Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 01:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pirogue and tiny wooded island reflecting in the water.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pirogue and tiny wooded island reflecting in the water.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 13:26:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Śnieżka (Sněžka, Schneekoppe) - view from Słonecznik (Mittagstein, Polední kámen).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Śnieżka (Sněžka, Schneekoppe) - view from Słonecznik (Mittagstein, Polední kámen).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 05:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Desert Dome Omaha Zoo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Desert Dome Omaha Zoo.jpg
Oppose CA galore, some posterization in the light reflections on the glass, not really detailed despite the number of pixels and it seems oversaturated in a not perfect white balance. --Granada (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has too many quality issues per above comments. --Cart(talk)13:03, 30 April 2018 (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 1 May 2018 at 16:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Maybe nice, but the tip of the beak and the legs are not sharp. Using 560 mm f8 should work. I wonder why not here. Also the lower area of the picture is noisy. --Hockei (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the Canon APS-C DoF chart Hockei? DoF is 3cm and kingfishers 'lean forward' when perching, so feet will unfortunately not be in focus at 6m. I see no significant noise. Charles (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 07:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bearded man smoking pipe-3013924.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bearded man smoking pipe-3013924.jpg
Question Can you explain your objective and the value to Commons in uploading someone else's images of these unknown people? Charles (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need an objective? Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Being a good portrait under a free license should be sufficient, isn't? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I think your comment about "uploading someone else's images" is rude and you should strike it. Have you not noticed, in all these years, that some nominators, like Yann, nominate other people's photos? The vast majority of photos on Commons were not in fact taken by a Commoner, but uploaded from elsewhere because they had a free licence and were judged to have some value for an educational purpose. While the notability of a subject is a plus factor in terms of educational value, it is perfectly possible for a portrait of an "unknown" person to have educational value and be of high quality. Yann, those two attributes are not totally sufficient -- we do place some merit on educational value (though not, encyclopaedic value). -- Colin (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While educational and ecyclopedic values are very often given as reasons for promoting a photo at FPC, it says in Featured picture candidates#Featured picture candidate policy General rules sect. 7 that "the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects". We don't know what future projects might be. Someone may for example want illustrations for an article on "Pipe smoking in the 21th century" and in that case this photo may become relevant. (The only photo FP we have at the moment of someone smoking a pipe is this.) The photo below of the woman would be great in an article about "Glamour photography, old school version". Only your imagination sets the limits. All good photos are welcome. --Cart(talk)10:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have often argued that FP votes on Commons do not take enough value as a criteria. But then we would need to define value. To me, portraits have more educative value that pictures of rarely seen bugs and random places. The variety of face expressions are quite amazing to me, and that itself is a good reason to nominate a picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is the essence of the difference between educational and encyclopaedic, and why the latter is not Commons' purpose -- that's for Wikipedia FP. But Commons has moved on beyond its original mission (to illustrate Wikimedia projects) and is a repository of educational images for anyone to use. Educational is more than "illustration of". -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"But then we would need to define value." this is not true, and never has been. We don't have a full and complete and yet finite set of criteria for judging images. It is up to you and me and the others to determine the educational value just as we determine "wow" or whether the exposure, sharpness and composition are satisfactory. Is the only rule on composition the "rule of thirds", which bizarrely gets a mention on this page? No, we all bring our own ideas to the table. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2018 at 20:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Sebastian Donostia Panoramic 1190583.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Sebastian Donostia Panoramic 1190583.jpg
8267
17
1985
2971
10269
3005
Don't see the point of this bit. Just a tree and hard to see what's behind it.
Oppose Not sure why the far right hand side is included, which is just a tree and hard to see what is behind it. Although the image had detail and is useful, the composition isn't working for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sea level is not horizontal, furthermore I agree that the picture looks better without the tree on the right, or at least cropping half of it Poco206:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd support an even more radical crop, to the left of the church. The parts of the picture I like best are the beach and breakwater, the green hill in the middleground and the sea. The city isn't all that interesting to me in this hazy light, and I also agree that the part of the photo obstructed by the tree isn't really worth including. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn´t remove the branches completely, because they are giving the panorama an obvious frame on the right side. The view as it´s whole is very interesting and presented very well. The tilt of the horizon is marginal. --Milseburg (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: @Ikan Kekek: @Milseburg: I have cut something off on the right but I don't want to go any further because otherwise the part of the city on the picture is too small and I also find the part behind the church interesting.--Ermell (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 12:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - That's just a really interesting picture. Really interesting motif + good composition (even if there's an argument about it) and good quality is sometimes enough for a feature, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 14:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black-faced impala (Aepyceros melampus petersi) female head composite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black-faced impala (Aepyceros melampus petersi) female head composite.jpg
Comment The front view is very nice but I'm less thrilled by the the twig "connecting" her snout with her back and the "flowery horn" on her forehead. Any chance of getting those cloned out? --Cart(talk)15:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2018 at 05:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Feldkirchen Klein St Veit Pfarrkirche hl Veit NO-Ansicht 20042016 1582.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Feldkirchen Klein St Veit Pfarrkirche hl Veit NO-Ansicht 20042016 1582.jpg
Support A nice capture of this building in its surroundings, with shapes almost pleasing abstractions. Did those hay bundles come down from Gåseberg or Branstad or somewhere like that? Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to disturb the party. Good quality, but ordinary church, partly in shadow, half cut house at right, top too tight, and the bundles do not add to he pastoral atmosphere. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 10:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prinz-Carl-Palais Munich, April 2018 -02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prinz-Carl-Palais Munich, April 2018 -02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 05:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Viersch bei Klausen Apfelbäume.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viersch bei Klausen Apfelbäume.jpg
Comment - There are a lot of nice elements in this picture. But please fix the dust spot high up just to the right of the furthest right branch of the left foreground tree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Getting this shot with the rainbow was probably an ecstatic experience. By featuring it, the viewer on a given day can vicariously share the experience. And the thing is, the composition is arguably good enough to feature without the rainbow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 17:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Andrey Rublev - Св. Троица - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Andrey Rublev - Св. Троица - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 21:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thanks for you feedback, Basile. I have developed this image the way I develop all others, no special settings here. To me it doesn't look bad either. Can you me a bit more precise about "overprocessed"? Poco207:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get your point, I've reduced the highlights and the overall exposition but I cannot see that ideal environment for a blue rabbit you talk about. I'd to hear some other takes on this. The image you linked is a whole different animal, I reduced the exposure of the sky to make it more dramatic, nothing like that has been done here. It's just the developing settings I've used in thousends of images. Poco214:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile: the only one thing I can think of that could may look this picture strange is the WB, I think that it was indeed a bit off (too warm). New version uploaded, does it look now more natural to you? Poco218:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have mixed feelings about cloning out things that are there, especially things that are relatively permanent, but it did make this a better, more restful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2018 at 23:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Morro do Pai Inácio 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morro do Pai Inácio 01.jpg
Measured Support - Not the sharpest photo, and the rock face on the left is a little dark, but the photo is beautiful and pleasant to look at at full screen (i.e., without pixel-peeping) and deserves a feature for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Ikan, it isn't really sharp and that should have been possible, that's a big weakness for FP Poco206:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky is nice, but the light is in other respects not very impressive and the lack of detail results in this not being one of the best images on Commons, IMO. --Peulle (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 05:16:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GM Renaissance Center from below.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GM Renaissance Center from below.jpg
Oppose - Great building, but I don't like the crops, especially on top. I'd think a more recent picture of this tower might be bigger and higher-resolution, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the composition has problems. The structure in concrete hides the top of the low building. The top crop of the image is too tight. The perspective is very strong with that car in front that looks giant. Also I find the picture too noisy. Interesting subject but too many issues -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose There are a couple of things in its favour; very nice light, for instance, and an interesting subject in itself. I agree with the others that the top crop is a bit too tight, but I had to look closely to decide if it was a big problem. There have been FPs succeeding that weren't too far from this level of quality, so on the whole, I see the potential. I'd recommend reshooting, taking into consideration the feedback given above here.--Peulle (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A striking composition, but ... while I don't mind the People Mover track in front, nor the traffic light's gantry, I do find the tight crops at top and bottom, the obvious distortion on the front tire of the parked vehicle, the unsharp areas at the top of the left tower, and that anomalous patch of lighter blue between the buildings (did someone miss it while adjusting the rest of the sky?) put this beyond FP consideration. Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the clear perspective distortion, but it should be more symmetric than this, and the top crop is too tight. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the linked pics for comparison and would agree to Delist . Still a good QI, but no longer an FP in this category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 14:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nötsch Kerschdorf Filialkirche hl. Nikolaus und Friedhof 08052015 3451.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nötsch Kerschdorf Filialkirche hl. Nikolaus und Friedhof 08052015 3451.jpg
Oppose It is a nice scene but not enough for FP. The composition is rather central, mostly on the tower. The top of the cloud has been a bit too crudely Photoshopped. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2018 at 10:00:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Much too small and even at this size the quality doesn't convince me (per the comment above). The composition isn't that extraordinary, too. --Code (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2018 at 09:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pöggstall St. Anna im Felde Westfenster 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pöggstall St. Anna im Felde Westfenster 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 19:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Regensburg St.Leonhard 3250019-PSD.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Regensburg St.Leonhard 3250019-PSD.jpg
Support - Very high-quality, and there's something simple and pure to me about the geometric figures in the architecture and shadows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically a high quality image, but from that angle und with the very clear lighting (quite boring pure blue sky) nothing special to me. --Granada (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has pleasing colors and I can see what you might have been thinking, but per everyone else it just doesn't stand out. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 05:02:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Wandeling over de Delleboersterheide 12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Wandeling over de Delleboersterheide 12.jpg
Info Scottish Highlander cools in water. Location, nature Delleboersterheide - Cats Poele, in the Netherlands. Scottish Highlanders are deployed in nature areas of the Netherlands for nature conservation. All by created by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 08:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Mausoelum dedicated to the drivers "Ecuador" del Carchi in the cemetery of Tulcán, located in the city of Tulcán, capital of the Carchi Province, north of Ecuador. The cemetery, of a surface of 8 hectares (20 acres), was founded in 1932 to replace the former on that was damaged in the 1923 earthquake. José María Azael Franco Guerrero was back in 1936 in charge of the city parks and started topiary works in the Tulcán cemetery. In the meanwhile the cemetery park has become internationally popular in the art of topiary and was renamed in 2007 to cemetery Azael Franco to honour his work. Poco208:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some purple fringing on the tires (neat touch they!) but I'm pretty sure you can fix that, and it's not anywhere near enough to really matter. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really like the light and clouds and this is a pretty motif, well-photographed. That said, is it possible to sharpen the top of the mausoleum just a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 18:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vitoria - Jardín de la Muralla - Fuente 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vitoria - Jardín de la Muralla - Fuente 01.jpg
Oppose Idea could be nice but the composition seems too tight and the picture is a tad too dark for me (lighting condition aren't that good). --PierreSelim (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 07:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20180331 OEHB Cup Final Stockerau vs St. Pölten Laura Klinger 850 5761.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20180331 OEHB Cup Final Stockerau vs St. Pölten Laura Klinger 850 5761.jpg
Support The girls from the UHC Stockerau handball club won the Austrian handball cup 2018 in the final match on March 30th 2018 against Union St.Pölten. Here we can see Laura Klinger from the winning team scoring. -- Granada (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the right goal post. As most of the times I was sitting at one of the junctions of the goal area lines (marking the D-zone) with the goal line itself and that often leads to the goal posts becoming visible. I mostly like that. To the others: yes, it's not perfectly sharp, but I like the composition (including the quite tight crop) and thought I'll give it a try. On sunday there's a chance for photographing basket ball - a sports that I not yet had any luck of taking really good pictures of. --Granada (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well, I find this photo exciting, and I don't find the unsharpness of the goalpost crippling to the quality because the focus is on the shooter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons. First, this massive beam on the foreground, blurry and distracting. Then, the heavy background with printed players on the wall looking like real players at first sight overloads the composition and makes it chaotic. Thirdly, the main subject is not really sharp. Also the goal on the left is cut ans thus too difficult to identify. Nice jump shot at the right time, but overall too many ruining elements -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 05:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Blurry forground and shadows, I can live with one of these but not both. Also a perfect example of when "analogue editing" would have been great, that is picking up and removing that dead twig/branch/stick in front of the tree. --Cart(talk)09:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 22:56:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Munich, April 2018.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Munich, April 2018.jpg
Oppose --Fentriss (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (we have got the year 2018. Resolution is not enough. The pixels are not clean - shadowconflict, the street is in action like a chaos, The lightning could be more accurate - play with overexposing - show us a little bit more architecture of the building - wait for a fullmoon with little clouds - no wind - the clouds are moving - blurry, the wood on the left side fits not to the composing - waiting for wintertime here - pre-spring period, the whole scene needs more time - the person should not be there - the bikecycle - give the street a momentum of pause... wait for red traffic lights - the street will be empty.)[reply]
Well... okay... the resolution’s due to the fact that I had to crop the image (taken with my uwa lense kept perpendicular); the light trails are a feature, not a bug; the lighting is accurate; of course the clouds are moving, it’s a long exposure, and there’s always traffic on Prinzregentenstraße; but thanks anyway for disliking my image that much that you even felt compelled to post your first (?) contribution here. Normally I’m not bothered by negative votes. At all. Really. Here I’m honestly a bit flappergasted... sorry. —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bitte nicht falsch verstehen. Aber ich habe vor dem Bauwerk schon Stunden verbracht, auf die Passanten, Fahrzeuge, auf eine schlichtere Dekoration vor der Fassade gewartet, und mir erschien bisher kein Zeitpunkt so richtig gut genug. Und auch hier, es ist noch nicht ausgereift. Die Fassade des Gebäudes selbst ist auch so unruhig, die Pixel der images sahen immer so "kaputt" aus, ich war nie zufrieden, somit konnte ich hier auch kein pro vergeben. Grüsse,richard --Fentriss (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 13:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg’s Speicherstadt at night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamburg’s Speicherstadt at night.jpg
Oppose Burnt highlights are OK when they come from direct sources, but not on reflection. HDR would be useful here. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 08:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nya Carnegiebryggeriet July 2017 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nya Carnegiebryggeriet July 2017 01.jpg
Info Sunset view of the Lumafabriken (The Luma factory), a historic modernist lamp factory built in the 1930s as one of the first functionalist industrial plants. In the foreground is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet (the new Carnegie brewery) founded in 2014 by Brooklyn Brewery and Carlsberg. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 21:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A touareg at the Festival au Desert near Timbuktu, Mali 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A touareg at the Festival au Desert near Timbuktu, Mali 2012.jpg
If some rule resulted in this amount of utterly blank space, IMO it was poorly applied. I don't think thirds is a rule, just one idea that can be good in some situations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The off-center works very well here since his pose and clothes create diagonal lines. The sky could do with some work per Daniel, but it is a very gutsy and beautiful portrait. You can almost hear the talented Tinariwen in the background at what has to be one of the coolest (if hottest!) festivals in the world. --Cart(talk)09:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that big blue vastness confer something of the desert-feeling in the photo. That is what the sky feels and looks like when you're in a desert, big and empty. --Cart(talk)10:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice colors, interesting subject, good quality image, but the eyes are in the shadow, and there's too much empty space on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The subject looks pretty authentic, the processing could have been better, though. A sharpening mask would have helped here both to reduce noise in the sky and improve the sharpness of the subject Poco208:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 03:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Feldkirchen Dietrichstein Dietrichsteiner See Nord-Ufer 19042018 2973.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Feldkirchen Dietrichstein Dietrichsteiner See Nord-Ufer 19042018 2973.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 04:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orangutan Kalimantan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orangutan Kalimantan.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 10:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:British shorthair cat-3113513.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:British shorthair cat-3113513.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 16:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Joan of Ark chapel-2290483.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joan of Ark chapel-2290483.jpg
Support - Lovely picture at the height of flowering season; grain at full size is not visible at 300% of full screen on my laptop, so not a problem. However, the name of the file should be changed, as St. Joan was from Arc, not Ark, which is what Noah made, according to Genesis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the sky is noisy but the main problem I see here is the composition, that hand rail in front of the church spoils it to me --Poco208:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 08:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Auferstehung 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Auferstehung 02.jpg
