിന്റെ മുഖമുദ്ര.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 15:04:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fuji apple.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fuji apple.jpg
Oppose Distracting background, extremely harsh lighting, blown out highlights, and the wet apples/dry cement thing doesn't work for me. Very staged looking. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think the lighting is for a dramatic effect as Kerαunoςcopia◁ and I don't think that's necessarily bad as an interesting composition is important here. And they're just apples; they could use some help being interesting. -- One, please.( Thank you.)15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 10:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Next time, could you please withdraw previous nom before introducing another one, so I don't add the FPD banner for nothing ? Thanks. - Benh (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sunset light, but building cut out on the left and very annoying shadow. Also strange bright fringe above the edge on left and right sides (My guess is this comes from exposures blending) - Benh (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice glow on the main building, but shadows distract as well as the crop of the building to the left. It is btw a very, very interesting architecture, and it has wow.--Slaunger (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better than below, but not all the images you used for the pano where in focus. This yields a weird in/out focus of fore and background at some places. W.S.15:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 10:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Novak Djokovic AO win 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Novak Djokovic AO win 2011.jpg
Neutral Very valuable (his expression is priceless); yet not truly a FP to me: tightest crop, non-optimal point of view (the cup is difficult to make out, almost looks like a bunch of discarded aluminium foil, its base is cut-out), somewhat blurry and noisy... I don't deny that it's one of the best pictures that could be taken of this event in these circumstances, yet I don't believe it to be one of Commons finest. --MAURILBERT(discuter)11:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 06:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment It is a very beautiful scene with good light and DOF. The colors seem a little "National Geographic" oversaturated, which I do not fancy much personally. I am concerned about the value - beautiful is not always valuable. --Slaunger (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sky with beautiful contrast, and interesting "three parts" composition, but uninteresting to me otherwise. - Benh (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 10:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:STS-134 EVA4 view to the Russian Orbital Segment.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:STS-134 EVA4 view to the Russian Orbital Segment.jpg
474
2098
1812
731
4288
2848
Still severe chromatic aberrations also in the new version
171
1253
560
674
4288
2848
Many chromatic aberrations also in the new version
What a relief! For a moment, I thought that our beloved Terra was an egg of some fantastic alien species that was about to hatch! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the ELC-3 thing should be included in the image description? I otherwise imagined the astronaut just hanging out in mid-"air". – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, no wow factor noted. I did remove the magenta and green fringing. I apologize for the placement of the alternative image, I'm actually not sure how to go about doing that. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also in the new version a lot of chromatic aberrrations (annotated in the original), unsharp areas and overexposed parts. I wonder, that you nominate a picture that doesn't fulfill in no way the criteria you demand always in the nominations of others! --Llez (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 16:30:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20110419 Tas Kopru bridge Kars Turkey Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20110419 Tas Kopru bridge Kars Turkey Panorama.jpg
Oppose Eventhough I admit that I cannot really issue any technical complaints about your picture (sharpness, exposure, white balance, composition, etc.), this subject does not seem to have the potential for shooting a FP, especially under these weather conditions (gray sky). Therefore, I am afraid I cannot support your nomination. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 22:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Beautiful composition and colors. If there is anything to criticize, it would be the fact that the mountains are just very slightly out of the depth-of-field. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 20:41:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info 360 ° panorama in the bicycle bridge over the Alfenz in Lorüns. Built in 2010, according to plans by the architects-marte marte. All by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic deformed and distorded panorama picture. Incomprehensible for me. Generally speaking, I don't vote for this kind of pictures because of I dislike very much, but I understand that in FPC it is not a good reason for abstain. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not unrealistic, it should just be viewed properly. On the details page, author provides a link to a panoramic viewer, which is meant for 360° panos. That said, the pano renders weird on the viewer and it's like the bridge is curved, which doesn't match the other version of the picture taken from outside provided. Could this be because the panorama doesn't cover 360° on vertical axis ? - Benh (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this picture is so realistic as a 360°-panorama can be, as long as a 360° pano can candidate here as long the argument "unrealistic" is not valid. this picture gives a good impression of dimension and structure and is technical great work. the distortion because of the 360° pano a healthy mind can realise and convert into reality. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure there are interesting things to make 360° panos of, but this is not one of them. The mere use of the technique does nor automatically warrant an FP seal. W.S.05:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 22:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Court One 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Court One 2010.jpg
Oppose I think this photo gives a good impression what being a spectator at Wimbledon is. But the light and composition does not seem balanced. A huge part of the foreground is in almost complete shadow with little discernible structure. --Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 00:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pheucticus ludovicianus CT3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pheucticus ludovicianus CT3.jpg
Neutral Very good and interesting with a good pose. However, this photo seems a little soft in focus and the light on the head seems to be partly in shadow. I am probably also a little spoiled by recent very good birds photographs nominated here... --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I would be proud myself, if I had taken this photo! But the bird FP bar is just so high...and we should strive for excellence. --Slaunger (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 00:36:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pheucticus ludovicianus CT4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pheucticus ludovicianus CT4.jpg
Support Outstanding! I may just notice a resolution a bit on the low side, but heck! it's a small bird... Is the photographer already saving for a 7D / EF 800mm f/5.6 combo? :-) Hendric Stattmann (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7D / EF 800mm f/5.6 combo?! I'm not there yet. I still have to use more basic and cheaper equipment like the blind I just ordered today. --Cephas (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 22:50:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:IIT Machinery Hall.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:IIT Machinery Hall.jpg
Support It's so clean! Btw, flipping between the old and new versions was fun. Someone scooched their air conditioner out a bit, and the bridge height sign vanished, among other things. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies09:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also find it "clean". Not the most impressive picture out there, but a nice architecture pic taken from proper angle, nicely perspective fixed, and eye catching IMO. - Benh (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks technically very good, indeed, but is this kind of picture really the best "Commons" can offer ? I don't think so, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My eyes are a little disturbed by the very prominent perspective correction, I would even say that on the left side, it's a tiny bit too much. Perhaps, would it be better to undercorrect the perspective for a more "natural" look? Otherwise, no complaints whatsoever - colors, noise reduction, lens correction all well executed. Therefore, I would give my support if my suggestion is accepted. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is a very high quality shot of a nice building with good light and excellent colors. A very good QI so to say. But I am sorry I do not see anything really special about the composition or the photo itself, which make it stand out as being amongst the very best Commons has to offer, see, e.g., this FP of a building of the approximate same shape — it is in an entirely different league IMO (not that every building FP has to be so good, but it is a good reference of what FP is about). --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 11:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- Yes, it is cute to put a minus sign in front of all elevations and depths before representing them with a GIS package. But I fail to see the educational value of this exercise. Anyway, no information is given on how the picture was produced or even on what it represents. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh no, I didn't even think about educational value. It's a... joke, a mind game, a trick, I thought it would be something that may change settled opinion and give a breath of fresh air. So if it didn't it's not a big deal, just forget it. --Das steinerne Herz19:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I liked the mind game. To be completely honest I could not figure out if what it was I was seeing. I did not realize that it was an inverted world map until I read the comment by Alves, LOL. Makes you wonder how huge an impact the marble-blue color scheme has had for world maps. Had water been brown and dirt blue, this would have been very natural looking. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 21:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 03:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ErysimumcheiriI.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ErysimumcheiriI.jpg
