Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2015 at 17:23:35 (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 31 Aug 2015 at 16:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Pfarrkirche hl Johannes Theodor Theyer-Glasfenster 20082015 6808.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poertschach Pfarrkirche hl Johannes Theodor Theyer-Glasfenster 20082015 6808.jpg
209
4772
4450
2523
4820
7359
In illustration of my severe comment, I think this part is just useless...
Oppose I don't like it. Technicaly very good, sharpness excellent, no noise, OK. But I find the work (not the photograph) not interesting, more a 19th century kitchy "painting on glass" portrait than a real "stained glass window" we have from the Middle Ages. I don't know who is that saint (a martyr (see the palm) like Saint Martin maybe ?), there is a red link to the author in the category, the crop below is frustrating, even if this part of the glass is just banal, a part of the "frieze" is broken and replaced by a modern glass... IMO it is just an average subject, not extraordinary. Well, no wow, I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: Thank you for your high grade analyses about that image. You are an excellent profiler. Yes, the glass window originates from the years 1904-1906, when the church was set up. No available documents that might give a hint to the saint (?) at the glass. I am desolate about that missing information as well as the mended part. The frustratiing crop below is due to a grill which partially covers the banal lower part. I nominated the image due to the colors, which are IMHO able to catch the eye. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 03:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strive towards more information about the artworks in that church, but at the moment there is no one there who I could ask. Not even a preacher, because in September there`ll be a new one. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Jebulon, excellent work. I believe artwork needs more support on FPC. The lower part is useless as the sky in most of the landscapes ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Moroder: artwork needs more support on FPC ! Furthermore, I agree that the lower part is useless, see crop suggestion !! ;-)--Jebulon (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Moroder: Thanks for your comments, Wolfgang. The windows were crafted by "Tiroler Glasmalerei - Innsbruck", a more than 140 years old traditional enterprise, that is still designing and crafting windows for churches for foreign and home dioceses. The proportions of the windows are demonstrated by this complete example: .
@Moroder: , I understood very well your irony, Wolfgang. But you had a wrong feeling, as demonstrated by the thumb of the whole picture... Anyway, as the glass comes from a "Tiroler Glasmalerei", I understand your support too (hey, it is a joke, my best (south) tiroler friend !!!)--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 20:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2012 July 06 North-South Lake from.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2012 July 06 North-South Lake from.jpg
Very regretful oppose No one would want to have a picture from the Catskills make FP here more than I. And this picture is certainly an improvement over my own earlier take with a DP/S from almost the same spot. A featured picture is certainly possible from this spot ... believe me when I say this. However, while this could definitely be a QI, it's not an FP. We'd need to see more of the landscape around the lakes, below the Escarpment and under perfectly clear skies for it to have wow (IMO). I'm also a little bothered by the apparent banding in the sky. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 10:18:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rüüt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rüüt.jpg
Oppose There's a lot more space than necessary around the bird—I know, I know, we're trying to show it in its environment and show how its coloration helps it keep a low profile—but even if it were cropped in close, I wouldn't find it more than a QI. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 12:54:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lucky en Panzerwiese, Múnich, Alemania, 2014-12-24, DD 05.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lucky en Panzerwiese, Múnich, Alemania, 2014-12-24, DD 05.JPG
Question Ok, it looks like it will not be a speedy promotion...can somebody at least give me a hint where the problem is (composition, lighting, quality, subject....)? Poco216:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The dog is looking at the right, but we have a large empty area on the left. It would be better if the empty area is in the direction the animal is looking. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have issue with the choice of background. The colours of the dog and the grass are too similar in colour such that the dog get lost against it. -- KTC (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry Poco, but the light is very harsh and die composition unfavorable. In front of the dog-look (or other ...), must be more room ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral you know, Diego, I´m the greatest fan ever of Lucky, but - except Lucky of course - the composition is not wow enough. --Hubertl17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, understood, my opinion here is of course not objective (not just because it is my picture). I chose this crop because I didn't want to crop the shadow, but, fine, just be sure that I will try it again with this subject! :) Poco218:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 18:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sant'Agnese in Agone (Rome) - Dome HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sant'Agnese in Agone (Rome) - Dome HDR.jpg
Oppose Sorry Livio, it's still far from optimal. It looks too purple now. The image you replaced looks much better in this respect. As a side note, I'm not quite sure about the replacement and will likely revert your change. The old one has a better composition and comprehensive view. Your picture is a nice complement though. @Jacek Halicki, Christian Ferrer, ArionEstar, and Daniel Case: , can you double check? - Benh (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Livio, to me it's still not good enough as simply being faithful to reality colourwise (and therefore not good enough for display in an encyclopedia article). Before asking if it's good enough, simply compare to the picture I referred to. And of course, feel free to seek help if you can't fix it yourself. If you seek advices, don't forget to share what settings you've changed. It's always free to ask ;) - Benh (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy processing my own pictures :) but I'll do my best to help since I did criticise your picture. Feel free to mail me a link to your RAWs, and I'll do the necessary. - Benh (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 13:18:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kings park gnangarra 250815-108.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kings park gnangarra 250815-108.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too unsharp and noisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezarate (talk • contribs)
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 22:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Monumentoaltoro.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monumentoaltoro.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Low technical quality, poor light. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2015 (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 10 Sep 2015 at 09:33:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:15-05-02-Reiserad-beladen-RalfR-dscf4852-33.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-05-02-Reiserad-beladen-RalfR-dscf4852-33.jpg
Support Finally some bicycle. Good bidon on trip ready bike with nice background. Perhaps some wider crop would benefit. --Mile (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ineligible for FP due to the lack of an appropriate free licence. Please add a CC BY-SA or FAR licence. (BTW, the photo would benefit from a slight crop/clone of the top-left to avoid the dark line that I assume is the top of the field). -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2015 at 09:12:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rohloff-speedhub-500-14-by-RalfR-05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rohloff-speedhub-500-14-by-RalfR-05.jpg
Oppose It is an interesting model but the photo is showing the 10-year-old age of the camera used -- at only 2.2MP, lacking sharpness, lots of colour noise, dirty background, it doesn't compare at all well to current FP standards (such as the recent photos by User:Kameraprojekt Graz 2015). So not nearly close to our "finest". -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With 2-3 hours work you can make it FP, Ralf. The picture itself would be worth that! (Sorry guys for my bad english!) --Hubertl07:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2015 at 15:58:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Armillaria mellea, Honey Fungus, UK 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Armillaria mellea, Honey Fungus, UK 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2015 at 06:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 09:03:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Calopteryx Splendens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calopteryx Splendens.jpg
Support I love the irridescence on their legs. I love the bokeh. And I love most that, given what they're doing, the legs make a little heart shape. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit of déjà vu but this one stands out with its better point of view and composition (lagging behind in quality but it's fine with me) - Benh (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focus on female head is fine. There is slight alignment issue; so the male head is not that much sharp. A very good posture and these big damselflies are not very approachable. Jee06:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2015 at 15:29:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church and rainbow in Akureyri.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church and rainbow in Akureyri.jpg
Oppose The rainbow itself is nice, quite strong, it almost looks too intense, but the foreground (road, signs,...) spoils the composition IMHO, sorry Poco217:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. I want an image like this to be a featured picture. The church is beautiful. The rainbow, especially against a land background, is as beautiful as it is rare. But unfortunately two beautiful things together do not automatically add up to an even more beautiful thing combined (per Circle of Iron: "Two birds tied together have four wings, yet they cannot fly"). Besides, the road in the foreground adds some extra distracting clutter. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an extraordinary photo with a rainbow this intense! The church as foreground works as a composition for me, too, as it does for King. --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know whether it is a FP or not. But I'm strong against such a practice . Reality is reality! Independently of I would crop it 16:9. Then at least the lower road sign would be away. --Hockei (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 06:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cicindela duponti in Kadavoor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cicindela duponti in Kadavoor.jpg
CommentPoco and Hockei: I just made a new edit using curves instead of brightness and contrast. Will revert if not better. Adding an O to avoid speedy promotion.Jee03:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not really convinced. What I see is an increased contrast and changed colour or white balance. It looks colder and the black or dark brown parts are deeper or more black than before (e.g. between the feelers). The colour in the version before I find better. I just would brighten it a little bit, not more. (Just my opinion. ) --Hockei (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here color temperature is 4750 which is flash default. In earlier version, RawTherapee automatically lifted it to 6K, giving a warm tone. Now I found it and reverted to actual. :) Jee17:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean Jee needs your sympathy. Because of my answer of his question. Have I said to him that he shall change the whole picture? No. Have I defeated his picture? No. Was it just a bit not bright enough for me? Yes. Has he ask me for my opinion? Yes. Shall I lie and say good when I don't find it? No. Can everybody say what he think? Yes. How many of my pictures were defeated? Many. Hm, I don't understand your statement at all. It is absolutely inappropriate. --Hockei (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei, what on earth is this rant about? I'm not questioning your review in any way at all. I made the very common observation that one cannot please everyone. It was intended to be lighthearted, hence the smilie. If there was any message in it, it was that if one keeps fiddling with an image in order to please one or two reviewers, then there's a good chance that one or two of the 19 who already supported might change their minds. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, if it's not meant as I understood that, then everything is OK. But you have answered of my review. What would you think when you were me? Sometimes it's just better to think twice before writing in order to avoid misapprehensions like this. Good evening. --Hockei (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I too think it is only language difficulties. As a multi-lingual community, we are occasionally experiencing it. Jee16:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 23:28:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F. Champenois imprimeur-éditeur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F. Champenois imprimeur-éditeur.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2015 at 14:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grey heron 2015-08-27.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grey heron 2015-08-27.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2015 at 15:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:High-Pressure-Cleaning-with-Personal-Protective-Equipment-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:High-Pressure-Cleaning-with-Personal-Protective-Equipment-01.jpg
Support Strongly. The board in forground, and the overexpo back of the man are a pity, but they are very little flaws. This picture is absolutely wonderful for me. Many thanks for sharing it, Uwe !--Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's even better now. Pretty sure this will turn out to be one of my personal POTY finalists. Pleased to see others seem to like it as well! --El Grafo (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 10:21:04 (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 7 Sep 2015 at 10:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 137-139 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 137-139 HDR.JPG
Info The Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús) is a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. The pipe organ is located in the choir, over the main entrance, and is the second biggest pipe organ in Quito that is still working. The piece, used in special festivities, was built in the United States in 1889 and has 1104 tubes in total. Note: high quality images of this temple are rare as photograhs are strictly prohibited without a special permission of the authorities. All by me, Poco210:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support strongly. I know perfection is not of this world, but you are not very far from it, my friend. That's a big wow, if I may say. --Jebulon (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job... the more so as it is not that easy to take pictures in that church. Poco will understand me :-) --Cayambe (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cayambe: As I stated above, and you remember, you usually cannot take any pictures in that church. I had to do some paperwork and convince some people to be able to use my camera. Poco213:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2015 at 17:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Incomplete Graffito.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Incomplete Graffito.jpg
Support I've got at least 3 potential stories on why this tile might be missing in my mind right now and I like pictures that do this to me. I have no idea if this will work for you, so let's just give it a try. -- El Grafo (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The missing tile kicks the interest level up a notch, as well as making a nice contrast with the bright colors of the graffito. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extactly, the missing tile was the reason for taking the picture in the first place as well as this nomination. The complete graffito would have made a nice QI, but FP? OK, I was lucky with the light coming from the right direction to support the sheet metal structure and being "warm" enough to make the colors pop nicely, but I don't think that would've been enough to make a FP. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 20:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Krafla power plant - Kröflustöð - alternative.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krafla power plant - Kröflustöð - alternative.jpg
Support Well if you don't nominate it again, I do. I love it. You could probably make it even stronger by tweaking clarity and recovering some details in the sky, but just my opinion. And it's already so good. -- Benh (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 08:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2015 at 08:47:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Route du désert vers Cox Gassi.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Route du désert vers Cox Gassi.JPG
Support Per Poco; the composition is striking enough to offset those issues. Makes me think of the landscape that inspired Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir": "All that I see turns to brown ..." Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed especially sky in the background, too much of the blurred "grey" in the foreground. I also think that the colors are too wrong or too weird for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm fine with the top crop but I not with the bottom crop. Tha area was blurry, sure, but makes the picture more interesting, as it provides perspective and hides a part of the scene. The current version looks rather like a boring aerial shot. Poco220:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2015 at 07:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2015 at 18:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Patrick's Church Nave 2, Dundalk, Ireland - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Patrick's Church Nave 2, Dundalk, Ireland - Diliff.jpg
Oppose Too dark for me and the composition is too busy for me, with many uninteresting/ordinary things. I would have chosen a portrait framing, with a focus on the stained glass window and the mosaic around, which is rich and colorful... Well, be bold and go ahead with your tripod, just in front of the altar, chose the choir, add maybe the columns left and right, and avoid the rest !--Jebulon (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I try to show show the interior as I saw it. If it's dark, I leave it dark. I suppose I could brighten it a little bit without changing it's ambience, but I don't think it should be a bright looking interior. I thought the symmetrical confession boxes framed the sides nicely, but I suppose for a Catholic, they are quite ordinary. ;-) Diliff (talk)
Could this be another revenge vote though? They always seem to come immediately after someone opposes one of yours. You say it's too dark, but please consider that it's actually a dark interior. Look at the colour of the wooden confession boxes. Compare them to the confession boxes in your recent nomination. Yours are significantly darker and the wood looks quite similar to me. I think you need to consider that not every church is a whitewashed baroque church like the ones you usually photograph in Rome. Some of them are dark, and should be shown as dark. Just my opinion anyway. Diliff (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're boring, another vote for revenge (?). where are the white churches?. Besides, this have very light compared to the churches of Rome (see that big window). Accept Negative Ratings. Besides the church do not like, it is distorted and dark.--LivioAndronico(talk)22:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be boring, but you're just plain rude. Once again, I don't really understand what you're saying and you don't seem interested in actually responding to the point I made about the darkness, so I'll just end the conversation here. Diliff (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually quite a big church. This is the view from about half way down the nave. This is the view from near the rear. It seems to be that you can't please everyone. I thought the view from this position showed the altar and mural in enough detail to be interesting, but still wide enough to show the other features of the church, but Jebulon thinks it should have been tighter and closer, Uoaei1 thinks it's too tight at the top (it's very wide angle already, any more and I'd start getting complaints that there is too much perspective distortion), and you seem to imply you'd prefer to see it from further back? Can't please everyone. ;-) Diliff (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you thought I didn't like it ... can't say I blame you for feeling a bit defensive after the drama above. All I meant was that, since it looked from the image like it wasn't a very big church (there was no way to know you were only standing halfway back), the failings other people were complaining about were not an issue for me. I have no problem with where you took the image from. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I didn't interpret it as you disliking the image, per se. It was just a brief response to you about its size, and then a longer moan about the whims of everyone else, so I suppose it's my fault that we got crossed wires! Diliff (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've uploaded a new image - brightened slightly as per Jebulon and Livio's comments, wider framing at the top as per Uoaei1's comments, and also fixed a slight tilt issue. Diliff (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many churches are quite dark inside, that's hardly the photographer's fault. Many details are visible, e. g. the coats of arms of the different guilds. The photo is a good illustration of this specific church. --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2015 at 08:05:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cardinalis cardinalis (female), Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cardinalis cardinalis (female), Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin.jpg
Neutral Good sharpness with acceptable size, the problem is the right crop, the bird cannot breath, he is looking far to the right but there is nothing shared with the viewer. Poco209:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-done picture, great bokeh, nice sharp detail on the bird (is that the remnants of a bug in her beak?) We have one as a pet (legally, but it's sort of a long story), and I showed the picture to my wife and she went "Awwww ..." (and this with the bird in question not too far away, although it's a little prettier than this one (it looks young). So it gets my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2015 at 09:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 12:16:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:TAXI.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:TAXI.jpg
Weak oppose I'm not sure that's a posterization or not but "A" is spoiling this calm mood. (I know that is light source but too bright.) --Laitche (talk) 09:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Support New version. --Laitche (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2015 at 10:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (254).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Total reconstruction of Neunkirchen station (254).jpg
InfoGoMinU, es freut mich, dass du an diesem Foto Gefallen gefunden und es ehrt mich, dass du dieses hier nominiert hast. Auch ich finde das Foto durchaus gelungen und auszeichnungswürdig, da die Maschine, die ich während des Arbeitseinsatzes (also in Bewegung) fotografiert habe, in für mich bestmöglicher Qualität abgebildet habe. Die dunklen Bereiche sind gut durchgezeichnet und alle Details der Maschine sind gut zu erkennen. Ich habe mir aber seit geraumer Zeit abgewöhnt, meine Bilder auf den Jahrmärkten QI oder FP zur allgemeinen Belustigung zur Schau zu stellen, da es manchen Benutzern Freude bereitet, mit "sachkundigen" Bemerkungen den Fotografen die Freude am Fotografieren zu verderben. Abgesehen davon, dass ich im Gegensatz zu Daniel Case keinen CA in der Oberleitung sehe, frage ich mich, ob sowas bei einem Foto, das die Maschine zeigen soll, von Bedeutung ist? Ähnliches gilt für die von XRay angemerkte "Überbelichtung". Auch hier frage ich mich, ob der höchst unwichtige Hintergrund, der sich nicht vermeiden lässt, oder die Maschine von Bedeutung ist. Vermutlich hätte man mit entsprechenden Bildbearbeitungsprogrammen und längerer Spielerei den Hintergrund etwas besser hinbekommen, frage mich jedoch ob das noch etwas mit dem eigentlichen Objekt (die Maschine), dem Fotografieren und der Leistung des Fotografen etwas zu tun hat? Daher, Hubertl, was macht dich so sicher, dass es "far away beeing FP" ist? Die Kandidatur kann daher gerne beendet werden. Die Kritiker können ja gerne bei google nach besseren Fotos dieses Spezialfahrzeugs mit aufgesetzter Schraubmaschine suchen... Schöne Grüße --Steindy (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case wenn du die Oberleitung lila siehst, solltest du dringend deinen Monitor neu kalibrieren. Ich sehe nur helles blaugrau und habe diese Farbe soeben auch abgetastet. Und selbst wenn es lila, rotbrau oder rötlich wäre, wäre es korrekt, denn bekanntnlich besteht eine Oberleitung weltweit aus Kupfer und Kupfer ist bekanntlich rötlich. Wenn man also eine Kritik abgibt, so sollte diese aus Respekt vor dem Autor auch korrekt und nicht von persönlichem Glauben geprägt sein. Genau das habe ich zuvor ausgeführt und genau dies ist es, weshalb ich bei diesen Kasperle-Theater bei QI, FP oder VI nicht mehr mitmache. Zu deiner Ehre sei gesagt, dass du nicht der Erste bist, der ahnungslos ist und "solche CAs" sieht... Schönen Gruß --Steindy (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Die Meinungsverschiedenheiten über die Zertifizierungsstellen abweichend, es ist immer noch nur ein ganz gewöhnlicher Zusammensetzung. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the composition and the quality of the object itself it is a valuable picture. Therefore QI and VI. But not the picture as a whole. But this is the requirement for FP. In my opinion - beside some repairable faults - it does not meet these requirements at all. I never disrepected your work, Steindy, and you know it! --Hubertl08:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hubertl, es ist mir durchaus bekannt, dass du meine Arbeiten anerkennst. Ich bleibe dennoch bei meiner Meinung, dass das Foto, das nichts anderes als den Zwei-Wege-Unimog samt aufgesetzter Schraubmaschine zeigen soll, in allen Details fein durchgezeichnet, scharf und von bestmöglicher Qualität ist. Oder gibt es daran etwas auszusetzen? Alles andere außer dem Gleis, auf dem die Schraubmuttern festgezogen werden, ist uninteressantes Beiwerk und die Position der Maschine, den Sonnenstand und das Wetter kann ich mir nicht aussuchen. Daher wäre es mir sogar lieber, wenn dieses Beiwerk noch deutlicher in den Hintergrund treten würde, was allerdings nicht möglich ist, da man sowas nicht in einem Lichtzelt fotografieren kann. Aber seis drum, ich lege ohnehin keinen Wert mehr darauf, ob eines meiner Bilder QI, FP oder auch VI ist. Was für mich zählt ist, dass dieses Foto ebenso wie einige andere vom Umbau des Bahnhofs Neunkirchen mit Handkuss für eine Publikation angefordert wurde. L.G. --Steindy (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ich gehe da durchaus mit Hubertl d'accord. Meiner persönlichen Erfahrung über die letzten paar Jahre nach unterscheidet sich Commons FP in seiner Ausrichtung deutlich von z.B. KEB auf de.wp und FP auf en.wp. Ich denke dass liegt unter anderem daran, dass es mit VI und QI zwei weitere Auszeichnungsgrade gibt. Edukativer Nutzen spielt bei Commons FP tendenziell eine deutlich geringere Rolle als bei WP, schließlich gibt es dafür ja schon VI. Hohe Qualität allein reicht auch nicht aus, dafür gibt's QI. Commons FP muss sich von QI und VI absetzen, was dadurch erreicht wird dass man einen "WOW-Effekt" fordert (vgl. COM:IG). Der kann auf unterschiedlichste Art und Weise hervorgerufen werden und ist eine ziemlich subjektive Angelegenheit. Die Frage ob ein Foto unabhängig vom Inhalt als "Bild and sich" funktioniert hat hier bei Commons FP meiner Erfahrung nach einen viel wichtigeren Stellenwert als sonst irgendwo im Wikimedia-Universum (von den Photo challenges vielleicht mal abgesehen). Nach meinen ersten beiden erfolglosen Nominierungen (die bei Wikipedia beide vermutlich ganz gute Chancen gehabt hätten) habe ich mir nach längerer Beobachtung der FP-Kandidaten eine Faustregel zurechtgelegt. Ich frage mich: 1) Kann ich mir vorstellen, dass das Bild beim "Picture of the year" Wettbewerb eine halbwegs anständige Figur macht? 2) Kann ich mir vorstellen, dass jemand der keine besondere Beziehung zum dargestellten Gegenstand hat sich das Bild großformatig ausdruckt und eingerahmt im Wohnzimmer an die Wand hängt? Wenn die Antwort in Richtung "eher nicht" tendiert, nominiere ich nicht. Bisher hat das ganz gut geklappt.