InfoResurrection of Christ at the winged altar of the parish- and pilgrimage church Maria Laach am Jauerling, Lower Austria. View for Sundays with closed inner wings. Anonymous master, 1480. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your earlier photos File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Sonntagsseite 03.jpg (set) and File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Auferstehung 01.jpg (this frame) are quite different in colour and lighting. Perhaps this time the light was shining differently? The set photo shows the colour temperature looked ok for that, yet this one is a lot cooler. The image is brighter with more contrast (particularly the gold in the sky is no longer golden). Is that from a lighting change, or a result of post-processing (e.g., Clarity slider maxed out)? There's a bit of reflecting shine on the right of the photo, which isn't in the older one, and suggests the light direction wasn't optimal here. If the painting is really dulled with age, then I think we should show that rather than try to clean it up in post, which is my concern here. For a set of paintings like this, I think the value would be increased if you could make a high quality set nomination. -- Colin (talk)
@Colin: The older images are taken at pure natural light and a rather cheap consumer lens, while this time the altar piece was (unfortunately) illuminated by some spots and the image is taken with a professional lens. This makes the difference. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry. I don't think the lighting on this is done well. The reflecting shine on the painting is not consistent with our best FP paintings. Also not convinced about the explanation for radical colour and contrast change -- a different lens would not make difference to anything other than sharpness. I think the sky should be gold, but the lighting angle / processing has caused it to be too bright. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 18:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Warwick Castle - Engine House, Waterwheel, Weir, and Old Castle Bridge.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Warwick Castle - Engine House, Waterwheel, Weir, and Old Castle Bridge.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 10:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Woman with hand-rolled cigarette.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman with hand-rolled cigarette.jpg
"Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …" --Cart(talk)18:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 08:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nya Carnegiebryggeriet July 2017 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nya Carnegiebryggeriet July 2017 01.jpg
Info Sunset view of the Lumafabriken (The Luma factory), a historic modernist lamp factory built in the 1930s as one of the first functionalist industrial plants. In the foreground is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet (the new Carnegie brewery) founded in 2014 by Brooklyn Brewery and Carlsberg. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2018 at 15:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose per Daniel. The flash is rather harsh. I think it is a good photo for subject-identification purposes, but not so great artistically, compared to some other fungi FPs. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the square with the "Assessment" template where it says: "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images.", the word "considered" is always a link to the nomination page. --Cart(talk)12:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I am in favour of delisting it, for the following reasons: 1) I don't think the detail level is high enough, 2) I don't personally like the lighting either, 3) the composition - I don't see why a foodstuff should be placed on the ground like this in a staged photo..--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination page says "Bread birds given to children who run in the field to call the returning birds." I'm guessing this is similar to how Easter eggs are hidden in a garden for children to find. See also File:Благовещенье в Кореньских родниках 2014 62.jpg. While not sure, this could well be a traditional practice or a common game children do with the "birds". I don't think the deslist process should be used when (a) the delister hasn't read the original nomination page or (b) because they'd have opposed and would like a chance to do so now. All the users who supported it 5 years ago are still active on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like the documentation of local traditions per Colin, the photo is good enough and the light is what you usually get down in the bushes on an early spring day. --Cart(talk)13:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I think this should be a VI, but while I have no problem whatsoever with the composition and don't hate the lighting, I'd like a sharper photo of this motif for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have opposed the nomination at the time for insufficient "wow" factor, but for me delisting is for when our standards have surpassed what was formerly considered acceptable, rather than to overturn a validly promoted image from 2012. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 10:41:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Part of birch trunk in Norrkila.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Part of birch trunk in Norrkila.jpg
Support Technically very good, and I do quite like the patterns in the bark since they make the imagination run free with ideas. On a side note, I also like that you've set the license of such an image to public domain.--Peulle (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Since about a year back, I set all my photos here on Commons to public domain. When I have the time I'll go back and change the rest too. That seems like the right thing to do on this project since it is only my hobby. --Cart(talk)11:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sun is on that side and the birch is just very white. The light gradient from left to right gives the photo a pleasant depth. We can have white areas in a photo without crying out "overexposed", just like the white patches on Amy's face where no fur structure is visible. --Cart(talk)17:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 17:46:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Andoin - Cascadas de la Tobería -BT- 08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Andoin - Cascadas de la Tobería -BT- 08.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 14:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lucerne Pilatus Lake panoramic 1180662.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lucerne Pilatus Lake panoramic 1180662.jpg
Qualified support View is beautiful and striking enough to overcome some of the lack of detail in the distance (even accounting for the mists). Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 15:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 18:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support per Charles, but the thing is, if this is how bright it was, making it brighter would be dishonest, so keep it the way it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 14:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Waterfall in Russian Gulch State Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waterfall in Russian Gulch State Park.jpg
Comment I'm sorry that you don't like the image. For me, the trees add to the scenery. In the end, I'm personally interested in depicting the things like they are. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a nice shot of the waterfall but since the tree trunks are so prominent, the photo should have been composed around those instead. That would have included more of the trunk to the left. The blue shadow/yellow sunlight ration is not very well handled either, but that is correctable. --Cart(talk)14:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "More of the trunk to the left"… sorry, I wouldn't have been able to deliver, even if we had talked before I went on the hike to photograph this place :-) What's not necessarily visible in this picture is the fact that I was standing at the end of a path – in the leftmost corner of that scene – right on the edge of a steep gradient. So, without a drone, no one will be able to deliver what you're asking for (which you couldn't know). I appreciate the feedback on the colors though and will look into this over the next couple of days. Thanks, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCart Thanks again for the feedback. I agree that I didn't handle the blue colors well. I've made slight adjustments. As this is just a very minor correction, I replace the old file with a new version. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respect your feedback. Now, this is a serious question and I don't mean to offend you: what should I have done about the tree trunks? Are you saying it is impossible to take a featured picture of that scene unless someone (e.g. from the California State Park system) removes the trunks? I'm a bit at a loss when it comes to what I should have done differently. And I'm open to suggestions. This place is only three hours from where I live and I could easily go back next year. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what other angles are possible. If there's a way you could be further to the right, such that the tree trunks are over to the left and not or not significantly in the way of the waterfall, that would be best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. I actually tried that as well. Problem is that there was another – living – tree to my right, which would then have covered the right part of the image (including some branches hanging down into the view of my wide angle lens). Whenever I take pictures, I really "work the scene", but this was the best I could do in this case. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it might not be possible to take a photo of this motif that I'd consider an FP. However, this currently looks likely to pass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obvious Frank. Hike up next year with a large step-ladder on your back and a set of support ropes to secure it and get snapping :-) Charles (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 05:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoAllium ursinum. Small delicate flowers and flower buds on a slender stem. Allium ursinum is a rather rare species in Belgium and the Netherlands. The plant has a strong onion smell when the leaves are damaged. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flower is quite small in relation to the overall image and does not have great depth of field or definition. Charles (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 05:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Felis silvestris catus lying on rice straw.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Felis silvestris catus lying on rice straw.jpg
Really? I can see every hair on that side of the face. Are you sure you have the settings on your screen right? --Cart(talk)12:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK not 100% blown, just over-exposed. Charles (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 10:22:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Scan the World - Venus de Milo.stlCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scan the World - Venus de Milo.stl
Comment Interesting and the first time I've seen one of these, so no idea if it's FP standard. The detail of the scan seems poor. Charles (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the idea of this sort of thing being featurable, but without some way to better assess the detail (i.e., zoom in) I don't know about this one.Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDaniel, Charles, Ikan and all the rest. You spin the thing around with mouse movements but you zoom in on it with the scroll wheel (at least I did). Just do it gently, it is very tricky to maneuver (!) and before you know it, you have her navel covering your entire screen. I may have missed some finer control things. There should be some text about how to manage this in the file description. Also (AFAICS), this is not just something to look at, it is a digital blueprint for making this statue in a 3D-printer. --Cart(talk)22:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks. I tried using the middle button on my mouse. I didn't find it that easy to manipulate the way I wanted to, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rotate with the mouse pointer, zoom with the scroll, and translate with the pointer while pressing the right button -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose highly interesting, useful, valuable, encyclopedic, etc. - but not a "Featured Picture" to a grumpy old man like me who longingly and fondly remembers the olden days when photos were still photos. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martin from a grumpy old woman but mainly because we expect more from a computer image these days, more visual appeal a better user interface. It is a novelty on this forum, not so much in the programming community. I have also changed the FP category on the nom from "objects" to "Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other" where it is more suitable. --Cart(talk)08:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 08:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ermita de San Bartolomé, Parque Natural del Cañón del Río Lobos, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 04-08 PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ermita de San Bartolomé, Parque Natural del Cañón del Río Lobos, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 04-08 PAN.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 07:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kiruna September 2017 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kiruna September 2017 01.jpg
Info Aerial view of the town center of Kiruna with Kirunavaara and Kiruna Iron mine in the background. All buildings in the images will be demolished when the city center is to be moved 3 kilometers to the east. The mine undermines the current town center. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Clearly valuable but not a compelling composition for me. The buildings that make up the town are cut off in the foreground, giving the view a sense of tension and incompleteness to me. If FP were the only way we could acknowledge a photo, I'd be torn, but we do have VI to acknowledge the importance of photos that are not among the most outstanding compositions but are important in other ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for you review. I disagree for different reasons; 1) the street in the foreground is a border between the town center and much less urban buildings; 2) you always have to cut buildings when taking aerial photos of a town (unless you using some wide-angle lens but (see 3 and 4); 3) the point here is not only the town center but also the relation between the town center and mount Kirunavaara and Kiruna Iron mine (the only reason this town exists in the middle of nowhere 200km north of the Arctic Circle); 4) a wide angle shot would reduce the mountain and mine to an anonymous background.--ArildV (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's neither/nor ... I think the image should either be zooming in, showing something in particular, or zoomed out, showing more of the town and surroundings.--Peulle (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 05:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (06).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (06).jpg
Comment I find the color of the street lanterns in the center of the picture a bit odd. I have never seen any with this green a tint - sensor problem with a monochromatic light source? White balance looks fine otherwise... C-M (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clearification. Not sure I find it decorative, but thats not your fault, you get my Support ;-) --C-M (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 15:27:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M. Picture of a white tailed eagle grabbing a fish at Raftsundet/Lofoten. I believe that my picture is slightly sharper than the existing picture and has a higher value for Wikipedia as it shows the typical hunting method by grabbing a fish from the water surface. Note that the articles in the german and english wikipedia use a square crop of this file to better fit the infobox, however I feel that this full file shows the dynamics better. -- C-M (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This a lovely well-taken sharp image, but you need to sort out the tilted horizon and cropping - I would like more in front of the bird than behind (or at least the same). Charles (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, have a look on the image history. If you still see the tilt in the stones you may need to clear the browser cache (or open the page in a private browser window) C-M (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request Hi C-M, very nice shot of an impressive action with a rather high level of details ! I certainly support[update : change to Neutral in favor to the alternative below -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)] but also want to suggest you to nominate this Alt version File:White_tailed_eagle_raftsund_square_crop.jpg that you created too, because I find the crop much better, making the subject eye-catching -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the description I prefer this one. Howerver, feel free to nominate the cropped Version if you want. C-M (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I find the very blue swimming pool-like waves at odds with the rest of the image but it is a good capture of the bird and you can't bee too choosy when you get such a shot. --Cart(talk)08:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could add an alternative with the blue less saturated, but that would be further away from reality than the current version - it was a blue sky day and the color is just as it came out of camera (or, to be precise, what Capture 1 thinks the colors should look like out of camera) --C-M (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as usual for this kind of photography: First consideration with framing is to actually keep the bird within the frame - dont ask how many amazing pictures I have which I scrapped due to some lack of important body parts ;-) There is simply no more pixels on the right side of my crop, but I dont think that is bad in this case as the splashing water behind the eagle is quite nice. --C-M (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both versions are great, although both crops are not ideal. Maybe you can find something inbetween - the right border as in the original version, the left border wider than in the alternative version, top and bottom as in the alternative version. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Also good, restful shape. I like the other version better, though, because it's more exciting with all the trailing drops of water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would it be legitimate for me to instead oppose this photo in favor of the other one? I'd really rather that version won. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both versions are great, although both crops are not ideal. Maybe you can find something inbetween - the right border as in the original version, the left border wider than in the alternative version, top and bottom as in the alternative version. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is really sharp and the capture great, but the image looks a bit awkward to me, on the eagle there are strong shadows and direct sun light, somehow this doesn't match the background. Furthermore there is a clearly visible halo around the subject, I think that the processing has room for improvement Poco209:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Poco: Turns out I had some image sharpening for screen enabled in my export settings, I reuploaded the files without sharpening. Regarding the light situation: note that this picture has been taken in early April above the arctic circle. The sun was in my back, shining at the rather shallow angle of 27° which is why there is light below the wings. I did however pull up the shadows a little bit in order to show more details below the wings. Here it comes to personal preference, I find these details important and as I somehow have to compress the large dynamic range of the scene available in my 14 bit raw file down into the 8 bit jpeg file there is no perfect solution. I also prefer hand drawn field guides over photos as they can exaggerate the details in feathers over what is visible in a photo, allowing the trained observer to distinguish the minute differences between some species. C-M (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your detailed explanation, the new version is not perfect but the halo is softer, you got my SupportPoco219:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2018 at 17:17:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alexander Dumas père par Nadar - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alexander Dumas père par Nadar - Google Art Project.jpg
Oppose unsharp11!!1Support Impressive how shallow a depth of field these old large format cameras had. C-M (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have lots of FPs by Nadar. They are generally restored and/or have sharp focus on the eyes. While the subject is well captured, looks great as a small thumb, and is highly notable, I don't think this is among our finest such historical photos. -- Colin (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, whose critique was so devastating, as usual, that it is not necessary for anyone else to look at the image full size. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 01:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Home less dog sleeping, São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Home less dog sleeping, São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpg
Question - I would support because it's emotionally affecting, but I seem to remember a similar nomination before. Do I remember correctly? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading Daniel's comment before. Could it have been in a Consensual Review on QIC? In any case, I will Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a lot going on in this image and it's sort of hard to realize the dog is the subject. Also it's unsharp in places. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My main objection to this picture is the tight crop on the right cutting a part of the stroller. The crop on the left is fine, but I feel missing something, a wall or a wheel, on the other side. Unfortunately this lack prevents me going further into the story -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 01:08:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Famille d’un Chef Camacan se préparant pour une Fête.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Famille d’un Chef Camacan se préparant pour une Fête.jpg
Question Why is it sort of misted on the sides? Is that in the original painting? Are there other versions we can compare it to? Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 00:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida fire (May 2018) 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida fire (May 2018) 10.jpg
Support This is one of the best photo compositions I've seen on Commons that wasn't already a featured picture. There was a historical high-rise building here yesterday - the en:Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida. It caught fire and collapsed yesterday. This picture captures the remains of the building (with the smoke still rising), one of the fire-fighting engines that was used, some of the firefighters themselves, and even the background building with both its modern decoration and the now-revealed historical advert. It could benefit from some tweaking of the colours/highlights to bring out the red of the fire engine and the yellow of the firefighers, but otherwise, wow! -- Mike Peel (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you may see here, the red is under the dust. Perhaps if I use a duster instead of Lightroom! ;) It was a late autumn afternoon photo with dust covering absolutely everything. Sturm (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sad event, but the image is just shows the scenery after it. Image quality also not on FP level, and no FP category given. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 07:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oysters lemons basket.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oysters lemons basket.jpg
Support, although the problem Charles noted (perhaps something that happened because of the long exposure?) should be addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had expected for this kind of shot to see a crispy subject, including the lemons, but that's not the case. Focus stacking could have helped here --Poco209:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2018 at 17:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cherry tree with flower buds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cherry tree with flower buds.jpg
Info Given the recent agitated and hostile mood here on the forum, it is with some dread that I post a new nom. Anyway, here goes...