Neutral I disagree that this is "centered" due to the background objects which are not symmetrical, though I like their spacing and the colors. The only thing keeping me from {{support}}ing is the lack of exposure... — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdLoveOne (talk • contribs)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 15:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Harvest Mouse (face).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harvest Mouse (face).jpg
Oppose Composition is rather uninteresting, unpleasant flash light. I am confused regarding the DOF. Not much is in focus, yet the EXIF says f/16?!? --Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 03:04:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:IgnotaRosaI.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:IgnotaRosaI.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 20:32:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Koude Keuken R01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koude Keuken R01.jpg
Oppose Nice creepy manor with a mini-gargoyle to boot (or so it appears). But the car and the... portable object? in the background ruin the shot. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely an improvement. However, I still don't believe the image to be FA quality. The lighting seems warm and end-of-day-ish, but still rather flat; the trees, though framing the shot, are another distraction and they don't frame the shot evenly or help to draw the eye to the center of the frame, and there is a lot of empty space at the top, above the vane. The perspective control looks good though. Are you able to return to this location? Maybe a little more dramatic lighting, possibly a different angle (not that there's anything wrong with this angle, but the location seems to have the unfortunate tendency of having a lot of trees appearing randomly everywhere). The trees may hinder good side-lighting too, you don't want shadows everywhere. So I can't change my vote, sorry. As for the face in the window, the window dead center, closest to the drainage pipe, there definitely does seem to be someone looking out. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A different angle is not into consideration, as a lot of trees hamper the view. The light is a late afternoon light indeed: it's the best moment to photograph this monument; otherwise there are shadows of the trees on it. About the man's face behind one of the windows: I myself I don't believe in phantoms and other ghosts, but it's always possible of course that this kind of building is haunted. The castle is not occupied at the present time, so everything is imaginable.... -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the composition and the fact that a reflection in one of the top windows looks like a man's face on the magnified view! Creepy... Froggerlaura (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 13:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- Nothing extraordinary either in the subject or technically. The skin is redish. Too much time under the sun, red lighting or white balance off? Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a valuable portrait of a notable biathlete. It has good detail level. However, I find the expression rather uninteresting, and the skin color does indeed seem overly reddish as noted by Alvesgaspar. --Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I uploaded a new version with a new white balance.. if you don't like you can invert to the previous version. Ggia (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 09:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elisabethkirche Schneeberg color corr.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elisabethkirche Schneeberg color corr.jpg
Comment The original version of the file was in the nomination process recently, but was withdrawn upon criticism related to post-processing issues. This version has been improved by User:Amada44 and IMHO does address the problems.-- Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice! Where the original didn't even catch my eye (I kept scrolling past it), this one is incredible. What I would have done, though, is taken several images with the people moving so that they could be painted out and still have a faithful reproduction of this building. The people are very distracting. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't bring my tripod so I was not able to take several identical shots. The presence of people around this highly touristic spot is representative for what you usually see when you go there. I am not sure whether the kind of edit you suggest is in agreement with the encyclopedic documentation obligations. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it wouldn't be encyclopedic. I mean, many images nominated here are compiled from many images. I could see cloning the people out to be problematic, since you're effectively altering any actual information and details, but combining several images of the exact same subject at different times, I don't see that as a problem at all. Oh well, too bad for the no-tripod thing, then. People aren't always bad in a shot, they can provide scale. But the "tourism" factor just doesn't sit with me. Sorry :( – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies10:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support your set of rules, which could be valid for any case where other people's work is to be judged. I also try to evaluate the FP candidates in the most objective way and make efforts to give constructive hints about how to improve. By the way, my initial comment above was not entirely serious (see the smiley!) and certainly not intended to seed doubts about your judgement abilities. Kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't now if my vote is not too biased as I did the color correction on that image…. None the less I think that the composition of the image is excellent and therefor I support the image. Amada44talk to me09:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 07:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Changed to Neutral. I was swept away by the motion blur and long exposure lighting, something I hadn't seen in a NASA image before now (um, with the Shuttle—celestial objects excluded). But Llez brings up a good point, it is rather noisy, and I was forgetting myself about the technical appreciation FA desires. One thing that bothered me from the beginning but I forced myself to ignore: the chopped off Shuttle. We get the bay, but no flight deck. Unrepeatable by the Endeavor, sadly. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies10:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the noise in this. I think now it looks like a point-and-shoot at ISO 100, and we have featured many pictures at this quality level. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 06:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support and Question: at ru:Су-25#Конструкция, 2 says "Тормозные щитки" which, when I ran through Google translate, came out as "brake pads", and a Google image search turned up a lot of images of wheels, brakes, and airplanes. So is there something lost in translation here? Isn't 2 an air brake/spoiler? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. The reason I was even looking was because they're such cute air brakes. Or maybe "meager" would be a better word. But I'm not an aeronautical engineer. Thanks for creating something so detailed for the encyclopedia. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2011 at 16:46:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ibbenbueren Anthracite.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ibbenbueren Anthracite.JPG
Oppose unsahrp, visible CA otherwise a nice object. Do you know the focus stacking technique?
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality: extensive parts out of focus, chromatic aberration, too tight crop, poor framing, bad lighting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2011 at 04:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de san francisco 300 dpi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de san francisco 300 dpi.jpg
Comment Excellent resolution and sharpness, as you'd expect from medium format. But I feel it's a little dark. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re uploaded new version edited by Peter Weis, much better tonal reproduction, perpective correction and dust removal. Thanks Peter! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 20:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kotor and Boka kotorska - view from city wall.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kotor and Boka kotorska - view from city wall.jpg
Support Lighting is a bit harsh and flat, but still OK. I also wish it had better quality. But it has some wow for sure, and the view is very nice. - Benh (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 22:21:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ladugårdsbron 11.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ladugårdsbron 11.jpg
Passage inside a old city block in Stockholm. Build in the 1980s and by and designed by renowned Swedish architect Carl Nyrén. The image was taken with analogue camera (Nikon Fm), Nikon 50mm F/1.8, and Kodak T-Max 400.