Oppose per Hubertl. QI for sure, very good pic of a hi-lo, but compositionally it's nothing special and the CA on the overhead lines in the background is not a good thing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:GoMinU lasse uns noch ein wenig diskutieren. Ich erachte die Diskussion als unterhaltsam und durchaus lehrreich, weil hier höcht unterschiedliche Meinungen und Standpunkte aufeinander treffen. Freundlichen Gruß --Steindy (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 17:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Nowa Bystrzyca, kościół fil. pw. Wniebowzięcia NMP 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Nowa Bystrzyca, kościół fil. pw. Wniebowzięcia NMP 02.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 16:48:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rhinocypha bisignata male-Kadavoor-2015-08-20-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rhinocypha bisignata male-Kadavoor-2015-08-20-001.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2015 at 16:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Swaledale Sheep, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Swaledale Sheep, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg/2
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. I thought I'd go for something a bit different. An older photo of mine that was actually previously nominated and almost passed but for lack of votes. I think it's a characterful animal portrait. You have good detail of the animal (a relatively rare domestic breed of sheep native to the hills of northern England) and an idea of the typical landscape it inhabits with pleasant blurred background. -- Diliff (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer have access to the original file (from memory this is not cropped anyway), so I'm not able to give more space unfortunately. Diliff (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Tada, it's an oppose! A fine QI, but missing that little something for me. The tight crop "tips the scale" toward oppose (hope I use the expression right). - Benh (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wasn't convinced at thumbnail size (too static, tight crop, centered,...) but the expression and detail is very good Poco219:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 23:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Minor technical flaws (due to flash: could you reduce the overexpo of the breasts of the beasts?), but a good moment, well catched.--Jebulon (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 07:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zwellende bloemknoppen van Chaenomeles x superba 'nicolina' (chinese kwee). Locatie. Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zwellende bloemknoppen van Chaenomeles x superba 'nicolina' (chinese kwee). Locatie. Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2015 at 00:29:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Siriema.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Siriema.jpg
Neutral I would support a crop down to just the bird and its perch, but as it is that unsharp foliage on the side just ruins it.SupportDaniel Case (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2015 at 15:47:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vana-Vigala mõisa viinavabrik 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vana-Vigala mõisa viinavabrik 03.JPG
WeakSupport Playing with light and shadow is quite interesting. The effect is nice, even though minor quality problems (respective to sharpness e. g.) are visible. --Tremonist (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2015 at 15:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of cappella sacripante in Sant'Ignazio (Rome) HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dome of cappella sacripante in Sant'Ignazio (Rome) HDR.jpg
Oppose Livio, I'm going to be rough, but you need to learn how to process pictures. I'm trying my best to give you advices, and I know that language is a barrier between us (english is not a natural language for any of us). This picture has wow, but has obvious CA. I personally can spend several days on a picture alone, just to remove artifacts, so while I don't mean that I set standard, IMO you should make some efforts. CA is easy fix in LR which has the calibration for your camera + body. You're just a checkbox away from a much cleaner work. Again, you don't really need to constantly have two active noms, and should take a little more time in processing your pictures. On the other nom, which I'm about to look at the RAWs, it should be a matter of playing with WB slider only. Back to this picture, it's also too dark. And while the ray is definitely a central part of the composition, the paintings are as important and should be exposed properly (and not cut in the corners) . - Benh (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Remove CA,anyway If a photo you do not like (to you or others) put your vote and that's fine. Do not make me the lecture, I have two pictures in FP? If the rules allow it,I do it. Do You must give me your advice? No. Maybe your advice not believe them interesting or useful. So put your vote and not make a Dramma. Thank you. --LivioAndronico(talk)22:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It really upsets me that you take it that way. All I want is you're autonomous. Given your throughput, you can't seriously expect someone to process pictures for you most time. And what upsets me even more is that all issues I find on your picture are easy fixes which makes me feel you're only after FP stars and not actually improving your pictures. I'm not the only one to have warned you. Now if you don't want the discuss, I can play it that way too. - Benh (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO, this kind of picture should be perfectly centered, this is not the case. A FP candidate should be seriously categorized, this is not the case. It should be geocoded too... I don't hesitate to support when I'm convinced, but without any drama, it is not possible here. Maybe next time ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If LivioAndronico wants continue participating here, here can start by apologizing to Benh. Further such rudeness and I shall be asking for him to be permanently banned from FPC. This is a forum where real human beings participate, not some online game collecting tokens. Many editors have given image taking/processing advice and many editors have spent time helping LivioAndronico process his images and earn him FP stars. Yet those editors are insulted and get upset. I don't believe that image contributions should excuse bad behaviour to the point where the community turns a blind eye. This has become a persistent pattern, and no user should have to put up with this kind of abuse by another user who is just here "for fun" and not to engage respectfully with others, make friends and learn. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and you have a lot of friends here. I have not insulted anyone and therefore I make no apologies. It's not that you have to accept the advice if you do not find interesting or useful! Anyway go ahead ...--LivioAndronico(talk)07:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since it seems to be agreed that the crepuscular rays (something we do not get in many church ceiling shots) are the real subject of the image, I'm OK with the lack of centeredness and the uneven exposure (which could be a lot worse). Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Here I find the reflections really distracting and annoying because they are very visible but cut. Maybe because of the whiter background. - Benh (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. It's better IMO. I still think these great shots would be better without any reflection, or with uncut ones. Keep my oppose for that matter. - Benh (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inward shadow-reflection isnt good, should go outward. Can be fixed without reshoting. Now strong choped shadow-reflection is also distracting. Side view and front view can be shown in one, also other two if isometric projection would be used and better angle. No need for 4 photos. 2 would do. --Mile (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, the cut of the reflections are a pity, and anyway, I'm not sure the mirroring adds, but a great wow for the rest. Waiting for the next attempt !--Jebulon (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2015 at 21:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden building, 7 Cité du Midi, Paris 1 September 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden building, 7 Cité du Midi, Paris 1 September 2015.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2015 at 16:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Thanks to Tomer T for nomination. Sorry, but IMO I've made better pictures of this location, Prinzipalmarkt in Münster. I'm not the nominator, but please withdraw this nomination. --XRaytalk12:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In case (ahem) you needed more reasons to withdraw: The contrast between the light in the upper half and the underexposed lower half is so abrupt as to be jarring, and it isn't helped any by being off-center. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 11:40:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceiling of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome).jpg
Support Late baroque is leveling those state-of-art frescoes. I still like to scroll up and down and always see something interesting. Put city (and state) in description. --Mile (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) p.S. Oil on canvas, and category should be religious bld...[reply]
Oppose Better description indeed, thank you. I've created a new category for the category:Coats of arms of Benedictus XIV, which did not exist. For the rest, I agree with opposers. IMO, you have to step back from your original file. The succession of processing makes the picture strange now. --Jebulon (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 03:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Priyanka on the ramp for Mijwan fashion show.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Priyanka on the ramp for Mijwan fashion show.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: 554 × 810 pixels, file size: 120 KB ? This is not Flickr. - Benh (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2015 (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 6 Sep 2015 at 05:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pierre-Auguste Lamy (?) - Les contes d'Hoffmann by Jacques Offenbach, prologue.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pierre-Auguste Lamy (?) - Les contes d'Hoffmann by Jacques Offenbach, prologue.jpg
Info Not the most difficult restoration. Attribution seems extremely likely, but, since it's me comparing signatures and not a library, I want to include a little note of doubt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 10:53:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tikjda Main du juive.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tikjda Main du juive.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 20:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frederic Edwin Church - Rainy Season in the Tropics - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frederic Edwin Church - Rainy Season in the Tropics - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 06:22:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Samuel D. Ehrhart - An International High Noon Divorce (1906).jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Samuel D. Ehrhart - An International High Noon Divorce (1906).jpg/2
Info As I said in the previous nomination (6 supports, no opposes, one short of quorum - how annoying!): As with many restorations, the borders were the most hellish part of this. Which is always annoying. There were some challenges on the cartoon and text, of course, but the borders were filthy, but the paper texture has to be maintained. en:Template:CSS image crop or the local equivalents can easily do any other desired crops.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2015 at 18:32:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:WolayerSee.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:WolayerSee.jpg
Oppose I don't believe a polarizer was used. The variations don't have that pattern. And at f/13 and 1/250 sec, it would be darker (unless this was brightened afterwards of course, but I don't think either). Also high altitude = darker blues in the sky from my experience. But to get back to the point : the sky is posterized, generally screwed and has strange artifacts/blues halos at some edges with the mountains. The whole picture could be better processed. Nice scenery though...- Benh (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the posterization is not too bad. Agree with Benh, if the settings are accurate there's no way a polarizer was used. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. I would like to see this image better processed. The posterisation may be due to the JPG being saved with ProPhotoRGB colour profile -- the 8-bit JPG format can't handle that profile without serious information loss. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 04:16:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Червоні карпатські гори.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Червоні карпатські гори.jpg
Oppose Color banding in the sky, especially at left, and looks unnatural to me. This is discussible. But what is not is the following: please dear reviewers, be more careful in reviews, how can you support as FP such a picture, with at least 6 very visible dustspots in the sky ???? I'm afraid we need to be more serious in assessing, I recommend, for those who don't know, some stages at the QIC pages...--Jebulon (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Perhaps that banding is caused by jpeg compression, I can remove the banding with Photoshop but when save it as jpeg, the banding appear again. (Tiff is no problem.) --Laitche (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This kind of hemisphere-stratosphere border can be seen above 15-20 km, here original curve was moved so far to show up the banding, beside at least 3 smudges in the sky. Main oppose is : its not real. --Mile (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed many light dustspots and tried to minimize banding problem. Please check and revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support die farben wirken unnatürlich und genau davon lebt das Bild. Gerade das gefällt mir. Es muß nicht immer alles realistisch sein, wir akzeptieren ja auch Panoramen und HDR. --Ralf Roleček09:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 16:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Urania leilus (moth).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Urania leilus (moth).jpg
Info It seems. In real nothing is cut, black background is original, I recolored it to 100% (not with selecting which would make what you are describing), so no cutting (details are visile on edge). I also tried white, but no, there colors are much more pleasant too see on black. --Mile (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but per Colin. This is very noticeable around the head. Also I wonder if focus stacking is all that necessary when most parts probably fall within focal plane, and given the result (not so sharp on the body). - Benh (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I do stack, I make as many to cover its DOF. Not more nor less. How many I need I see with focus peaking. Some closing of f wont help. Focal plane is radial, subject is planar, when on macro that means a huge difference. --Mile (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do extensive macro shooting, but I'd check for radial thing. When I shoot a sheet of paper with my macro lens, everything is sharp at wide aperture. If the lens' direction isn't on an axis perpendicular to that plane, that's another story... Anyone to share his insights? - Benh (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no experience in photographing preserved specimens; so my comment is just an observation. The DOF is very limited (below 1mm) in actual macros. So this is what we get in a single shot (sorry for the poor quality; I just picked a random example from my works). Butterflies are more flat; but not so flat like a paper. I expect at least 3mm depth in this view. I don't fully agree with Archaeodontosaurus on using f/20 as it attracts diffraction. If there is an opportunity to stack; better stick with camera's best aperture values (f/5.6-f/8)? Increasing subject distance will increase DOF; but eliminate fine details. Then it is just a "closeup"; not true macros. (But from the file description, this moth has a wingspan of 10cm; so magnification is less.) Jee06:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The black background is a reference entomology especially butterflies. The specimen presented is not perfect, but it is not awful. The lighting is not very good. For butterflies the dorsal surface requires a stack of two images with closing values f20 and more. The ventral side (with legs) requires 3-4 images for the stack.
The most difficult is to have a perfect black background to avoid losing hair butterflies and cutting wings. It takes a particular matter as a felt no dust grains and remote throttle so it does not interfere (f20). The butterfly must be nearly 15cm of that background. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeodontosaurus, I am intrigued how you "fix" diffraction at f29? The reviews here and here (sharpness tab) suggest the captured resolution is much less towards f/22+. Clearly your D800 has an advantage over lesser cameras, but surely there are benefits to using f/16, say, and more stacks? I can appreciate that fewer stacks are better, as the technique isn't perfect and can introduce its own problems. Jee, yes this is just close-up photography (similar to product photography) and not macro (even if a macro lens is used). Still, I would like to know what technique can recover sharpness "lost" through diffraction. -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and I know this; but I tried the different parameters and have a better sharpness by stacking least image and closing the aperture a little more than normal. Warning there out on the raw image diffraction but it is easy to remove before the stacks. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I did recover some damaged parts. Benh, Jee and Archaeodontosaurus explained you. You wont do any macro without stack, not here. Also agree with Jee, Archaeodontosaurus is using too closed f. I use sweet spot of lens, because stacking enables you that. And that is why many of Feautered right now in that category are actually not on pair with this. For instance [1], [2], [3]...actually most are not on pair with this quality. And I use 16 MPx camera, not full frame. I am actually surprised by voting so far. --Mile (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware stacking is often required to cover all DOF. I was just skeptical on a subject where focus points mostly lie on a flat surface, and given its larger size and the fact absolute aperture is smaller on a 4/3rd camera, yielding larger DOF by default. Stopping down at (say) f/16 isn't the same on a 4/3 than on a full frame. If you think these settings are best to you, fine. My vote is based on the result, not on what you went through to make the picture. - Benh (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having read a little here and [4] it seems Archaeodontosaurus's D800E plus an excellent macro prime lens plus some software sharpening at f/22 say, will outresolve a 21MP FF camera at f/5.6 (i.e best aperture), and will certainly beat a 16MP M43 camera. I assume Sony's 42MP and Canon's 50MP full frame sensors will be better again at macro. This is a case where having the best gear does make a difference. -- Colin (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It become an essay about wrong specimen. Thanx to Archaeodontosaurus. Benh, I wrote you nice physical explanation of it. Colin put comments and it was all lost. On short again, there is no real focal plane, it just aporoximation of shape which is same distance from one point (sensor). That would be circle, or sphere in 3D. What are you used to Fraunhofer diffraction with your walkaround zoom, becomes Fresnel in makro world where strict r is used. DOF at this is in millimeters. You would miss your center positioning in this macro world on any given sunday. Even if you had luck in it, edges and centre on "planar" stuff are more than DOF is. And if stuff is 3d, with depth, than its obvious. Only question is will you make more shots on best f, or less on closed f and wide opened diffraction. Still don't getting it; try 100×100 plane 30 m in front of you, aim in center, focus on edge. What do you think, will be center in focus...its still same planar stuff. --Mile (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hmm hope you don't feel too dissapointed. I like to ask questions when I have doubts. It's not like they are totally irrelevant. You make claims about some "spherical focal plane", which I've never heard of, and which I don't meet in real life shooting (and I mean macro size). If you have a proof, I'll be happy to check it. You might be right that we use approximation in most calculations, and I sort of remember we used more general formulas when looking at things at small scale. However I don't call a sensor "a point", it's a plane as far as I know. That may have its importance (?). Also throwing at me some esoterical words like "fresnel, fraunhofer" doesn't make your claim more true in my mind (I've last heard about them more than 10 years ago, I'm quite old). Anyways, my oppose was on the result alone. I initiated the topic only to learn from more experienced shooters on that topic and we have some, as you might have noticed. Have you considered people might have not voted on the picture because of... it? - Benh (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, that's the problem. You didn't ask any question. You put some statement like on one of my previous images. Then you change your mind which implicate not so sure behavior and misunderstanding. You made "wondering" which I tried to explain. That esoterical words like "fresnel, fraunhofer" explain all I said. But next time you can ask me first, I will try to explain. --Mile (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile, "I wonder" means I not a firm statement, but it's based on my own (little experience). And yes after a second check, it was sharp enough so I striked my comment, and that doesn't affect the rest of the discussion. Also, you didn't contradict my own observations so far. I did shoot a bit of macro, and focal plane has always looked more like a plan than a sphere to me. I'd be happy that you prove me wrong, I'll sleep with more knowledge, that's all. Hope it's not that kind of pattern I often face where you talk about one thing to people, and they usually evade the topic by using those esoteric words they don't fully get either. I'm not sure putting down "Fresnel" alone on my optic school exam would have get me "A" mark, so it doesn't really explain it all. - Benh (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, hope this will enlighten you so that you can sleep well, today. :) BTW, I removed this withdrawn nom from the list; only page watchers can see the continuing discussion. Jee15:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jee ! Exactly what I needed to know. And I'm happy it matches my observations (I thought I missed something with my macro shots...). Going to sleep well ;) - Benh (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jee, Benh, I don't see the linked page as entirely helpful to the discussion. No camera has used a "simple lens" for 100 years. All serious compound lenses correct for field curvature and aim to produce a flat focal plane. Whether they achieve that is easily detectable on test charts and measuring equipment. A macro lens needs this especially since the DoF is so small for much of its use. Am I missing something? -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin I understand that basic lens design gets you spherical focal plane, but that it's not too critical when shooting from far distance, and maybe not noticeable in most situations (I personally have never checked but found it looks planar in my own shots). It becomes so when one gets closer, so they make more efforts when designing macro lens. Now that I think about it, resolutions charts used when testing lenses are... flat, which probably means that focal plans are "flat" as well. So my thinking is that u r right (and that this discussion was not in vain) - Benh (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, but my point is that what you call "basic lens design" is a single element, of which no camera uses. A spherical focal plane would also be noticeable in other applications too. It is why the focus-recompose method fails for large aperture -- because the focal plane is flat, not spherical. If you read the LensRentals blog, you'll see the flat focal plane of a lens being tested to its extreme and it is highly noticeable when it is not flat but curved or wavy -- for test charts and portraits anyway, for a wide-angle lens stopped down, nobody cares. -- Colin (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This explains "Field Curvature Aberrations" a bit more. According to them "while the artifacts and aberrations have not been totally eliminated, the high-end models are now capable of producing superb photomicrographs."