I came across a cherry tree and at first I took the usual daft photos of pretty cherry flowers we have thousands of here. Then I noticed this little branch. It really appealed to me since the buds are more graphic than the full fluffy flowers and we don't have many photos of this kind of cherry blossoms. At this stage they are also more intense in color; that color will later be "distributed" into the developed petals and pale, they more resemble the fruits they will hopefully become later. It is smaller than my other plant photos since it is cropped from a larger photo. I was on other business and I only had my pocket camera with me and I can't go closer than this with it. f/5 was as far as I dared go with the DoF since the background is a bit busy. All by me, -- Cart(talk)17:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I couldn't make up my mind. On the one hand, the light and colours are lovely, on the other hand the DoF is a little distracting. The thought that popped into my head was that all the flowers should have been on this side of the branch, to increase the attention towards them rather than the bark.--Peulle (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your thinking. I even tried to see if I could pry all the flowers on to this side of the branch, but no go without breaking the twig. Nature wanted it that way and I had to be content with having a bit of the bark with a lovely red color in the foreground. --Cart(talk)18:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 13:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 31-33 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 31-33 HDR.JPG
InfoLas Lajas Sanctuary is a basilica church located in the southern Department of Nariño, municipality of Ipiales, Colombia. The place has been a popular pilgrimage location since the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1754. The first shrine was built by 1750 and was replaced by a bigger one in 1802, including a bridge over the canyon of the Guáitara River. The present temple, in Gothic Revival style, was built between 1916 and 1949. Btw, we have another FP of this motif (which was also finalist of POTY). All by me, Poco213:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the point in nominating this photo? As you mention, we already have better FP, so good it was a finalist in POTY 2015, and taken by you 12 minutes earlier. -- Colin (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the answer is obvious: same item, but different views, different formats, differnt portions of the church visible, .... that's why I nominate it Poco217:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it isn't as good a view, or as good light. I do note that it is considerably higher resolution and more detailed. The middle of the frame is impressively sharp, though the edges can be a bit blurred and there are artefacts (HDR?) around things that have moved (people, water, branches), though those are really only visible when pixel peeping. My eye keeps getting drawn to the corrugated metal sheeting with graffiti at the bottom. In the other photo, the sun is shining on the subject, whereas here it is all in cloud shade. I wish you'd made a high resolution version of the other viewpoint with the better light. -- Colin (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, for nowSupport because I think that this one has the better picture composition, the river is visible and we get an actual feel for the height and dimensions of the building, in the existing FP the bridge pillars disappear within the green of the foliage. --C-M (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
something is strange with the second door to the left... Also, the advert beside that door has a different color than in the other photo which you took the same day? What is original, what is editing in this picture? --C-M (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C-M: I don't usually do such kind of editing for fun. That was the result of a strong CA. I fixed that in the last version along with some other issues Poco213:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Like the others, I compare this to the other photo, which is great, and go "meh". This is a good photo, but I'm still not that happy with areas of the background and the middleground on the right that are more accentuated because you don't have the whole bridge in this photo. In the other photo, issues with the middleground and background are not important because the composition is so breathtaking. Overall, I think QI is the right designation for this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2018 at 06:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dürnstein Panorama 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dürnstein Panorama 02.jpg
Support At normal resolution I'd say this was just a QI but the extra detail makes it special. I just wish there was some better lighting or more interesting buildings: quite a lot of the frame is water, sky and shubs/trees, which I don't really need 200MP of. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: I don't wish the buildings were more interesting. Just that there were more of them (or they were bigger in the frame). -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 18:55:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pantages HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pantages HDR.jpg
CommentLlez, a vertical "perspective correction" would result in the ceiling being lost entirely. This is because the camera is looking up, at the edge of the ceiling. It would be hard to take a horizontal photo at stage-level which included the ceiling without using fisheye lens or a stitched photo with an extreme vertical-field-of-view. The latter would involve other distortions which are unappealing too. I think we should accept the image for what it is -- a photo looking up at the ceiling taken with an ultra-wide-angle lens. At this level of wide-angle-of-view we can only trade one distortion for another. I don't see any unsharpness in the lower corners, which are just seats anyway. -- Colin (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree, you loose some parts of the right and left border, but nothing of the ceiling. See here my proposition. And if you make a panorama view, you don't even loose the side parts, too --Llez (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an alt
Well that didn't crop as much as I expected, but now the proportions are all totally wrong. As I said, you have to trade one distortion for another. I'd rather the room looked like a room, rather than some nightmare where the huge over-stretched ceiling was coming down on me. -- Colin (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which "highlights" are people complaining about? The white spotlights shining at the camera should be pure white. Totally blown out. If anything less than that they are not being recorded properly. The art deco lights are nicely bright since they are indeed bright enough to light up the whole room. -- Colin (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That always depends on how you - literally - look at things and how you take your pictures accordingly. Here and in situations like this one the viewer is in fact looking up, as a photographer as well as a visitor in situ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this the perspective actually adds to the photo, making it less static like a starship taking off. --Cart(talk)22:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The building is like collapsing. Using a full frame body would have been the solution here. Also find Llez's version improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because 11mm on a full frame body is not 16.5mm. Which means you can see larger and record more from the same distance, using for example the Sigma 12-24 mm f/4 DG HSM ART, the Nikon AF-S 14–24 mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens, or the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
11mm is shorter than 12 or 14, that would certainly be enough on a FF body for that kind of large plan. I don't know Nikon very well, but if this lens is compatible with a FF camera, then just a new body will fit. If the lens is not compatible, then both the body + the focal are required. But changing nothing, just making a panorama built from two pictures assembled together in post-process would also have been successful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeLooking at the sides I get dizzy I find the falling verticals on both sides annoying, it needs a perspective correction --Poco209:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, do you get dizzy when you look at this, this, this, this, this, and this? Charles, there are plenty "Successful FP nominations of buildings" that have perspective and cylindrical distortions. This, this, this, this, this, this, to pick just a few examples. I don't think you are being fair here, Poco, when you have plenty "point camera upwards" FPs yourself. And Basile's comments about FF make no sense. -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I had a look at the examples you quote Colin and the distortions appear appropriate and artistic, though I doubt I voted for any. I don't find the distortion on this nomination artistic. Charles (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion on "I get dizzy, it needs a perspective correction"
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Are you not the one, Colin, that constatly critics me for not reviewing more at FPC? When I then do so you also seem to have a problem. In the images of mine you have linked above the perspective correction makes no sense as it is the main element of the composition. In the image that we review here, and that's what matters (would you mind if we stick to it? open a delist request for all of them if you like), that's rather a flaw and not adding anything to the final composition. Poco214:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, like your oppose that you get "dizzy" looking at this, you have here had Benh complain he gets "a pain in my neck by just looking at [your photo]". But here you benefit from Daniel "forgiv[ing] the distortion at the bottom since you had deliberately tilted the camera upward". And here Arion is dizzy with support. Here Jebulon finds the strong distortion too much. Both Diliff and I disagree. For example, "This is a valid perspective choice, rather than a technical error", and "I think here "pointing the camera up" is a good creative choice here. It displays aspects of the view one sees if one were there, looking up". Diliff also argues "Poco has traded tilted vertical lines in order to reduce perspective distortion". Here I support your sloping verticals with "Amazing subject and well captured" -- no insulting comments about feeling sick from me. In this nomination you dared to offer a very non-standard cylindrical projection of an interior. Of course some complained of the distortion, but your success was because the community did not demand it "needs" to be corrected to rectilinear.
So, Poco, as a photographer who has more than many benefited from the community, and me, supporting and arguing against conservative opposes of your "distorted" pictures, how dare you reject my defence of this distorted picture, and your terse mocking oppose, with petty irrelevant nonsense about your poor review/nomination ratios. Is your vote holier than anyone elses, so that you are happy for me to argue with them in support of your nominations, but I cannot argue with you when you make exactly the same conservative comments about what is acceptable for interior architecture? As Llez's version shows, the apparently "needed" "correction" results in an image where the ratio of scene above the eye-view is far more than below, which is unnatural. The effect is that the ceiling is larger than the room. The photographer's artistic choices, like the choices you have made, are ignored in favour of dogma about standard architectural photography. I could say "Looking at the sides I get dizzy, it needs a perspective correction" about lots of your photos, Poco, and you would be annoyed at my artistic ignorance vs your creative judgement. -- Colin (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear Poco thinks it is OK to mock a red-link photographer. OMG this is so bad I feel sick looking at it. Doh! Newbie mistake needs fixing. Not acceptable at all. -- Colin (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are being mean hear suggesting what the motivation for my vote it. Please, give up putting words in my mouth, and respect others' opinions, even if they don't concur with yours. --Poco217:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, I do respect other people's opinions, though that doesn't stop anyone from disagreeing with them and saying so and why. We are not at kindergarden, where no child can ever be criticised. Unlike you, I respect the opinion of this photographer that the best way to shoot this scene is to point the camera up, and don't feel that it is so fundamentally wrong that it "needs" correcting. You however, would rather insult him by saying the result makes you ill. And I'm still waiting for an explanation for why this makes you dizzy but your own "point the camera up" photographs induce no vertigo. We'd all have learned something if you drew on your experience to explain how it doesn't work in this case. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, you are 100% right here and this is to support you within this degenerated context. Absolutely no agression, no mockery, no insult from your side since the beginning of this thread. But more the endless monologue of a ridiculous joker decided to direct their fury against the consensus. Thanks for your review, and keep sharing your opinions serenely -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile, it is quite fine to disagree on Commons, and to be critical of what other people have said or do. You can disagree with what I've written just as I can disagree with what Poco has writtern. What isn't acceptable, ever, is to make direct personal attacks like "ridiculous joker". That path will lead you to a block, like it did to your our friend Livio. The community is evenly split on this photo, which I don't find surprising at all, and I'm not in the least upset about that: Commons is often quite conservative about creative photography choices. My problem is with what Poco wrote. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly advice: Even if you take this lightly, Colin is right. On this site hard debates are totally ok, personal attacks and name-calling are not. Perhaps not the way you are used to debating, but please keep it in mind. We don't want to lose you. --Cart(talk)11:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any "Livio". I never had any friend called 'Livio" here since I'm active on Commons. Totally wrong. Maybe stories from another planet. Funny, then -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it sad that the dispute has to go so far. Colin and Basile and Poco are all well respected contributors (unlike the mentioned Livio). --A.Savin13:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that is actually the point here, and as my last intention was to hurt any feelings, if it is of any help I stroke through the "Looking at the sides I get dizzy" by "I find the falling verticals on both sides annoying". Poco219:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WANTED: Admin who is a total meatpuppet for banned user. Off-Commons communication channel required. Subtlety not required. Will pay in pizza. Collect only. -- Colin (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either, why he defends him at every occasion, but still, I don't think that Basile Morin and Livioandronico have much in common. --A.Savin23:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2018 at 02:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shipwreck Point Reyes, Inverness.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shipwreck Point Reyes, Inverness.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 12:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baum in Kärnten 037.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baum in Kärnten 037.jpg
Well, I will not comment each of those and stick to this one, but I wonder how this is a QI with the description "tree". I don't think that I'm asking for the moon here Poco217:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No fruit, no leaf, just branches covered of frost : it may be very difficult to identify the species. But this picture of winter mist will be sorted in the category "Natural phenomena", not "Plants" -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2018 at 05:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Very nice handling of the sky gradients. At 100% I see some odd effects round some tree branches, perhaps from movement during your HDR exposures. But at 30MP those are invisible when viewed normally. I'm a bit puzzled about the data in the "Technical Specifications" field on the page. Not sure what DPI and MiB have anything to do with how the image was generated. I'd rather see what set of exposures were made (e.g., this page). -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generating the HDRI Photomatix (MacOS) lost some, not all EXIF data. I don't know why. I've added the important data from the normal exposure with exiftool. And the view of 100 Percent: I tried some different methods, the used one was the best with very minor disadvantages. And a last information: The technical specifications are generated by a bot. A manual update would be terrible. My bot hasn't fixed this yet, but it will be done within the next weeks. The size and DPI is a hint for the user about the possible dimensions - as part of the image data, not the technical specification. --XRaytalk09:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The light, mist and vivid colors are magical and make any small imperfection trail off into insignificance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting to note that on the cablecar nomination here we have seven supports from ArionEstar, Ikan Kekek, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case, W.carter and Мирослав Видрак. If we resize that image to the same resolution as this one, it looks like this. And we'd probably oppose for the unacceptable level of noise, the ghosting on the wires against the sky and the sharpening halo round the mountain. If we resize this image to the same resolution as that one, it looks like this. And we'd get probably support with "Small but pretty breathtaking" and "Nice and sharp". I know upsizing isn't a fair test, and I know nobody has opposed this one (yet), and I know it would be nice if the artefacts here are fixed [if the trees have moved during the exposures, this might be hard]. But this one has nearly 8x more pixels to peep at, and enjoy from a suitable viewing distance! -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: As you may have noticed, I support this as it is, fixing some minor tech problems is only a bonus of possible. My support is not hinging in that. Sometimes you worry too much. ;-) --Cart(talk)13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, actually I think your "support but appreciate a fix" here is definitely the best way to comment on this nomination. It's more the rapid and uncritical supports of a 3.8MP nomination. If this one was 3.8MP then nobody would see any artefacts, though XRay would get some grief about downsizing, because he's a regular. What are we doing nominating 3.8MP landscapes in 2018 anyway? This isn't hypothetical "worrying": these are actual nominations and 50% downsizing is actually getting a free pass by seven reviewers. Some of these same reviewers, maybe not you, really do pixel peep the 30MP images to death. But a 3.8 image is "nice and sharp". *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you decide to post a gratuitous insult or snide remark or whatever in a thread where it isn't even relevant? If you have a complaint about a review by me, complain in the relevant thread. I always consider photos case by case and will be happy to consider specific points, but not general carping, especially since you specifically addressed me months ago in my user talk page and I paid a lot of attention to what you said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one and have noted Colin's comments. We should be alert to downsizing. Perhaps the size guidelines could be updated for those images where cropping is never needed? -- Charlesjsharp14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin, -donald-, and W.carter: (Green) CAs are fixed. It's not an easy task because of a lot of green. I've checked the image and CAs are (nearly) only removed top left at the branches. I didn't found magenta CAs. I think, the removal of green CAs wasn't good enough before. --XRaytalk15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I stared now for roughly 20 Minutes on your picture and tried to figure out why I do not like it. The light is amazing, the HDR process is well controlled and as good as you can get it reasonably with nature and wind. I think my problem is the composition, where the sun is slightly off center (but only as little that it does not seem deliberately) while the two trees framing it both miss their crown... I think I would have preferred the picture either with less of the foliage in the foreground slightly tilted upwards OR a portrait orientation. --C-M (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really prefer the former version and have struck my support vote. Could we possibly have two alternatives, the previous version and this one, which I consider pretty radically different? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now here is an interesting thing, from what I can see (I can be wrong) by now this should have been closed by the Bot as a fifth day closing as featured. If so this is probably prevented by the presence of an alt version. It will be interesting to see what will happen with Basile's nomination above this where I commented out the withdrawn alt version. It could be due for a fifth day closing too, hopefully the bot will fix it then. --Cart(talk)13:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that bots don't close nominations with alts, as it can sometimes be hard to tell who voted for what. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cart I think so. The only reason I'd delay was if it was in any doubt if the alt might "win" if left for the full duration. I don't think that's the case here. -- Colin (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
XRay, you can't put the 'withdraw' template anywhere on a nom, it will cover both the noms. I have striked it for you. The only way is probably to comment out the alt as was done on Basile's bug nom. I will fix that + closing it in a separate edit. Don't touch anything here in the meantime. --Cart(talk)16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ok, lesson learned here: Alts will not only perhaps split the votes and result in a 'not featured' it will also prolong the time of the nom and make things with the closing more complicated than necessary. --Cart(talk)16:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 09:23:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:700 years Old Baltit Fort.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:700 years Old Baltit Fort.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not good technically. overprocessed. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2018 at 02:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cicada exuvia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cicada exuvia.jpg