Comment This is a nice b&w photograph. Well executed, nice tonal rendition, etc., etc., but... it really should be cleaned up. Lots of specks. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 14:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pied Avocet chick.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pied Avocet chick.jpg
Neutral I'd love to support because it's cute, but I feel the compo should have been centered more on the subject and its reflection. Wouldn't be sad to see it promoted. - Benh (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lighting looks like regular late afternoon sunshine to me. And that's what makes the reflection show up so well anyway. --99of9 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 19:21:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral The image seems soft. Maybe it could use very slight high pass sharpening? But I learned quite a bit about the Taman Nasional Komodo. Wouldn't mind checking it out myself one day. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2011 at 19:43:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:360 Grad Wildgrubenspitzen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:360 Grad Wildgrubenspitzen.jpg
Support The glare is pretty much unavoidable since by definition you are shooting into the sun for a 360 pano. Overall, nice image. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible detail, nice colors - 360° pano as good as it gets! If there is any suggestion for improvement that I could make, it would be to crop out the top 10% of the image, so that the horizon is not located in the middle (Rule of Thirds). As a side effect, the size of the file would be reduced. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question How did you level the image? The horizon seems to be lower in the middle. Is that due to the mountains being lower? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wie, nicht womit. Irgendeine Automatikfunktion? Apparently your tripod (be it real, be it virtual) is not exactly level, i.e. de:Sulzfluh and de:Valluga (both 2800+x) show at different heights in the image. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the horizon cutting the picture in the middle (and also think it's not straight). Also wish author provides complete spherical panorama (360° on both horizontal and vertical axis), otherwise, it just doesn't work properly with the panorama viewer provided. - Benh (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- As I said many times, I'm not fond of extreme panoramas. However, this new idea of using them with a pano viewer is nice and may help changing my position. In this particular case, it is a shame that part of the sky is blown white and colors seem oversaturated. Otherwise it is a great picture! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2011 at 14:48:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:May 2011 Moskva River ship 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:May 2011 Moskva River ship 04.jpg
Oppose I take it my eyes are ment to be directed to the river boat which is the subject of the picture. Don't know about anyone else but the thing I am directed to is the building behind and the sign it has on top of it. -- Good twins (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 20:38:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lars Erik Pettersson, Kopparberg, Västmanland, Sweden.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lars Erik Pettersson, Kopparberg, Västmanland, Sweden.jpg
The miner Lars Erik Pettersson in Kopparberg. Born in 1858. Portrait from 1932 by Swedish physician and photographer Einar Erici. Uploaded to Flickr Commons by Swedish National Heritage Board.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 22:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans as Venus about to bind the wings of Cupid by Pierre Gobert.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans as Venus about to bind the wings of Cupid by Pierre Gobert.jpg
Élisabeth Charlotte d'Orléans (future Duchess of Lorraine and later the paternal grandmother of Marie Antoinette) depicted as the goddess Venus about to bind the wings of Cupid painted by Pierre Gobert in 1697
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Image is too small. Read about resolution right at the top of this page. – User:Keraunoscopia
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 22:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pi-unrolled-720.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif
Comment Could be a bit slower for me. Also, the detail of the wheel is not really necessary and rather distracting, so I'd go with a simpler wheel. For the same reason, I'd reduce the number of colors if possible. Not too happy about the wheel moving position at the start (from center at 0.5 to 0), but I don't really have an idea of how to avoid that. bamse (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I remember coming across this image a while ago and just watching it for a while. But everything bamse said I agree with. Too many colors. The wheel has too many details (the blue arrow and disappearing red circumference line get lost in the spokes. And the wheels should definitely start at 0, not .5, the same point would be made. Otherwise excellent graphic that does its job well. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks pretty fine to me. Nice choice of contrasty colors, and font. I really don't see why it should be slower. It's not like we're this slow brained (I hope so) - Benh (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 16:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20110419 Ani North Walls Turkey Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20110419 Ani North Walls Turkey Panorama.jpg
Comment @Benh: Take a look also to this image.. it is a more closed view.. not so "extreme" ratio.. different angle.. but this image has more EV and it is more illustrative. Ggia (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But this one looks far better. If only it didn't had this aspect ratio... So you went to Turkey as well ! I hope to complete uploading my bunch of pictures from there too someday ;) - Benh (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was in transit in Turkey traveling from Istanbul to Kars (by Dogu Expresi train) and then continuing to Georgia. Ani is on the border line between Turkey-Armenia and I visited during my short stay in Kars (part of the monuments are not accessible due to the military zone - international border zone - i.e. this bridge belong half in Turkey and half in Armenia - the river is the international zone and the fence is the turkish border). Definitely a nice place to visit.. Ggia (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've looked at the image a few times and I think it's good. It seems to be really contrasty though, and it almost looks like it was shot with old film or something. I'm not sure what it is. But I've decided it's overall worth is excellent. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies23:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info shot by Nikon D700, stitched images shot by a 105mm lens, the colors are due to the weather conditions. Ggia (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 04:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I didn't even recognize her. Nice photo, but it's not a portrait. It reminds me too much of a red-carpet photo session, and although having a high resolution image of a celebrity on file is always wonderful and very helpful, they aren't exactly "special". The image is crystal clear, and Avenue did a fantastic job bringing the image back to life, but the background seems muddy (I'm curious if anything was done to it), and the photo has the undesirable effects of flash photography, albeit soft flash photography, but it still has that bright-dark uber-contrast I dislike. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking at Mr. Shankbone's other photography, he doesn't seem to tweak the backgrounds at all. Striked-out comment above. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies13:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support She resembles w:Nicholle Tom. The flash is noticeable (after it's pointed out) but IMO this is good. It looks well-executed, like it was taken in patience and not rushed and she clearly knows how to pose and has a good makeup person who knows what looks good for photography. And to be outright about shallowness she does look pretty here. -- One, please.( Thank you.)05:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm also not too keen on the flash on that one, and like Kerαunoςcopia, I find it doesn't suits her very clear skin. - Benh (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 20:17:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cloonee Loughs (Beara Peninsula, County Kerry, Ireland).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cloonee Loughs (Beara Peninsula, County Kerry, Ireland).jpg
Neutral Very nice subject, great composition, fantastic light - these are the positives in this submission. I would give my support if at least a few of the following points could be improved:
Resolution is on the low side - do you have a full resolution version available by any chance?
Blown highlights in the sky - look at the cloud's reflections in the lake, I want to see these clouds in the sky too!