But what important for us is to find the best aperture-subject distance combination for our equipment. While playing here, I found that my Sigma 150mm can produce 1:1 images at 600mm sensor to subject distance. But then the smallest subject which can fill the image is 15.8mm (as the damselfly head I linked above). (It was taken by setting the focus first following the 1:1 mark on lens and then move to and fro to focus.) At f/8 (effective=f/8+1=f/16 except for Nikon cameras), here the DOF is 0.67mm. It will become 1.35mm at f/16 (effective=f/32). But if I increased the subject distance to 670mm, I get 2.02mm DOF at f/8 though magnification is reduced to 0.51x. So my conclusion is it is better to increase subject distance than stopping down to achieve enough DOF. (Correct me if I missed any point.) Jee02:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That link is for microscopes, so a different kind of optic (though the physics are the same) than camera lenses. Anyway, I thought there was some claim that modern camera lenses might not have a flat plane of focus, and they certainly do -- within the limits of their technical quality. Increasing subject distance leads to a smaller image in the frame, and so a loss of resolution also. I won't disagree with your maths but the image above, if 10cm wide, is not a macro photograph. That's just standard product photography. -- Colin (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is going a bit off-topic. But hope Mile will understand we're trying to help. I'm not a subject expert; but in my initial search itself I felt doubt about the ID. That's why I asked Archaeo's opinion. So this nom anyway need to be withdrawn until the ID (species level) is found. Focus plain: Yes; spherical focus plain is correct for most lens. But my understanding (from read somewhere) is that macro lens are designed in such a way to produce constant focus distance. It is because every millimeter is important. I'm sure Archaeo can help you on producing better shots of preserved specimens as he has years of experience in it. Jsut take it as an initial "circle of confusion". :) Jee14:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All lens design aims for a flat plane of focus, not curved as one would get for "same distance from one point". Whether your lens achieves this depends on how much money you spend and how flat you need it to be. Perhaps I am missing something, but that's my understanding. -- Colin (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 04:29:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Star trails over the ESO 3.6-metre telescope.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Star trails over the ESO 3.6-metre telescope.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 04:29:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Star trails over the ESO 3.6-metre telescope edited.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Star trails over the ESO 3.6-metre telescope edited.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 07:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Wieża widokowa na Górze Wszystkich Świętych.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Wieża widokowa na Górze Wszystkich Świętych.jpg
Oppose Little wow to me. I'm not quite sure how you framed it: did you try to center it? Looked for rule of third line? Really looks like a quick snapshot to me. Also tilted. - Benh (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 11:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica) (15489798050).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asian Brown Flycatcher (Muscicapa dauurica) (15489798050).jpg
Oppose Very nice framing and surprisingly good quality for a super-zoom bridge camera, but: 1) Sharpness is not that great. 2) Background could use some de-noising. 3) Flash usage produced some strange kind of blue-ish red-eye effect. That in combination with the centred catch light makes the bird look totally perplexed to me (reminds me of that flash-thingy they use in MIB). --El Grafo (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2015 at 08:19:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Russian Imperial Family 1913.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Russian Imperial Family 1913.jpg
Comment A bit noisy, but it may still be OK. There are a few spots and scratches to remove before being promoted (see notes). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any need to keep such defects. I remove such spots and scratches from old pictures all the time. I can help, if you like. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The texture in background have been gone with bad restoring, I think that's the serious problem more than spots and scratches. If there is the original, start from the original would be better :) --Laitche (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per Yann. I can help too. Too many spots and scratches everywhere. Don't worry about the restoration and the loss of quality: the photo was already restored before publication ! (the the left upper corner) ! Anyway, something very better is possible. This nomination is a very good idea, btw I love Tatiana Nicolaievna, she is really pretty and beautiful...--Jebulon (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs restoration, but it's beautifuly taken (framing, pose, lighting), and the artifacts don't really stand in the way when looking at it. Curious if anyone familiar with early 1900s photographic process could tell how long the people had to stay still. Quite a feat IMO. - Benh (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I removed some scratches and spots. As Jebulon said above, this photo was already restored, and IMHO, a better job could be done, preferably from the original. Anyway high EV. BTW is this from 1911 or 1913? There are conflicting info between the title and the description. Yann (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2015 at 06:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St. Stephan, Würzburg, Nave from Matroneum 20150814 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Stephan, Würzburg, Nave from Matroneum 20150814 2.jpg
Support Yay, it's WLM time... Here is one of my favorites of the work I did in August. To me, the church is rather interesting because it is old, but actually has a very modern feel to it. Shot from the location of the organ, the rectangular nave becomes a bit tunnel-like, just to end in a more typical choir. The bottom crop was a bit tricky (there is no natural place to put it due to a missing second break in rows). I'm looking forward to your comments. -- DXR (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice seeing one fit into a square (and with a mostly bright interior) for a change. I suppose it could be a little sharper, but frankly it's consistent throughout and I could see how you'd prefer to leave it this way instead of running the risk of oversharpening. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 16:14:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 19:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guaratiba morning.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guaratiba morning.jpg
Support I like the composition. I see the noise issues when I look at the photo at pixel level, but downsampled this is beautiful. Overall, I think the pros outweigh the cons. --Pine✉20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: I agree with you about the composition but that green sky and the reflections in the green water are caused by green CA, So that green colors are fake color, See note. imo :) --Laitche (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pine: No I can't clarify it though I've ever seen the green sea but I've never seen the blue and green two-tone-colored sky even on the videos :) --Laitche (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laitche: I think I'm still missing what you're perceiving to be anomalies in the image. To my eye, even if there is some artificial coloring in the photo, it's a beautiful photo overall. --Pine✉06:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laitche: I agree that there are some problems when looking at pixel level. To me these are forgivable due to the other good qualities of this image. --Pine✉06:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha OK, I withdraw my oppose but I'm still suspecting the colors, the differences are too much from the original. The main reason to oppose was not flaws, that was digital retouched edited colors. Poco's edit is good but too far I think, maybe too good :) --Laitche (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 17:47:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mealt Waterfall with Kilt Rock, Isle of Skye.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mealt Waterfall with Kilt Rock, Isle of Skye.jpg
Info The waterfall from Loch Mealt on the Isle of Skye falls 55 metres to the sea. Behind is Kilt Rock, 90 metres tall, so-called because the combination of basalt columns upon a sandstone base resembles a kilt. All by Colin -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution photo of two notable natural features of Skye. The viewpoint is the very edge of the cliff nearby, and there is no better vantage point on land. -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Mile (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC) So good while in thumb but when opened some huge portion on left side is out of focus. Makes some 20 % of photo area, too much. --Mile (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile, more like 12.5% is the near-by grass, and many photos contain far more featureless sky. In the distance, you can see the Isle of Lewis some 25 miles away, and the rocks below the waterfall are quite lovely. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So its 12,5 %. What is the purpose of being Feautered then ? Simple push on touchscreen on that area and all would be solved, since is stitched anyway. Shouldn't Feautered wannabe photo deliver at least some minimal technical advantage ? Building megapixles shouldn't move that margin. --Mile (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must not know other cameras than your Olympus then ;) (They don't all focus with a tap on screen). And not "all would be solved", it's likely distant objects would be out of focus. But I think settings are not optimal and maybe a better focus point could have been chosen to achieve en:Hyperfocal_distance. - Benh (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, I agree using f/8 could have improved the in-focus area a bit, and the point of focus seems to be a little further than I intended. The grass does come really close so I suspect I wouldn't get it sharp enough to satisfy. The bokeh is rather busy, so perhaps a different lens would render it more pleasingly. At the end of the day, the grass is not the subject, which is in focus. I'm leaning as far as I safely can out from a metal barrier at the cliff edge, and it is 600 miles away by car, so that's all I've got. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the subject but it's close enough to be a little distraction IMO. But yes, I didn't mean "go back and reshot it" :) Just my review and advices for a next time (but I'm pretty sure you didn't really need them) - Benh (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason the out-of-focus area appears large and obvious to you is the very 54MP high resolution so that at 100% the web browser shows only a tiny portion of the image. But please remember that when viewed at 100% on a 100dpi monitor, this image is 2.3 metres tall and 1.5 metres wide, which would run nearly the whole height of a UK standard sized domestic room. I hope that when looking at an image that big, you stand back a little and don't study the bottom left corner with your reading glasses on. Reduced 50% to 13.5MP the close-by grass isn't nearly such a large area on-screen when you view the bottom of the image. Reduced further to 6MP, say, and the area considered unsharp is very small indeed, and not at all unusual. A crop would unbalance the composition, for the sake of pixel peeping. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 20%? I opened it and mesure the out of focus area, I would have more say not more than 12% of a 54mpx image, so that stay a lot of good pixel. No doubt in the finest of Commons. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, Jebulon, but opinions have a habit of sticking to an FP once stated: "per XXX" often follows and is hard to shift, and less commonly the opposite happens if people reject the complaint. I'm happy for people to look critically, pre-informed of any potential issues, rather than a pile-on support that might not be warranted. I think it healthy to discuss a picture as well as any opinions made, provided things stay friendly. I don't think any of us believe we are experts at taking pictures or judging a picture, and the question of "what is a featured picture" is always up for discussion. I always think the audience for these pages is bigger than just the person who votes and the nominator -- so there are things others, lurking perhaps, can learn here such as avoiding having too much busy out-of-focus area or considering the use of hyperfocal distance to maximise the in-focus-areas. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Colin. I just want to notice that very often, a "support" (or an "oppose") vote is due to the disagreement with the opinion (of the expression of the opinion) of another reviewer, not exactly aboit the picture by itself... It is a trap IMO. That's why I did not vote at first view, but only now. Let's wait, we get the time !--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the issue for me is not just the size of the out-of-focus area, but because it's placement on the foreground and this is too distracting for me. Otherwise it's very nice. --Ivar (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like to have control about how things render on pictures I take, unless I post them to Instagram or Facebook. Not a useless conversation IMO. - Benh (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've been thinking about it. It's definitely impressive but I would rather have the single shot version promoted because of its bigger DOF. 18mpix is far more than enough for most uses, and there's still that one in case someone wants to cover a whole building with a poster. - Benh (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, one issue with the single shot photo is that the slightly slower shutter has made the waterfall more of a continuous white flow, and I think it much better in the nomination. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I'm one of those who like long exposure waterfall shots. But up to you. Let go this nom first and see then. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move my vote so Support. Without childish behavior of some, this would be on the way to promotion (though on the verge of failing as well...) - Benh (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The water is the main subject of this photo but i do not like ist. The Photo is in the most parts technically very good but the water is in parts sinmpe white, other parts are "not sharp, not typical water-unsharp". may be the exposure time ist to short. DOF is too short in left corner. --Ralf Roleček18:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be interesting to compare the above image with a near-identical one taken from a single frame at 18mm and f/9 rather than lots of 50mm frames at f/5.6. The wider angle and smaller aperture should give much more depth of field. There's a small difference in shutter speed (1/125 vs 1/160) and the second photo is lit by hard direct sunlight rather than softly from sun behind clouds. I've tried to process it so it looks as similar as possible. The brighter sun in the second photo enabled a much smaller aperture with only a slightly longer shutter. Since the original is 54MP rather than 16MP, I've uploaded a version of the above nomination saved by Lightroom to the same dimensions and you may wish to compare this to the full size version of comparison photo. Finally, here's the full size 54MP version.
Benh mentioned hyperfocal distance. The DoF markings on old manual lenses, and most online calculators, assume we are casually viewing an 8x10 print at arms length. The calculator at CambridgeInColour has a fancy "advanced" mode that lets you choose a more nit-picking measure for people who have put on their reading glasses but I can't get the "advanced" button to work today. I've yet to see any calculators designed for the digital age where people are viewing a small 100% section of your image on a 100dpi monitor at 30cm. I accept the nomination could have had a greater DoF if a smaller aperture was used, though I'd have had to increase the ISO which can then start to rob detail, or wait till the sun came out from the clouds as it did here. And you might not like the composition, which was limited by circumstances. I do wonder, though, if I'd nominated the image downsized to 16MP whether anyone would even have noticed the near-grass was out-of-focus. When I compare the two 16MP images, I'm not convinced having it sharp helps the photo, which is of a waterfall and cliff face. But I thought comparing a single-shot wide-angle might be informative. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comparison. So 18mm f/9.0 renders quite good, which isn't suprising. The lens aperture diameter is 2mm. On your mosaic, the lens' aperture diameter is 50 / 5.6 = 8.9mm. More than 4 times the aperture of the single shot. No wonder it's more blurry. But I don't know if DOF is actually related to absolute size of aperture or not. I always say I have to find it out (read : find someone who did the calculation) but never do it. - Benh (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, several DOF calculators exist out there, which take into account the sensor size and resolution. My guess to get the correct one for this picture is to input 18mm lens at f/2 and a 54mpix sensor (Canon 5DS comes close to it). - Benh (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, playing with the DoF calculator, at 18mm on my crop camera, f/9 wasn't necessary and f/4 or f/5.6 would have been a little sharper. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know your camera was APS-C :) So based in f/5.6 at 18mm, you would have needed f/16. f/4.0 at 18mm gives you f/11 @50mm. Sounds right. - Benh (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion on sky, for those who are interested...
Out of topic but Skye does looks like a very beautiful place to visit. And it also looks like it's not affected by light pollution. Great for a milky way shot attempt! (I'm on a milky way momentum). I should certainly plan something. - Benh (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh Beautiful but also frequently wet. There will be plenty more photos from Skye uploaded and at FPC I hope. We were there the night of the recent meteor shower but it was too cloudy, and that's the problem. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Not too) Cloudy can be good too. Even between a few clouds, milky way can pop out where there's no light pollution! I even find there's a little something to see it through the clouds. I wanted to go during the meteor shower too, but the weather forecast was very pessimistic then. I went the week after, but couldn't witness any shooting star with my bare eyes. Some ended up on pics. As for the panorama... the Flickr one has much better lighting. How sad it's this small! Guess she shared a downsampled version of the actual big one. Don't tell me you have the same view with similar lighting? ;) Would be great! - Benh (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai ai une avec seulement le paysage. Je ne crois pas avoir de version avec silhouette sans lampe frontale, mais il doit être possible de prendre le ciel de la version sans sihouette et de le mettre par dessus le rayon de la lampe frontale. Ça risque de ne pas être trivial vu que les nuages ont bougé rapidement. À moins que je ne prenne la silhouette et que je la colle sur l'autre ;) - Benh (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cloud level was low most of the days we were on Skye; it rained most days and was often overcast when it did. Rain and overcast sky doesn't mix with photographing stars. And the rain brings out the midges, which certainly aren't compatible with hanging around in a field for an hour! I've never had much luck with the Perseid shooting stars in August. Last year in December we had an excellent (if absolutely frozen) night watching the Geminid meteor shower. We were forecast 100 meteors an hour and I would say that was accurate. But these showers tail off very quickly so I would certainly think there was nothing to see after a week. The camera, on long exposure, picks up more shooting stars than you can see, if pointed in a fortuitous direction. I didn't capture the Quiraing at dawn -- there are limits to what one can achieve on a family holiday! But I did capture that area on a nice day, so may have something worth sharing... -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checked climate data, and looks to be pretty rainy over there. My guess is that going further in land gets one a dryer weather. So I'd do that if I were to visit Scotland. Never witnessed a Perseid meteor shower myself, but judging by Boston Globe Big Picture's selection it's not more intense that what I got in Morroco in April where I've got one than a shot with several shooting stars (no online picture, but you'll have to trust me). Isn't it a bit overrated? The trails sure look thicker though. As for taking photos in a family trip... I've faced the same dilemma recently in Venice. My trick is to get up very early (3-4am) when everyone else is asleep and to go out by myself. As a side effect, you enjoy nicer lighting and empty tourist sights! Only I can't really scout out places and think my compositions first. But I think I got one or two interesting shots nonetheless. Waiting for your "Quiraing" take then. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2015 at 21:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Long Room Interior, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Long Room Interior, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg
Ha, I only uploaded it a week ago and am in France at the moment (not a photographic trip, just here for a wedding and won't have a chance to catch up with you, unfortunately), so I didn't have a chance. Thanks for the nomination though, it's one of my favourites and I had been waiting patiently for Wiki Loves Monuments to come around before uploading it. Diliff (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I remember I noticed it on your Flickr stream. Possibly the best of your interiors I'm aware of, from a composition point of view (as as good as the other from a technical so...). - Benh (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are a permanent feature of the interior. I couldn't do anything about it. Fine, you hate the ropes, but despite them, is it not a good representation of the subject? Do the ropes really destroy the aesthetics of it that much? Diliff (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 11:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Nice composition and lighting. I'm a bit surprised with the lack of details in the dark areas, it's more "smeary" than anything else. And the highlights are also a bit clipped. Not enough to spoil it! - Benh (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are much better light options for parliament. Even in daylight. When I saw EXIF, I see this could be in much better quality. Medium format used at f/6.3 in panorama mode is a bit small even for APS-C sensor, regarding both, lens and sensor (diffraction disc). Looking for sweet spot of lens I saw they are amazing 4000 eur ...but I got it - f/8. So two stops too far. Then I checked how many pixles has this model, first I met the price again 4-5000 eur. Its 40 MPx. From my mind, I guess you are at least some 5 stops to far, perhaps 10 would be more close. That's why also the qualiy is not there as it should be. Automatic programe on 10.000 eur camera ? --Mile (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same to Mile, the technical quality isn't that good it should be. And I think it's not the best time for a evening mood shoot. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2015 at 19:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cologne Germany DITIB-Central-Mosque-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cologne Germany DITIB-Central-Mosque-01.jpg
Oppose I am sympathetic to the problem of shooting large buildings and not being able to get far back. The result is often an extreme wide-angle view with enhanced perspective and distortions. Here the two hoops are a give-away and the top one is almost at 45-degree angle, whereas it should be horizontal. File:DITIB-Zentralmoschee Köln - April 2015-7493.jpg from across the road has much less distortion and shows the second minaret (?) but then there is more street furniture and there are more trees in the way. The front face of the building is also in shade, and the stone (concrete?) is a bit utilitarian. -- Colin (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You name it: The mosque is huge but squeezed in an tight urban environment. It is the good question, if a representative picture of an important architectural building is better when covered between trees or taken without obstacles but with the restrictions of the TS lens. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect: The image has a width of 5306 px and the sign a width of 72 pixels. Which font size do you expect to be depicted properly on 72 pixels? It is a religious buildings, but the image does not confer miracles. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2015 at 19:07:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mosaic floor opus tessellatum detail Gorgone NAMA Athens Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mosaic floor opus tessellatum detail Gorgone NAMA Athens Greece.jpg
Support Close-up of an ancient Roman floor mosaic, in opus tessellatum way, featuring the gorgona Medusa, found near Piraeus. 2nd-century CE. On display in the garden of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No my dear, it is now stitched verticaly on a wall in a garden (outside). I cannot add artificial contrast, as it is pale in real because old--Jebulon (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all these ceilings, a floor. And this one's well-done ... it could be so easy to just make it look like some prehistoric pixels, but here we've got relief. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 02:52:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thomisidae feeding Junonia almana on Acmella ciliata-Kadavoor-2015-08-21-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomisidae feeding Junonia almana on Acmella ciliata-Kadavoor-2015-08-21-001.jpg
Ivar: Brightened a bit more. Need more? I don't want to loss/burn the "hanging ropes", the spider used to climb down to rest in grass and to return when feel hungry. :) Jee07:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 06:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carte du cours du Rhône de Genève à Lyon - 1787.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carte du cours du Rhône de Genève à Lyon - 1787.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 05:21:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Thanks a lot, Code! This one was really difficult to execute, because the light color of the lamps is quite horrible and the balance I found is still not quite perfect to me, still I think that the church is quite a nice example of neo-gothic work in a fairly large church. --DXR (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 11:14:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Santo Domingo, Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 52-54 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Santo Domingo, Lima, Perú, 2015-07-28, DD 52-54 HDR.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 11:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sigmaringen Schloss 2015-04-29 15-52-34.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sigmaringen Schloss 2015-04-29 15-52-34.jpg
Weak oppose Nice detail and definitely an FP-worthy subject, but here it suffers from inadequate light (was the sun behind a cloud?) and maybe tries to include too much (I'd crop out the bridge), which might also be remedied by having consistent light on the structures down there and the castle, There's also a bit too much space above. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose For now, because of the light (. Maybe it is correctible ? Anyway I like the compo, even with the bridge (don't crop it out !). Very sharp (some tiny sharpening white lines...) and nice. Remembers of a very shameful moment of the french history, (see Castle to castle)...--Jebulon (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 10:22:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Two columns, Temple of Zeus Olympian, Athens, Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two columns, Temple of Zeus Olympian, Athens, Greece.jpg
Still don't get what you mean. Now it's on the tower? Anyways, my point was that there's no noise, and if some discern any because they have lynx like sight or whatever, it's certainly not awful noisy. - Benh (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 16:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
There is nothing much to reinvent at such rectilinear ceilings. Nice to see them all, I enjoy watching them. That was from 2007, looks perfect even for nowdays. --Mile (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 15:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral nur ein Tipp: bei solchen Bildern ertrinkt der Blick sofort, er geht unter: es fehlt ein Vordergrundelement, ein Ast, eine Ente, ein paar Blätter, irgend etwas ... Grüße, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've basically right. There was just nothing as an element in the foreground except a bridge railing. That looks not good.--XRaytalk17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I might under other circumstances be bothered by the blown area around the sun, but it seems that steps had been taken to reduce it, and it doesn't distract from the perspective in any event. (BTW, why the FoP notice? What's in the image that could require it?) Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition looks unbalanced to me, maybe a tighter crop on the bottom would improve it. The image also looks a bit too dark. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2015 at 18:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Libélula (Tramea sp), Cerro Brujo, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 147.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Libélula (Tramea sp), Cerro Brujo, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 147.jpg
Neutral Great details and excellent background but body and lower part of the head are in shadow plus this pose is not attractive for this subject, imho. --Laitche (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Tramea sp. female; that's all, Asian experts can say. You need to consult an expert who knows South American species. Jee05:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a reply; but there is "some inspiration" which trigger my anxiety to research. A Pantala will not perch/pose this way. :) Jee07:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jee: I'm not sure how to proced here. I suggested that it is Pantala hymenaea and you suggested that it is Tramea calverti. As far as I can see you can find both in the Galapagos.[5][6] I cannot say which one is it. If you suggest it is Tramea, then I can change the naming, you are an expert in comparison to me. Or should be wait for someone, or rather ping someone, who can confirm it? Poco221:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 13:34:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skjálfandafljót at Route 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skjálfandafljót at Route 1.jpg
Support Not too dark for me. When brighten I'm afraid details on water get lost, overexposure appears. Consequently then you must reduce the contrast. This would be not a good idea IMO. The sunhine/clouds shadow play in the background gives the picture a good atmosphere. --Hockei (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Benh and Laitche. You can brighten and sature the dark parts without overexpose the water (playing with curves). Tourists are OK, but the cars in background... I need to think a bit more--Jebulon (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the river bends. Given th location, I am reminded of my own whitewater rafting trip along the wild Firth River in the Canadian Arctic this summer. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2015 at 00:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jaguar head shot-edit2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jaguar head shot-edit2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2015 at 07:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry but I just don't find it an interesting composition ... too cluttered. It also seems like the WB is off, and some of the petals at left seem overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2015 at 10:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rometsch lawrence2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rometsch lawrence2.jpg
Why this question ? No, not so disturbing. I suppose reflections on sheet metal of vehicles are almost unavoidable... But I'm not very interested by cars, and completely ignorant in this matter.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very exciting lighting, and unfortunate setting. Not a fan of photos of cars taken at short to moderate focal lengths. - Benh (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Nothing wrong with how the car itself is photographed; it's definitely a QI. However, the background does it in ... it almost fades into the dark area underneath, and the chaotic patterns of the nature around it are undeniably distracting from the vehicle's classic lines and contours. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 06:45:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Quality is so-so, Its not so sharp. Like some filter was used, 30 s exposure is a lot. But I like composition. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new bridge picture is great, but the contrast and colors on the old bridge picture could be improved. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did somebody notice the building scaffolding of the spire of Notre-Dame ?! Both are wonderful documentary pictures, but the second shows the evidence that this spire is only due to the imagination of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, after a century without any spire !--Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ça aide à faire des tartine :) Non mais, je vais briller en société avec ces anecdotes (déjà que j'ai fait toute une histoire avec le Réponses Photo dans mon entourage...) - Benh (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2015 at 18:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
@Yann: This is called subject bokeh, so that's reverse blurred part is a subject (not background). It's one of bokeh's technique. Here you are. But I think this bokeh is too much and the subject is too small in this frame :) --Laitche (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the general idea as well as the content-wise contrast created through the battle helmet in front and what appears to be an angel in the back. But for some reason, it doesn't really work for me as an image yet, and I'm not even sure why. Here are some thoughts: 1) Maybe a better separation between the helmet and the statue would help. DOF does a good job here, but they are still two objects of the same grey touching each other. Maybe move the camera a bit to the left to get some greenery between them? 2) As I think that the statue is an important element of this composition, it might be nice if it were a little bit sharper. 3) That patch of sky in the corner is a bit distracting, especially the two blobs of bokeh right in the face of the statue. The bokeh is pretty busy in general, maybe try again on an overcast day so you get less highlight blobs? 4) This might actually be one of those cases where B&W works better than color.