Yes, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I think you're right, this is better with clearer colors and white background. Your version is improved, but just the yellows are too strong in my opinion, then I've followed your suggestion to modified my processing limiting the saturation. Pinging C-M in case, but thanks for the alternative tip -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the animal, you can have a better understanding of the colour, I just raise the whites. But looking to other pictures:File:Zikadenhaut 01.JPG I think that you should add a little bit more of yellow and oranges to it, again, this is based on photos, you can better evaluate. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m12:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I think the alt is now confusing and doesn't seem to have support of the nominator. A reminder: alts should not be added to a nomination without the nominator's consent. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 22:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Steam-boiling green asparagus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steam-boiling green asparagus.jpg
Question Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't get it but I don't see anything featurable here. The harsh shadows on the left and the overexposure on the right don't help. The handle on the left is cut. The angle of view isn't what I'd call very creative and makes the second hotplate appear in the back. That spoils the composition to me which would otherwise at least be somewhat clearer. A look from e.g. exactly above would give it a more graphical (2D) look and could be interesting. Yes, it's pin-sharp but that alone doesn't make it FP to me. So could please someone explain to me where all the support-votes come from? I really don't understand it. --Code (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Food photography often crops something -- many such photos don't include the whole circle of a plate for example, even though our natural tendancy is to include everything. I don't think the handle would add anything here, and isn't the subject. The white surface on the top right is a bit over-exposed I guess (though doesn't seem blown) but I didn't notice it as I was looking at the pot. The hard shadows of the asparagus tips isn't a negative I think, repeating the pattern and emphasising the tips. While I think we do demand too often the sort of front-to-back focus-sharpness that only focus-stacking can achieve, here it has meant that both the boiling water and the tips are in focus, which is probably not possible otherwise. I like that both are sharp, as the boiling water is interesting when snapped fast like this. I agree that a view from above might be interesting for it's 2D effect on the round saucepan. But it would be hard to achieve with all that steam, and would be more of abstract work (since nobody looks at saucepans of boiling water from that angle) than food photography. And, as I noted above, photography like this demands pefect cleanliness. I'm afraid my cooker, when viewed 100%, would show up food debris, and my saucepans have hard-water marks. -- Colin (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, time to explain why I made this photo. The main subject is the boiling water and the steam. People here go nuts over fountains, waterfalls and mist, but who has ever tried to capture this water feature we see every day at home? I wanted to see if I could "freeze" the boiling water the same way you do falling water. To get it in context I wanted to cook something, also not so common here. We mostly get raw or prepared food, the process is seldom shown. You can't "freeze" the boiling water in an indoors photo without a flash so there will be shadows, though these are not as harsh as some we see in outdoors bug photos. I had to have the second hotplate in the background or the steam would not be visible against the white. If someone has a black stove with dark surroundings, they will get a better shot at this. Having a handle-less pot would look daft. I had to cut it since it extended over to the two hotplates next to these two and those would really spoil the composition. Stoves are made that way. I chose a pot with a split handle to get a less solid look for the cut part. The "white surface on the top right" looks very white since it is mostly steam illuminated by the flash. It may look like a simple shot, but it took me half a day and more than 200 photos to get the five I wanted for the image (steam moves around as does the asparagus from the boiling, and the bubbles are not always perfect). You don't have to "get this" or like it but at least I tried something new here. --Cart(talk)09:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I absolutely can imagine that it meant a lot of work to take this photo. The result is certainly of good quality (as I already said), however, that's still not the kind of photograph that I would feature so I abstain from voting here. --Code (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly ok. I also wanted it to look like a normal cooking situation since my other kitchen-related photos got negative comments when I tried something more artistic, people obviously want to be able to relate to food/kitchen photos. --Cart(talk)09:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 11:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ET Afar asv2018-01 img87 Abala surroundings.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ET Afar asv2018-01 img87 Abala surroundings.jpg
Oppose Great quality but still it's a tree with no special background or lighting that would make the capture one of our finest, sorry Poco212:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 05:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support The tones and gradients on the car are stunning. It's almost freaky to see a car this clean in a street environment. --Cart(talk)09:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - For the opposers: What's the problem you're having with the background? Do you find it too interesting, relative to the car? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 11:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunlight on beech leaves in Gullmarsskogen ravine 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunlight on beech leaves in Gullmarsskogen ravine 3.jpg
Comment I had a hard time choosing which one of the leaf photos I should nominate, but I figured that it would sort itself out with the help of the good folks here. This is one of two candidates, I'll let it be for a while yet. If it doesn't work, I may switch to the other. :) --Cart(talk)17:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think I, at any rate, am seeing what you saw. It's very striking, and as has been pointed out before, if something affects you a lot, that can be enough to make it a really good photo. And it's not just that shaft of very bright light; it's also the plunging shape from upper right to lower left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2018 at 23:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Marshall’s Beach, March 2018.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Marshall’s Beach, March 2018.jpg
Support Indeed, there is another similar FP, this one is much better thank to the higher quality, lighting and long exposure --Poco211:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe we should think about de-listing some of the older GGB-FPs, but like Martin I think this has potential to be at least a POTY finalist. --El Grafo (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2018 at 04:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lewis Wickes Hine, The charter member of the Red Cross Boy Scout Troop Paris, September 1918 - Library of Congress.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lewis Wickes Hine, The charter member of the Red Cross Boy Scout Troop Paris, September 1918 - Library of Congress.jpg
Comment - Could justifiably be featured for historical importance and being generally a good portrait, but why is the scarf so out of focus? (Parenthetically, interesting that his dentition is bad.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2018 at 21:19:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puente colgante sobre el cañón Lynn, Vancouver, Canadá, 2017-08-14, DD 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puente colgante sobre el cañón Lynn, Vancouver, Canadá, 2017-08-14, DD 10.jpg
Support This is a popular place, we gut lucky to visit it in a moment there was nobody, thank you Tomer for the nom! Poco208:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 11:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Godorf Station at Dusk, May 2018.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Godorf Station at Dusk, May 2018.jpg
Support The right side is perfect, the left side seems a bit cut (tight crop). But I find the composition good enough with many interesting elements, like the lights on the ground, the tall chimney behind, and of course these railways leading the sight through the picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! There's not much space for a wider crop on the left, I'm afraid. I had to keep two utterly annoying light poles out of the frame. I also had to clone out some remaining sunstars/rays emitted from these poles. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Had similar thoughts to Basile, which would have made a wider aspect too, but shame it wasn't possible. Next time visit with chainsaw. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I suppose it would be a metal pole rather than wood. One of these would get the job done too, and nobody would ask any questions. -- Colin (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 10:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Man painting in gold a statue of the Buddha.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Man painting in gold a statue of the Buddha.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2018 at 08:23:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Natural del Cañón del Río Lobos, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 21-27 PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Natural del Cañón del Río Lobos, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 21-27 PAN.jpg
InfoCanyon of the Lobos River Natural Park seen from La Galiana viewpoint, province of Soria, Castile and León, Spain. The Lobos River is the axle of the homonymous canyon and originator of the erosion that formed the vertical limestone walls of more than 100 metres (330 ft) height. The park has a total surface of 10,176 hectares (25,150 acres) 2/3 of it, but the source of the river (located in the province of Burgos), is located in the province of Soria. Poco208:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are crop errors in two places on the top of the image. Knowing Poco he'll probably fix that soon enough, so I'll hold off the oppose, but come on, Poco - you're a pro, you shouldn't let amateur mistakes like these slip by you. ;-P --Peulle (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)--Peulle (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something I often stumble on with panoramic pictures: I would love to see a bit more on the top and bottom, in this case the road in front is cut off in the center. Having the full road in the image would provide a better feel of depth. C-M (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C-M: like here? that's a pano of verticals frames, but there are always reasons not to support it. When I stand there looking at a landscape like this I was moved by the infinity and by the curved shape of the canyon. The road you talk about lacks IMHO of importance here because it is not the road that crosses the canyon but just an auxiliary paved road to access there, nothing wild IMHO. Offering more on the bottom would result in comments like "unteresting foreground". I've around for a while already. Poco222:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 13:33:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape of Don Khon with pirogues and fishermen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape of Don Khon with pirogues and fishermen.jpg
Oppose - I normally don't vote against a photo because it's "too busy". But I don't find this complex composition harmonious. The way the boats appear as if strewn this way and that tied down with ropes is not pleasant to my eyes, and all but the left crop feel random to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 13:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Dragon Spacecraft In Orbit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Dragon Spacecraft In Orbit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 16:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Annapurna Base Camp, Ghandruk, Nepal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Annapurna Base Camp, Ghandruk, Nepal.jpg
Oppose No. Having worked with this file, I'm in no way impressed by the quality of this. The sky wouldn't pass QIC with that amount of artifacts and posterization; the CA is almost visible at thumb. As for the name, where is the base camp, I can't find it. It might have been taken from said camp, anyway I don't find it accurate. Sorry. --Cart(talk)17:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: I changed the description. Do you think the CA and the sky can be fixed? If yes, help would be welcome. I don't know how to do that. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the CA is no problem but fixing the sky is really hard. With such posterization the result would probably not look natural. I don't have time for such work right now though. --Cart(talk)17:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, I don't find it worth the effort of a patch-job, the quality and composition is just not good enough. --Cart(talk)09:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviews are getting more irrational by the day. The sky is OK at 6 Mpx, which is sufficient for a large print. BTW I added more light and contrast. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think that comment is a bit unfair. You know by now that if a photo is wow-y enough, I will certainly overlook technical shortcomings. When I said I wasn't impressed by the quality of this, that included the quality of composition and light, both which are unremarkable here. Even at thumb or preview size, this photo doesn't evoke any emotions in me. Sorry. --Cart(talk)07:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2018 at 17:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bondinho do Pão de Açúcar by Diego Baravelli.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bondinho do Pão de Açúcar by Diego Baravelli.jpg
Comment - Update: Colin's upsized version was pretty convincing. I don't feel impelled to oppose but have struck my supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel it is downsized > 50% so of course it is "nice and sharp". Support if you like, but comments like this just encourage downsizing and dishearten those who've had their 24MP image pixel peep opposed for some CA or noise. This image isn't even big enough to fill an A4 high quality print. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: The FP criteria say only that the image has to be more than a million pixels; it doesn't matter how it got there. I don't know for sure that this image has been downsampled ... it might well have been cropped from the middle of a larger image. At present we do not concern ourselves with whether the image is big enough to make a nice wall print for framing. If you think we should, as has been suggested elsewhere, you can and should bring that up in the criteria, perhaps as an increase in the minimum size requirements, rather than harassing individual !voters. Maybe if you phrase your argument convincingly and respectfully enough, I will even support it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, you've been here long enough to know only newbies wikilawyer about the 2MP criteria, which has been around for over a decade and represents the lowest bar for all types of images. The EXIF is complete for this image and shows the image has had the most minute of crops due to a rotation to level the horizon. It appears to have simply been exported as a JPG to exactly 2400x1600px. Plus other images in the category, taken from the same viewing point, demonstrate the image is not cropped. I'm familiar enough with an ISO 500 out-of-camera image to know this is downsampled. If you do want to wikilawyer over it, the Commons:Image guidelines state "Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible." and "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." These concerns, about being able to print large, have been discussed and felt important for over a decade, and are generally agreed by the community, and generally result in an early "Please upload full size" comment. But sometimes we forget. I addressed your comment specifically, because "nice and sharp" is exactly the wrong response we should give to a >2x downsample. You know this already. It would be far easier if you just accepted you'd made a mistake with that comment, than make some outragous claim that in 2018 Commons FP loves 3.8MP landscape photos, that I'm out-of-step with community norms, and that reviewers are not allowed to disagree with each other but must first change the rules. Basically, everything you wrote is wrong. -- Colin (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I have changed my !vote appropriately because of your oh-so-superior wisdom.
So apparently pixel-peeping is bad but EXIF-peeping is not?
""Basically, everything you wrote is wrong." Next time you go off on one of your tangents, would you at least try to upsample your own sense of tact? If you have one? I am hardly the first, or even the 103rd, person to notice this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene is kind of cool but for me still lacking something. Also: 3,84 mpx? That's all we get from a 22 mpx camera? --Peulle (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, how are you? I'm happy, I just do not understand why I want her in higher resolution. What would it be? I read some comments, I saw a lot of bullshit there, apparently some do not understand anything about photography. I cloaked it in these dimensions because it is the normal one that I use for internnet.
Hi Diego Baravelli and welcome to FPC. Since you are not used to the code and the way things are done here, I have formatted your comment. Hope that it is ok. The reason people here want you to upload this photo in a higher resolution, is because the Wikiproject may also use these Featured photos for printed publications. That is why the upload should be as large as possible, not only what is normal for internet sites. If you have a larger version of this, please upload it. You click on the link on the file page where it says "Upload a new version of this file" and follow the instructions. If you would like to speak Portuguese or Spanish instead, that is also ok. We can find someone here to answer in one of those languages and explain things better. (ArionEstar perhaps?) --Cart(talk)00:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Diego Baravelli: this "I saw a lot of bullshit there, apparently some do not understand anything about photography."
Is not welcome here, we know a lot about photography, and more than you about what photography that this community requires, so you should control your ego, I know what's your gateway here in the Wikimedia Movement, and people that surround you, but for the rest of the Movement this posture is not tolerable.
We have our reasons to request something, and yes, some volunteers will request more than what's thinkable, or reasonable, but before you start to do accusations as this you should ask the "whys", okay? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m06:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks! The image offers a truly great and pleasant view. What keeps me from supporting the nom is that its technical quality leaves quite a lot to be desired. And no, I'm not pixel-peeping. There's a surprisingly high degree of noise - even for ISO 500 - and the horizon is also a bit tilted. So I suggest the user should try to redevelop their raw to address these issues. But there's definitely potential. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like Martin, I agree this image has a high degree of noise, which is apparent even at 6MP (3000x2000px). I think this due to the application of unnecessarily strong sharpening. The EXIF shows sharpness 77, radius 1.3, detail 40 and mask 11. A much lower degree of sharpening, possibly smaller radius, and larger mask would help, as would applying a local adjustment to the sky and out-of-focus background to eliminate any sharpening in those regions -- as the only thing sharpening does there is bring out the ISO 500 noise.
Daniel above makes a comment about "EXIF-peeping" and I agree there is a danger to oppose because one can see bad processing in the data, rather than because bad processing is apparent in the image. I always make my mind up about an image before looking at EXIF, which isn't always comprehensive anyway, and only do so in order to make an educated guess at what went wrong. I would like to support this image at full size. It just needs a little bit of TLC in the raw processor. Diego Baravelli, we'd all love to see this image full-sized, well-processed and awarded the star it deserves, and I hope you can make some improvements. -- Colin (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'll have to stay at my oppose here. Higher resolution may mean better quality, but doesn't have to. In this case, the picture is just much too noisy, especially the sky. For a near-daylight shot, it's not necessary IMO. --A.Savin12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ah! The dangers of nominating other people's images. I point out that it is tilted and nothing happens. Charles (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more unhealthy conversation
CommentDear unknown, we have not met .. soon, I find it impossible to know what I do, let alone what I want with the fact to upload photos to Wikipedia. And I think your "attack" should not be tolerated either. If you think you know the people around me, I think it would be the case for you to control your ego ... and not me. I am here, solely and exclusively to upload photos, I have no interest in participating in discussions or anything of the kind. Really, I do not know what the community wants with the photo, and more, after your comment, I do not want to know. My only desire is to collaborate with better than existing photos, to generate better illustrations for the articles. If Translator translated it wrong, I apologize. I meant that I read reviews that are not grounds for knowing anything about photography. Do you have reason to ask for something? And I to ask why ... which in my view, should be clarified from the beginning ... even more so for those who do not follow closely. And I do not know, I'm not interested in that part. You have no right to talk about the people around me, this is bullshit (correct translation for you now ok?). No more, do, think ... theorize what you want, or worse, what you think you know. I continue with my photographs, simple as that. Have a good time!