Sharpening a tiny bit over the top - look at the slight artefacts between earth and sky on the right side.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 19:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mural in Northeast Pavillion, Thomas Jefferson Building by Elmer E. Garnsey 11670u edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mural in Northeast Pavillion, Thomas Jefferson Building by Elmer E. Garnsey 11670u edit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2011 at 20:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- As above, geometric distortion could probably have been avoided by choosing carefully the focal distance (if a zoom objective was used, as I suspect). Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 01:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg
Comment Why not? The species is abundant (, least concern conservation status, less than 1000 individuals are caught each year from a population of 2-300000) and is used for food and considered a delicacy at the Faroe islands. What is the difference between eating this and other mammals like cows, sheep, pigs? Aren't you just imposing your cultural values on another culture? BTW, due to the high concentration of certain pollutants being built up in the food chain, I recently read that the meat from whales and dolphins are now marked as health-hazards in a similar manner as cigarettes. Yet some people continue smoking and the Faroe people will probably continue eating the meat of the Atlantic white-sided dolphins...--Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you failed to note the partial unseriousness of my comment. Secondly I thought I made it clear that, well, they're carnivores; natural killers and consumers of animals also, so... I don't feel too sorry for them when they do this all their lives to other creatures anyway, though it's evolution's fault and not their own. Thirdly, awareness of apparent violence isn't cultural, it's an aspect in most vertebrate nature. Fourthly, I mentioned practicality, such as possible uses for the blubber and the bones could probably make good fertilizer and a source of calcium - I bet they do taste good though..) Lastly, all that aside it's still gory and while not relevant to whether or not this is up to snuff to be a FP I wonder if the slaughter method used is humane (for one thing if they were killed before they were disemboweled), as I still do for cattle and chickens. And it's just kind of sad to see pieces of their fins broken off. While educational it's really IMO quite a tragic and saddening picture and not uplifting in the least (unless maybe you're a school of fish glad there's a few less dolphins roaming the waters late at night). -- One, please.( Thank you.)05:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I failed to put sufficient weight in the last part of your paragraph. The first part was emphasized and partially capitalized, which I interpreted as the part you gave real weight. Sorry for not having perceived your partial unseriousness in the comment. I understand much better what you mean now. --Slaunger (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bold nomination and a very valuable photo of a rare sight. Good composition, striking, good DOF, light is a bit boring, resolution is not stunning, but mitigatable. --Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is shocking to see this kind of pictures because whales are among the most inteligent animals on Earth, capable of feeling and expressing human-like emotions. This should perhaps be enough to forbid their killing for commercial purposes, but I understand how traditional practises may slow down what we consider to be the correct policy. Still we shouldn't be fooled by ethic considerations when assessing a picture, one way or the other. Our evaluation should be focused on the educational, aesthetical and technical value of the picture, taking into consideration the difficulty or rarity associated with the shot. In this case, there is nothing extraordinary justifying the FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Specifically, the crop is not nice. There should have been a way not to have cut animals at every border of the image. W.S.14:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition and techincal quality are enough for FP. Don't let us be fooled to think we only think that way because of what the picture portraits. --Tomer T (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth has this nomination turned into some ethical battle, I don't know. Support wow factor and high quality image. -- Good twins (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an ethical battle here. Just one semi-jocular comment, with a brief discussion due to it being misinterpreted, and another voter saying that the ethical issues are not relevant. --Avenue (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd really like to support a strong picture like this. However, all the issues mentioned above make halting. For me, there really is no issue that hasn't been mentioned above already. The biggest issue is the crop. --Ximonic (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 22:34:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parablennius gattorugine 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parablennius gattorugine 2011.jpg
Comment Seems a little low on contrast to me. Was this taken in an aquarium or did you get a waterproof case for your D5000? (Congrats on your new camera - you must have been inspired by me! ) --TheHighFinSpermWhale19:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2011 at 17:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MiG-29 38.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MiG-29 38.JPG
Neutral Agreed with George Chernilevsky, and I love that you can see the pilot's face. No motion blur, looks great. But I also agree with Slaunger. My eyes were immediately bothered by the bright background and the dark shadows under the plane. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't dodge burn, I would simply mask out the plane, use curves to bring down the sky, then use curves on the plane (reverse masked) very slightly. The effect would be a sort of HDR fix, without the look of HDR. A fix of this type would get my support fo sho. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 01:43:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park Tulsa Oklahoma.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park Tulsa Oklahoma.jpg
Oppose Nice and interesting view, but some quality problems - so: just not FP for me. (Lack of) sharpness is an issue. The artifacts in the sky are disturbing, as Alvesgaspar rightly noticed, but these can be corrected. -- MJJR (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Interesting shot, but IMO not really a FP, mostly as it doesn't feature a particular subject. It's just a nice picture of some objects that could realistically be found strewn somewhere -- One, please.( Thank you.)00:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 23:06:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Closer, but still has problems. The lighting is too harsh (nothing you can do about this except re-shoot on a cloudy day). Also, look at the log on the top - it seems oversharpened and blurry in areas. I never saw this fungus, so can you tell me if that bright yellow is its natural colour or just the harsh light overexposing? The composition is a bit bland as well. I suggest taking a shot somewhat from the side on an overcast day to soften the light (if you can come back to it). Regards, --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This fungus has bright yellow colours like sulphur (sulfur); therefore the fungus got the name "Laetiporus sulphureus". You see the colours of sulfur here and here. I took the image from the top of the fungus to show the correct shape. Regards, --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, King of Hearts. I made a new update with colours near to the first version. Please check it. The image is made with the Focus stack technology. This means: I made 16 images with f/8 and every image with a different focus. I united the sharp stripes of every image with Helicon Focus. This allowed me to make this clear and sharp image with a very large depth of field. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor lighting, framing and pojnt of view. It should be shot from a different angle and showing more of the environment. Looks like caged. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2011 at 20:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Soyuz TMA-02M spacecraft rolls to the launch pad.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Soyuz TMA-02M spacecraft rolls to the launch pad.jpg