Again: these are just some ideas, which may or may not work if you've got a chance to re-shoot the scene. I think it would be worth a try, as I like the idea. --El Grafo (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a decision before nominating this image and it wasn't easy. I'm not sure, may be the black and white image is better. Here is the other image which El Grafo said (and linked). Thanks for your good ideas, El Grafo. --XRaytalk10:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2015 at 20:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flowers in front of the Palm House, Kew Gardens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flowers in front of the Palm House, Kew Gardens.jpg
Oppose Overall little wow, and it feels you didn't really know how to frame in those flowers. I look at the place on a map, and I can understand that (btw, geotagging an FP wannabee would be nice IMO). Reds look very saturated. - Benh (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was kind of a big display, big enough that only a panorama (which I wasn't set up to make) would have done it full justice. I couldn't get any lower without losing the perspective at the bottom, hence the apparent cropped corner. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately tightening the composition was a tradeoff of fixing the image. I suppose given the general cool colors elsewhere in the image the reds will look oversaturated no matter what. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 19:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose One of those nominees I want very much to like. It's not every hockey shot where you get that blast of ice shavings like that. But while I know hockey is a hard sport to shoot and getting things like this is not easy, it looks a little overprocessed (see the posterization and odd colors on the shoulder of the Danish player in the rear). Also, the background is a bit of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 15:39:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galileo launch on Soyuz, 21 Oct 2011 (6266227357).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galileo launch on Soyuz, 21 Oct 2011 (6266227357).jpg
Info The first launch of Arianespace Soyuz, first launch of Galileo IOV satellites, and the first launch of Soyuz outside of the former Soviet Union territory. Not the sharpest image ever, but historically significant.
Oppose Too many extraneous distracting elements, such as the lights on the left and whatever that is down in the right corner. Besides the launch fire itself really isn't that dramatic. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Photograph is showing the moment of take off from the launch pad... so... of course that there are tons of things all over the place. Here is a diagram showing said location - everything you mentioned as a part of clutter are in fact a features of the launch pad itself, which is an integral part of the photograph showing the moment of launch. As for the dramatic part - for me it looks very dramatic... unless you are looking for this kind of dramatic ;) hehehe SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they're integral to the launch pad then of course go and include them for the EV, but then you can't complain if other observers remark that they detract from the picture's wow. Compare the nominated image with this and this, both of which are FPs of rocket launches that manage to be simple, uncluttered and dramatic in ways this one is not. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 06:14:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MigrantMotherColorized.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MigrantMotherColorized.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 14:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rheum palaestinum 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rheum palaestinum 3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 07:33:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Silja August 2015 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Silja August 2015 03.jpg
Info Steamboat Siljan on Lake Insjön, Dalarna, Sweden. Siljan was built in 1868 and used for timber floating until 1972. The ship is owned by a local sawmill since 1966 and is listed as a historical ship. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 19:30:03 (UTC)
This set shows the interior of Chapel Royal, a former 'royal chapel' of the British Monarchy in Dublin, founded during the period when Ireland was part of the British Empire. This chapel was not an easy one to access, as it's normally only available to view as part of a paid tour of Dublin Castle, and even if I did take part in the tour, there would be no opportunity to stay back after everyone has left and take photos with a tripod in any case. Let's just say that having local contacts is useful, and they were able to open the chapel up privately for me, allowing me all the time I needed to get the three images below. They show the view from opposite ends of the chapel, and a 160 megapixel 'photosphere' 360x180 degree view.
I understand that the photosphere image may be controversial since there was such limited feedback on introducing this new image type when I recently mentioned the prospect, and given also we don't currently have an in-house way of viewing the image in full resolution as it is intended to be viewed. The current viewer is functional, although only at low resolution currently (should still be high res enough to evaluate - I don't know the exact resolution but my guess is around 2000x1000). Dschwen is working on the viewer (ping!) and I hope it will be fully operational with full res/multi-res support soon, but for now, you can only view it in an awkward equirectangular flat view at full res or in a panoramic viewer at low res. Please consider the image in terms of future possibilities, not just our current limited support of the format. For those that are interested in how it could or should look, I have also uploaded it to an external site which has full multi-res support so you can appreciate the full detail of the image in a proper viewer.
Looking west towards the organ
Looking east towards the stained glass
A photosphere of the interior (panoramic viewer here or under the image description on the image page)
Support Great as usual, though the high-res 360-degree viewer (external) is my favourite and I hope we can match it soon. -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is arranged in a 'normal' manner - just as a set, and I used the set nomination template so as far as I can see, I followed the procedure properly. Diliff (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So should be changed. I don't see any reason why photos in set are so much bigger than others. I think you shouldn't use set for this but 3 different nominees. We had camera set nominee, photos were part of same subject from different angles. Right here is a bit above that. You put subject under same roof, but a millions options can be made if some misinterpret. We might soon have flood of sets, which actually wont be that. --Mile (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why they are bigger either. The template applied that sizing. I see that my images are not the only large thumbnails on FPC though. Anyway, if you don't agree with this kind of set then let's debate that on the FPC talk page... Although this was already discussed and it was agreed that images of different views of an interior can be part of a set. I think they make a pretty good set personally. I don't see the problem with them all being of the same interior. The first two images are of opposite views, and the third is obviously a specialist photosphere image which has a completely different purpose to the others. Diliff (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with this nomination. Mile, if you have a problem with set nominations or how they are displayed, please discuss on FPC talk. -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to do this because the composition is different at each end. I took the first photo from a raised platform and I cropped this foreground platform for compositional reasons. I didn't crop the foreground in the second photo because it would then crop the bottom of the columns. This has created a slightly different aspect ratio. I agree it would be ideal to have the same aspect ratio for both, but I think compositional choices are more important than that. Diliff (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I made 3d panorama year ago with smartphone, I realized how much we are lagging with digital cameras. GPS, touchscreen,...etc. Wish to incorporate script someday. --Mile (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2015 at 00:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The background is very busy but I'm not sure whether this is part of the composition. The sharpness could be a little better, too. The focus seems to be more on the stone in the foreground than on the eye of the animal. A nice picture but I'm not yet convinced that it meets FP standards. --Code (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, umm I think this is not a QI (The subject is not in focus, busy background, dull light. I'm a little concerned about the QI bar is getting lower than before.), sorry. --Laitche (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: I think QI may be currently in a period of changing the promoting rule. For instance, needs two supports but it's a off-topic, so if need more discussion, should move to the QIC talk page, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all the reasons mentioned by Laitche plus, it's really not that interesting an image (for one thing, the background really gets in the way; for another, the animal's pose (or rather the lack thereof) is kinda meh. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2015 at 16:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista desde Julio Andrade, Provincia de Carchi, Ecuador, 2015-07-21, DD 38-40 PAN.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista desde Julio Andrade, Provincia de Carchi, Ecuador, 2015-07-21, DD 38-40 PAN.JPG
Neutral Love this kind of scenery, but I do find the frontmost slopes to be a distraction on the composition. A more side lighting would emphasize the relief. But I won't be sad if it's promoted. - Benh (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2015 at 20:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Badlands National Park, South Dakota, 04594u.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Badlands National Park, South Dakota, 04594u.jpg
Support Perhaps a touch overprocessed, but that makes a potentially difficult image work better (Full disclosure: I served on the WLM USA 2012 jury with Ms. Highsmith). Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 20:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Storhamne laht. Osmussaare lõunaküljel.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Storhamne laht. Osmussaare lõunaküljel.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2015 at 15:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fereni 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fereni 1.jpg
The blurry part of syrup and spoon is not for focus, its mostly because it is the moving part while photo was being taken, it shows the dynamic part of photo.Monfie (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the arrangement is fine but the focus isn't on the right place and more DoF on the bowl is needed. But we certainly need more food photography a good attempt. -- Colin (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with comments above. I would probably have considered supporting it if the focus was on the spoon and syrup as it would have acted as an anchor for the image. Unfortunately the only point of focus is behind it and it just doesn't quite work. Compositionally it's great though, and it has a lot of potential. Diliff (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 03:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Christmas Palm Tree 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Christmas Palm Tree 2.jpg
Comment I disagree with most of Alchemist-hp's comments. Ok it is a bit noisy at ISO800 from older camera, but not offensively so. But it is perfectly focused and the composition is excellent imo -- a really nice picture with lovely colours and depth. There's some CA on the bright nodules on the lower branches that would need a clone tool to fix. Would you consider reprocessing it from raw or send the raw to me or User:Christian Ferrer (who seems quite skilled in dealing with noise/sharpening). -- Colin (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you an email. I'd like to see what I can achieve, but also curious what Christian can do too. Perhaps we can share the results by email (I have Christian's) if everyone is ok with that, and of course it is up to Tomas what gets published. -- Colin (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 23:38:18 (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 18 Sep 2015 at 13:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crypte Saint Eutrope Saintes Choeur Charente-Maritime.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crypte Saint Eutrope Saintes Choeur Charente-Maritime.jpg
Support The romanesque crypt (1081 CE) of the Basilica of Saint Eutropius is one of the largests of this kind in the world (nave:35m). Here is shown the choir, with the sarcophagus of the saint (bishop and martyr) just in the middle. Strong pillars with noticeable naive capitals, typical of the early Middle-Ages. Very peaceful and religious atmosphere, no significant natural sources of light, it is naturaly dark... Yes it is a church interior again (there is another church just above the crypt), but a very different one from the previous baroque or rococco nominations we had here recently. Some architectural minimalism ? -- Jebulon (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Zebulon (c'est nul comme blague, mais comme peu vont comprendre, je ne me ridiculise pas trop) but it's not symmetrical both because of framing and because of lighting. I think it has to on this kind of picture. - Benh (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no. Nothing is symmetrical for real here !!! I don't understand this review ! This was built around the year 1000. See the apse and the window ! The light cannot be symmetrical neither, there is no natural source of light, which is unfair and shows just (sorry) a lack of common knowledge. --Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit harsh of a comment. Cropping on the left makes it symmetrical (or not too obviously asymmetrical anyways). This, I know :) Probably stepping on your left a little would have improved it even further. Second, even though the unbalanced lighting is unfortunate and you couldn't do a thing about it, it's still there. You probably can post process it to make things a bit more "even", and I wonder if HDR wouldn't have helped as well. And it's not like interiors are scarce over here. As it is, I don't think it's up to the interiors standard which is quite high on FPC (Thanks to Diliff, DXR, Uoaei, Code...), and I really don't feel that's an unfair statement. - Benh (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy this picture is out of our "interior standards", because it has nothing to do with other interiors recently seen here. Frankly, how can you compare ?Anyway, it shows exactly what I whished to show. I'm just disappointed. Well, you have voted, let's other speak.--Jebulon (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi je ne pourrais pas comparer... ce sont des photos d'intérieur avec conditions de prise similaires... Je ne suis pas bête au point de ne pas voir que les architectures diffèrent, et ça ne rentre pas du tout en compte dans mon jugement. Je juge la photo en elle-même, mais aussi par rapport à ce qui se fait de similaire puisque ça me permet de voir que ça aurait pu être amélioré ci et là. Tous les insectes ne sont pas pareil, mais je juge une photo macro aussi par rapport aux autres du même type. Par contre, puisqu'on est là, dire non juste parce que tu n'aimes pas les yeux de poisson, je trouve ça moins classe. C'est un genre de photo aussi légitime qu'on autre. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The camera is not centered, so even though the subject itself is in the centre, both the foreground and the background are off-center. The background doesn't seem to be perfectly symmetrical anyway, but the foreground could be more even on both sides. — Julian H.✈ 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything centered? I don´t think so! If you center the camera to the altar, the floor is not centered and vice versa. The same with the background. Even when you have withdrawn the picture, I give a Support --Hubertl19:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few notes. All of the rectangles should be centered in the frame, I actually think they could be mostly if the camera were moved slightly to the left and then turned slightly to the right. It's true that the line on the floor and the window in the background can't ever be centered. — Julian H.✈ 19:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and explanations. I've seen the notes, and I'm sorry to remain still not convinced. Again, this is nor a baroque neither a gothic nave, but an underground crypt from the early middle ages, with another church above. As noticed by Hubertl, absolutely nothing is straight neither centered. I can crop a little at left, but the compo I've chosen would suffer of it, because of the darkness of the left pillars... Well, next time maybe...--Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I deeply think that the atmosphere of this unique place (and picture I'm proud of) is faaaar much more important than an impossible centimeter symmetry. It is worth a visit !--Jebulon (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 10:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frescos of Ignatius of Loyola HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frescos of Ignatius of Loyola HDR.jpg
Question Why HDR for this? The dynamic range is not higher than it could be captured by a single shot, I guess - no windows, lamps or other bright areas. There are also some ghostly contours, see note. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2015 at 21:15:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cincinnati Panorama of 1848.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cincinnati Panorama of 1848.jpg
Support Of course it has issues (scratches, framing, verticals, alignment, vignetting(?)), but it's very detailed . Also for its historical importance, both regarding photography and Cincinnati. - Benh (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting, but I think it needs more work to become FP. At least ajusting colors and contrast. Some images are yellow, some are green, etc. Yann (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 11:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 05:59:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nikes and Homeless.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nikes and Homeless.jpg
Support We often strongly disagree, but you know I'm happy your are here, we need you and your so special pictures. Excellent quality (the textures of the clothes are remarkable).--Jebulon (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, indeed it is a photo with wabi-sabi. ;-) The resolution is extremely low though. I would almost oppose for that reason. I assume you didn't see this composition when you took the photo and later realised that this crop worked better. Diliff (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert of wabi-sabi but I don't think this photo is with wabi-sabi (侘・寂). That's not Sabi (寂) but maybe this have wabi-shii (侘しい) feeling although wabi-shii is different from Wabi (侘), I think :) --Laitche (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK fair enough. I'm far from an expert myself but it seemed to match the characteristics mentioned in the English Wiki article on it. You say it is not Sabi but the Japanese article (using Google Translate - perhaps a mistake!) says Sabi is "a state in which deteriorated by the passage of time". That seems like the the old, worn clothes of the homeless person? Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter if it's wabi-sabi or not but I'm sure it's something we could talk about for a long time. :-) Diliff (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess (in short version) Wabi is Enjoying the insufficient things. (refusing gorgeous, luxurious, brilliant or like that.). And Sabi is Quiet but deeply or/and rich beauty. (So, sometimes "a state in which deteriorated by the passage of time" makes quiet.), IMO. --Laitche (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff I saw the subject coming down alongside a trench where we were installing pipe, but on the other side, so I couldn´t get across in time, so I had to shoot from where I was and the camera did not have a powerful zoom. The crop is sideways, from top to bottom is almost complete, so yes, the resolution is low, taken with a 4 megapixel camera, but that´s what I had in the moment. As far as crops, I do not constraint myself to the camera format, probably the first tool I use is the crop in editing, and then I go and adjust values. Cropping for me is a useful way to bring out the subject. Thanks for your vote :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 10:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zámek Rájec nad Svitavou (Schloss Raitz) - panorama 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zámek Rájec nad Svitavou (Schloss Raitz) - panorama 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 06:57:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/file:Sigmaringen Schloss BW 2015-04-28 17-37-14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/file:Sigmaringen Schloss BW 2015-04-28 17-37-14.jpg
Support Good colors, nice mood, good composition. Put category next time. Perhaps crop up to that flowers in foreground, or per note. --Mile (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a bit skeptical about sharpening applied... but not enough to not support. The composition and lighting makes it. Agree that flowers are a tad distracting, but I'd clone them out instead if I were to really get rid of them. Only my two cents! A color profile is missing. I may remove my support if in a bad mood. - Benh (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 16:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:London Eye at sunset 2013-07-19.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:London Eye at sunset 2013-07-19.jpg
Support First impression: It's just a picture of the Eye, nothing special. Second impression: Wow, look at all that detail. And the angle kind of works. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 17:22:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Interior, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Interior, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This image is a bit different to my other church interiors. I had to shoot this (*GASP*).... handheld. The staff of the Old Royal Naval College absolutely forbid tripods. The only exception they will make to this rule is if you pay £500 for the privilege of buying a commercial license, which in any case would be quite restricted in how the photo could be used and probably not compatible with the Creative Commons license. I tried speaking to a manager to see if they would make an exception. Absolutely not. I asked to speak to their supervisor. No, still no tripods allowed under any circumstance. They are probably the most stubborn, unsympathetic and inflexible heritage/religious organisation I've ever had the misfortune of having to deal with for photography. So, needless to say, I did my utmost best to take a commercial-quality photo of the interior 'hand-held' just to spite them. ;-) It's not quite as good as my tripod-based interiors (I didn't use HDR and I had to use 2 x 3 frames at f/5.6 and 1/40th of a second exposures with my 35mm lens instead of 3 x 5 frames at f/13 with my 50mm lens), and the resolution and detail is inferior. But I'm pretty sure that this is about as good as is realistically possible of this interior, handheld. -- Diliff (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just had similar issue, but for a Museum, I said its volunteer work, she replied "you boys are golden". That word "volunteer" helps often. I see your interior is periodical, left-right some strong light, crop above is (again) not good in my opinion. I put suggestion with note, you would get rid of blown sides, make upper crop better and would get same stuff. It that f real around 12 mm ? --Mile (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I tried every angle possible including highlighting that my photography is volunteer work for an educational cause (Wiki). They weren't at all interested in discussing it - they only want to maintain complete control over any commercial use of the image that they can so that they can make as much money as possible. They hate the idea of losing their share of the 'pie'. Diliff (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the suggested crop though, and it loses too much precious resolution to crop so much. The blown windows are unimportant IMO. Who cares that they're blown? I don't think they're distracting, and most clear windows are just white anyway so there's no detail to be concerned about losing. No, the real focal length is not so wide - more like 18-20mm full frame. Diliff (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see some institutions want to own copyright despite PD-70, so I don't think you should be worried about their wishes in such cases. --Mile (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good, but I much prefer your wider crop in the first version. The aspect ratio is better and the leading diagonals to the upper corners makes a much stronger image. Would you consider an Alt? -- Colin (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's simply incredible that you didn't get any stitching error given the circumstances. And I think I'm good at spotting them. (saw a tiny one on a column :) but it's tiny). For the rest, you know what I think of your interiors. - Benh (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it anyway. ;-) But also because I actually spotted a bigger stitching fault that you missed. ;-) It was at the back of the room on the lectern. I was able to minimise stitching errors by being careful to rotate myself around the camera instead of the 'usual' rotating the camera around me. But I did correct a few other minor stitching faults before uploading the first version - it wasnt quite flawless, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with the clone tool. Diliff (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2015 at 21:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metsatee Mustoja maastikukaitsealal.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metsatee Mustoja maastikukaitsealal.JPG
Support For me the thin yet parallel lines of the trees and their deep regress do it well enough so as not to need the golden light (although that would be pretty cool). Maybe it's that I haven't been able to get out into the woods and hike so much lately, but I would hike right into this picture if I could. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Support I like this kind of images. Composition is good. But: ISO 400, f/6.3? Taken with an tripod? Sharpness could be better.--XRaytalk16:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 10:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-2015 Plaza México y Estadio Azul, Mexico-RalfR-WMA 0974.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-2015 Plaza México y Estadio Azul, Mexico-RalfR-WMA 0974.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: This image cannot become an FP because it doesn't have an appropriate licence. -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2015 (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 22 Sep 2015 at 17:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is far too small. Please read the rules before nominating --DXR (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2015 (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 14 Sep 2015 at 07:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Libellago lineata male-Kadavoor-2015-08-21-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Libellago lineata male-Kadavoor-2015-08-21-001.jpg