About the photo. With the previous file it was totally possible to make an A4 print, as I read above. I already made it in size 30x45 to give as a gift.
Yes, the horizon is a little crooked, nothing that can not be corrected at the time of printing ... just like the noise.
The noise on my monitor does not appear, at least nothing to bother me. And as I said, I have already impressed her, and nothing bad has appeared.
Maybe in some monitors this has bothered, but it is the excess of clarity, not of noise ... that does not influence the impression.
Finally, I apprehend not like this photograph. I have many and many other better photos, but unfortunately the star that she can or can not win does not pay my bills, so I uploaded that photo in question.
Sorry for the harshest words, but I find it inadmissible a person that I do not even know to say things like "so you should control your ego, I know what your gateway here in the Wikimedia Movement, and people that surround you". Is this the kind of person who "judges" something? That's why I do not mind participating in these conversations, especially when I have to deal with someone who judges other "people".
People like that I do not have in my life, much less "armed" by a keyboard.
I have my photos, this is my collaboration. And they are postures like that, that distance many photographers of the world Wikipedia.
A única coisa que eu disse é que eu sei como você veio parar aqui e quem o trouxe, eu sei que esses têm mesma postura não condizente com o Movimento Wikimedia.
Controle seu texto, bullshit é um termo chulo não aceito aqui, e é a segunda vez que usa na mesma conversa, pode ser impedido de contribuir se você se mantiver nessa postura.
Você dizer que as pessoas que aqui estão sabem nada de fotografia também não é aceitável.
E já que você não quer saber as razões pelas quais estamos pedindo o que estamos pedindo, não vou me ater a lhe responder. Mas se tudo que foi listado é passível de melhora, melhore.
Entrei aqui pois participo de muitos concursos de fotografia, e foi assim, simples assim. Entrei em um concurso sobre as Olimpíadas, ganhei, logo tive contato com o Commons e continuei. Você não sabe, você acha que sabe... e isso tem uma diferença muito grande. Se você tem problemas com alguém que você acha que me "trouxe" para cá, quarde-os para você, pois eu não tenho nada a ver com isso. Logo, seu comentário foi desnecessário, não acrescenta e não contribui em nada para a conversa. Quanto ao termo usado, é o correto para a sua contínua postura de achar que sabe algo sobre mim, ou que tem o direito de falar algo, se em inglês ficou pesado, traduza para babozeiras. Disse que li comentários que mostram desconhecimento sobre fotografia, ou melhor, dúvidas, e isso é fato. Já falei a cima sobre os pontos levantados, não vejo mais nada sobre. Falar sobre algo técnico é inaceitável? Volto a falar, inaceitável para mim, são posturas como a sua, essas sim imagino não serem condizentes com o Movimento Wikipedia. Minha contribuição é subir fotos, fotos que tenho paradas, para assim tentar contribuir com alguma melhora.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego Baravelli (talk • contribs)
Comment I really think that you guys need to improve the way to discuss this kind of picture promotion. Diego Baravelli is doing a great job contributing with many photographies and projects since he discovered this platform through the Wiki Loves the Olympics organized by Wiki Education Brazil in 2016. It's really bad for our movement and for Wikimedia Commons to see the way a Featured Picture Candidate is going on and to see people like Rodrigo.Argenton that was blocked so many times on pt.wiki by bad behavior offending and attacking directly and indirectly Brazilian contributors in english and portuguese. That is why we dont have a lot of Brazilians contributing to this project right now. Argentom, pare de tentar atacar os outros indiretamente, cresça e amadureça, já passou da hora. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
q.e.d.
Diego, essa palavra tem mais um peso, assim como está nela mesmo, "você está falando bosta", a minha postura foi chamar as pessoas que negativaram à princípio a sua foto pelo tamanho à reavaliarem e pedi que controlasse a sua fala para não ter problemas. Se não consegue ouvir algo simples, bom...
And I'm not the one that had a WUG de-recognized by having a bad conduct...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2018 at 17:21:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:From inside of Patuxay.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:From inside of Patuxay.jpg
Oppose Interesting idea. But the light is not hitting the subject, and it isn't interesting enough in silhouette. The big sky could do with something filling it. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Colin's right that it's not optimal, but it is beautiful and merits a feature at least until the optimal view of this motif comes along. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2018 at 17:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lion (Panthera leo) old male Chobe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lion (Panthera leo) old male Chobe.jpg
Oppose The background is kind of busy, especially with the shadows, that lower tree or whatever in the background is distracting and the lion's eyes are closed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The old lion is great, but the bush in the background giving him a "hat" is rather distracting and moves your attention away from the lion. Try cropping it and see the result. Note added. --Cart(talk)08:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to lose the Chobe River or the sky. Not so many lion pics have a river. I like that you can see into the distance. Charles (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 22:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gaztelugatxe 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gaztelugatxe 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 08:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MaleBettaBubbles.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MaleBettaBubbles.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: while it is a beautiful image, at 667 x 1000 makes 0.667 Mpx, it is far below the 2 Mpx minimum limit for nominations. If you can upload a larger, original version, you are welcome to submit it again. --Cart(talk)08:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 08:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:炫彩津门99海河夜景.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:炫彩津门99海河夜景.jpg
Okay, thanks ! I wondered why the color was slightly brighter suddenly . That's a strong oppose from my side as I was on the way to set the {{FPX}}. But revised this decision when considering the (weak) possibility to fix all these issues. Maybe ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The photo can certainly be fixed a bit, but not the size and I think it is an issue here since it it just barely above the limit. I think that is too small for such a photo. Probably hard to get the author to upload a larger version since they are not active here. --Cart(talk)10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too small. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 03:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Margareten im Rosental Pfarrkirche hl Margaretha NW-Ansicht 09052018 3194.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Margareten im Rosental Pfarrkirche hl Margaretha NW-Ansicht 09052018 3194.jpg
Question Why? I mean, I get that a centered composition is the most obvious kind and therefore not something to do all the time - kind of like C Major for music, and the famous radical Modernist, Arnold Schoenberg, famously said "There is much good music still to be written in C Major." I note that you do support, but I don't think the argument "Such a good work, but it's too bad it's centered" is any more meaningful than saying the same thing about a great piece of music that's in C Major. If it's good, it's good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, simply because in many cases a centered composition is not as aesthetically pleasing as an alternative that is following guidelines such as the rule of thirds. A centered composition very often demands strict symmetry - which is difficult to achieve when taking landscape shots. I'm honestly not a stickler for "rules", but there's a reason why observing the golden ratio, the divine proportion, is a fundamental principle that helps make a composition easily accessible to the viewer. That being said, I do like the nom! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ikan Kekek and Martin Falbisoner, for your special comments at a very high quality level. Each of you has a well-defined position. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to break the support. Another "rule" is the Rule of Odds, and here we have three components the eye is drawn to, two of which balance the centred church. Unfortunately one of those components is a telegraph pole, which just ruins it for me. That and the fact that the church is partly hidden by trees means the more dominant subjects are actually the tree and the pole. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You explain your point of view very well. However, I don't see it that way, as the steeple is a lot higher. And then there's the big sky and clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ikan. Clouds and steeple made me nominate this photograph. Before I had my concerns about the pole and the partially hidden church, just as Colin mentioned those two "issues". -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the clouds and steeple are nice. We all see photos differently and the world would be dull if we all thought alike :-). -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2018 at 08:50:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pattipola railway station 2017.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pattipola railway station 2017.jpg
Comment Per Yann's request on my talk page, I'm removing the FPX to give this another chance. While we were talking, I got the idea of trying to fix the tech problems since it is a very nice composition, and offer it as an alt. My initial comment will still apply on this version, now moved to a vote. --Cart(talk)18:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nope, the small size of the file, being a jpeg... makes this a too tough file to transform in a real FP. We could try to contact Samantha and request, maybe, DNG or TIFF file to adequate to community... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m05:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2018 at 08:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama vom Weiherberg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama vom Weiherberg.jpg
Oppose As before. Hard midday summer sun. Mostly grass. Thin-as-a-ruler format, which isn't how we view the world. The left third is especially boring. No composition at all. Photography is about composing, selecting, framing and doing so in great light. This is just Google Maps / Google Street View on a sunny day. -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also miss something here that draws my attention and guides my eyes, very documental and of good quality, but not exciting in comparison to other images of yours. --Poco211:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 09:01:02 (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 21 May 2018 at 08:54:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cat playing with a lizard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cat playing with a lizard.jpg
Comment For me, it's a "stunning wild life scene". I like the expression of both cat and lizard and the motion-blurred moving claw which expresses the action perfectly. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! A "Tale of Two Tails". :) I love the whole series, each photo has eye-catching elements. Well done! Btw, cats really are fast when you get motion blur at 1/400 sec. --Cart(talk)09:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Do you feel this is the best of the series? It looks better than the other ones that I looked at closely, and those were also good. I don't understand why the lizard didn't run away. Was it eventually eaten by the cat? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much Basotxerri for the nomination ! I'm happy this one was chosen from the series because it is also my favorite, for the same reasons. Ikan Kekek, that's a good question, why the lizard didn't run away ? This cat often eats small geckos, always after playing with them, like in this picture. But this lizard was perhaps a bit big for its appetite. No clue why it didn't try to escape, as all wild reptiles normally should do. Just the cat had it between its teeth a few seconds earlier, then probably it was dizzy -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 09:16:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vintage Sea Wolf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vintage Sea Wolf.jpg
Oppose Good photo but I find that rather abrupt artificial cutout/vignetting disturbing, it's not well done. Sorry. --Cart(talk)09:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2018 at 09:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I ended up supporting this one for QI but I just can't for FP, sorry. The DoF just isn't working for me at this level.--Peulle (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The DoF has to land somewhere and this seems like a good choice to me. We have become too used to focus stacked indoors objects, are we now demanding that for normal landscape photos as well? With delicate flowers like these, that is almost impossible due to wind and changing light (sun moves and wind stir shadows from branches). It's a perfectly fine normal f/9 photo. --Cart(talk)10:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the right focal lens. I opened the image and was immediately disappointed. So many beautiful flowers in this landscape, and so few in focus. Then I couldn't believe this was shot at f/9, before looking at the EXIF, where of course, I discovered this was taken with a telephoto ! Just not adapted, I mean, for my own taste. This kind of pictures should be taken with a wide angle, I think. The main problem here is less the blurry background than the blurry foreground. Actually, there is just a thin line of flowers in focus, but so little, it's a pity. Facing such great scenery, we want to see more ! Not just a dozen given to imagine the rest, but have them all here, clearly in the eye, to contemplate. The above comments concerning the bokeh are potentially valid, except this is not the right situation where such artistic blur is aesthetic. We could try nominating more photos with nice and interesting bokeh, but sorry this failed one for me is a clear no-go -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photograph would have been the next for my nominations. Thanks to Smial for nominating. The DoF may be a point of discussion. For me it isn't. At the place are thousands of blossoms. I tried a wide angel lens and most of the blossoms are too small with large white areas. With too much DoF the background became disturbing. The background was restless. So it wasn't a good choice. For an exposed position there were too much blossoms. So I tried to have a manageable number of blossoms sharp and this is the result - with a tele lens and f/9. I'd choosen a place in the sun, so the sun emphasizes the blossoms. The shadow ensures a discreet background. I think for photographs like this one with a lot of very small objects a large DoF is not a good choice. To much sharp object will result in a restless picture. --XRaytalk11:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not made my mind up about this. I wonder if rather than the amount of DoF being the problem, it is that my eye is naturally drawn to the top-left rule-of-third point (the tree trunks form a leading line down to that point), which is also an area of maximum blur. So maybe the focus is too far forward. But appreciate you want the flowers that are most visible to be most sharp. In terms of DoF, this is similar to my own File:Pryor's Wood Bluebells 2017-04-26-4.jpg which is also telephoto (equivalent to 200mm on FF, and this is 170mm) and similar aperture f/5.6 equivalent to f/8.4 on FF (this is f/9). The compression that this focal length provides means one sees just the wood floor of flowers. If a wide angle was used, it would bring in other parts of the woodland and a greater height of tree, which can be a problem if the woodland flowers aren't comprehensively covering the floor. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have not participated in the CR discussion about this file in QIC, but for this nomination, I will participate because I don't experience this as a great photo. Too much of it is a blur to me, including the nearest foreground, so I simply don't find viewing the file pleasant, and I don't think an unpleasant experience is what the photographer intends. Some things are visceral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 15:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Cracked orange flower bud Papaver orientale covered with morning dew. The photo was taken in natural light in the early morning. The background is the garden. The white behind the flower bud is the vague flower of a Viburnum grandiflorum. What I like about the picture is the dew on the flower bud, the mild morning light and the atmosphere.