Support I agree, I almost nom'd this one as well. The lighting is perfect, the subject is interesting and almost intimidating (makes me think of Spies Like Us). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Lighting and subject are interesting but image quality in on the poor side and I don't like the extreme distortion towards the margins. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image, depicting over four decades of Russian manned spaceflight programm better than words will ever be able to do. --myself488talk20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cap is cut on the top, from an unclear reason. The face is too bright and the cap too dark. Noise is especially visible in the background on the man's right. I really don't understand why you thought calling me ignorant is fine. Tomer T (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer, you take incredible liberties to oppose, which is fine, but without photographic evaluation merit. As recipient of your almost always negative reviews, I feel I too, have the right to call your hand on them, stricktly from the photograpic point of view. I call it critiquing the critique. The face is too bright: well, that is a very subjective appreciation on your part, for it is a daytime exposure, and the contrast is normal with regards to image contrast and light conditions and direction. If you look at the light from the portrait lighting point of view, you will find it to be positioned just about right. Furthermore, if you were to convert it to gray scale and see in which zone the skin falls, you will find that it falls where it should according to convention. Yes, the cap is cropped, must there be a reason? so is the shirt, so is the field. The cap is cropped where I cropped it, according to my photographic criteria. Cap too dark? well, considering that there is a 4 stop light differential between sun lighted areas and shadow areas, I would expect a dark object in the shade to be... dark. So if you must oppose, you are free to do so, if you do on technical grounds, be sure you know what you are talking about. If you judge on your subjective appreciation of aesthetics, you have a right to your opinion, and with that, you will not get an argument from me. An oppose vote based on photographic criteria, and pointing out solutions contributes to all, an oppose vote just to oppose, with no feedback is just a sterile exercise. Cheers --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, "tightness" and "lighting problems" are both something between technical and subjective matters; they are both technical issues, but are subject to one's point of view. I don't think you have any right to judge that I don't have any proper evaluation merit, or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I prefer not responing any further on your specific responses about the techincal issues - you have your opinion, I have mine, let the others judge whether or not the picture still deserves FP status. I think, from my experience and long years in Wikimedia, that any further dispute between us is a pitfall that will probably lead to unwanted results. I'll just say that bad given conditions aren't IMO a reason to avoid the problems. Although you may think so, I don't "seek" you and I usually don't pay much attention to the creator's identity, as well as in this one, which I found in its FP category page, and I thought to be not standing in today's standards. I don't know why you took it so hard as well, I don't have any harmful intentions and calling me names isn't a solution to anything. If you wanted more detailed critique, you could have just asked. My proposal doesn't mean the FP status will be denied, it is to the community's judgement to decide. Best regards, Tomer T (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other than the subjective appreciations of the delisting nominator, the conditions or the context of the image have not changed. This image, among others of this collection, were good enough to be used in the award winning documentary A Harvest of Loneliness [[3]]. The nominator´s reasons are not based on photographic or proper evaluation criteria, but rather on his own personal taste. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 15:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support (Very) Good stitch, light, DOF and detail level of an interesting place. Composition doesn't blow my mind, but oh well. I enjoyed studying the details. But, I would much rather like to see one of your great B/W film people photos, like the good stuff I once saw on your blog from the refugee camp in Greece being nominated instead - if you have the courage to do that, and can stand the complaints about grain and noise... Much more powerful stuff. We need something else in between all the panos. --Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 00:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Candle in the dark.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Candle in the dark.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:51:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Citron.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Citron.jpg
Oppose Ordinary subjects, lacking photographic technique. Flat lighting, does not enhance graphic elements of subjects such as volume, color or texture. The crop in some of the lemons is flawed, either bring them into the scene or be more aggressive in the crop. The voids are distracting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Et pourtant, la FPC page est bien réputée pour le sens de l'humour de certains de ses contributeurs, expérimenté quotidiennement ! --Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 14:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thanks for the advice. I've upload a new version with a slightly desaturated green channel. I hope this is OK for everybody cause the quality didn`t change and imo the green looks more natural now. So thanks again and best regards mathiasK07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2011 at 09:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg
Info created by Leonardo da Vinci - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus
Comment Have you seen the other options, some of which are used on dozens upon dozens of pages? Some people have a seriously messed-up idea of what the colors are supposed to look like. I've seen the ML at the Louvre and I wish I could remember better what it looked like, but I believe it to be truer to the muted versions available. But unless someone has the painting directly in front of them, I'm not sure an exact color reproduction is truly possible. I do find this image to be "realistic" per my own experience. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too huge does not apply for the Mona Lisa. If anything, it serves as a pro: given the resolution, we can hope it was scanned by experts, who also cared for a realistic reproduction of the colors etc. Of course it won´t be possible to objectively judge this, but in my art book, the colors seem to be the same (does not prove that the book got them right, tough). Anyway: One of the most important drawings of all time meets encyclopedia in high-res. I see a match... --Nikopol (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a great documentation of the painting – so far the best here I think. If you ask me, big size with good details is definitely not a bad thing. --Ximonic (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I adjusted only levels from C2RMF's original image, not colours. I have confidence they were methodical about getting the colours accurate. There are a lot of versions of this painting floating around with digital editing to attempt to correct for yellowing of the paint, which this one does not have. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 01:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orinoco river from Parmana Venezuela.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orinoco river from Parmana Venezuela.jpg
Oppose I don't see anything that really makes this picture more important and special compared to many other similar sunset/sunrise shots. Of course, it's kind of pleasant to look at. --Ximonic (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you mention it, you're right, I got carried away by the fact that little people can get to this part of this important river, so, I considered it as a quite difficult picture, but it really can't be considered as a featured one, 'cos it looks like "just another sunset pic". I won't be posting regular pics anymore... I am new around here, but I am very eager to help the community and also get some pictures to be featured, I have some awesome stuff! I'll try to improve a lot next time, when my account isn't too young. Until then! Paolostefano1412 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you didn't get offended for my thoughts. That's only what it looks like to people who don't know the backgrounds of the photograph moment. So they (I) only see a picture of a sunset. But don't be frightened! Keep posting if you have good photos there, my appreciate! ...And especially, if you're living there nearby some exotic landscapes, you can be sure you have the best chances (of many other Commonists) to document the places of yours. --Ximonic (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2011 at 16:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PLace de la Concorde alignement.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PLace de la Concorde alignement.jpg
Neutral On the technical side, I am quite happy with this image, as it displays good sharpness and all lens defects are well corrected. I might like a bit more of saturation, IMHO. The thing that keeps me from supporting this candidate is the composition. Quite a lot of street in the bottom part, lots of sky on top, neither of them adding anything to the image. I would try to get closer, using a wide angle lens. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. I can increase the saturation. I partially agree about the ground (partially, because as a parisian I find the empty and car-free place de la Concorde very nice (very rare !)), but strongly disagree about the sky, which is not empty and adds a lot (my taste). As for a wide angle lens, I'll be happy to give you by email my postal address, the you could send to me another lens as gift ...--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the sky, and dislike the asphalt (this might be subjective though), however what I think is not working is the attempted demonstration of the "alignment". The overlap is too messy, as the distance between the elements is not legible. I believe is also not a characteristic view, as people walk on the side of the street not in the centre.--ELEKHHT11:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