InfoLibellago lineata male, defending a territory. "To have any chance at success in convincing a female to mate with him, a male odonata has to show how amazing he is by finding a good place for egg laying, setting up a perimeter around that area, and defending the space within that perimeter from other males." A Libellago lineatafemale needs partially submerged decaying plants to lay her eggs. Here the male found a suitable place and patiently waiting for a mate. This typical mating system of territorial damselflies is known as "resource defense" (Johnson 1964). Created and nominated by me; edited by Christian Ferrer -- Jee07:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mile. A tighter crop already available for Wikipedia infobox. Do you prefer that? Or an intermediate as you suggested? (I've no macro flash; but a diffuser around the lens.) Jee07:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar In your exemple, I think the reflection prevent to see the details of the facets, and sadly I'm not able to do more here. Also not entirely convinced this is really a defect. Is it a gray shapeless spot would be better? because more correction of moiré will give that, thus it is certainly not moiré. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jee, do you see a colourful iridescent pattern on the eyes in real life or are the colours artificial due to the Bayer sensor? If the latter, then Lightroom's moire-removal brush will easily fix. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't want to think about how close the camera was to the water. You make me nervous, Jee ;-). I prefer the larger frame than than crop, especially keeping the left part with the milky water round the stem of a plant. This is Commons, not Wikipedia, so there is value in having a looser frame as long as the subject doesn't get too small. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tilt LCD of Sony is useful in many occasions. But I've a difficulty to see when light fall on it. I may overcome it by practice. Jee01:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. But this cluttered background is most important here as it explains "resource defense" (Johnson 1964) for Libellago lineata which needs partially submerged decaying plants to lay eggs. Jee03:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 06:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The windows in the back are partly covered with gaze curtains, so they might look blown. In the raw files they are not. This is HDR with a range of +/- 4 stops. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2015 at 21:54:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Agence Rol, L’éclipse, gare Saint-Lazare, 1921.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Agence Rol, L’éclipse, gare Saint-Lazare, 1921.jpg
Oppose Agree with Jee (observing natural phenomena doesn't become natural phenomena itself)...till then. --Mile (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Felt this photo is worth to make appropriate categorization, since nominator (Paris 16 !?) didn't want to put any work on it and to vote Support. --Mile (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThis picture makes me laugh, it is full of emotions. --Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Désolé, ce vote n'est pas valable, il faut 10 jours de présence ET 50 interventions minimum sur "Commons" pour être admis à voter en FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 22:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support What about this strange artefact ? This is a mycenaean boar's tusks helmet, from the 16th-c. B.C.E. One of the masterpieces of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece. a .png version with transparent background is also available-- Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good a job of taking a picture of a museum exhibit as could be done ... I will have to consider this example myself in similar situations (And for that reason I'd leave the podium in ... that's what it is now, for better or worse). Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The .png version is not yet uploaded...but I may do it if someone is interested. Detouring: no secret, I open the file x800 or x1600 and go very slowly..."Patience et longueur de temps font plus que force ni que rage".--Jebulon (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 17:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:South over the Quiraing, Isle of Skye - 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:South over the Quiraing, Isle of Skye - 2.jpg
Support This picture came up on a conversation held at my talk page. Not sure why Colin didn't nominate himself, but since I've an available token :D I usually dislike mid day light, but I think it plays nicely with the relief here. And the guy in the foreground conveys a feeling of large spaces and I really hope I can visit the Quiraing before I meet Saint Peter. -- Benh (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand. I'm myself very anxious every time I self nom (I am right now of course :) ). But trying is free right? Generally speaking, if we start being afraid a nom fails, we are not likely to see a lot new things over here. - Benh (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm happy I got some sun, since it rained every day I was there, including a heavy prolonged shower one hour before this photo. The landscape here is the result of a huge landslide of igneous rock breaking up and slipping over sedimentary layers below. See this article. The view in the other direction looks like this. And the guy in the foreground... what was his photo like? -- Colin (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 22:30:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glamaig from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glamaig from Rubha nam Brathairean, Isle of Skye.jpg
Info This is Glamaig, part of the Red Cuillin hills on the Isle of Skye. Normally photographed from the nearby glens (from where it often takes a conical appearance), this unusual view is taken from 33km (20 miles) north at Rubha nam Brathairean (Brothers Point). This rocky peninsular affords a view directly south down the coast of Skye taking in various headlands along the way (which are 11, 22 and 28km distant). The telephoto lens (equivalent to 450mm on a full-frame camera) compresses the perspective. Normally, such a distant view would look hazy (see this version), but when processed using Lightroom's new dehaze feature (along with other adjustments) a much clearer picture emerges. The result is quite grainy, and I've deliberately not applied NR to remove it. I hope you appreciate the layered landscape, the composition, and the sea birds soaring among the majestic hills of Skye. All by Colin. -- Colin (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To get an idea of what the view is seeing, compressed, go to Bing Maps UK and select the "Ordnance Survey Map" from the drop-down (don't know if this is available outside UK). UK mapping is divided into a grid and Rubha nam Brathairean is in the column between 52 and 53. If you follow that column south for 20 miles then you reach Glamaig. Alternatively look at File:Ordnance Survey 1-250000 - NG.jpg, which isn't quite so detailed and uses a larger grid, and find the square six along and four down, then follow that down four squares. -- Colin (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Processing was necessary to achieve this image at all, with any camera in any weather or time of year. 33km is three times further away than if you were cruising in a jet aircraft and nearly twice as far away as Concorde flew up. I know it is easy to pick technical faults (and the image is not downsized at all, merely cropped) but doesn't it still make an image with wow? -- Colin (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My advice: please wait for a better "century weather" to have a better and dust free view. And additional: the composition and your clipping doesn't works for me too: to tide crop at all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "century weather". There is room in the source image to vertically show more clouds if people feel that helps, but I didn't think they added anything useful here. -- Colin (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said you didn't want to go through all the stress again, but this one is going to get you some. It has wow to me. But your first crop was more interesting I think. The left part you added (or put back) doesn't add anything IMO. It draws the eyes away from the beautiful area. I'm not sure what you mean by not NRing it : Did you not NRed it at all? If yes I think it was wrong. It's too noisy as it is, and there are other pictures of the same kind which are better from that point of view. It also might be short on contrast a bit, but that might just be me. And yes sometimes it's a matter of getting the right weather / light so you don't have to overcook it to get the desired results. Easier to say it than to see it. - Benh (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I never said I didn't want a challenging FPC ever again, just not two simultaneously or consecutively. Life is boring if you are perfect like Diliff :-). Better to try new things? Yes I thought the first crop was a better composition, and the bird was more significant, but I thought the image had more educational value showing the whole mountain. I quite liked the grainy image that arose, more painterly than Zeiss Otus sharp. Hmm, I suspect if NRed it would need downsized to look acceptable. I'll look at it again tonight. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see what you were trying to achieve here and given the original image you were working with it's not a bad attempt, but I don't think the dehaze tool is as revolutionary as many people seem to saying recently. The results, both here and elsewhere, and from my experience in using it, are not very convincing to me. Or maybe the praise for the dehaze tool is because (apart from the poor implementation of HDR merging) it's the only new feature in Lightroom 6. ;-) The use of it is unfortunately is a poor substitute for genuinely dramatic lighting which I think is necessary to compensate for the relatively poor image quality. Diliff (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I give you credit, Colin, for the lengths you went to to make this a usable image, but the noise is just far too strong for me to give the image a break (I do wish there was some way we could recognize things like this, though). Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationBenh, I had a go removing the noise but didn't like the result -- the rocks lost their texture. I prefer the result of simply downsizing the image, if desired. -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 11:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wreck of Cabo de Santa Maria, 2010 December - 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wreck of Cabo de Santa Maria, 2010 December - 4.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2015 at 22:40:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cuban Red Crab (Gecarcinus ruricola), Bahía de Cochinos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cuban Red Crab (Gecarcinus ruricola), Bahía de Cochinos.jpg
Comment There's some CA at the scissors (is that the right word in this context?) and the sharpness is not convincing, either. The noise level is high but still acceptable. A nice picture in thumbnail size but not completely convincing at 100%. --Code (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed that I had accidently set the noise slider in lightroom to 0 (from default 25) which explains the noise. I've now uploaded a new copy that should look much better. While I agree that the background is a bit distracting I wanted to show the crab in it's natural habitat. -- P.Lindgren
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2015 at 00:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dassault Mirage III - 32.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dassault Mirage III - 32.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 22:35:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hrad Pernštejn (Pernstein) - by Pudelek 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hrad Pernštejn (Pernstein) - by Pudelek 4.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2015 at 03:32:45 (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 Sep 2015 at 10:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Red bell pepper.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red bell pepper.jpg
Comment It looks quite ok. Perhaps the reflections of the white surface on the lower parts of the fruits are a little bit distracting?! --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2015 at 05:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tarvasjõgi dets 2013.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tarvasjõgi dets 2013.JPG
Oppose. Good quality, but I think the picture isn't understanding to be a FP. The scenery is typical in Russia, Belarus, Estonia, Finland and Scandinavian countries at winter. It's enough that the photo is QI. --Brateevsky {talk} 12:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Brateevsky. The oomph that's in so many other Estonian WLE photos just isn't here in this one. It's pretty, but not in a unique way. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so what ? I don't support an exotic picture, I support a picture I find FP worthy, for many other reasons than rarity. I'm not stupid and I have some ideas about the weather in winter in central or eastern Europe, and even in some parts of France (my own country)...--Jebulon (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the tone of your response, I really think you should be responding to Brateevesky. I was "per" him in the sense that I just don't find myself saying "wow". Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2015 at 13:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pink Flower. Alex 005.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pink Flower. Alex 005.JPG
Oppose The flower is not in good shape, and the composition is a quite trivial and boring. I think background is too cluttered for that topic. - Benh (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question And I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure people over here will let "Pink Flower" pass as an ID (or is it really called like that?). - Benh (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2015 at 02:50:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old concrete wall.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old concrete wall.jpg
Comment Very nice composition, but I think we need some more information about the subject (location, description and so on). --Code (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the photograh was taken in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, but it could be anywhere. Just an old wall with cemment stucco, showing decay. Mainly it is an abstract that shows photographic contour and texture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2015 at 11:39:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Ceiling, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College Chapel Ceiling, Greenwich, London, UK - Diliff.jpg
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. The same restrictions on using a tripod in my previous nominated image of the interior unfortunately also apply to this photo of the ceiling, so this was taken hand-held. It's actually harder from my experience to avoid parallax errors when shooting a 120 degree arc over the top of your head. You can't easily bend backwards until your back is horizontal (while maintaining a stable camera at low shutter speeds!), and doing so would create major parallax problems anyway. So I had to shoot from 60° to 90°, then turn my body around 180 degrees and shoot the other direction from 90° to 60°, all while minimising any movement of the camera. Not easy! Anyway it's an extremely wide angle of view as it's a long church and doesn't have a very tall ceiling, so there is of course distortion in this image particularly at the edges, but I thought it was important to show the windows and organ for context, and don't think the distortion is necessarily worse than many other interior ceiling photos nominated recently. -- Diliff (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rectilinear and about 12mm focal length. It's hard to be precise about the focal length with stitching so it's only an estimate. Diliff (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I thought you might appreciate those two images. I said I'd have a go at this interior almost a year ago, and I finally did. :-) Just a shame that tripods aren't allowed as it set a fairly firm limit on image quality. Diliff (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I take back my comments about the tripod. ;-) Although I suppose it wasn't factually incorrect. A tripod would have improved it! Diliff (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 15:17:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Mały Rynek w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Mały Rynek w Bystrzycy Kłodzkiej 01.jpg
Neutral I'm not sure you read this and you say your english is "basic" level. Quality is good and it's correctly perspective fixed. There's nothing wrong, but just no "WOW" when I look at it. Composition is pretty "common" although well centered and all. Very good QI. Not FP in my opinion - Benh (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 17:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amblychilepas platyactis 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amblychilepas platyactis 01.JPG
Support Looks like apple slices arranged for a kid's arts and crafts project. Don't worry; I mean that as a compliment—it's fun and playful to look at. I can almost see how you could arrange them to make a face. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 20:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS.jpg
Support This is one of my favorite own work. I really made some effort to not only get a Milky Way but to put a context under it. It took me a day of scouting to select that place. I also decided to go at a last moment when I knew for sure I had a two nights window to observe the stars. For those interested, shooting stars requires a proper focus which can only be achieved when there's enough light or a large luminous object in the sky like a moon. Or just trust luck. Better to arrive there at sunset, set everything up and to wait for the stars to pop up. The church is light painted. I was on the right side of the frame and lit it with my lamp. Noise can't be avoided. It's really dark, and even with my f/2.0 lens, it get this bright only with a 30 sec exposure and ISO 3200... and a bit of brightening in post processing (one can afford this with ISO invariant sensors). -- Benh (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noise is quite heavy, or software couldn't remove so effectively. I read Fujis have some problems because of specific sensor type which isn't so compatible with post processing software. But I am more bothered by that tree on left, would be better if skiped, or this one cropped. Its better than astro photo from few days ago, but for some serious astrophoto you need motor drive for traction. One more remark, since second time day, how come EXIF show f/1 while you mentioned f/2. I get f/0 as manuals, here are some numbers. --Mile (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup it is... I could have gone further in NR, but that would have remove some actual stars, so I chose to go light on it. I've also selectively NRed the chapel a bit stronger although, again, I couldn't go too far at the risk of making it too different. My feeling is this is the best compromise. The noise pattern isn't too distracting IMO, but I'm open to suggestion. And no, I can't use motor drive: the ground would move ;) So for such pictures I'm stuck to 30s max exposure, which is quite a constraint. Fuji sensor use a different sensor pattern which are marketed as being less prone to Moiré. I never found a real benefit of that (as I don't really encounter much Moiré in my shootings) but because it has much more green photosites, it has better sensitivity at high ISO than a typical APS-C sensor. As for RAW demosaicing on Fuji X-trans... they seem to be harder to interpolate than Bayer pattern. Adobe took some time to deliver something usable, but it's still not quite there for me. The best software I've used so far is Dave Coffin's dcraw (free) which probably serve as a reference to many other RAW decoding soft anyway. For some reason, I've found LR to handle noisy Fuji RAW better than the clean ones. Maybe noise help the interpolating algorithms used by Adobe. My lens shows as f/1.0 maybe because I set a manual 12mm lens on my body but it's f/2.0 (it's Samyang's 12mm, which is pretty good). All these boring topics aside ;), I really hope people will take that picture for what it is... and I also think it's far from being the worst on that subject, technically speaking. I invite you to look online, not so many people share this kind of pic full size, and most are as noisy if not more. - Benh (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Benh, would you consider a square crop on the right hand side. That would get my vote, as an Alt. As it is, the left of the picture isn't adding much -- perhaps if you'd light painted that bit too? -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wouldn't I think :) You can propose it as alternative if you really think it's worth it, but I can't get myself to cut the church I was so happy to find and feel it would give a weird composition (I think I would oppose it). I've an identical picture taken when a 25% moon was on the horizon, about to set down, which shows a brighter church, but with a slightly less contrasty sky. Not sure it changes anything, but I'll show you when I get home. - Benh (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestion Arion. While I'd agree with you that perspective correction improves things on architectural subjects, I think this picture is more about conveying feelings. Feelings that one looks above him, and feels small in that huge universe. The converging lines are necessary for that in my opinion. Of course, I don't know if this very pic is successful in that. - Benh (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This shows lack of knowledge dear Jebulon. As I've tried to explain, you just can't take this kind of picture without noise as of 2015 (with reasonably priced gear that I'm aware of). It's pitch dark there, and I can't expose more than 30 sec, or I end up with trails in the sky. I'm fine with opposes as long as they are fair. - Benh (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it has crossed my mind that Jebulon's withdrawal might have affected his opinion. But I think I've known him long enough to believe it's a good faith vote. I only dare thinking he might not realize what it involves to catch such a picture (not sure so many people have tried or care about shooting stars), hence my (rough) comment. - Benh (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is great and quality is probably state-of-the-art, I think (although I don't know much about this kind of photography). --Code (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not state of the art :) but I don't think it's too ugly... I don't have a FF body, but my lens opens at f/2.0 making up for a not too bad combo. I also have experimented and know how to shot multi rows milky ways, and I clearly get better per pixel results. But that was just too hard with a light painting I did randomly (took me several attempts to get the right amount). As Colin points out, maybe it can be processed better. I'm not very skilled with LR and PS. - Benh (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was light painting the church (see my first comment). It's possible to let the moon lit the church as well, as per that version that I mentioned in the milky way thread on my talk page (you can have a look if u r interested in some additional details). It looks more natural but the downside is a less contrasty sky. The above nom is also light painted, but it's better done I think. - Benh (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question to @Benh: My nominated picture was taken starting from a different camera, but has almost the same quality as this one, is there any explanation? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arion If my memory is good enough, the two current noms were taken with APS-C camera. I believe both cameras' sensor are Sony made, so they certainly have similar (and good) performance, albeit the Fuji is acknowledged to have slightly lower noise than competition because it has more green photosites (it uses a custom layout) which are supposed to be more sensitive. Technically, I think my photo is better by a whisker : my lens is brighter, performs really good at f/2.0 and suffers no coma (on your nom, the stars aren't dot, noticeable in the corners). If you look closely, you'll also see color blotches. Both pictures can probably be improved with more careful processing. I'm working on mine. If you can get in touch with author of ur nom, it would be great to ask if (s)he can do something about it. Don't think (s)he'll go as far as sharing RAW for us to cook :) - Benh (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Question: Why are you showing the image in the large resolution 4,896 × 3,264, which destroys the image? Perhaps an by wikimedia approved smaller resolution is considerable. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my first nom with that many questions :D But I'm very glad if this gets attention. I'm sorry, but the size doesn't destroy the image. It's not like I upscaled it or something. It looks bad for pixel peepers but if you leave it full screen on a fairly large monitor, it's quite fine IMO. And that's really how it should be viewed. Because FPC sees a flow of very high quality interiors, we tend to judge things at pixel size view alone, but that's really a bad habit. I see no one looking at a photo with a magnifying glass in a gallery. If you think quality is bad, you're free to downsize it and see the result. If I share a smaller version, it's harder to do the opposite. But after discussing a bit, and seeing how it's receive, I'm looking at it again. I'm experimenting and think I can improve it. Thanks for your review. - Benh (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't really oppose, but I am not convinced either. The left part of the church too dark, and I find this one better (I don't like the blue church). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 01:07:36 (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 Sep 2015 at 07:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suastus gremius on Kadavoor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suastus gremius on Kadavoor.jpg
WeakSupport It's a really nice little animal and I like the photo, still there's not much sharpness anywhere what I attribute to the living creatures "activity". --Tremonist (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this picture is OOF? This is super close; so DOF is shallow. But I don't think it is OOF. I don't expect visible needle like growths in a leaf if it is OOF. We will not see any wing scales in a usual closeup. Jee16:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 12:11:01 (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 22 Sep 2015 at 09:32:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The Holy Spirit Parish Church is a neo-gothic building in Werder upon Havel, a town in the Potsdam-Mittelmark (Brandenburg). The church is a landmark of the island. This is the first stitched HDR church interior I uploaded to Commons. I hope you like it. All by me -- Code (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not convinced about the processing. I think the contrast is too low, increasing the black point or contrast will probably help a lot. I think Xray is completely wrong about it being too soft though. It's razor sharp at 65 megapixels! (the edges are softer but that's normal for wide angle perspective correction). Diliff (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So when you said soft, you really meant low contrast? They usually mean quite different things... but it could be interpreted as 'soft light' I guess? Diliff (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the quality and the church are very nice, yet I am not really convinced by the crop. It might be personal preference but I usually find the lower foreground of churches really not very appealing and try to put the horizon at roughly the lower third of the image. I realize that this makes nice aspect ratios a bit harder to achieve but gives the image a bit more wow. Also the top crop is a bit unfortunate. --DXR (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DXR: You are absolutely right (Finger in die richtige Wunde gelegt). Next time I will definitely shoot a fourth row at the top. I see that I still have to learn a lot to get where Diliff and you are. However, I can offer this alternative crop. What do you think? --Code (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with DXR. I quickly tried a square crop to get rid of the closest benches and it looked better to me. But the lighting is beautiful, so... - Benh (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Prefer this crop too - portrait framing often doesn't work that well for church interiors IMO. I find myself wanting to see more of the sides, unless the subject of the image is something naturally tall, like an altar. I still think it's slightly low in contrast but perhaps it's just the diffused light. I'll trust your judgement here. Diliff (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the technical result ("Pour un coup d'essai, c'est un coup de maître !"), but I don't find the subject interesting. There is nothing remarkable in this church interior (to me), Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question about variations of colors. I don't think the differences between the "brown right" and the "brown left" are natural, but due to processing. Any idea ?