Oppose The dew isn't really being taken advantage of, with no special light shining through it. The bokeh balls aren't very pleasing (f/11, giving hexagons with dark centres). I don't really like the tall-thin aspect ratio. I can see the house behind which shows the frame is titled. That might not be an issue if a tilted angle is the artistic choice, but here is just looks like a mistake. As a very minor note (at pixel peeping levels) the whole frame appears to be sharpened fairly strongly, which has just sharpened any noise. Considering most of the image is out of focus (deliberately) then sharpening that is just just wrong. I suggest to use the sharpening mask and/or local adjustment (i.e. no global sharpening but +ve local sharpening on one area, or -ve local sharpening to remove global sharpening from an area). I don't understand Charles's comment: I can't see anything wrong with what the camera did. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 03:24:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Point Bonita Lighthouse in May 2018.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Point Bonita Lighthouse in May 2018.jpg
Support Difficult to shoot as the lighthouse is only open to visitors on three days a week, 12:30–15:30 local time. I tried my luck in 2013 with this image, but I have to admit that I changed the way how I look at things in the five years since. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without visitors and in a better light it would have been more interesting. The dust spot or water drop on the left side is disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ermell, I've been thinking about asking California State Parks whether they'd open the lighthouse only to me and not to any other visitors. I'm not sure whether that's possible, but I'll give it a try… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. I've removed the water drop. Thanks! [reply]
Charles, I'm sorry to disappoint you – but if you'd take a closer look, you'd see the reflection of the sun on the top of the tower. So, yes, the sun was shining that day. And what's in the background is what people in San Francisco call “Karl the fog”. Just google it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been to San Francisco once and didn't meet Karl, who is a fascinating natural occurence, but unfortunately not so photogenic! Charles (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the question at hand is: should we aim at depicting things as they are or should we wait for a magic moment that makes the subject look good (although that's not what the subject would usually look like). So, what I'm saying is: I totally hear you – I could live without Karl myself. But are terrible (from my perspective) images like this really what we're aiming for? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I would nominate an image here if I was unhappy about the light? I'm actually very satisfied with the light. With a blue sky in the background it would look like a postcard. Look at this image: Point Reyes Lighthouse in 2012 (one of my worst lighthouse pictures ever featured here – totally unrealistic setting: Point Reyes Lighthouse is situated one of the most foggies places on this planet and the picture is 100% artificial. I think we should delist it.) Also think about it like this: you can only get the kind of colors as in the image above if you don't have a super sunny day with blue sky. Get out and shoot and just give it a try ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like that photo a lot more, so we may just have a difference of taste. I actually have been shooting a good deal, but with my smartphone. I have yet to edit any of those photos or upload them here, but I think I will do that in some cases, because a lot of them are of New Rochelle, New York (I work there often and walk from the train station to the nursing home where I work, a distance of about 1.2 miles by the shortest route, which I don't necessarily take), and some of them are better than what's already in Category:New Rochelle, New York for those subjects, though not necessarily because they're that good... :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just from an taste-viewpoint, I like blue skies a lot (even more with some of the puffy clouds that are so rare in California). So, we might even agree when it comes to what we'd rather frame and put on our wall at home. I've just gotten more into questioning myself (i.e. my photography) when it comes to depicting things in a way that doesn't actually have anything to do with the reality of that place. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The 50s gold/ochre/teal/steel blue color scheme you get in this light is stunning and very appropriate for this building. The weak is because of all the tourists in the photo. --Cart(talk)08:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First impression : not a captivating experience. Grey sky and dark rocks are not helping to find this place attractive. At full size, the visitors taking pictures give a crowdy and touristic aspect to the site, spoiling its singularity and making the shot rather ordinary. Google gives me more satisfaction with this Point Bonita Lighthouse the beautiful days -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 21:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fly agaric Fungi, Lake Slåensø 2017-08-21.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fly agaric Fungi, Lake Slåensø 2017-08-21.jpg
Info A young fly agaric (Amanita muscaria) mushroom in a hillside woodland setting. Natural light. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The focus seems to be just above the lower left corner or maybe on the rock in front of the fungus, not on the fungus itself (and as an aside, "fungus", being the singular, should be in the name and description of this file). It's just not sharp enough, even if you find the blurred light circles pleasant, and to me, they are obtrusive and too distracting from the subject. Compare this FP of the same species. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, the focus is certainly on the ball head. And it is sharp. This is like a portrait of a mushroom, with the background rendered as an impression rather than detail. The other image you link is a focus stacked photo, and please please tell me that we aren't expecting everything to be focus stacked on Commons now. I'm presenting this photo as a composition, a piece of photographic art, not some over-lit technical exercise with about as much charm as a passport photo. -- Colin (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see what I see and compare what I compare, considering what looks most outstanding to me, and if that means I'm comparing a single image to a focus-stacked one, that's the way it is, and good focus-stacking does indeed provide stiffer competition for single images. However, I also don't love the composition, as I mentioned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My photo and that focus stacked photo (which I supported) are not really in direct "competition". One is a encyclopaedic rendering of the mushroom aiming for maximum detail, technical precision, though is a little too brightly lit. As Hockei wrote "The quality of the mushroom is very good. But not more. There is no composition at all. The background is just black. I have no feeling when I look at it.". Here I was aiming for something else, and the bokeh light, the vertical smear of the tree trunks and the soft green of the foliage are as much "the subject" as the red ball. I'm not trying to change your mind; I know you don't like bokeh. Just explain that it is not a specimen photo for Wikipedia, and as such front-to-back focus stacking sharpness is neither a requirement nor even desirable -- it can produce a rather 2-dimensional result since you remove one of the clues the eye has wrt depth. -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Colin that we musn't judge all flower/animal photos against 'studio' focus-stacked images - not should we try to compare professionally-stitched panoramas or interiors with single shot images. The technical issue of little DoF results I guess from the poor lighting conditions meaning that a high ISO, low shutter speed and low F number were needed. FPC should probably put images generated from multiple shots into separate categories to allow both photographic skills and post-processing skills to be judged on appropriate criteria. Charles (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it's not bokeh itself that's bugging me, but rather, the same thing Cart talks about. As I wrote above: "even if you find the blurred light circles pleasant...to me, they are obtrusive and too distracting from the subject". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pleasant bokeh and overall composition. I don't think there's a sharpness issue. I'd maybe increase vibrance and/or saturation a little bit but that may be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have no problem with non-stacked photos, I welcome them. It's nice to have a bit artistic normality here once in a while. I'm less excited by the light though. With such interesting lights in the background (they are stealing the show), just some tiny thing happening with the light in the foreground too would have made this spectacular. --Cart(talk)17:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 19:18:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Desierto de Carcross, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-26, DD 108-112 PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Desierto de Carcross, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-26, DD 108-112 PAN.jpg
Info Panoramic view of the Carcross Desert, Yukon, Canada. With a surface of 1 square kilometre (0.39 sq mi) it's often considered the smallest desert in the world. Although, strictly spoken it's rather a set of sand dunes than a desert because it is too humid. The site is significantly drier than the surrounding region, receiving less than 50 cm of rain per year in part due to a rain shadow effect caused by surrounding mountains. All by me, Poco219:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really seeing a composition here, rather than just a view from the roadside that includes two mountains. I'd definitely trim the tree on the far left and the dark bush on the far right. The road is the opposite of a "leading line" as it leads off to the side of the scene. The patch of grass in the centre is a bit distracting. Some random people in the frame. The mountains are big, but their tops are in shadow, so the light isn't optimal. Do you think the colour balance/saturation is correct -- other photos I find are not quite so vivid yellow, including the foliage? -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin's first sentence. This is surely a useful photo, as it shows people in the landscape and therefore indicates a scale, but the composition doesn't work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 05:50:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015O9804 - оз Ворожеска.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015O9804 - оз Ворожеска.jpg
Oppose - Beautiful middleground and background, but too much uninteresting foreground. If you cropped out most of the foreground, I'd be likely to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While dark sky is always impressive, the vertical format is an odd choice. The very top cloud isn't adding anything and the foreground also is just a distraction. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2018 at 03:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PotMaking.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PotMaking.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 01:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spathoglottis plicata, Jardim Botanico do Rio de Janeiro.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spathoglottis plicata, Jardim Botanico do Rio de Janeiro.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 04:49:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grades St. Wolfgang Flügelaltar 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grades St. Wolfgang Flügelaltar 01.jpg
Info Winged altar at the pilgrimage church St. Wolfgang ob Grades, municipality of Metnitz, Carinthia, Austria. Shrine statues by an anonymous master probably of the elder Villach Workshop, 1490; reliefs and arrangement by the younger Villach Workshop, around 1520. Image by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 12:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20180512 - Serce Don Juana - Krakowski Teatr Uliczny Scena Kalejdoskop - 9367 DxO.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20180512 - Serce Don Juana - Krakowski Teatr Uliczny Scena Kalejdoskop - 9367 DxO.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 10:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lytta.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lytta.jpg
Comment Can you confirm how you got the beetle to remain still while 16 frames captured? Is it alive or dead? Did you freeze/chill/glue or use any other potentially harmful tricks that some insect macro photographers use. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
100% alive. And the reason why the back legs are not totally sharp is just because the lytta moved : I couldn't finished my shots. But I've got more pictures of this beetle with different angles. Here it is visible it's in sustenance on its legs. The body is over the leaf. A dead insect doesn't look like this. But this was an interior shot : no wind, good light, tripod, and the leaf comes from outside. Just this species can stop moving when they're touched or stopped in their course. Released after the session. So that was my technique. Natural but tricky. And needs patience -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the same thing with some bugs here, touch it and it stops. It seems like this is a defense mechanism they develop. Their predators have different sight than us and can best detect motion. So if the bug feels threatened, it just freezes and hopes the predator will lose interest and go away. --Cart(talk)12:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice pic and at first I was going to support. There seems to be an article about this species in English + some other languages (I wonder, btw, why the photo has not been used there yet). Very short "article" with no basic infos. So I'd like to know the size of the beetle: when looking at your photo, there seem to be very fine textures of the leaf, which means that it must be a very tiny insect, much less than it looks here in preview. But then, a scale would be useful, as the photo otherwise gives a totally wrong impression about the beetle's size. --A.Savin23:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, A.Savin, this specimen is small, only 15 mm long approximately. Thanks for the feedback. Now specified in the description. I missed the English page of this lytta, certainly confused with the French page that doesn't have it already. Yet freshly illustrated. Concerning this species, it's true there's nearly no information on Wikipedia, just one line maximum for each rare species inventoried, and even the main page Lytta is almost empty. Here in total we have less than 60 pictures of lyttas on Commons, half of them dedicated to the Lytta vesicatoria -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to adding a scale on the JPG itself. It makes the image less useful internationally or for different educational purposes. An "other version" file with a scale may be useful to e.g Wikipedia but remember that this is not photographed like an architects plan, but the subject is at an angle to the camera. So the length of the body, for example, can't really be appreciated photographically. Just saying the insect is 15mm long in the file description is surely enough. -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 18:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
The interior of the small church of Panagia Portarea, at the village of Portaria, Greece. It is a 16th century church built at the location of 13th century church and was the katholikon of a now destroyed monastery. The frescoes at the interior are the work of monk Michael, who painted the interior of the church in 1581.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 10:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2018 at 05:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Cracked flower bud of the forest hyacinth. The wild hyacinth ( Hyacinthoides non-scripta bastard of Hyacinthoides hispanica, is a plant from the ( Asparagaceae ) The favorite place is in forest and blooms in May. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think this is among our finest flowers. This side is in shade. Buds are generally less interesting than open flowers, so I think the composition/light needs to be something special to compensate. Here is a rather central arrangement with an oddly narrow aspect ratio. The photo is rather small, like you had taken it landscape format and cropped it hugely. I don't see why the flower couldn't have been photographed to fill the frame and thus be much larger. Also I don't think this is Hyacinthoides non-scripta. I'm no flower expert, but I did research bluebells quite a bit when photographing them, and the vertical flower stalk here is not typical at all (it should be bent over, with flowers on one side like this). This is more like Hyacinthoides hispanica or a hybrid (and looking at your other photos, with pink variants, makes me even more confident this is not the same flower). The common bluebell generally appears in a mass, covering the wood floor, rather than isolated. So it would be more appropriate to have bluebell bokeh like this. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at my photos, it is perhaps a bit harder to tell when just in bud (like this). Guides for telling the difference include this, this and this. I'm pretty sure your other photo here is the Spanish one. This photo is the right colour but it might be a hybrid. Until it opens, we don't have all the clues. The thickness of the leaves might help you based on this guide. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we see a bent stalk or not, may depend on the angle of the photo. Example of plant we all know is usually bent, here at a straight angle. Also, and unusual background can contribute to the wow-factor. --Cart(talk)09:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True but the other photos here and here were taken at the same geolocation, and those are definitely not non-scripta. They have blue anthers/pollen, the petals gently bend back rather than curl round, and the flowers come from all directions of the vertical stem. Given the multitude of British articles on the easy and unfortunate hybridisation of the native bluebell with the cultivated Spanish one, and that these are co-located, then probably the best one can hope for is a Hyacinthoides × massartiana hybrid. -- Colin (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are many of these wild hyacinths in the area. The stems are more or less slightly bent. Almost all of them are blue. With the occasional pink or white species in between. I like to photograph flower buds that almost come true. Is not done that much. But I find photos of flower buds interesting. And also quite difficult to photograph them nicely.--Famberhorst (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the are "slightly bent" then they are definitely naturalised garden-introduced Spanish bluebells, not "wild" and not non-scripta, which has a very distinctive droop like a shepherd's crook. I think it quite important that it is identified properly, because people look to Commons and Wikipedia to help identify flowers, and this misleads them. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty impressive closeup to me, with a pleasant background. And while I agree that buds are generally less spectacular than flowers, they certainly have their place and merit being included among the FPs when warranted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given that this quite obviously was a staged shot in a semi-controlled studio-like environment, the lighting is pretty meh for me. Could use a bit more fill from the bottom left maybe? A simple piece of white cardboard or similar used as a reflector can do wonders … --El Grafo (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I went back and forth on this for a while, have seen some good arguments for it, but I can't shake one of Colin's points: that as a tighter image of the flowers this had a chance. As it is there's just too much dead green space around it. And unfortunately it's too small to crop down. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 13:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape of Don Khon with pirogues and children.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landscape of Don Khon with pirogues and children.jpg
Oppose Nice sunny weather, but I'm not seeing anything particularly special. Doesn't seem to concentrate on any one thing. -- Colin (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 14:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Smiling woman holding a cup and a bottle of beer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Smiling woman holding a cup and a bottle of beer.jpg
Oppose To me, there's nothing special about this shot. It looks like one of millions of photos taken by a friend during a meal.--Peulle (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 23:25:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Praděd v Jeseníkách 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Praděd v Jeseníkách 03.jpg
Info It was like -20 C that day. It's my first FP nomination so please excuse me if it's not good enough. Created, uploaded and nominated by Podzemnik (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 06:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpg
Support - How about some urban wildlife? This is a larger-than-life photo. I judge it primarily at 270% of my laptop's screen, though full size gives you IMO an amazing larger-than-life view of the squirrel's head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tempted to FPX this. Dreadful quality. Tail cropped. Snapshot composition with corner of path visible. A common, easily photographed subject. -- Colin (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, really? In a closeup that concentrates more on the head, I don't think it's necessary to include the whole tail. I'm really surprised you find the quality terrible, considering that it's larger-than-life and looks good to me, at any rate, at about life size. Of course, if others agree with you, I will withdraw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "larger than life" is a relevant factor. A photo taken at closest focus distance using a typical macro lens with 1:1 reproduction will fill the frame with a 2.4cm width subject, which then gets blown up onto a 27" monitor, and if viewed 100% could be 1.5 metres across. There isn't any optical reasons why subject size alone should matter at all. -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, searching categories for FPs is totally useless; Commons search for FPs, QIs and VIs almost never works anymore (is anyone trying to fix that problem?). However, there is the gallery at com:fp. Charles' File:Grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 02.jpg is superior to this. I'll give someone else a chance to vote before doing anything, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a FPX, but I was more hesitating between Oppose and Weak oppose :-) The action is very interesting and the image big enough to be downsized. What makes the nomination fail in my view is really this composition. Cut tail and visible corner of the path, yes, but also too much space in front. Many of the FPs of squirrels have a (surprisingly) low resolution Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Sciuridae_(Squirrels), for example this old File:Streifenhoernchen.jpg only 1,8 Mpx. Need delisting perhaps, but their compositions are all better -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your votes. You guys might want to change the photo's status to "Discuss" at QIC. Sorry about not moving this to the log right now, but there's no reason to delay a decision. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 05:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 18:17:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anton Francesco dello Scheggia - The Seven Virtues - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anton Francesco dello Scheggia - The Seven Virtues - Google Art Project.jpg
Comment This looks like a mosaic rather than a painting, and there is a stitching error. So I doubt the quality of the photograph. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a mosaic (tempera and gold leaf are painting techniques) but it is painted in a style to emulate a Bysantine mosaic, hence the gold leaf. Mosaics were very fashionable at the time, but few could afford them. I agree that the colors are not very well captured. There is some croma noise we could do without. --Cart(talk)20:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 18:35:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:August Friedrich Albrecht Schenck - Anguish - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:August Friedrich Albrecht Schenck - Anguish - Google Art Project.jpg