L'utilisateur ELEKHH écrit: "J'aime le ciel, je n'aime pas le bitume (cela peut être subjectif, néanmoins), par contre je pense que ce qui ne "marche" pas c'est la tentative de démontrer l'alignement. Le recouvrement est trop désordonné et la distance entre les éléments est impossible à déterminer. Je pense en outre que ce n'est pas un angle de vue charactéristique, puisque les gens marchent sur le côté de la rue et non pas au centre." -- 22:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, due to my too bad english I'm not sure I understand the last sentence of your comment. Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
En effet, c'est un exploit de prendre cet endroit sans aucune voiture. Le ciel a une structure intéressante en effet et je le laisserais tel quel pour une photo à vocation artistique - mais ici il s'agit d'une documentation encyclopédique et il en découle une nécessité de se concentrer sur le sujet, quitte à négliger certains côtés décoratifs/esthétiques.Hendric Stattmann (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a real WOW!-effect. I was in Paris several times, but Concorde without cars (or more correctly: with only one car) ...never seen. --Llez (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh, quite messy composition.. Also too much sky in the top and too much asphalt in the bottom.. Ggia (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several issues: DoF is too great, blending just about everything on the same plane. Either a wide angle lens should have been used to exagerate the proportion of the fountain vs the background, or a long telephoto with a wide aperture to blurr the backgroung and separate it from the environment. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice lighting, but the alignement attempt is not quite successful here in my opinion, as each subject is obstructed and in the end, I only feel frustrated not to see them. I would have stepped on either side. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2011 at 18:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spoonful of cereal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spoonful of cereal.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 14:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Liesel 11-06-2011 99 1542 in Jöhstadt.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Liesel 11-06-2011 99 1542 in Jöhstadt.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 14:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Scogli di Biarritz.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Scogli di Biarritz.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2011 at 20:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- Sorry, but is way below the present bug bar (which is quite high btw). Little detail is shown and most of the subject is unsharp. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 14:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Forabühl Hütte.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forabühl Hütte.JPG
Neutral The image stood out to me as I was scrolling through, but I don't like the composition. The hut is too high—too vertically centered. I would support a more widescreen crop (just cropping from the bottom only). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tried cropping it in various ways out of curiosity and they all suck. Your image can't be tampered with I guess! And I keep looking at it (sort of reminds me of the huts up in the Alps). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I keep looking at the picture but I have to agree with the below comments about it being too gray. I struggled with this image in the beginning and still do, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies03:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good picture in general, but nothing extra-ordinary IMO. The background is too grey/foggy for my taste. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality (a lot of blurry parts) and light (building underexposed, snow in background blown out). Nice and interesting composition though --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2011 at 20:29:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone purple anemonefish.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone purple anemonefish.jpg
Question I'm sorry, but I'm dying to know: how was this image taken? Is this through aquarium glass? What kind of post-processing was done here? The image is... almost CGI looking, but not. It's really weird, and that's why I'm curious as to what work was done to it. And yes, lots of CA at the top and bottom. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoNhobgood takes his pictures in the natural habitat, as the description says, the picture has taken in East Timor, underwater. I think that the photo was not retouched.--Citron (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support CA are hardly noticeable, and even if they were, the conditions are sort of mitigating for me, and the picture, subject, composition are really beautiful. - Benh (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Stunning colors, nice composition, hardly any noise (especially considering it's been taken with a compact camera!). I would criticize the CA, as others mentioned. Also, the white stripes on the fish are blown out, there is hardly any structure visible on the fish. Does the camera provide RAW data, so this could be corrected? If yes, I would appreciate a little less sharpening. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 20:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Archilochus colubris CT2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Archilochus colubris CT2.jpg
Support Love it! I love hummingbirds. In Náhuatl tradition, hummingbirds are Nahuales, gods that could take the form of animals to interact with humans... quite a cute image! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2011 at 16:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bos taurus in Brest.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bos taurus in Brest.jpg
Neutral Good concept, but something's missing. Slightly unsharp, horizon too centered vertically, foreground a bit too dim (even though I understand that's the point of the picture, a shady foreground and sunlight in the background...) --MAURILBERT(discuter)16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what's featurable here. Dull lighting, random composition... And shows a bit too much that the weather is this bad in Brittany (kidding !! if anyone from there happens to read me ;) ) - Benh (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @Llorenzi. Nominating your own picture is a joke! 41-times self-nominating in several languages is a bad joke!! This is not a Fotocommunity!!! Joe MiGo (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if I found that some of my picture are featurable, I will propose them here. If you are not agree with the quality, just write it, but I think there is no rule, that I cannot propose some images here... --Llorenzi (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I´m sorry too. You haven´t understand the sense of Wikimedia. I agree with Benh: I don't see what's featurable here... random composition... Joe MiGo (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe 41 different language versions are automatically generated as a consequence of a single nomination in Commons. Therefore, absolutely nothing wrong with that. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 18:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Harmonia axyridis qtl2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harmonia axyridis qtl2.jpg
Support "The bug bar is too high". Why does this argument appear in every macro FPC candidate? What does that have to do with anything? If it is good, let it pass; if not, tell us why it can't. --TheHighFinSpermWhale03:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves, it is a great scene but the composition and the harsh lighting are not so pretty. Also only little details are visible. --mathiasK15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2011 at 17:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polygonia c-album qtl2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polygonia c-album qtl2.jpg
Weak support for a nice picture of the species where complementary colors highlight the butterfly in a great way. The composition is ordinary yet doesn't bother me as much as some people. Somewhat unfocused head makes my support the weak one. --Ximonic (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 20:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Face of a child-MGR Lyon-IMG 9850.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Face of a child-MGR Lyon-IMG 9850.jpg
Info Mould of a child's face, ca 1st or 2nd century CE. The epitaph reads: "To the manes and in the memory of Claudia Victoria, dead at the age of 10 years old, one month and eleven days; Claudia Severina, her mother, raised this tomb to her beloved daughter when she was still alive, to herself and dedicated it under the ascia". Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 19:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinhochwasser Januar 2011 - LEV Flusspromenade Rheindorf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rheinhochwasser Januar 2011 - LEV Flusspromenade Rheindorf.jpg