You forgot to sign Jebulon. I think the difference in colours between left and right are perfectly natural. It's most likely because the left is lit by sunlight and the right is in shadow. You can see the shadow cast by the seats in the aisle. The HDR tone mapping gives the illusion of there being minimal difference in luminosity between them though, which is part of the criticism I had about the low contrast. Diliff (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't sign because my tablet decieded suddenly to have a conflict with "Commons", it works now. Thanks for answer, which prevents me definitely against a support. You write that it is "perfectly natural", I don't think so...The dangers of HDR...--Jebulon (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One side is still clearly darker than the other though, so I don't think it's particularly unnatural. What makes HDR tone mapping work is that as long as you look at different areas of a photo individually (for example, the left seating, then the right seating), you perceive that one is darker than the other even when sometimes the measured luminosity does not actually match your perception. It's a similar optical illusion to this as the surrounding luminosity provides the context. Sometimes this illusion breaks down in HDR tone mapped images if there is insufficient contrast, and perhaps for you it does for this image. Diliff (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 20:37:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I'm also not convinced by the light but more importantly, nor does the scene blow me away. It's not boring, but for me it would need some point of interest for a FP, sorry. — Julian H.✈ 19:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 20:20:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-14-Campeche-Luftbild-RalfR-WMA 0517.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-14-Campeche-Luftbild-RalfR-WMA 0517.jpg
* Oppose To me it is only green and white spots. We can't see what the "white" is. We can guess it is graves but it is not very clear --Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. --Ralf Roleček18:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2015 at 14:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2014.06.27.-2-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Rostfarbiger Dickkopffalter-Maennchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014.06.27.-2-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim--Rostfarbiger Dickkopffalter-Maennchen.jpg
I wanted to rotate it more to diagonal because you put more space, but look that second version you have, I would put that as alternative, its already in diagonal and also perfect colors. --Mile (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I noticed the other version yesterday as that pose is better. But not so sharp as here. I prefer 3:2 or 4:3 format than 1:1 even if it is an empty space on right. But I respect your style. (People may wonder why it is photographed from back. It is an interesting behavior of skippers while basking. It is watching you!) Jee03:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 18:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I would decrease brightness. + some contrast, and do some serios crop, pet note perhaps, or a bit wider. I think sea disrupt it. --Mile (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: I've reduced exposure a bit and improved the crop but I am not convinced about a square crop. If somebody else believes that's a good idea, I can offer an alternative version Poco219:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 19:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hof, Zierbrunnen im Botanischen Garten.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hof, Zierbrunnen im Botanischen Garten.jpg
weak Support: I like the simple, clean composition, the lighting and the smooth but not totally even background. I'm not totally convinced by the sharpness of/focus on the subject, as even at medium size the eye is starting to look unsharp. --El Grafo (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 21:06:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Artist, maker unknown, Bengali - Kantha (Embroidered Quilt) - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Artist, maker unknown, Bengali - Kantha (Embroidered Quilt) - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2015 at 14:41:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Staircase of National Museum of Slovenia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Staircase of National Museum of Slovenia.jpg
Support Frankly, this might be one of the best composition with a fisheye I've seen in a while. I see some strange artifacts, maybe more in darker areas. Maybe wrong combination of sharpening and NR? Hard to tell for sure. - Benh (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All true. I put it on Flickr in few groups, counter went mad, 3000+ and 100 favorites in a day, still going. Never had something similar. OK, that you saw, mentioned cccephas I think first, for other image of Samyang 7.5 fisheye (which is very quality lens, per reviews), but there were some jpeg like artefacts in darker areas in places where projection is most significant (edges). Seems like sharpening. But no sharpening was undergone. Really no need. Also no NR, no need neither, unless that few corners, which should not play any major rule, I suppose. I think fisheye can give you so much interesting view and more rich picture than doing matrix with rectangular lenses. --Mile (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what "forget matrix" means. To be more precise (@Benh: ): I oppose just because this kind of picture does not give (to me) any idea of what this staircase looks like in real (I mean: "my" real). Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like, for once, seeing a symmetrical interior built around curvatures. And it looks like they were curved to being with, so I don't see the fisheye as problematic here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Noise removed. Better now. C messier so far i didn't have problems with noise, maybe because Olympus lens are in-body corrected and this was Samyang. Benh, I mostly shot jpeg, unless some harder situation. This one was shot in RAW, because I knew temp coorection will take place, but now also the noise was easier to correct. I use Oly software for base. Never get same colors in Adobe converters. --Mile (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 11:05:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bombus pascuorum (male) - Medicago x varia - Keila.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bombus pascuorum (male) - Medicago x varia - Keila.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 05:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
IMO it's normal that the top is darker. All the lights are at the bottom. And it isn't manipulated or something else, the distortion is true. I've checked other images of the same place and there isn't a straight line. (Yes: I've never seen it, when I visited the place.)--XRaytalk09:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know the top would be darker. But perhaps you could have shot it a little earlier? Or done something to mitigate the contrast ... it seems like the exposure was set based on the lights at street level. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 14:26:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015.07.07.-18-Mulde Eilenburg--Bruch-Weide.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015.07.07.-18-Mulde Eilenburg--Bruch-Weide.jpg
Oppose An impressive tree, the subject has potential! However, this picture doesn't really convince me: There's hard mid-day light with the leaves appearing almost white on top and almost black in the shadows with little actual green in-between (Yes, I know that the leaves of this species have a less lively green than many others, but still …). Though taken at the same time, for some reason this one works better for me. I think choosing a different time for the shooting (e.g. warm, soft morning or evening light or maybe even some mystic foggy day) might have given this subject the last punch towards a "WOW!" image. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It always makes sense to improve images, that's the purpose of this project (to me, this looks like a little more saturation than necessary, but still...). — Julian H.✈ 16:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 16:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lajedo de Pai Mateus - Pedra do Capacete.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lajedo de Pai Mateus - Pedra do Capacete.jpg
Support The iconic Pedra do Capacete (Helmet Stone) with the Milky Way in the background. A fantastic and unique place; such rock formation is only found in Devil's Marbles on the Australian Outback, Erongo Mountains in Namibia and the Hoggar region in Algeria. Yes, I know that the quality isn't the best, but like here, "exceptional images may sometimes not be of extremely high quality". Personally, when I find the atmosphere of this one, I think I'm on Mars or on a planet that is still to discover. In short: great and wowed moment. Inspired by this nomination. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm mad that you nominate this one now ; it puts my own to shame composition wise :) The part of the milky way which can be seen here is the galactic center : it's the brightest, and it makes it very dramatic. This has involved careful planning. Light painting is very nice, most parts of interest are lit and it has smooth transitions to dark areas. Noisy... but I think I've expanded enough on that matter on my own nom. - Benh (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arion, I can arrange things generally speaking but I can't do magic :( It's not so good to start from a jpeg, and I see what I believe to be compression artifacts despite the large size, and it's going to be hard to get rid of them. It would be better if you can get in touch with author. I'll give it a try, but don't expect miracles. - Benh (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arion, I've given it a try, and I can't improve it with my skills... Sorry. The coma is quite an issue, but the compression artifacts is the most annoying thing about that picture. - Benh (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arion wise choice. But you can reshot it, in winter sensor heat less, low temp - less noise, clear sky. This elephant help much in compo. --Mile (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose, the photo was to illustrate the Lajedo de Pai Mateus, but this do not represented the whole location, don't have scale, don't have faithful colours... In addition to that, technically this sucks, stars are blurred, a huge amount of noisy, chromatic aberration, nothing sharp. None one here opened the photo in full screen?????????? This is just a good photo... for Instagram. -- RTA04:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK it has flaws, but big wow IMO. All have been said for mitigating reasons, but if you still don't think this is "quite good", maybe trying to replicate this kind of shot someday will help you realise? - Benh (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sting, if you're referring to the FP, I think it was a 80 megapixels picture... It doesn't get much better than this for a milky way. We're not at pixel peeper candidates. - Benh (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was refering to the FP: what's the point to bring here a 60MP image with that quality at 100%? Hot pixels weren't even corrected! I'm surprised by your position Benh. Featured Pictures are supposed to be the finest ones on the project, by their subject as well as technical quality and this not only at a 50% viewing. Sting (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it might seem useless to leave a picture at large size when it's this noisy. But better too big than too small. And featured pictures shall be about any subject, not just the ones that are sharp and noise friendly. If we oppose based on noise alone, we wouldn't have any starry or milky way shots (I mean the one with a ground component, if it's sky alone, we can use tracking motor, but it's still out of reach for many). - Benh (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Benh: "maybe trying to replicate..." ¬¬, this is not a argument; I can't replicate 90% of the FPCs for many different reasons, but this do not validate the candidate... And no "featured pictures shall be about any subject", featured pictures shall be about the combination of excellent quality image (design to be a FP), and a excellent illustration of the subject; this images fails in both of them. -- RTA04:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA You probably can. I don't think there's no dark site you can easily enough access. If you don't want that's something else. What I mean is that if you haven't tried, do it, and you'll realise you can't catch something similar without noise. And of course an FP has to be a good illustration of the subject... but this subject can be any. I hope you don't disagree with that... not that I care if you do. - Benh (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Benh, I can't, some pictures here at FPC demands study, trips, equipment... that I do not have, again, this is not a argument. And "but this subject can be any", no at all, this is a illustration of Pedra do Capacete at Lajedo de Pai Mateus, and this photo is not good photo of that... what you're talking about is not making much sense any more.-- RTA13:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess the supports were too sensitive for pixel peeping (including me), I'm not nagative to the C*lin's anti pixel peeping campaign but no need to be so sensitive for that :) --Laitche (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 17:50:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Silphium perfoliatum (Slovenia).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Silphium perfoliatum (Slovenia).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2015 at 19:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parapentistes sur le puy de dome 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parapentistes sur le puy de dome 4.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2015 at 18:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I could agree with that, but I don't know how to take it in an extraordinary way. Yes, the subject is more interesting than the technique...--Jebulon (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose nice subject, but the colors seem pale or washed out to me. Is there a way to get more color saturation? --Pine✉21:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2015 at 17:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Geological Pointe du Hoc Calvados, France.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geological Pointe du Hoc Calvados, France.jpg
Support The Pointe du Hoc, Calvados, Normandy, France, from a geological point of view. Strange geographical landmark (see a map), geologicaly very interesting, and of a very high historical significance of course. Well, this is what the gull told to me. -- Jebulon (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of the boring centered composition, and the dull lighting doesn't help IMO. The crop at the bottom is too close to the entrance. The barbed wire on the lower left corner could be removed. Good QI. - Benh (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to feel humiliated. It happens to all of us - sometimes what we saw when we took the photo isn't what others see when they view it. Diliff (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2015 at 18:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Macrothylacia rubi caterpillar with parasitoid larvae - Niitvälja bog.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macrothylacia rubi caterpillar with parasitoid larvae - Niitvälja bog.jpg
Comment Maybe you could try to rotate this image clockwise by about 30 degrees. This should be no problem, as the background is neutral. I guess this would create a more interesting look. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2015 at 13:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I agree with King, the light is great and there is good potential, but especially the pose and expession are a bit off. A second earlier or later might have been better. — Julian H.✈ 12:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its among a few really well made photos by an ar. wiki user, and i believe it fits to be a featured photo on commonsباسم (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2015 at 19:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Abbaye Notre-Dame de Ré Île de Ré Charente-Maritime.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abbaye Notre-Dame de Ré Île de Ré Charente-Maritime.jpg
Comment Great light, although I think it's maybe a tiny little bit overexposed. But what really keeps me from supporting are (1) the lack of sharpness and (2) the guy with the hat in the middle (and maybe also the other guy next to him). Additionally, I think the blurry birds in the sky should be cloned out. --Code (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Medicore quality. Composition not so striking as it could be, and should be more central. Gray background, gray subject. On some stormy, rainy day this could be much more stunning. Category isn't correct. This are ruins → objects. --Mile (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe "proposed category in nomination is not a mandatory", and I find this really boring (I'm polite), because almost never accurate neither relevant. Please Mile, I think you should oppose with this comment (be bold, no drama !)--Jebulon (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I thank the supporters very much, but after thinking about, I'm afraid opposers have some good rationales, among them : sharpness not excellent, and color non optimum. Trusting the histogram, there is no overexposition however. Nice ruins, anyway...--Jebulon (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2015 at 21:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palacete Azul 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palacete Azul 05.jpg
Neutral Excelent colors and nice subject, but angle is not totally perfect. A little of brightness could be better. I think this one is almost FP, but I don't find a mitigating reason to oppose. I don't care if this one becomes FP. What do you guys think? -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2015 at 15:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sildpollnes Church and Higravstindan in evening, Austvågøya, Lofoten, Norway, 2015 April.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sildpollnes Church and Higravstindan in evening, Austvågøya, Lofoten, Norway, 2015 April.jpg
Oppose The mountains are nicely lit but the church is not, which is the main subject. Unexceptional resolution at 7MP not compensated for elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2015 at 12:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose A nice mood to be sure, but there's so much going on—the building, the sunrise, the snow, the bare trees—that it's hard to tell which one of them wants to be the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
barely support because it's good technically and because I like sun(rise|set)s and that one looks beautiful, making up for a nice mood. But where it's placed is unfortunate. - Benh (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2015 at 08:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lagartija de lava de Galápagos (Microlophus albemarlensis), isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 19.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lagartija de lava de Galápagos (Microlophus albemarlensis), isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 19.JPG
I didn't get your point, Laitche, where is the DoF or sharpness problem?. If I hadn't been parallel to the subject and therefore part of it would had been unsharp, I'd share your comment, but it isn't the case here. It is sharp from the head to the tip of the nail Poco212:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not about sharpness nor DOF, I mean the angle of the focal plane. I think the focal plane is a bit inclined for the subject (the left side is a bit infront, the right side is a bit behind and maybe the lower is a bit infront). --Laitche (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2015 at 11:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Фреска во црквата св. Богородица.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Фреска во црквата св. Богородица.JPG
Фреска е убава ама фото ич не е оштра. И треба да се заврти не само сечи. Ем проблем, како можи копирајт холдер да биди некој друг сем аутор ? --Mile (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2015 at 22:36:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Лесновски Манастир.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Лесновски Манастир.JPG
Commentthat might just be the warm autumn afternoon light – the clouds look reasonably white to me. I actually enjoy the colors very much. But I have several other points that keep me from supporting: 1) huge dust spot (see image note) 2) needs some good, non-hidden categories; English description would be nice 3) I'm not totally convinced by the composition. --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that first part: judging from the embedded preview-thumbnail visible in Jeffrey's Exif Viewer, there may have been some quite heavy WB adjustments. I don't find that unreasonable though, as it reminds me of the colors of the film strips I've been scanning recently (some of them really blew me away color-wise). --El Grafo (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
El Grafo from that EXIF info, it appears the photo has been captured with the colourspace set to AdobeRGB and possibly a JPG created rather than a raw file. Or what you are seeing in the thumbnail is the original embedded JPG within the raw (all raw files contain a preview-quality JPG that appeared on the camera's display). Camera manufacturers do not tend to embed a colour profile with their JPGs, so if set to AdobeRGB, any JPG (including that thumbnail) will lack a profile and so be wrongly displayed by browsers, which rely on the profile data (not on the tags). The finale JPG we see here has the odd colourspace "opRGB" which appears to be similar/identical to AdobeRGB but probably invented because the latter is a trademark name that can only be used by profiles generated by Adobe. My guess is the author has enhanced the saturation using some non-Adobe software and saved it with a profile. While most people with modern browsers on their desktop will see the correct colours, only sRGB images display correctly on mobile devices currently. If you are looking with a desktop, then these are the colours the author intended, but not necessarily what the camera saw. -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I've investigated a bit: You can set the Pentax K-50 used here to either sRGB or AdobeRGB. Pentax cameras do tag their JPG images with a color space and include a preview image in both RAW and JPG files, but they do not include a profile (Example from my K-5, out-of-camera JPG). This image was either shot as JPG or the raw was developed in-camera, as the EXIF says Raw Development Process: 10 (K-01,K-30), with K-30 being the predecessor of the mostly identical K-50. So my best guess would be an in-camera-JPG in AdobeRGB, post-processed in external software and saved with opRGB embedded; original embedded thumbnail from the camera not updated (is there any image processing software that actually does that by default?). Interesting/confusing link regarding opRGB: forums.adobe.com – first answer is from an Adobe employee. Bottom line: Conversion to sRGB woul probably be a good idea, right? --El Grafo (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
opRGB is a proper standard profile, if rather rare, and looking at it's parameters it is very very similar to AdobeRGB. I suspect some software is using this rather than AdobeRGB profile because they don't have permission from Adobe to ship that profile with their software. Ultimately, Commons is an image repository rather than a publisher. I now think perhaps the conversion should occur when Wikipedia renders the thumbnail -- (a) for mobile website convert to sRGB and leave out the profile (to save memory/bandwidth, since no mobile browser reads it and most mobile displays are smaller colourspace than even sRGB) and (b) for desktop website, ensure all images are rendered with an embedded profile, defaulting to sRGB if you can't determine it from the tags (since all browsers do read it and actually require it to display images properly on wide-gamut monitors, which will only become more popular with new TV standards coming out). If the author has a raw file, and the image is within the gamut of sRGB anyway, there is no reason why they shouldn't instead use sRGB as that's the Internet standard and the only profile supported for mobile use. So, in summary, leave it alone but discourage people from uploading in other than sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 11:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyards of Istria (Croatia).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vineyards of Istria (Croatia).jpg
InfoII Sky is more gray/reddish due to smoke and more extensive scattering (Benh) on smoke (forest fires in vicinity). I get this nice colors at sunset while cycling.
Oppose Interesting. But I agree with Laitche, and would have opposed for the composition alone anyways. Just to see, I'll nominate a similar shot of mine when it's uploaded to Commons :D - Benh (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 13:24:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mammillaria spinosissima by RO.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mammillaria spinosissima by RO.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2015 at 17:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mauser carabine.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mauser carabine.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 17:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Milky way -route 292 shiga kusatsu road- 1920x1080.webmCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Milky way -route 292 shiga kusatsu road- 1920x1080.webm
Oppose Might be fpx, like commercial for equipment (at end). Also its too long, first 30 s are best, after what I lost concentration and movie loose my interes. Should be cut to first half minute. --Mile (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2015 at 00:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parapente - 144.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parapente - 144.jpg
Comment Sharpness OK, good image. IMO the image needs another crop. The gras in the front is disturbing, too much empty space at the left.--XRaytalk09:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Set complete, insofar as the Bibliothèque Nationale de France has access to. Attribution to Lamy seems extremely likely, but is based on my research. It would almost certainly be one of his last works.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2015 at 11:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2015 at 16:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haslach townhall.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haslach townhall.JPG
Support 10 km to known Biberach...wish could be sharper, got feeling you applied NR on the sky, and bottom underwent it too. But i like composition, colors, well chosen time. Clouds deliver something more. --Mile (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No noise reduction, neither in the sky nor in the bottom (but a professional sensor cleaning some days before, which also reduces some noise). Concernig the weather: A short time after the photo was taken, the sky was completely grey and it began to rain. --Llez (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very well-done technically, a QI for certain but ... there's a reason that most truly interesting pictures of buildings prefer the three-quarter angle over a straight-on front view, and that's why I can't support this as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flowers at the right corner belong to a larger fountain. Moving to the right to get a tree-quarter angle would have caused, that a part of the intersting facade would have been obscured. So I chose the frontal view. --Llez (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 21:38:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mute Swan (pair), Nagai Park, Osaka.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mute Swan (pair), Nagai Park, Osaka.jpg
Info This may not be featurable for the birds so I've changed the cetegory to objects (Believe me, this is the statue in the park.)... --Laitche (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Laitche. Really extraordinary! I wouldn't have noticed these "birds" being artificial. That changes almost everything here. --Tremonist (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 11:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galleria delle carte geografiche (Vatican Museums) September 2015-5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galleria delle carte geografiche (Vatican Museums) September 2015-5.jpg
Oppose Long time no see. Sorry to greet you with an oppose but it needs perspective correction (see my quick attempt here for what I mean), and the central painting is not centered. How sad. An amazing ceiling. - Benh (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benh! Yes, that was quite a long absence and I hope to be able to break it effectively. Why should the ceiling be centered in the photo? Concerning the perspective correction, I see no relevant difference. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no real reason, but generally, these things work better when symmetrical or in the middle. I miss a chunk of the ceiling at the top, but it looks symmetrical by nature, and I think the picture doesn't capture it. The perspective correction aimed at "restoring" back the symmetry, somehow. It may not be to anyone's tastes. - Benh (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know how it is difficult to take pictures in these rooms, but I agree with Benh. This is to be symmetrical, it was made for that (in contrary of the romanesque architecture)--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2015 at 22:27:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/file:Lobo marino (Zalophus californianus wollebaeki), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 12.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/file:Lobo marino (Zalophus californianus wollebaeki), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 12.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2015 at 22:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala), Udawalawe National Park, Sri Lanka.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala), Udawalawe National Park, Sri Lanka.jpg
Oppose First of all, obviously this is not an FP level photo, sharpness and datails are far from FP standards, too small image size for this subject (big bird) and unattractive composition and background (in shade) . Sorry for the harsh comment. --Laitche (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The resolution is a little low (4,4MP) due to cropping but more than double the size (2MP) of the FP rules. I don't agree with you comments about sharpness (it's sharp enough) and composition. Remember that it's usually much harder (you must stay in a vehicle due to dangerous animals etc) to use tripods when photographing animals in a natural park. The only people using tripods in the rainforest are the paid photographers for magazines and TV. There is a reason it's mostly landscapes, zoo animals, macro and architecture images nominated as FP and seldom wild animals. --P.Lindgren (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These shots ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) were taken without tripods , I don't like zoo shot so they were staying same position while a few seconds or less than one second and composition is very subjective matter so do not mind, it's just my opinion I think others have different opinions, Regards :) --Laitche (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2015 at 12:42:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Հիսուս Քրիստոս.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Հիսուս Քրիստոս.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 22:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Romanesque portal church Notre-Dame Avy Charente Maritime.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Romanesque portal church Notre-Dame Avy Charente Maritime.jpg