Support - That's quite a moving painting; the ravens are so scary and threatening. The quote has to be mistranslated, though, as "soles" are either fish or a part of the foot and the sentence doesn't make sense. And what is "Object type Unknown"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"soles"!? I don't understand what do you mean, where is it written? "Object type Unknown" : the template description is autogenerated from wikidata and the field should be "paintnig" (instance of (P31)), I don't know why this don't work, I will ask to someone. Christian Ferrer(talk)05:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to see what is to be removed or even what is disturbing, furthermore I'm not very excited about changing anything, because exception made to lose quality by editing this high resolution jpg I'm not able to see what we have to win in overwriting this file, or by creating a new one very very similar. No sorry I will not edit it, and I tend to disagree that someone do that for so small gain. Christian Ferrer(talk)05:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until these 10477 black pixels are removed. Opening the picture at full size on Photoshop (or any other picture viewer), these lines are very visible. You see them even better by pasting the image on a white background. Which means they will appear on any print, corrupting the so-called "good quality" certification. We're here to select featured pictures. This mistake from the photographer is clearly a lack of requirement, accordingly to our official image guidelines. I don't think my screen invents anything. Such a correction will not reduce the quality of the image since the good pixels are not transformed. Also minor crops on existing files are totally valid, per Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Minor_improvements -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"very"?! I guess the word does not have the same meaning for all of us. And yes re-save a jpg mean a loss of quality, each time you save a jpg you have a new compression. And in order to remove a 1 pixel black line invisible for almost everybody exception made by who know where to look or maybe except for 1% of the viewers? Yes you will damage more pixels than you will remove, you will damage here 25 million pixel in order to remove those almost invisible 10477 pixels (furthermore 10477 pixels? I let to you the responsibility of this number). To oppose for that is silly. And an incentive to edit jpg files (=loss of quality) for only a few pixels may even be harmful for the project IMO. Christian Ferrer(talk)10:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. "When you resize an image and do not resample it, you change the image's size without changing the amount of data in that image. Resizing without resampling changes the image's physical size without changing the pixel dimensions in the image. No data is added to or removed from the image." Quote from Adobe's website, section Resizing images without resampling. Screencapture Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adobe is promoting adobe. They don't say "take an image from Wikimedia servers, save it on your pc, crop it with adobe, save the result and re-upload it on Wikimedia server, no data is added to or removed from the image". Sorry I don't read the same thing as you. And for the screenshot, I see that only on your screenshot, I'm also sorry but at full resolution I'm not able to see that. The purpose of FP project is to promote the finest, not to put the finest in the file histories. I prefer an oppose vote and I even prefer that the image be not promoted than to run after a "support" or after a potential promotion at the prize of damage of the image. Sorry, end of discussion for me. Christian Ferrer(talk)12:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basile has a point. The bottom black line is not nice. It can easily get cropped without any loss of quality. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The black line looks like it's damage to the painting. If it's actually on the painting, I don't think the photo should digitally restore the painting. If it's not in the painting, it absolutely should be removed. However, if you look carefully at the photo on the museum's site, the line is there. So unless any of you know for a fact that it's not, I don't think you should be judging the photo as wanting for showing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Yann, for confirming I'm not inventing ! Ikan (and the others), we're not talking about the same line. This extra line full of black pixels is definitely not part of the painting. This is just the last lines of pixels (at the bottom, and on the right) which are completely black, as if the frame had been cut and added to the image by the photographer / technician. I already joined a screenshot at 200% above (here again), but to be very explicit I will add this one too at 800% and that other one at 3200% (extracted from the download). Of course, there's no reason to have these lines in the file, it's just corrupting the beautiful painting, and that's only a technical problem. BTW, I don't understand why Peulle and other users notice the technical issue of this painting Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anton_Francesco_dello_Scheggia_-_The_Seven_Virtues_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, but not this one. There's also the same black line at the bottom and on the right of this last FPC. Easy to spot : you just need to zoom. But bigger problem : this line is also displayed on the thumbnails, at small size, probably interpreted as an important part of the image by Google Chrome and other browsers. Tested on Firefox + Internet explorer + Safari. So definitely polluting the previews, and of course definitely not welcome on the original image. Also, checking the quality of this photograph, we can notice it was already slightly deteriorated by a jpeg compression. You can check this by zooming very big, for example on Photoshop at 3200%, we see all the squares of 8x8 pixels which characterizes a moderate jpeg compression, inferior than the maximum quality (one more screenshot). When a jpeg picture is recorded with the best quality on a camera, only pixels are visible, not the compression. So claiming the purist argument to avoid to make the correction is not really a valid reasons in my opinion, here. Any clean modification of the file from the original at the maximum quality rate will have absolutely no impact compared to what the picture already suffered from in the past -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the line and I don't understand why you don't just remove it if it's such a huge problem. To answer your question I'll quote the Guidelines for you: "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." This is a tiny technical problem on an outstanding photo with huge wow factor. My vote stands. --Peulle (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle, why I just don't remove it ? Because of the controversy. Christian writes "No sorry I will not edit it, and I tend to disagree that someone do that for so small gain." Also : "To oppose for that is silly. And an incentive to edit jpg files (=loss of quality) for only a few pixels may even be harmful for the project IMO." Don't want to fight. And concerning your quote of the guidelines, that's really an interpretation, here ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's there, but I can't see it at full size unless I look for it specifically, and even then, I see only enough to be able to see where you must be seeing it, not that it's clearly there to my eyes. It's so de minimis that in no way would it affect my vote. However, since it bothers you, I would support its removal if that would cause no damage to the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the black line is there and is above all on every previews at small size (not only on Commons). But if this and this is normal for a FP for everyone, then let's close the discussion, and just turn the page. I will have learnt something new today about the FP requirements -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2018 at 13:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The cylindrical projection introduces too much misleading distortion here. I thought this might be some significant meander in the river where it turns through 180° but Google Maps shows this section of the river is straight. -- Colin (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a panorama, not a frame, there is no way that you can look at what is shown in the image from this viewpoint at once, you need to move your head from left to right, and the image here shows what you would view when panning your head. My intention was to show the volcanic basalts and for that I needed to stand there where I was, otherwise they would be hidden by the closer side of the river. There is no other type of projection that would work here, you suggest a rectilinear projection? as said, for that I would have had to be futher back and a portion of the basalts would be hidden. I like the way it looks, but if this kind of perspective is not welcome here I see definitely no point in uploading about 50 more such panos from Alaska and Yukon. Poco216:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is difficult to represent a wide scope of view in a 2D frame. We've all had plenty discussion about projections, particularly with Diliff's cathedrals. I know you can't do this wide angle in rectilinear. We do now have nominations with 360° projections that can use a special viewer, and I think for some subjects that's a really immersive way of looking at a view. They way it looks here is too much like one of these -- someone unfamiliar with the scene/location would be mislead. Whereas some of our more extreme projections are obviously distorted (curved buildings, etc) so the viewer isn't fooled (e.g. File:King's Cross Western Concourse - central position - 2012-05-02.75.jpg). Two other examples of mine are File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - SouthEast.jpg -- a regular projection -- and File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - South Panorama.jpg -- a cylindrical projection that I think is pretty awful. The cylindrical projection only shows a very little more of the subject but is unacceptably distorted. The closer you are to the subject (e.g. the river or the road) the worse the distortion. -- Colin (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the viewer could get it wrong, but I still don't see it as a big problem. Falling lines, fish eyes, extreme perspectives, they all may decieve the viewer, but that's iMHO not a reason to exclude them. This FP of mine is exactly the same view (road instead of river), became FP 2 weeks ago and is IMO not as interesting as this one. Poco223:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps most viewers of that other photo thought you were standing at a crossroads, or perhaps didn't care that some random piece of road in a desert was distorted. Here you have taken a photo of a "wow" bend in the river that should attract photographers like flies, except it isn't. It's an illusion. Many of the extremely wide panoramas we have are taken on mountain tops, where most of the subject is distant. For example: File:Panoramic view north from Ben Lomond.jpg. These photos have the effect of taking around 180° and compressing it to around 90°. If the close features are minor and insignificant, like the Ben Lomond photo, then it isn't so disturbing. But when the distorted features are actually the subject, then there's a problem. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading this right? You only want to upload photos here on Commons if they can become FPs? Or you only see FPs as useful to the project? Both sounds really bad to my ears. --Cart(talk)16:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've become the most productive user in the project in terms of quality and fetured content, that's not just by chance like this. I've spent a great deal of time and money to get there. So, I don't think that anybody here can demand that I upload anything more. The other way around, I think that I've the liberty to decide what I upload and what I don't and I expect other users to respect that. Poco223:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I normally don't have any problems with these distorted 180 deg panoramas, but for some reason this much bending of a straight river bothers me a bit. That is why I added the location to the file, so that each viewer could see it and form their own opinion. I won't go as far as to oppose this, since this might just be me being square. --Cart(talk)15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will support this nomination if you state in the file description by about how many degrees you've bent the straight river in this projection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Perhaps you should say the actual appearance of the riverbank is straight, but maybe the number of degrees by itself are clear enough for most readers. To me, the number of degrees of the panorama is not the same as the number of degrees that the river is bent, but maybe I'm just confused. I do like the photo, though, and I think this kind of distortion is legitimate when it's clearly described. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's pretty clear from looking at it that it's a panoramic; we have already promoted plenty that showed obviously straight roads bent this way. To me this may have been the only way to show the whole canyon. I could wish for a softer highlight on the cloud above the bridge, maybe, but I'm OK with it as is. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a panorama so it's obvious that the picture is distorted. This photo is good technically and very picturesque. FP for me. Tournasol7 (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 16:00:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 10:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Addis Ababa City view.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Addis Ababa City view.jpg
Support I nominated this picture because I feel like it illustrates the development that Ethiopia is going through in that it shows poorly made buildings in a crowded area right next to high-rises under construction which dramatically shows the vast difference between Ethiopia's not-so-distant past and its not-so-distant future. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 21:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thanks. Happy to crop a bit off the left if there is a consensus, but I positioned the vertical plant and the bird's eye on the rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 17:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Przełęcz Karkonoska (Slezské sedlo, Spindlerpass) - view from Odrodzenie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Przełęcz Karkonoska (Slezské sedlo, Spindlerpass) - view from Odrodzenie.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 11:46:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20180520 Peona with Oxythyrea funesta 850 9353.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20180520 Peona with Oxythyrea funesta 850 9353.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 08:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole, 24 Rue Chanoinesse, 75004 Paris, 1 May 2018.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole, 24 Rue Chanoinesse, 75004 Paris, 1 May 2018.jpg
Comment - The opposers have a point, but I don't think the highlights are irretrievably blown. Dialing down their brightness just a bit would make this featurable, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I looked at this a few times now and I definitely quite like the scene; it's reminiscent of an old-style street photography or an early 1900s painting. Yet I don't feel the quality is quite up to scratch. Perhaps another similar shot can be made in the future.--Peulle (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 11:19:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - You captured a glorious moment in such a way that we who weren't there can hold onto it. And what a fine composition! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sure the scene looked fabulous in reality, but this image doesn't look "real" to me. The tone mapping is way too obvious for my taste. I think what puts me off here is the section of sky adjacent to the trees on the left. It has too much of a "happy" blue that doesn't really fit the over-all dark and moody feel. --El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice landscape but having the sun obscured by the clouds gives the ground here a cold, unpleasant blue tint and the sky looks a bit freakish and strangely processed. I think this is the first time I've seen a rapeseed field deliberately shot in shadow. Sorry. --Cart(talk)21:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 19:31:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia católica, Beaver Creek, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-25, DD 13.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia católica, Beaver Creek, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-25, DD 13.jpg
Info Catholic church of Our Lady of Grace, Beaver Creek, Yukon, Canada. This original small church belongs to the Diocese of Whitehorse and was built by Father Morriset in 1962 using a Butler hut (a redesign of the famous Quonset hut) left by the US Army after construction of the Alaska Highway was completed. The church is located in an area with a very low population density and Beaver Creek, the last populated place in Canada before Alaska, has a population of 93 (2016). All by me, Poco219:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; I can see what might have been but this just doesn't work for so many reasons, mainly the composition and colors. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at it again today, I think I see better where the problem is. The very high crop, much higher than the church and the bell, seems to have this purpose : include the tall trees. Unfortunately, those tall trees are cut on top, which makes the composition awkward (in my view) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 15:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Per Yann. It's a shame because the motif is great and original, but I cannot believe that this is the best spot to capture it --Poco213:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2018 at 11:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Borboleta monarca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Borboleta monarca.jpg
Oppose It is lovely as a thumb, but there are totally blown areas in the white spots on the wings, body and flowers, which have been "recovered" to paper white, but are still blown of detail. -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the issues raised by the oppose !votes
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 26 May 2018 at 10:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anshan train station.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anshan train station.jpg
Oppose I'm not seeing this as sufficiently high quality for FP, both because of the object near the top, the perspective warp and the light rendering.--Peulle (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this photo is large enough, it has the same perspective distortion and some other issues as the one you nominated earlier. I think it would be a big help for you to read the Image Guidelines first, so you know what is expected from an FP. You could also take a look at COM:PT where photo techniques and terms are explained. If you know some of this, your nominations are more likely to be sucessful. Best, --Cart(talk)11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the technical quality is insufficient
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 23 May 2018 at 17:00:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Good composition. The silhouette reflecting in the mirror is well done : seat looking like a passenger, and this element of the background leads the sight back to the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, this subject is not amazing me, quality is great and the composition looks fine (although the ultimative plus would have been a nice motif in the mirror), but all in all I don't believe it's outstanding. Poco213:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 13:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - It is a good composition, and I'm inclined to support, but the composition is the tower and the tree, not just the tower, so I think the species of the tree should be identified and included among the categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but this is FPC, and I think that for this photo to be truly outstanding, the tree, which is a primary subject and for its particular shape as a deciduous tree with leaves, really should be identified. Johann, if you're confident, we can add that category and be done with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not absolutely sure about the determination of a fraxinus excelsior (ash, European ash, common ash), but the shape of the leaves give a strong hint to my conjesture. I am around 95% confident that the deciduous tree is an ash. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 09:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spruce tree stump in Gullmarsskogen ravine.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spruce tree stump in Gullmarsskogen ravine.jpg
Info The ravine in Gullmarsskogen Nature Reserve is carved out by a stream and tall trees grow both in and around the ravine. The ravine is in an almost perpetual dusk, even on sunny days, the sun only pierce the foliage with bright spots of light. (More info at the category) This creates an almost magical light down in the ravine, but it is also very difficult to handle when shooting. Even HDR is sometimes not enough with the extremely bright spots next to darkness. I have tried to fix up the photos of the scenes as they appear IRL. I really like this tall tree stump with the small new sapling growing in front of it. A promise of new life next to the old dead tree. All by me, -- Cart(talk)09:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2018 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama auf dem Roten Kliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama auf dem Roten Kliff.jpg
Comment Thank you all. I like it too of course. But that it should be so much better than my panos from the German middle ranges I can´t believe.--Milseburg (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 15:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Street light next to a birch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Street light next to a birch.jpg
At least to me this is a play of pairs: light and shadow, natural (birch) and manmade (lamp), red and green, vertical and horizontal lines. That's my artsy fartsy thought about this. ;) I also like the way the lamp lights up the very new leaves of the birch in a gradual way. The compo is more artistic/photographic than encyclopedic. We have had night/trees/street lamp compos and FPCs here before, but they fell short in the technical quality. This is not a very easy photo to take with the light going from total darkness to bright light. (Btw, it is a one-shot photo, no HDR.) It also needs to be perfectly still and no wind when you do these long exposure shots, or the leaves will get blurry. --Cart(talk)18:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bad you always have to read the explanation to understand the meaning. You should be able to do without it. I can't see anything unusual about the photo.--Ermell (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 22:59:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wainui Bay 20.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wainui Bay 20.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 09:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunlight on beech leaves in Gullmarsskogen ravine 5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunlight on beech leaves in Gullmarsskogen ravine 5.jpg
Info Let's try this one instead. This is brighter and more about the structure of the leaves than graphical forms. All by me, -- Cart(talk)09:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the leaves fill the frame in this one. The light is good filtering through the leaves and outlining the branches and hairs. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the other photo has a much better composition, with the bright leaves extending diagonally from the upper right to the lower left. The light is nice in both pictures, but this one feels to me like a photo of a phenomenon, not a picture with such a compelling composition. At least 3 people would seem to disagree with me. I'll live with this a little longer, because there's something to be said about the light itself creating a shape, but I'm currently leaning toward opposing this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj and my comments above. I really don't understand why some people prefer this to the other photo. The pattern of leaves in this photo feels random and not compelling to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 15:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ballet, 1940245.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ballet, 1940245.jpg