Oppose Call me a Debbie Downer, but I don't see what makes this image so special. With the words "excellent!" and "Interesting" and "special" directly above, I really thought I was missing something, so I was staring at the image for a while. All it is is a sign in a flooded area. But aside from that, I wouldn't have even known there was a flood. And kind of a dark image, looks like it was exposed for the retro-reflexive sign. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was some misty sky as you can see in the background, but the image is actually not underexposed. - A.S.15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the lightning makes this scenery nice and complaisant, otherwise it shows positively in a symbolic way flood waters and is a contemporary document of this occasion --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2011 at 20:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I like this kind of pictures very much (here are the colors very nice) but I cannot support this one because of the composition. It needs a strict symmetry, and there is here too much distorsion in my opinion. --Jebulon (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed with Jebulon. Image not straight, and a lot of distortion on outer fringe, making it look out of focus. Great colors though. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies00:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 08:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castel San Pietro (LCD).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castel San Pietro (LCD).jpg
Oppose 80% of the image do not show Castel San Pietro, but trees and surrounding villages. Also, the lighting is very harsh, causing blown highlights on the buildings. If you could shoot again from that location with a focal length of around 135mm under nice early morning sun, using your 5DmkII's full 21MPix, I would be glad to support a new candidature. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2011 at 21:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eruption of Puyehue-Cordón Caulle volcano, Chile, 06-08-2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eruption of Puyehue-Cordón Caulle volcano, Chile, 06-08-2011.jpg
Oppose Per Acodered's question. If the subject itself is this difficult to find, I do not think it should be a featured view of the... volcano? --Ximonic (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I actually found it, finally. It seems to be surprisingly small compared to the photographed area. It's at the left side. This discovery does not change my previous opinion. --Ximonic (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 14:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sava river in Belgrade, Serbia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sava river in Belgrade, Serbia.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 16:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shadow David Michelangelo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shadow David Michelangelo.jpg
Support -- Once upon a time, on my talk page, after an unfortunate nomination of another museum picture, I found this message: However, as has also been the case previously — the ignorant culture crowd , we are not thrilled by it. Why? I think it is because it is too factual and perhaps "cold". For me a good FP, is a picture which catch the attention of users, which are normally not trained in a subject or not knowledgable about a certain topic, but which wets the appetite by inviting the viewer into the picture. To achieve that I think you need to deviate from the classic museum shot and do something completely different from being very factual. You may want to use a different kind of lightning - one that does not necessarily best catch all painstaking details in the sculpture, but which brings out feelings of drama, anger, power, dispair or whatever characterized the person depicted by the sculpture. Maybe the angle you see it from should be completely different, maybe it should be a zoom on a feature of the sculpture, an eye, the mouth, the texture of the stone, I do not know, but something that brings it to life. Doing that may be at the cost of being factual, all-encompassing detailed or a slight bend of reality. But if you thereby create a photo, which is unusual, eyecatching, with an interesting composition, you may catch the attention of some of us ignorants, who just have not seen the light yet.
Well... It was an interesting lesson, wasn't it ? I found this recent picture in my collection, and I'm happy to offer it to you. Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not really "creative". It's a shadow. Not FP worthy. And the banner shouldn't be there either. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural ignorant comment I have a principle of trying to separate assessments about a nomination from my personal feelings wrt. to the creator. In this case, I find it very hard to separate the two, as I am quite frankly flattered that the very good photographer Jebulon, is quoting my attempt of encouragement to him in this nomination. Thus, I Abstain from voting. I salute the creators attempt at depicting an interesting statue in a new manner. I find it interesting and it teases my curiosity at wanting to see the real sculture. I like the way the evening light shows the texture of the wall, which gives for me a good illustration of the interplay between sculture and its historic surroundings. I agree with Tomas about the banner and prefer the cropped version. From the shadow alone it is evident that the sculpture is beautiful and well proportioned. Keep experimenting with new ways of depicting great art and history. --Slaunger (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm generally against alternative versions, but I've tried this one because I'm interested by the challenge, and I think it is funny in this case. Sorry for the digital manipulations (cloning out the banner). Thanks in advance for feedback.--Jebulon (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oy, I thought the ImageAnnotator would be a simple process, not some crazy code. Anyway, there are cloning artifacts that, even without knowing about the cloning, some would appear somewhat obvious. Still not an FP image in my opinion. It doesn't really illustrate anything. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "oy", referring to the annotation thing, not your picture. And dude, opposes on FPC aren't anything personal, stop acting like everything is an attack on you and you need to retort. You do this every time, not just with my last two opposes. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "dude". Please stop give me orders about what I have to do or not, even if I understand very well that you would prefer to be alone with nobody to "retort" to your (...) and systematic oppositions. --Jebulon (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm truly sorry because in full size this looks quite good! But when I go look at the details the repetitive pattern starts to disturb too much. Though, it is good cloning work and I guess it's very hard to do it better. --Ximonic (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added annotations to some spots where the repeating texture catched my eye a little too easily. This might be difficult to solve because the clones always have to be from somewhere. I'm not sure if would it work, but maybe you could try to clone some texture on these spots from somewhere further on the image, so the identical patterns wouldn't be right next to each other. --Ximonic (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea. But cloning artifacts very obvious and I would prefer a perspective correction. Per Kerαunoςcopia for everything. - Benh (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree about perspective correction, but it is simply impossible: as the wall is not parallel to the statue, (nor perpendicular to the ground) a correction should have destroyed the proportions of the shadows, and they are good (=according to the model). Thanks for review.--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This version is an empty fake comparing the previous one. "Just concentrate to the bare wall, an empty spot, and a miracle happens"? Nevertheless, this edit altered the real location, and far from perfect. --HoremWebPlace of Auditions22:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 20:21:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Immaculate Conception, by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, from Prado in Google Earth.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Immaculate Conception, by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg
Support Most likely showing my ignorance here, but I'm curious what the glowing blue arch is in the background. The strange square lines up on the top left and top right make me think something was removed (from the actual painting). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-The painting ? Matter of taste. Not mine, sorry. And I'm not sure with the real colors (see other "official" versions in the file description page).
-The painter ? "Congratulations Mr. Tiepolo, please nominate other pictures of yours" ?
-The photographical technics and settings ? Mr Google-the-robot photographer ? Oh yes, "he" has a better camera than mine, no doubt...