Support The romanesque portal (1175) of the church Notre-Dame of Avy, Charente-Maritime, France. Please have a look to the strange and delicate reliefs of the archivolt. -- Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject itself is interesting, but the crop at the right is unfortunate (I think a square crop would work better) and the sharpness is not overwhelming. I would also prefer a "flat" photo taken from directly opposite (if you know what I mean). The light is quite dull, too, but this may be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I try to figure what bring so strange WB in your shots, with other unwanted characteristics. I did have to check camera on Dpreview. Its not state-of-art but I think that "non state-of-art" is paired with another "non" - tourist walkaround lens 18-250 mm. I find WB and sharpness huge issue on your photos, despite you put "sharp" mode sharpness its barely acceptable for me, but not as FP. Its not issue just here, on most of your shots. Some better lens perhaps. --Mile (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and comment. I don't think there is any WB issue here, but not excellent lighting conditions against the usual dictatorship of blue sky and evening light (rainy weather and yes, dull light in this case), and I disagree with your "huge" opinion about sharpness, which is not so bad IMO. Of course my material is not up-to-date though, but even if I'm not a professional, I've got some successes here with that lense...--Jebulon (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much wrong with the image, from a camera/lens point-of-view. Many images at FPC are downsampled (and stitched) so perhaps we expect too much and need to remember what a regular out-of-camera photo looks like. It may be a travel-super-zoom, but at f/8 most lenses are pretty sharp in the middle, which is where the subject is here. I hope full-frame + Zeiss or Sigma Art prime isn't essential equipment any time soon. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all for reviews (pro and con). I meet the majority here, this is not a good FP candidate (light -not my fault- and sharpness -my fault-).--Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2015 at 12:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support On the one hand the contrast of the different kinds of lighting is interesting and on the other hand the uniform walls tear the eyes into the background. --AM (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Yann that the only interesting part is the inside, while the outside (which is most of the photo) looks unpleasant due to the very cold white balance. — Julian H.✈ 12:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2015 at 08:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I might do that. That one is nice too, but its more about butterfly than flower. Suppose author wasn't sure neither (composition). Technique is a must here. --Mile (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 09:59:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Harmonia axyridis, Harlequin lady beetle, Enfield, UK.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harmonia axyridis, Harlequin lady beetle, Enfield, UK.JPG
Oppose Very disturbing reflection (?) like a transparent veil on the elytrons, also parly overexposed. File size extremely small, 310 KB. Not even a QI in my opinion, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2015 at 09:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puy de Dôme - 136.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puy de Dôme - 136.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2015 at 20:20:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tram 71-631-02 in SPB 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tram 71-631-02 in SPB 02.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as noted, one of the photos does not meet minimum size requirements
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 00:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Carmel, Olinda20150715-DSC05360.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of Carmel, Olinda20150715-DSC05360.JPG
Oppose Per Jebulon; good color (if perhaps a little oversaturated) and detail, but composition just isn't doing it. In fact I'd even suggest that it shouldn't have been promoted for QI without perspective correction (not much, but the need is there). Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2015 at 18:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marble Boat from stern, Summer Palace, Beijing.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marble Boat from stern, Summer Palace, Beijing.jpg
Weak oppose Crop too tight for me, and I don't like the side wall on the left side. Personally, I would rather a view from the other side showing the front/rear of the building as background. The top of the modern motorboat moored behind is also rather unfortunate. -- KTC (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 10:30:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bath Abbey Nave Fan Vaulting, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bath Abbey Nave Fan Vaulting, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg
I could, but I'm pretty sure it would introduce blown highlights too. Stained glass is pretty tricky, because there's such a huge range of luminosity in it, and Lightroom struggles when such a range exists in a small area. I don't think the glass looks too dark though. It wasn't clear white light to begin with, it was late afternoon sun shining through old faded windows, so it was naturally yellowish. To let yellowish light overexpose to white would change the way it looks significantly. Diliff (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2015 at 09:03:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Strong support One of the best church ceilings we've had here in a while. I can almost hear the celestial choir oohing and aaaahhhing as I look at it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2015 at 18:06:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013.08.30.-4-Kaefertaler Wald Mannheim-Wolfsmilchschwaermerraupe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013.08.30.-4-Kaefertaler Wald Mannheim-Wolfsmilchschwaermerraupe.jpg
Support The background is perhaps a little bit cluttered, but with detail and color like this on the caterpillar it's not the first or second thing you notice. If you do. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralHockei Nice job, very sharp, and crispy photo... however, see the notes, with a better you could remove the distraction in front plan, and clone stamp the dust, and it's a bit dark, have a lack of white and blacks also. Next time, give more room in front the animal, it will bring a better composition. -- RTA10:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RTA, I have read your comment now again. Regarding more room in front I think you haven't understand the picture. The camera was almost lying on the ground. The recording is near horizontal. Therfore more room makes no sense. And I've no idea what you mean with lack of white and blacks. --Hockei (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no sense? Or you was not able to soak the information?? Any photo editor, Lightroom, Capture One ... have a bar to control the quantity of blacks and whites of our photo... and you are able to see the volume of blacks and whites with the histogram. And stills dark, specially in the head -- RTA11:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2015 at 17:20:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Calango em Brejo da Madre de Deus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calango em Brejo da Madre de Deus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2015 at 21:54:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pictorial Representation of the Illustrious City of Venice Dedicated to the Reign of the Most Serene Dominion of Venice.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pictorial Representation of the Illustrious City of Venice Dedicated to the Reign of the Most Serene Dominion of Venice.jpg
Support I was looking for that map, and was quite disappointed to find only a rather small version of it on Commons and WDL. But the Library of Congress has a much larger one! I'm not a map guy, but this one looks pretty accurate and also beautiful. Wish I can make a modern version of it using the data from OpenStreetMap... -- Benh (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2015 at 11:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A pine cone.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A pine cone.jpg
Support Thanx Tomer T, first time to see my photo nominated by other on Commons. This pine cone was on the edge of pine forrest at seaside. Very scenic place. Perfect light and ambient. --Mile (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For such a simple subject, the composition has to be right. The arrangement of light/dark in the background needs to work better imo. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 10:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Only to give you my opinion. Would be an oppose, but I'm not really a macro guy and I feel I would be alone to oppose so I don't wan't to block a speedy promotion. The (not quite) centered composition is really trivial and the lighting comes from the back. It renders harsh, and I don't find that very attractive. Enough details otherwise... - Benh (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 07:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Манастир Св. Јоаким Осоговски.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Манастир Св. Јоаким Осоговски.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2015 at 20:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:London MMB »0E5 Blackwall Basin and Canary Wharf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:London MMB »0E5 Blackwall Basin and Canary Wharf.jpg
Thank you, Christian. Btw, I don't think the buildings on the sides are too distracting, this discussion is not about the architecture in that respective area, but about the photo's quality I think. --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the flare (easily correctable), too much in the image—the background would work if the closer buildings along the quays weren't so distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2015 at 09:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Најголемото ѕвоно на манастирот Св. Јован Бигорски.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Најголемото ѕвоно на манастирот Св. Јован Бигорски.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2015 at 04:39:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Max Brückner - Otto Henning - Richard Wagner - Final scene of Götterdämmerung.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Max Brückner - Otto Henning - Richard Wagner - Final scene of Götterdämmerung.jpg
Support Excellent ! It is a good choice and a very good achievement. To Pokéfan95: as said, a cropped version is also available, or you can crop this one if as you wish. The goal here is to be encyclopedic, the more we have informations, the best it is !! --Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cropped version is nice for dedicated use of the artwork, where the frame doesn't matter. Nonetheless it remains part of the original and should be kept in the featured version. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2015 at 21:02:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Nacunda nighthawk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Nacunda nighthawk.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2015 at 05:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-13 Teotihuacan la Avenida de los Muertos y la Pirámide del Sol-RalfR-WMA 0251.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-13 Teotihuacan la Avenida de los Muertos y la Pirámide del Sol-RalfR-WMA 0251.jpg
Support I did a double take when I saw that this was from a D610. Something seemed wrong so I refreshed the image in my browser. Looks much better now. --Pine✉02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice point of view but I don't like the harsh mid day lighting. The pyramid looks almost flat ; and is unfortunately cut on the left. And horizon on the middle. - Benh (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't feel like the composition works very well. The horizon is pretty much centered while the pyramid is cut off. A wider aspect ratio would work much better in my opinion. Apart from that, I also agree with Benh regarding the light. — Julian H.✈ 12:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The lighting or processing is very harsh: the image is certainly very sharp for a single-frame but combined with the high contrast this is too much. If the contrast was less I might support. I think sometimes hot places with midday sun make a valid educational image, even though the fashion is for morning/evening light. But the effect on the people is just too much for me. -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2015 at 11:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Allehandaborgen May 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allehandaborgen May 2014.jpg
Comment You got the color profile wrong (ProphotoRGB instead of sRGB) when removing dustspots. It really shows on my iPad. - Benh (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 06:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eenzaam plantje (zeekraal Salicornia) trotseert de soms barre elementen. Locatie, Noarderleech Provincie Friesland 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eenzaam plantje (zeekraal Salicornia) trotseert de soms barre elementen. Locatie, Noarderleech Provincie Friesland 02.jpg
Info: Lonely plant (Salicornia Salicornia) sometimes braving the harsh elements. Location, Noarderleech Profince Friesland in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst
Support One of those images that doesn't become an FP until you look at it, at which point you wonder why it took so long to take. Although I agree that focus stacking would help ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't crop, its somewhere according to rule of thirds. But I would stack here, not just plant but also interesting, dry ground which give so much here. And perhaprs on strong sun, this would be top. --Mile (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As promised, regretfully. Composition flaw IMO. I.d like to have the same distance between the bottom of the plant and the right and bottom borders of the picture, designing a square (sorry for poor english).--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 12:19:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cirrus front over Austnesfjorden, Austvågøya, Lofoten, Norway, 2015 April.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirrus front over Austnesfjorden, Austvågøya, Lofoten, Norway, 2015 April.jpg
Comment There is definitely some noise and maybe even some color banding on the left and right side of the sky, but I wouldn't say there is a lot posterization. --Ivar (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beside noise I don't like color of snow on sunny left part, its not white, but purple-red. I think postprocesing went to far. There might be banding on left side in sky...curve was moved simply to far here. --Mile (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh Its more for gases, so air. Alpenglow is not the case here, snow is reddish at sunsets. If you would be there I think snow would be more white when observing with bare eyes. That's my point. --Mile (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile what you refer to is the fact the sky itself turns pinkish. But it's normal that when the sun is about to set, the subjects lit are yellow -> orange -> pink. - Benh (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article about en:Alpenglow. Very interesting, and it looks to refer to indirect lighting of the mountains. What I mean is that things can get pink even with a direct lighting (is the case on this picture), and what I understand when you mention "gases" or "air" is the fact the sky becomes pink (which to me is rayleigh scattering in combination with a thin layer of cloud, or what you have in ur own nomination). - Benh (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's got wow. There is some posterisation in the sky but slight. I'd prefer if Simo Räsänen exported this as sRGB colourspace JPG rather than AdobeRGB as the colours here don't need the wider gamut that only a fraction of a percent of viewers could actually see anyway, and all mobile browsers will display the wrong colours for this image. -- Colin (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2015 at 06:50:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel, Linás de Broto, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel, Linás de Broto, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 03.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 09:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Summer evening at Lovatnet, Stryn, Norway, 2013 June - 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Summer evening at Lovatnet, Stryn, Norway, 2013 June - 3.jpg
Moderate support Had I seen this earlier this year here, I might have complained about the clipped areas on the left side of the fjord. But now that I've had experience photographing in this kind of white-night-sunset northern light, I appreciate the choices that had to be made to make this look natural. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I love the light and the view, but I feel like the top of the mountains are unnecessarily cropped. I'd like to see the full view of the top of the mountains. Perhaps this was deliberate but it feels like taking a photo of someone and only getting half their head in the frame. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "moment" is good, but unfortunately not captured optimally: it certainly needs more height. I don't think the area to the right of the waterfall or to the left of the sunlight are adding anything much. But even cropping there, I'd like the rest of the mountains in the shot. Btw, I recommend "Capturing the Moment" by Michael Freeman. Not perhaps his best book, but his books are always worth reading. It reminds me of a photo in his book where he waited for the sunlight to highlight a village in a valley. Here, the light isn't focusing the eye on anything much, but still lovely. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 08:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Broschekhaus und Haus Heuberg 1, Hohe Bleichen 8 (Hamburg-Neustadt).Detail.1.29172.ajb.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Broschekhaus und Haus Heuberg 1, Hohe Bleichen 8 (Hamburg-Neustadt).Detail.1.29172.ajb.jpg
Qualified support per Code. I'd like to see it sharper on the lit areas of the brick, and there's the faintest hint of CA on the areas next to the sky. But the composition, which just screams "This ... is ... ARCHITECTURE!!!", is more than enough to offset those flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2015 at 14:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Accès plage, Sainte-Marie, Ré island, august 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Accès plage, Sainte-Marie, Ré island, august 2015.jpg
Comment You must not be a regular over here, or you won't say things like "Are not images be accepted because the author and not the image?". As a matter of fact, Jebulon and I often disagree, so I don't quite get you here. Photo is also about mood, and lighting (just search the root of the word "photo"...), and that photo is quite good in that regard (to me). Commons is not only focused on encyclopedic content. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. ;-) And It's OK sometime to digress a little (look at the church num below :D). I hope you are not too serious. I personally try not to look at how many FP people have when I judge a photo, and this case appart, I don't think anyone cares much about that. If you feel this is not FP I think you should oppose (and I hope author won't mind that I said this). - Benh (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Be bold, Luis Miguel, and oppose ! This is your pure right ! But please have a look to most of my recent nominations, and you will see how many of them I've withdrawn due to no chance of success, and how many failed at the end of the process. And you will be less personal I think...--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(You know my problem with English). I don't have -I think that you know- problem with you. My only problem is I do not understand anything in FP. Sorry. I beg you to forget me. Sorry. --Lmbuga (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
es: Lo siento, no entiendo que en una página internacional se pueda aceptar un criterio como "wov" que responde casi unicamente a la adscrición cultural del que opina. Ese criterio no es objetivo. Por suerte, no hay mucho esquimal entre ustedes, porque todo sería "wov". Sin embargo, son los más de ustedes muy parecidos y unos pocos son capaces de imponer su criterio (un criterio cultural que no coincide con el mío generalmente). ¿Que es un criterio cultural?, cultural es decidir lo que es bello y lo que no lo es. Lo siento: He debido quedarme callado--Lmbuga (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supportes: Porque, a pesar de que la imagen carece de exclusivo y significativo valor para absolutamente ningún espacio o página alguna, es lo que parece desear la comunidad de Commons.
es: Votar en contra no es valentía. Valentía es reconecer que no se pinta nada en la comunidad, aceptarlo y obrar consecuentemente. Y abandonar... o volver a abandonar--Lmbuga (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for Google es:@Lmbuga: Luis Miguel, su persona y su voto cuente tanto como los otros aquí. Una "imagen de calidad" es una "imagen de calidad", ya que tiene cualidades técnicas .... Una imagen se convierte en un FP porque agrada, además de sus características. Sinceramente, creo que esta imagen es un FP, ya que tiene más cualidades y mas dificultades, pero nos vemos, nos guste menos. No estoy de acuerdo, pero es así. Gracias por sus comentarios ti. Un abrazo.--Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't feel that I should support this picture since it is nothing but it is beautiful and that should be enough. Besides that it remembers me Arcachon in August, it was exactly like this. So what? It's a wow. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 21:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Poręba, kościół św. Sebastiana 07.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Poręba, kościół św. Sebastiana 07.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 23:42:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra in Ölands Zoo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra in Ölands Zoo.jpg
Oppose I like the expression of the macaque in the back, but the one in front with the top of its back, not so much. -- KTC (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Monkeys are social animals, but some of them are hidden to be photographed because they have not had time to fix her face, it is why the monkey front lowered his head. --The Photographer (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't think about until I read Katie's comment, but I'm really not bothered by the other one, which arguably looks like it's trying not to be photographed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2015 at 07:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Not sure about the off framing, and the lighting is unfortunate, leaving most the the interesting parts in the shadows. Looks much like a touristy snapshot. - Benh (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The words "tourist snapshot" are to be avoided here IMO, could be felt like an insult: there is a photographer, a person, who took this image, and nominated it here, thinking it could be a FP. Apart of that, agree with Benh--Jebulon (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 10:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chester Cathedral Rood Screen, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chester Cathedral Rood Screen, Cheshire, UK - Diliff.jpg
Comment If you would move little bit to left, to capture symmetric. I would try portrait mode. I see that ceiling inside is much more interesting. --Mile (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but it's hard to make a photo symmetrical when it isn't in its nature. I could crop the right side at the edge of the columns and that might improve the composition though, but it would make it less symmetrical, not more. The ceiling is interesting, but it isn't the subject of the image - the subject is the rood screen - the wooden carving in the middle. Diliff (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the image again, I'm more inclined to just abandon horizontal symmetry completely, and crop more of the right. I agree that the right side edge contributes little to the image, but the arches on the left (which support the organ just out of frame above)) are interesting IMO. Also, on reprocessing, I've realised that I can gain more ceiling as that too was cropped in this version of it. I'll upload my idea of the framing over the top of this version and if it's really disliked, I'll revert or crop symmetrically. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it works (not with me for sure). If you're to give more focus on the left arches, how about you "rotate" to the left where the viewer looks toward, so the roodscreen is no longer horizontal ? If you have enough room to. - Benh (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rotating the view to the left distorts the ceiling in weird ways though. The symmetry is lost even further because the horizontal ceiling elements (like the ribs of the vault) twist at extreme angles (because of the angle of view). See this low res example. So the horizontals get twisted and the overall result is no better IMO. So I suppose the only choice left is to crop the sides symmetrically, right? Diliff (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a little bit more room on the left, but not much, and there was a person wondering past so I cropped it out. The subject was always supposed to be the rood screen, with some space around the side for context. I didn't plan to make the left side an equal part of the composition. :-) Perhaps I should have though, and included the organ properly in the image. I can't remember now, it was over a year ago and I visited nearly 30 churches and cathedrals in 10 days on a big road trip. ;-) I think for that to have worked, I would have needed to get further back (the AoV to the organ would be pretty large), and I don't know if it was possible. Actually, I see now that it wasn't possible. This is the view across the road screen toward the organ. There was a temporary stage set up for some reason which would stop me getting far enough back for a diagonal shot. Diliff (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Framing has been updated. Not necessarily based on the suggestions above, but (as I said to Benh), maybe it's best to embrace the asymmetry in an image like this? Your thoughts? If it's really disliked, I can crop the left side and leave it as symmetrical as I can, but as you can see, the choir doesn't align along the same axis as the nave so it will always be a little off-centred. Diliff (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand your argument against moving a little to the left. It would make so many things line up properly. At the top, the perspective is just getting too weird for me, with the inside of the arch appearing to face the viewer. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "I don't understand your argument against moving a little to the left" either. ;-) When you say move to the left, do you mean the camera's position? The framing? The perspective? I didn't have any argument against anything on the left side of the frame. It was Benh who disliked the asymmetry of a previous version that I uploaded earlier today. You'll have to explain a bit better before I understand what you're getting at. As for the top of the arch, I don't think it does appear to face the viewer. It appears to be at roughly a 45 degree angle to me, which is about what it was. Distortion at a 45 degree angle is strong, but not ridiculously so IMO. I could just crop the top of the arch if you find it so uncomfortable though. The subject is the rood screen, not the arch. The arch is only there for compositional reasons. Diliff (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood Benh, but I thought he wished you had captured it a little to the left -- yes the camera position, so that the other objects align centrally. So I didn't know why you were rejecting that idea, but perhaps you thought he meant just to move the crop to the left. Yes, "face the viewer" does mean about 45 degrees. Surely the top of the arch faces the floor, unless this one has a weird twist in it, so how can that be "about what it was"? I know the subject is the screen, but the misalignment of the ceiling behind and when looking through the arch, are jarring. The detail is, as usual, fantastic. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was Mile who suggested I 'move to the left', but I assumed that he meant move the framing to the left, not move my physical camera position. Benh specifically talked about the framing. Anyway, yes, moving the camera to the left would would aligned the centre of the rood screen with the centre of the choir, but I aligned myself with the rood screen (and the tiling of the nave) because it was the subject. Not doing so would have meant that you'd be looking at the rood screen from a slight angle, resulting in the rood screen and the floor tiles not being symmetrical. It might be jarring, but it's the reality of the building - the misalignment is real, so why not show it as it is instead of hiding it and creating some other distortion in the process? Yes of course the top of the arch normally faces the floor, but you know that any three dimensional scene represented with rectilinear projection has this issue, whether it's ultra wide angle or not. Also, I would say that if the underside of the arch actually looked like it was facing the viewer, it would have the perspective of you looking directly underneath it, not from a 45 degree angle. The fact that it was taken from a 45 degree angle means that it's facing the half way point between the rood screen and the viewer. Somewhere on the floor in other words. Still kind of extreme, admittedly, but definitely not facing the viewer. Just as you can never have a 180 degree rectilinear perspective, you can never have an arch directly face the viewer - it can only approach the point of facing the viewer. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not as simple as just moving slightly to the left while keeping the camera pointed in exactly the same direction. You would also have to rotate the camera slightly to the right, to keep the middle of the rood screen centred. This would mean you are along the axis of the choir/ceiling, but no longer along the axis of the rood screen. This would introduce perspective tilt to the rood screen. I have no doubt that someone would then point out that the rood screen is not symmetrical. Do you not see that it's impossible to achieve symmetry when the building itself is not symmetrical? I would much rather keep the camera aligned with the subject, and accept that the background is misaligned than to blow the symmetry of the subject in an attempt to mask the asymmetry of the building itself. Diliff (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you view it at 100% though? I think all the details are perfectly visible when it's not a thumbnail... It's a dark wood though. It shouldn't be too bright, but I could brighten it slightly. By the way, both yours and Colin's criticisms are about things that could easily be fixed - perhaps a suggestion on what you think could be improved is all that is necessary, rather than an oppose vote? Diliff (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not view it at 100%, I never open pictures when assessing in FPC, it is completely useless, I judge only thumbnails, of course. Don't you do so ? Other: you know how I apreciate your work. IMO, a candidacy in FPC should be perfect since the beginning, especially for regulars like you, especially for champions like you. Ransom of glory. An oppose is not an infamy.--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you viewed it at 100% then I don't understand why you can't see the details. They are all there. They're not buried in the shadows. In any case, the point of FPC is not to provide lessons on 'getting it right first time'. If you have a specific reason for why it doesn't reach FPC standard and it can be corrected, I think you should just advise what you think the image needs and see whether it can be done. Images uploaded and nominated here are not set in stone. Adjustments can be made. As you can see above, everyone has different opinions on what the image should look like. I can do my best to accommodate everyone, but first I need to know what the consensus is. If you oppose without giving me a chance to address correctable issues, then it is a little unfair. It is about the image and trying to achieve the best results, not about the candidacy or the reputation of the nominator. It shouldn't matter whether I'm a regular or not. It is little wonder that many people have begun wishing for FPC to be anonymous so that nominators and voters aren't identifiable - there is systematic bias when the nominations are not judged objectively. Diliff (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder Jebulon, if your computer screen is too dark, or if you are viewing with a bright window behind your monitor, which makes it harder to see shadow detail. I think the detail is all there and shouldn't be lightened in software. Perhaps, however, the screen is better lit at another time of day, or maybe an evening shot would lower the dynamic range. As it is, the eye keeps getting drawn from the dark screen to the ceiling, and the screen almost acts like a silhouette. That's probably a general problem with such screens & dark wood.