Oppose The scene is quite nice, but at this resolution I have a problem with the level of quality; I just don't think it's one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that quality is acceptable and in this area we don't have much, so a plus for me for originality Poco219:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine for 10 years ago but not acceptable for a studio image from 2017. Our guidelines strongly discourage downsizing. High JPG compression and posterised lighting. No colourspace specified/embedded. Yann, none of our Commons regular photographers would get away with nominating 3.95MP studio image in 2018. Why don't you try contacting the photographer to upload their 16MP original (assuming it is like their other photos) and we can then judge it against what the finest photographers on Commons are nominating in 2018. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That this is staged was my first reaction to it. Had it been a real show, there wouldn't have been a wall that close behind the dancers. The flow of her hair and the fabric would also require a big fan or wind machine, you don't get that from motion alone. Plus the light, stage spotlights create much harder shadows than this. (I've seen hundreds of ballets and danced myself, so gut feeling.) --Cart(talk)08:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basically per Poco. The only weakness (I agree) is the resolution. It's only a 4 Mpx image, well. But the minimum accepted here is 2 Mpx, necessary for a good quality print. That's twice bigger than the minimum. Sure it's not huge, it's not 4K for example. But this is clearly a professional picture, taken with technical accessories, and rarer thing, involving professional dancers. How many of us regular photographers take and nominate on Commons such kind of original pictures ? This image is special in its kind, and will be interesting to enrich the collection, because it doesn't look like any other. I also rather like the composition with the red scarf floating in the wind and the entwined people choreographing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile Morin, question. Are you going to commit from now on to only reviewing other images here at 3.95MP, i.e. long axis no larger than 2400px. That means never again complaining about noise, CA, sharpness, oversharpening halos, etc, etc. Because, from 24/36/42/50MP camera downsized to 3.95MP, none of those things will be visible. The 2MP standard was set when a TV resolution was 720 × 525 (0.38MP) and HDTV wasn't available. This doesn't even fit a QHD monitor, never mind the 4K TVs being sold in supermarkets. This resolution is too low to print even one page of a glossy magazine. How about if the rest of us started uploading at 3.95MP too ... would you still support? I agree it is a well taken image, if a bit contrived/unrealistic, but I don't see why the photographer can't be asked to upload the 16MP original. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sharpness, noise, etc. are important to take in consideration when the size of the image is essential. Landscapes for example. This kind of picture is special, perhaps limit with the size, and of course it would be better to get a higher res, but in the uncertainty I decide to support as it is -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2018 at 18:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vitoria - Parque de Olárizu - Niebla y cencellada -BT- 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vitoria - Parque de Olárizu - Niebla y cencellada -BT- 01.jpg
Comment I've used B&W because as in many foggy, misty, winterly pictures it allows to work better with contrasts. I personally like the melancholic winter scene, the leading lines of the bikeway and the trees. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 08:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apple blossoms on a low branch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apple blossoms on a low branch.jpg
Comment After some tips, I'm reworking this and bringing up the dark green background a bit more. Will upload as soon as it's done. --Cart(talk)19:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 10:49:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Utkikstornet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Utkikstornet.jpg
Info Observation tower on Grävlingsberget in Hälleskogsbrännan nature reserve, Västmanland, Sweden. The reserve was established in 2015 to observe the development of the ecosystem in the area following the large 2014 Västmanland wildfire. From the current WLE, a few minor technical imperfections, but I think the stark composition overrules them. Created and uploaded by Brian Forsberg - nominated by W.carter. -- Cart(talk)10:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs de-noising so much as re-worked to avoid the noise in the first place (it's an ISO 100 photo, so there shouldn't be any problem with noise). Looking at the File:Utkikstorn.jpg file from which this one claims to be derived, the noise is much greater towards the top, as though a graduated filter had brought it out. Both files appear to have been saved with high JPG compression. The image here is much worse wrt JPG compression artefacts than the other, probably a result of repeatedly saving a compressed JPG, and noise is impossible for any compression to handle well. There's a very slight purple tint to the sides of the sky. I'm just a bit sceptical then about what processing has been done to that sky. I would be keen to overlook these, but I wish the image was just a bit less dull overall -- some sunlight on the subject combined with a dark sky would really lift it. Agree the composition is good. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 05:49:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brooke's house gecko ( Hemidactylus brookii ).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brooke's house gecko ( Hemidactylus brookii ).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 13:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bare trees.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bare trees.jpg
Support - The photo's a little small, but this is all about the composition, which although taken from life looks to me like a complex and rewarding series of abstract lines and shapes with a change in color. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Abstract pictures should be perfect on the technical aspect. This photo was shot with a basic smartphone, automatic mode, open at f/1,9, and the resulted DoF is not wide enough. The trunks are not really in the focus, not sharp enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentShadow Ayush, please don't just remove noms from the list, if you want to withdraw you place the {{withdraw}} template on the nom and it will be closed and arcived. Remember to sign it while logged in so we can see that you did it. --Cart(talk)12:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 13:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CerritoTandil-may2018.2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CerritoTandil-may2018.2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 11:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bosc's fringe-toed lizards (Acanthodactylus boskianus asper) love bite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bosc's fringe-toed lizards (Acanthodactylus boskianus asper) love bite.jpg
InfoLiz had found her soul mate. It was love at first bite. A male holding onto a female with a bite is part of the courtship ritual of a number of reptile species. It is rare to see the white of the eye of a lizard. He does look pretty happy with life in the Jordanian desert! All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fantastic! How much time did you spend in the Jordanian desert? I'm so impressed with the photos you took there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 02:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old woman of Don Puay white shirt grey hair wrinkled skin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old woman of Don Puay white shirt grey hair wrinkled skin.jpg
Support - Good portrait to my eyes. She gives the impression of being a kind woman who is also tough and a survivor. I think some people will find that the white thing on the right (sun rays?) spoils the picture, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know she is old and probably a bit worn out so she hunches. Unfortunately this angle makes her head look too big for her body, it almost looks like the image of the head is tacked onto a pic of the body. The light on her face is great but the whole thing looks a little strange. --Cart(talk)09:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cart. It may well be "life" but as a photographer you have choices about angle-of-view, how to crop and whether to use a longer more-flattening focal length. Skin looks like too much noise reduction applied. Btw, I'm really, not keen to reduce photos of people to simply the sum of some (often negative) visible attributes: old woman; white shirt; grey hair; wrinkled skin. Doesn't seem very respectful. In the other photo, she's a "grandmother", which is a nicer way to describing a fellow human being. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That photo is much better wrt her posture in the composition, giving a flow to the head and body. Nothing that looks 'tacked on' in that. Her head is gently titled and the neck creates a nice line down to her blose which is so generous that you don't think about her back if hadn't been in the file name. --Cart(talk)12:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 20:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The trees hide a big part of the building, which is also in the shadow. The hazy hills in the background are not interesting. --Yann (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile; this might be featurable with a stronger sky and different light. Also in this case, I am not sure about what exactly is going on with the left edge of the dome—it looks kind of misprocessed, like it was a ripped paper edge. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 19:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barn on Mastlé mountain Gherdëina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barn on Mastlé mountain Gherdëina.jpg
Comment - Special to me, but I feel like I'd like to see at least a little of what's further to the right. I may support, anyway, but I haven't decided yet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thinking about it, I think the location has potential of reaching FP, but this current photo has a little bit too boring light for me to go "wow". With more exciting light, I think the shot could succeed.--Peulle ( talk) 18:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 07:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ebensfeld-Ansberg-Maintal-Staffelberg-Pano-P1060051.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ebensfeld-Ansberg-Maintal-Staffelberg-Pano-P1060051.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 02:40:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Two water buffaloes bathing at sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two water buffaloes bathing at sunset.jpg
Support Great composition and lighting. Not wild on the crop though. I'd like more top and sides, less on the bottom. I don't think the reflection is important. Charles (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a third buffalo on the left, half visible and rather disturbing in the composition. I made several attempts of cropping before opting for this simple square. Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 17:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 18:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Снежинка на разноцветном фоне.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Снежинка на разноцветном фоне.JPG
Well it looks very messy now and the background colours don't seem right for this kind of image. Neither true-to-life or artistic. Charles (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The image hasn't been cleaned up for presentation, which I'd expect at FP, and defects are visible at thumb size. I can have a go at removing the blemishes this weekend if nobody else does. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info The dust spots belong to the image : for snowflakes to form, you need a cristallisation center ("nucleus"). All these dust spots are future snowflakes, and there is one at the very center of the snowflake. They also act as a "reality proof" : this way you know that the picture is a true one and has not been made thanks to a computer program. FredD (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 21:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mont-Saint-Eloi Abbaye R05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mont-Saint-Eloi Abbaye R05.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 07:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jameos del Agua - Lanzarote -05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jameos del Agua - Lanzarote -05.jpg
Info There are some lava stones at the border of the pool, see here (Unfortunately not removable, they belong to Marique's artwork. ;-) ) --Llez (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 05:08:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Don't see why this is only 1800px high when your camera sensor is 3456px high: about 50%. Rhododendrons have lots of accessible flowers, so why aren't we getting a 16MP image rather than 3.83MP? Wrt lighting, I appreciate that full sun creates too extreme a contrast for most flowers, but here perhaps it is too dull. The hearts of each flower is in the shade, which is where the eye (and insects!) are drawn. We have surprisingly few Rhododendron FPs but compare your own File:Half geopende bloem van Rhododendron ponticum.jpg which is more detailed and sharp all over and the lighting/colour has pop. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 18:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
IMO the light in the morning has more contrast. And I can't follow "poor colors". Sorry. I wish I could understand the problem. --XRaytalk13:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is an interesting image to a point, so somewhat along the lines of Daniel's remarks, but the composition doesn't add up to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 18:30:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 12:33:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Juan Bautista, Ágreda, Soria, España, 2018-03-29, DD 40-42 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Juan Bautista, Ágreda, Soria, España, 2018-03-29, DD 40-42 HDR.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2018 at 11:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Étang de Thau, Sète cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Étang de Thau, Sète cf01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 16:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ET Afar asv2018-01 img48 Dallol.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ET Afar asv2018-01 img48 Dallol.jpg
Support When you finally get to the Dallol crater, I don't think you can be picky about the weather. I saw a documentary about this place not long ago and even the professional BBC camera team had trouble getting there. --Cart(talk)17:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2018 at 16:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Per Peulle. I like this idea and have tried some like this myself on field roads near me. But this, while it might well be a QI, just doesn't clear the bar aesthetically. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 13:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista desde la Autopista de la Cima del Mundo, Yukón, Canada, 2017-08-28, DD 48.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista desde la Autopista de la Cima del Mundo, Yukón, Canada, 2017-08-28, DD 48.jpg
Info View of an unpaved section of the Top of the World Highway, Yukon, Canada. The highway is so named because, along much of its length, it skirts the crest of the hills, giving looks down on the valleys. It is also one of the most northerly highways in the world at those latitudes and only open in the summer months. Poco213:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the subject and how the road snakes up into the distance, but I don't like what seems to be oversharpening, which is quite visible when looking at it full size.--Peulle (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Knowing what it's like to shoot landscapes like this in that part of the world, and looking at the previous versions, I think you've done the best you could. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This new version with the cut tree on the left and 40% of boring sky doesn't make the photo awesome in my view. That pine tree should be in or out of the composition, but not sectioned in the middle. Could become a good QI with a better crop, though not sure the content is special enough to succeed here -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 11:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bhairab Kunda.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bhairab Kunda.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 08:05:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Veit an der Glan Bürgergasse Klosterkirche Zu Unserer Lieben Frau 18052018 3372.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sankt Veit an der Glan Bürgergasse Klosterkirche Zu Unserer Lieben Frau 18052018 3372.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 07:26:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weinhügel-Richtung-Staffelberg-P5295103-Pano-PS-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weinhügel-Richtung-Staffelberg-P5295103-Pano-PS-2.jpg
Support I think the hills on right side could be a tiny bit more contrasty. But it's just a minor thing, my lips are whispering woooow so that beats everything else. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 11:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peponocephala electra Mayotte.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peponocephala electra Mayotte.jpg
Support Exceptional image, but it is not very lucky in this competition where there is a deviation of the votes which confuse quality and exception. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the purpose to FPC is to promote the finest, I challenge someone to find a better image of this animal on the web. Try and you will see that this one is of course one of the finest image that you can see of this mammal. Christian Ferrer(talk)10:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see green areas ? I'm not the author, but according to him the plain blue is normal (and I have many pictures with similar background). FredD (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I marked up the green areas. I do feel this has a significantly doctored background. But is plain blue normal? This is not my area of expertise, but looking at other images, most seem to have light rays visible. Charles (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in the FP guidelines you can read "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." You can't judge a live picture of a marine animal on the same ground as wedding pictures... FredD (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 14:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose nice but composition not enough special Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)_-_view_from_S%C5%82onecznik_(Mittagstein,_Poledn%C3%AD_k%C3%A1men).jpg)
_Namibia.jpg)
Question Can you explain your objective and the value to Commons in uploading 
Comment The sea level is not horizontal, furthermore I agree that the picture looks better without the tree on the right, or at least cropping half of it Poco2 06:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
_female_head_composite.jpg)
Neutral I find more usefull separate it on two images --The Photographer 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)_female_head.jpg)
_female_head_2.jpg)
Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
--Cart (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Done Thanks for the comment--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep The picture is very nicely done and the quality, in my opinion, is better than some of our current year's featured pictures. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
_-_view_from_Słonecznik_(Mittagstein,_Polední_kámen).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Namibia.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_head_composite.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Halling_681855.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_d.j.b_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_10.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_old_male_Chobe.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_view_from_Odrodzenie.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_love_bite.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Krkonoše_mountains_03.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_view_from_S%C5%82onecznik_(Mittagstein,_Poledn%C3%AD_k%C3%A1men).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_view_from_S%C5%82onecznik_(Mittagstein,_Poledn%C3%AD_k%C3%A1men).jpg){kind=link}
_Namibia.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Namibia.jpg){kind=link}
_Namibia.jpg,_feature){kind=link}
_Namibia.jpg,_feature){kind=link}
_female_head_composite.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female_head_composite.jpg){kind=link}
_female_head_composite.jpg,_){kind=link}
_female_head_composite.jpg,_){kind=link}
_female_head.jpg){kind=link}
_male_head_composite.jpg){kind=link}
I withdraw my nomination You are right, guys. I accept your arguments. 
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
Request The sky is very grainy. Is there anyway you can fix that, maybe smooth it out a little? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
_Halling_681855.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Halling_681855.jpg){kind=link}
_Halling_681855.jpg)
_Halling_681855.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Halling_681855.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_male.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male.jpg){kind=link}
_male.jpg)
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_d.j.b_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_d.j.b_02.jpg){kind=link}
_d.j.b_02.jpg)
_d.j.b_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_d.j.b_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_10.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_10.jpg){kind=link}
_10.jpg)
_10.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_10.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%81.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Techelsberg_Sankt_Martin_Winterwald_31012015_750.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D_Hoarfrost1.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virmalised_18.03.15_(2).jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Winter_in_%27It_Wikelsl%C3%A2n._Locatie,_De_Alde_Feanen_in_Friesland_01.jpg){kind=link}
Fixed Ok, lesson learned here: Alts will not only perhaps split the votes and result in a 'not featured' it will also prolong the time of the nom and make things with the closing more complicated than necessary. --Cart (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
--Cart (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Abstain due to infected discussion. The commotion here lately is not one of the forum's proudest moments. --Cart (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
_old_male_Chobe.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_old_male_Chobe.jpg){kind=link}
_old_male_Chobe.jpg)
_old_male_Chobe.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_old_male_Chobe.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
chromatic aberration. For explanation of what these terms means, please see COM:PT. --Cart (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_02.jpg){kind=link}
okay. This painting is not even yet a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
--Cart (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
_male.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_male.jpg){kind=link}
_male.jpg)
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_male.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_view_from_Odrodzenie.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_view_from_Odrodzenie.jpg){kind=link}
_-_view_from_Odrodzenie.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_love_bite.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_love_bite.jpg){kind=link}
_love_bite.jpg)
_love_bite.jpg,){kind=link}
_love_bite.jpg,){kind=link}
,_Krkono%C5%A1e_mountains_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Krkono%C5%A1e_mountains_03.jpg){kind=link}
,_Krkono%C5%A1e_mountains_03.jpg)
,_Krkonoše_mountains_03.jpg){kind=link}
,_Krkonoše_mountains_03.jpg){kind=link}