-The size ? Unnecessary detailed IMO. It looks like a moon landscape, or an ethiopian ground in summer, on my screen.--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, since we do not have an accurate point of comparison with regards to color, we could be nominating a wrongful representation. Pictures of works of art should be done with utmost care and technical proficiency. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High-quality reproduction of an historically important artwork of high artistic merit, meets criteria outlined at Commons:Featured picture candidates#Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents. About the colours, sure, the version at museodelprado.es has somewhat brighter colours, but the google maps collection from which this one was taken was also produced and endorsed by the same museum, so there is no issue of deciding which of the two is the more "correct" (from what I gather, with these kinds of paintings, there may really be no such thing as a "correct" colouring, since it's always heavily dependent on lighting conditions). Fut.Perf.☼07:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2011 at 21:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marek Szufa Jenny.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marek Szufa Jenny.JPG
Support (edit: Alt 2) Tragic story there. I can clone out the ship. I'll upload it as a separate file. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfoAlt 1: Ship cloned from the tail section of the plane. Alt 2: Tail section cloned, plus brightening of the pilot a bit (+brighten entire image). Anyone can feel free to upload the alternatives over the original or do whatever. The licensing on both the alt images is probably not up to par; I just copied the original licensing. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 03:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cultural sincretism in mexican toys.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cultural sincretism in mexican toys.jpg
Comment One could almost fool onself into believing that your comment is laced with sarcasm, but unfortunately it is not. Sadly that is what you must really think! "That box" is not a box, but a tiny dining table with tiny little chairs. Your lack of observation and your work in tandem with Ecemaml (I don´t know who is the sidekick of whom) to have this image deleted speak volumes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 03:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican paper mache figures 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican paper mache figures 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2011 at 16:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Olson Microgravity Flame.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olson Microgravity Flame.jpg
Comment I was really impressed by the image at first, thinking this was an actual flame in space. But it looks like it one single pattern is repeated and the flame looks like it was poorly "cut-out" by a pixel knife near the center of each "petal". So, I'm not sure what to think. This isn't a picture of a flame, but a picture of a flame made to look like a flower: artwork. But I can't tell if it's well done or not. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2011 at 06:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mellansjön 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mellansjön 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 20:57:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Doolin cave stalactite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Doolin cave stalactite.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2011 at 05:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guira Cuckoo in Bronx Zoo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guira Cuckoo in Bronx Zoo.jpg
Neutral A large portion of the bird, including the beak, seems soft. This could be just me though? Also, that band around its leg really bothers me. But nice composition, nice colors, looks good and sharp as a thumbnail. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2011 at 19:48:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Netta rufina -Bushy Park, London, England -swimming-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Netta rufina -Bushy Park, London, England -swimming-8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 12:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old woman in Lahic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old woman in Lahic.jpg
Oppose Nice capture, but the skin tones are way off (too yellow) and probably suffering from channel clipping. Also a lot of high ISO noise, therfore I cannot support the candidature. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2011 at 19:56:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The following 49 pages using this file: Candidatas a imagens especiais - Candidatas a imaxes destacadas - Candidatas a imágenes destacadas - Candidate pentru imagini excelente - Candidates a imáxenes destacaes - Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi - Featured picture candidates - Featured picture candidates/candidate list - Javaslatok kiemelt képekre - Kandidate fir exzellent Biller - Kandidate für exzellänti Bilder - Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder - Kandidater til fremragende billeder - Kandidater til utmerkede bilder etc. etc. ... Yes, there is no rule against nominating own pictures - but its ridiculous Joe MiGo (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This pages was made automatically (and are made with any other nomination), so I don't see any problem, and nominate own photo is completely normal, not "ridiculous". You can see many other nominations made by author of picture, so if you don't see any real problems, please refrain from further comments.--Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The busy background unfortunately prevents the image from being excellent. The nomination in all language versions is automatic indeed and is not subject of criticism. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2011 at 15:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Plattbauchmännchen Libellula depressa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Plattbauchmännchen Libellula depressa.jpg
Oppose A good macro starter, but it has some major flaws. It wasn't sharp enough to start with, which resulted in it being digitally oversharpened, exaggerating the noise (this is the sad effect of point and shoot cameras). The crop isn't that great either, being too tight on left and the bottom. The plants behind are also distracting. --TheHighFinSpermWhale17:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2011 at 10:16:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wael Khalil.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 14:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Great! For a perfectionist like you: Did you notice the slight chromatic aberration (green-red) on the black antenna and some parts of the flower? And maybe a tiny little bit oversharpened? Hendric Stattmann (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- No doubt about this one. Very good technical quality and nice composition (though I would have given a tad more space in front of the critter), well within FP standards. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
conditional oppose Better than the existing FP's (yes we already have two), so support when replacing one of the others. W.S.06:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2011 at 16:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View to Lyngenfjorden from east coast, 2011 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View to Lyngenfjorden from east coast, 2011 06.jpg
Info Greetings from Norway again. It's Lyngenfjord in Troms, Norway, photographed early in a clear morning in 2011 June. As many times I've seen this fjord, not so often I've seen it in as clear weather as this. -- Ximonic (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great superwide panorama! If I had any remarks to add, it would be a little more contrast and saturation (my personal taste), as well as careful with shadow pushing in the foreground. But these are of little relevance in an otherwise fantastic picture! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The way the Norewegian black metal scene is going, I would almost think those guys need to step outside into a scene like this. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks unnatural, very grey in background, over-retouched. Disturbing foreground. This picture is going to be declined in the QIC page !! Funny...and interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit this picture has faced the HDR technique because otherwise the background would have blown up – or the foreground would be black. I don't really get what are people expecting from this landscape... I haven't desaturated the background compared to the original photographs, so I don't know how it's unnaturally grey. I increased the colors of the background a little yet I'm feeling Quite uncomfortable saturating things much. And the foreground: Unfortunately I didn't have the time to plant a nice garden on the slope so that's just what you'll have there on coasts in Norway. Sorry for the foreground. Featured or not, I'm sure this picture deserves it what ever there comes. --Ximonic (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird colors and poor contrast to me. I don't like the composition either, with the tree cluttering the background on the right side. - Benh (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think, I'm getting to the point where I'm not going to go any further. The latest update has the most natural colors I can possibly get to it. The colors have been slavishly assessed to be what they were in the original non-HDR photographs. I also studied the differents of lights in the original shots and tried to do my best to imitate them (also being careful to not to under- or overexpose the extremities. From now on I'm going to focus on other pictures – I have had it with this **** picture in this **** photoshop :D . Have a nice day! --Ximonic (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Head of Nectanebo II, last indigenous ruler of pharaonic Egypt. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral
Oppose Can't see what makes this an good image. (QI maybe, but definitely not belong our best pictures) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Mmm, I think it helps. I'm having a difficult time with the image caching issue, so at the moment I can't really see the image in full size. But did you tweak the colors? They look really dark now. The colors were fine the way they were when I commented earlier. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 11:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Question It might just be an optical illusion, but is the image straight? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 10:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep - still good FP -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
.JPG)
--The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Weak support
.jpg)
chromatic aberrations --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
Weak oppose Per kaʁstn. Nice composition otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Done--Citron (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_wb.jpg)
...--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featu){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featu){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured-1){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Viljo_koirarannalla_11_edit.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,_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&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