I don't share Jebulon's opinion that an FPC shouldn't be improved during candidacy but it can make the voting messy, especially when you make huge changes to the crop/projection (one really should ping earlier reviewers rather than assume they will revisit old reviews they've made). We should certainly aim to get it right but I don't think David is generally sloppy in that way or this time. Opposing on a correctable aspect isn't forbidden, David, since you may refuse to make the required correction, and we may all then have to agree to disagree. Opposing for some minor CA flaw would IMO be rude. I don't think my main oppose reason is correctable, though, sorry. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your main oppose reason is that the top of the arch is too distorted... but you don't think it's correctable? It is totally correctable simply by cropping that part of the image out, as I said above. The top of the arch is not a fundamental part of the scene - it's the rood screen that is the subject, and the rood screen is not significantly distorted. As for the darkness issue, yes, maybe I'm never going to get everyone to agree on how the image should look. You (and I) say that it's appropriately represented in terms of brightness and shouldn't be artificially brightened, Jebulon insists he can't see it and Benh thinks its a bit dark. I can't brighten it and not brighten it. Certainly yes, nominations can get messy and changes to the composition should be reviewed. Perhaps you're right that I should have pinged the existing reviewers. Diliff (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually my main oppose reason is the issue I started with -- that things are out of alignment. And this makes it harder to crop as it is quite noticeable that you have more of one side of the ceiling than the other. David, I said I thought you'd probably captured the screen's darkness correctly here, but that doesn't mean that that is an optimal result photographically. If I shoot my vaccum cleaner in the under stairs cupboard with the light off, then I've got an accurately dark photo of a dark subject with little detail. I suggested there may be other times of day when one could shoot this screen with greater relative light on it compared to the background. Maybe not. Sometimes one has to accept a subject has imperfections that prevent FP. It is still a fine photo and fantastic detail. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your main oppose reason was a question referring to previous discussion and the secondary reason was the only part that actually had any critique in it, then you weren't being very clear with your oppose. :-) As I said over and over though, things are not 'out of alignment' photographically. This is how the building is. Furthermore, the ceiling is a nice addition to the scene but it is not the subject, and is absolute symmetry a vital aspect of the image? If so, why? I know aesthetics play a part in any FP, but really? You're more concerned about slight misalignment that was a deliberate architectural decision than the fantastic detail present in the actual subject I'm trying to present? This is not a vacuum cleaner under the stairs. A vacuum cleaner is a household item that you can present from any angle with any lighting you choose and of course we should be less forgiving for a poorly lit object like that, but this is an interior where I have no control over the lighting (apart from what time of day/year I choose to visit). Yes, a different time of day could result in different lighting conditions, but we're only guessing - it could well be worse, not better. In any case, lighting was never part of your oppose reasons at all. Are you saying you've added it to the list now? :-) I just think that sometimes you have to present a building as it is, warts and all. The lighting and misalignment is representative of the interior. Diliff (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned the lighting/dark-screen issue to defend Jebulon -- just because you photographed something accurately doesn't make it a great photograph from a lighting perspective, so his oppose is justifiable and you can't dismiss it by saying "that's how it was". You seem very certain that you are central on the rood screen. Well I've taken a grid to it (Using Irfan view's selection with a grid-of-four) and can quite clearly see you are slightly to the right of centre on the screen, which also explains the misalignment with the building behind. It might not be possible to everything aligned to the pixel, but this is quite far out. To see this, make a vertical line where the top of the archway is. It is handy that the screen is quite three-dimensional. Everything in the screen that is nearer than this is shifted to the left of that "centre", and thus everything behind the screen that is central to the building is shifted to the right of that centre. David, could we stick to discussing the photo because I'm not the slightest bit interested arguing about your misinterpretation of what my primary, secondary or tertiary oppose reasons are, or whether I was clear or not, and will simply unwatch. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, you were the one that was unclear. It's not my misinterpretation of anything. You misunderstood the original conversation preceding your vote, you were unclear about what you felt was wrong with the perspective and you were unclear that the perspective was the primary reason for your oppose. A question is not in itself a reason for a vote - it is a question. Don't try to turn it around like I've misunderstood. This might not be 'about the photo' but it's important that we clear up the misunderstandings before we can actually get to the root issue which is the photo. It would be nice if you actually acknowledged you were unclear, but I suppose that might be a bridge too far. As for the image being central to the rood screen, it may not be perfectly aligned with the camera (it's entirely possible that the rood screen itself is slightly warped or misaligned - it wouldn't be the first time that an architectural feature was not perfectly straight), but it is near enough - within a couple of cm I would estimate. With angles of view this wide, a few cm can make quite a big difference to horizontal lines. The question is not whether it is perfectly aligned. I never said it was, I only said that I aligned the camera with the rood screen as opposed to the choir. The question is simply whether it was more correct to align with the rood screen, or the choir/ceiling. My argument has always been that to move the PoV to the left and centre with the choir, the rood screen would be significantly skewed, and since the rood screen is the subject and focus of the image, it would not be beneficial to have it skewed. Not just a few pixels like you've measured in the image above, but probably visibly skewed. That's the reality of its geometry nothing you've said above can change that. So given the reality of this scene, there are only two possible options that I can see: 1) The image is remains as it is. 2) The PoV is shifted to the left and rood screen becomes skewed, along with the floor tiles. Can you honestly say that you'd prefer the latter? Or are you simply saying that the geometry of this interior makes it impossible to feature because of the flawed geometry? I'd like to hear how you think this problem can be solved. Diliff (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, I stopped reading after the first sentence. I stand by my opening statement, which was not a question. All the evidence suggests you were not central to the rood screen nor the cathedral, and for an image like this with arches and curves meeting a central point, it matters. I can see your were out of alignment on thumbnail, so this isn't a pixel-peeping complaint. Unwatching now. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence was clearly 'formed as a question', even if it wasn't, grammatically, literally a question. If you're saying you don't understand what someone has said or done, it follows that you're inviting them to explain their reasons to you. Unless of course you just like the sound of your fingers on the keyboard and you aren't interested in finding out what it is that you didn't understand. That's therefore not a reason for a vote or a critique. Whether you decide to read this or not, I want it very clear that I think you're being completely disingenuous about that. You honestly expect me to believe that you can see it was out of alignment with the rood screen in the thumbnail? Absolute rubbish. It's a matter of at most 20-30 pixels at full size. The thumbnail is 3300% smaller than the original size. The skewing of the rood screen is therefore less than a pixel across the thumbnail. You might think you can see it but perception is often wrong. Furthermore, whether I was slightly misaligned against the central point of the rood screen is also not the point you were originally making nor the reason why you opposed. You were saying you think I should be aligned with the choir/ceiling. Whether I'm misaligned against the rood screen is completely irrelevant to that original argument. I think you've simply brought this distraction up to discredit my counterargument against yours. "Since you weren't perfectly aligned against the rood screen, your argument against mine is therefore wrong" seems to be the gist of it. Diliff (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to defend Colin a bit, I did notice the misalignment on the thumbnail too Diliff. I don't think he is unfair (but honestly, I think we've said it all on that matter). - Benh (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Benh, even if it was visible in the thumbnail, is it even important to this discussion? The skewing of the rood screen is something correctable and I'd be happy to correct it if it was going to change anything for this discussion. The issue from the start has never been whether the rood screen is perfectly rectangular, the issue has been whether the PoV of the camera should have been shifted to the left. Colin said very early that he believes his reasons for opposing are not correctable. Therefore the skewing of the rood screen is apparently irrelevant to his argument. It seems like he brought that up as a distraction from the original discussion. Diliff (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I don't make things worse by popping into the discussion. It's a similar issue as Jebulon's nom below. When things are not entirely symmetrical, one has to make choice as to which parts shall be centered in priority. Stepping a bit on the left and rotating the viewing direction slightly to the right achieves this I think. You don't trade off much in the process. Here it seems you were centered on the floor pattern (at the cost of loosing the alignement between the roodscreen and the choir ceiling). - Benh (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're saying but I don't think you're right that you don't trade off much. It would significantly skew the horizontal lines of the rood screen and the floor tiles. It's a shame that I can't go back and easily demonstrate just what a difference it would make - we can only discuss this hypothetically. But I just know from experience that with wide angles of view like this, even being a small distance away from centre really messes with the symmetry and horizontal lines in the scene. Sometimes the central aisle of a church is offset by seating that wasn't arranged carefully. Sometimes I notice this at the time, sometimes I fail to notice. Either way, it causes trouble either for the symmetry of the seating, or of the architecture. The effect is real, and although you're right that you have to choice the priority, the effect means you lose symmetry of the overall scene. Pixel peepers on Commons will not let you get away with it. ;-) This is a perfect example here. In the 'real world', nobody would crucify an image for being slightly asymmetrical like it is here. Diliff (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The skewing can always be perspective fixed and I think it would be hard to tell something is going on. And my statement was a bit misleading : it's stepping to the left only (because alignment depends only on the position). No rotating the viewing direction, and thus no losing parallelism. The issue would be on the floor, but IMO it's minor compared to the rest: that's the tradeoff. But I agree with you it's only hypothetical. Let's save this as a bet and who is right gets a beer if the opportunity arises. - Benh (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's slightly offset because of your position so I'm afraid you can't really fix it, but the current crop does a good job at hidding that. I agree that the roodscreen is a bit dark. <offtopic>As per my recent comments, I think a photo doesn't necessarily have to be viewed at 100% to start to enjoy it. It's an additional benefit (and good encyclopedic feat) that we can zoom in and discover details, and that may be a reason which separates a good picture from an FP one.</offtopic> - Benh (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you don't need to view at 100% to enjoy the image, but you do have to view it at better than a thumbnail IMO, before you judge that it's too dark. Many subjects look too dark in thumbnail but are correctly exposed when viewed at a larger size. That was the point I was making to Jebulon. It is a dark rood screen, but I think it's correctly exposed in this situation because the rood screen is backlit due to the brighter choir area. If you artificially brighten it too much, you end up with a scene that looks too HDRish and the wood no longer looks realistic. As for the offset, I don't think my position is offset at all. It's the cathedral choir that is offset. This is very common and is apparently to represent Christ's head slumped to the side as represented in the crucifixion. It's an intentional architectural decision. It screws with symmetry and makes it look like I've made a silly mistake with my positioning, but I can't position my viewpoint along the axis of both the nave and the choir at the same time, so one of them inevitably appears offset. Diliff (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm not talking about thumbnail viewing of course ;) For the roodscreen, it's hard to say. Your records speak for you, and I do trust you (most of the time). It's possibly well exposed here, but I can't help but think I would see it brighter because my vision will accommodate the darkness when focusing on the roodscreen. Anyways, my neutrality is because of the doubt (I don't mind opposing as you know). Sometimes you just can't please everyone, and it's good to stuck to your own judgement too. And from time to time, seeing red on your noms must get you topics for dinner talks ;-) ("whaat who dared oppose you David? Stevie Wonder?") - Benh (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider brightening it slightly, but Jebulon has dropped in his oppose and then failed to respond further, so I have no idea why he thinks its too dark and whether a certain level of brightening would resolve the issue or not. I still personally think that it's perfectly visible, but supposed to look dark. It's funny because in Code's recent nomination, he complained that the colour of the wood looked abnormal. That's precisely because the side in shadow was too bright (IMO). Diliff (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Essay came out, didn't read but something like this I had in my mind. I suppose you want to evade strong light and move to right side. Lack of Jesus head...a personal massage you probably saw back home. --Mile (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 10:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:KosyginaStreet Moscow view to Khamovniki 06-2015 img1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:KosyginaStreet Moscow view to Khamovniki 06-2015 img1.jpg
Support Although my pc is dead and I can't review images correctly with the portable, I know this image quite well as I saw it several time at full resolution before this nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting and nice, but I've to oppose for several rationales. Slightly tilted ccw IMO, road not centered enough, light not optimal (a bit pale). The cropped cars are unfortunate.--Jebulon (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Jebulon ... I also am bothered by the cropped streetlights.
However, in the process of evaluating it I looked at Street View to get an idea of where you were shooting from, and I could see why you wanted to shoot it. I am actually thinking that maybe this image needs some more foreground, like maybe some of the trees at the side? That might offset the issues Jebulon had. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2015 at 09:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Eutropius basilica, romanesque crypt, Saintes, Charente-Maritime, august 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Eutropius basilica, romanesque crypt, Saintes, Charente-Maritime, august 2015.jpg
Support Back with the romanesque crypt (1081 CE) of the Basilica of Saint Eutropius is one of the largests of this kind in the world (nave:35m). This time, almost the whole church, well centered. Very different from a previous withdrawned nomination.-- Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's underexposed and it feels too unbalanced to me because of the lighting. The right pillar really pops out. I think it would have been better to step forward so the first row of pillar ends out of frame (the second row is more evenly lit, and the third is not, and that was what appeared first on your previous nom). I still think stepping a bit on the left would have make the pillars and arch symmetrical (at the cost of the far most elements but you have to make choice). - Benh (talk)
@Benh: . Dear wall, there was (for me) no other choice than the altar and the sarcophagus, reasons of the existence of the crypt. And that was why I made this choice (yes, I made a choice)The altar of the sarcophagus are perfectly centered, nothing else is centered nor symmetrical (again)...--Jebulon (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I know, I should follow the sentence "never explain, never complain", but no, it is NOT underexposed, according to the histogram in LR. No need to ask for symmetry, there is definitely NO symmetry here. Notice that the entrance if lateral, left, not in the back of the photographer. Last time, I was a step too far, now I was a step not far enough. A good joke. I definitely think there is something personal but of course...well.--Jebulon (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, browse back a little before going paranoiac. Nothing personal. I feel like talking to a wall. I know it's not entirely symmetrical. But the arch and pillars can probably be captured symmetrical, but I guess you focused too much on that line on the floor. And we probably are not looking at the same histogram (I see this. It's a dark place, OK, but I still think it could be brightened. There's no component in the highlights at all. - Benh (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unlike that similar one we had recently, I don't find the contrast here unbalances the picture. There's plenty of detail, and the long exposure has prevented clipping. In short, this is how it would appear to your eye (or at least how I think it would). Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You're going to hate me for saying this, but I much prefer the other one and seem to have missed the chance to support it. I even like the quirky non-symmetry. But here that triangular shadow on the floor is disturbing and takes up too much boring room in the frame and the interesting bit is too small. Wait till Benh goes on holiday then renominate the first one :-). -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If things go as planned, it should be in January, and I should be in a quite remote place. And two weeks is big enough a slot ;-) - Benh (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Info all by me -- 1bumer (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Support -- 1bumer (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Neutral Tight crop. --Laitche (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I don't like it. Technicaly very good, sharpness excellent, no noise, OK. But I find the work (not the photograph) not interesting, more a 19th century kitchy "painting on glass" portrait than a real "stained glass window" we have from the Middle Ages. I don't know who is that saint (a martyr (see the palm) like Saint Martin maybe ?), there is a red link to the author in the category, the crop below is frustrating, even if this part of the glass is just banal, a part of the "frieze" is broken and replaced by a modern glass... IMO it is just an average subject, not extraordinary. Well, no wow, I'm sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Moroder: artwork needs more support on FPC ! Furthermore, I agree that the lower part is useless, see crop suggestion !! ;-)--Jebulon (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination since Daniel Case knows this location so well and is better positioned to evaluate this photo. --Pine✉ 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Question Ok, it looks like it will not be a speedy promotion...can somebody at least give me a hint where the problem is (composition, lighting, quality, subject....)? Poco2 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
_-_Dome_HDR.jpg)
.jpg)
Reworked Christian Ferrer,Jacek Halicki,Benh, Jebulon and Yann better? Merci.--LivioAndronico (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
_-_Knautia_arvensis_-_Keila.jpg)
. Reality is reality! Independently of I would crop it 16:9. Then at least the lower road sign would be away. --Hockei (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
) --Hockei (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Request Please add a more detailed description and if possible a geo location. -- -donald- (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What was the price ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
--Hockei (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
,_Owen_Conservation_Park,_Madison,_Wisconsin.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
._Locatie._Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg)
_HDR.jpg)
Front view
Back view
Top view
Side view
.jpg)
_-_Les_contes_d%27Hoffmann_by_Jacques_Offenbach,_prologue.jpg)
.jpg)
_(15489798050).jpg)
_(16518343511).jpg)
_2015-02.jpg)
.jpg)
,anyway i prefer Vertical) --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
,_Cerro_Brujo,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_147.jpg)
Old Saint-Michel bridge, 1857
New Saint-Michel bridge, 1859
Old Saint-Michel bridge, 1857
New Saint-Michel bridge, 1859
.jpg)
Looking west towards the organ
Looking east towards the stained glass
A photosphere of the interior (panoramic viewer here or under the image description on the image page)
_-_57.jpg)
. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
_-_panorama_2.jpg)
.jpg)
. --Ivar (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
,_Bah%C3%ADa_de_Cochinos.jpg)
_-_by_Pudelek_4.JPG)
.JPG)
,_150912,_ako.jpg)
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12.jpg)
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12_ver_II.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
_-_Medicago_x_varia_-_Keila.jpg)
The saturation I left untouched. 
--Hockei (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_19.JPG)
.jpg)
Prologue
Olympia act
Giulietta act_-_Les_contes_d%27Hoffmann_by_Jacques_Offenbach,_Olympia_act.jpg)
_-_Les_contes_d%27Hoffmann_by_Jacques_Offenbach,_Giulietta_act.jpg)
,_Nagai_Park,_Osaka.jpg)
--Laitche (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
_September_2015-5.jpg)
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_12.JPG)
,_Udawalawe_National_Park,_Sri_Lanka.jpg)
_-_br%C3%A1na_(5._n%C3%A1dvo%C5%99%C3%AD).JPG)
.jpg)
Version from National Gallery of Norway, Oslo. 1894–95. 91 cm × 70.5 cm (36 in × 27.8 in).
Version from Kunsthalle Hamburg, Hamburg. 1895. 90 × 71 cm (35.4 × 28 in)
Color lithograph from Ohara Museum of Art. 1895–1902. 60.5 × 44.4 cm (23.8 × 17.5 in)..jpg)
_-_Hamburger_Kunsthalle.jpg)
.jpg)
Great! --Laitche (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Knautia_arvensis_-_Keila.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Owen_Conservation_Park,_Madison,_Wisconsin.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
._Locatie._Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Les_contes_d'Hoffmann_by_Jacques_Offenbach,_prologue.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15489798050).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(16518343511).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2015-02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Cerro_Brujo,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_147.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panorama_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bahía_de_Cochinos.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek_4.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_150912,_ako.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Medicago_x_varia_-_Keila.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_19.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Nagai_Park,_Osaka.jpg){kind=link}
_September_2015-5.jpg){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_12.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
,_Udawalawe_National_Park,_Sri_Lanka.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_brána_(5._nádvoří).JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_trotseert_de_soms_barre_elementen._Locatie,_Noarderleech_Provincie_Friesland_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.Detail.1.29172.ajb.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome_HDR.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome_HDR.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_-_Knautia_arvensis_-_Keila.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Knautia_arvensis_-_Keila.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Knautia_arvensis_-_Keila.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Knautia_arvensis_-_Keila.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Intern.jpg){kind=link}
,_Owen_Conservation_Park,_Madison,_Wisconsin.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Owen_Conservation_Park,_Madison,_Wisconsin.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
._Locatie._Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Locatie._Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Les_contes_d%27Hoffmann_by_Jacques_Offenbach,_prologue.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Les_contes_d%27Hoffmann_by_Jacques_Offenbach,_prologue.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg/2&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg/2){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Agrias_claudina_claudina_MHNT.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Adelpha_cytherea_MHNT.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Baeotus_aeilus_MHNT.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15489798050).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(15489798050).jpg){kind=link}
_(15489798050).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(15489798050).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(16518343511).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(16518343511).jpg){kind=link}
_(16518343511).jpg,_not_feature){kind=link}
_(16518343511).jpg,_not_feature){kind=link}
_2015-02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2015-02.jpg){kind=link}
_2015-02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_2015-02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Cerro_Brujo,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_147.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Cerro_Brujo,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_147.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panorama_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_panorama_2.jpg){kind=link}
_-_panorama_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_panorama_2.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bah%C3%ADa_de_Cochinos.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Bah%C3%ADa_de_Cochinos.jpg){kind=link}
,_Bahía_de_Cochinos.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Bahía_de_Cochinos.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek_4.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek_4.JPG){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek_4.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek_4.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_150912,_ako.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_150912,_ako.jpg){kind=link}
,_150912,_ako.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_150912,_ako.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12.JPG){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12.JPG){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12_ver_II.jpg){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
,_Las_Bachas,_isla_Baltra,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-23,_DD_12_ver_II.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Medicago_x_varia_-_Keila.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Medicago_x_varia_-_Keila.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Medicago_x_varia_-_Keila.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Medicago_x_varia_-_Keila.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_19.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_isla_Santa_Cruz,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-26,_DD_19.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Nagai_Park,_Osaka.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Nagai_Park,_Osaka.jpg){kind=link}
,_Nagai_Park,_Osaka.jpg){kind=link}
_September_2015-5.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_September_2015-5.jpg){kind=link}
_September_2015-5.jpg){kind=link}
_September_2015-5.jpg){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_12.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Crist%C3%B3bal,_islas_Gal%C3%A1pagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_12.JPG){kind=link}
,_Udawalawe_National_Park,_Sri_Lanka.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Udawalawe_National_Park,_Sri_Lanka.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](/wiki/File:Small_bird_perching_on_a_branch.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](/wiki/File:Ardea_cinerea_2013-06-29.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](/wiki/File:The_brown-eared_bulbul_after_playing_with_water.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](/wiki/File:Peablue_October_2007_Osaka_Japan.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](/wiki/File:Common_bluebottle,_Keitakuen,_Osaka.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](/wiki/File:Pseudothemis_zonata,_Keitakuen,_Osaka.jpg){kind=link}
_-_br%C3%A1na_(5._n%C3%A1dvo%C5%99%C3%AD).JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_br%C3%A1na_(5._n%C3%A1dvo%C5%99%C3%AD).JPG){kind=link}
_-_brána_(5._nádvoří).JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_-_brána_(5._nádvoří).JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
--Laitche (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
_trotseert_de_soms_barre_elementen._Locatie,_Noarderleech_Provincie_Friesland_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_trotseert_de_soms_barre_elementen._Locatie,_Noarderleech_Provincie_Friesland_02.jpg){kind=link}
_trotseert_de_soms_barre_elementen._Locatie,_Noarderleech_Provincie_Friesland_02.jpg)
.Detail.1.29172.ajb.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.Detail.1.29172.ajb.jpg){kind=link}
.Detail.1.29172.ajb.jpg)
Like --Laitche (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
