Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2015

File:San Bernardo alle Terme - ceiling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 09:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 09:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 09:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor sharpness, CA everywhere, clipped white,... --A.Savin 10:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Interesting idea but poorly performed. ISO 400 seems to be too much for this camera, theres NR smudge visible everywhere. --Kreuz schnabel 12:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately I had to use ISO 400 because Security stopped me immediately with tripod --LivioAndronico talk 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the camera (see [1]). I hope that in 201X no DSLR performs this poorly at ISO 400. - Benh (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want i can send you the raw --LivioAndronico talk 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's fine with you I can try to have a look. - Benh (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done New version --LivioAndronico talk 16:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friends will be friends - right till the end! --A.Savin 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the enemies Savin

--LivioAndronico talk 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing sharp, too soft, some CA. No enemies here for me, just my opinion about a photograph. Not the best of "Commons", far from FP standards IMO, quality wise. Excellent point of view and nice symmetry though. Good idea, not good enough achievement.--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But infact Jebulon, you are objective and your opinion, as you know, is always well accepted. Anyway Thanks --LivioAndronico talk 17:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Jebulon. Well below FP technical quality standards. -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good composition but not the quality --Σπάρτακος (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 14:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral. Yerevan, Armenia. - all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely mood. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support These clouds contrasts very well with the church. Really good timing. -- Pofka (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Makes you wander, do city planners deliberately calculate how they can ruin the aesthetics of a setting by (as in this example) adding a communications mast just slightly off-centre from this cathedral?--Fotoriety (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That chimney on the right looks ugly as well. Somebody really should be fired in this city. -- Pofka (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The communications mast is now blasted out:

. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am opposed to this type of practices that falsify reality. --Halavar (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Halavar: +1. So you (we both) can withdraw the alt-version. My reworked version was only to show us the same image without the communications mast. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can stay. No problem. --Halavar (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The chimney doesn't interfere. From the first time I don't notice the difference between the photos. :) --Brateevsky {talk} 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also ok I guess. — Julian H.^✈ 08:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Pofka: great lighting! --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinarily I might find things to justify a weak oppose: the detail on the people going up the steps is a little soft (I think you could have gone up to f/11 at least), there's some noise in the clouds, and the antenna. But the first two are not enough to offset the stunning symmetry of this shot, and the clouds behind the building actually make the antenna less of an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Edited and proposed version by Alchemist-hp without the mast in the background. Thanks. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without the mast. — Julian H.^✈ 15:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Removal of permanent structures (even if not pretty) is not acceptable for FPC, imo. --DXR (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There may be cases where removing things from an image is acceptable or even beneficial, but I don't think this is one of them. --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks way better, but as others said: We have to keep reality as it is. -- Pofka (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

The chosen alternative is: File:2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05).jpg

File:2014 Kłodzko, kościół Matki Bożej Różańcowej 32.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 17:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--LivioAndronico talk 21:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Yann (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mrtony77 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... And 12. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Swell. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Agustín Salinas y Teruel - School Festival at Ipiranga - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 11:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info School Festival at Ipiranga, by Agustín Salinas y Teruel. Created by Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by Dcoetzee (Bot) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine! For me, this painting is the best of the Category:Google Art Project works in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colorful. -- Pofka (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 006.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 05:50:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dahlia 'Moonfire'. A brilliant selection. Warm colors combined with dark leaves. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Touzrimounir (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From an APS-C size sensor camera from 2012, I don't understand the image quality. There is this strange, not sure which word to use, maybe flaky texture across the whole image. At just over 4 Megapixels, I don't think that's acceptable in a FP. — Julian H.^✈ 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely much better now. I'll give a good

Neutral because it's still quite small and relatively usual in what it looks like. — Julian H.^✈ 08:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lack of details by over-sharpened and heavy NR. Halos around petals and probably a bit over-saturated. I just presumed... :) --Laitche (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done New version. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new version is getting better except the composition but still not reach the FP bar, I think. --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: You mean the crop? --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the reason exactly, Maybe that needed ISO 200 and 1/40 exposure time when this has been taken, just a little bit motion blur happened or maybe lack of luminous for a APS-C, in any case it's not enough detailed for a FP, I guess, imo. --Laitche (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my opinion. Currently 5 support 1 oppose 1 neutral, never mind :) --Laitche (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have a bit of a problem with the background. It looks a bit like you cut the flower and placed it in a vase on a table with a nicely trimmed lawn in the background to achieve a smooth background. No, I'm not saying you actually did that, with a flower of this height it's easily possible to get this effect in situ. It's just that it looks a bit artificial to me – which is to be expected for an artificial cultivar growing in an artificial garden, but still … To be honest, I just don't like it as an image and would have probably preferred a plain black studio background. Or to say it in FPC slang: No WOW → Oppose. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dahlias are not hardy in the Netherlands and are usually used as a pot plant. The Dahlia was also in a pot with the background lawn.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation – it doesn't really matter, though. It's probably just a matter of taste – others seem to disagree with my opinion and that's perfectly fine, of course. Forgot to say in my initial review: The colors of the flower itself look really great, imo. --El Grafo (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Fish for sale at Tsukiji Fishmarket, Tokyo-30.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 11:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better if someone can identify the fish --Charles (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors are reproduced just brilliantly. -- Pofka (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nom. I think they may be a type of red snapper, but I was not sure enough of the species identification to add that to the page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 12:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Fish heads, fish heads, roly poly fish heads ... eat them up—yum!" Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of File:Ensenada fish market 2.jpg Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'll be honest, I hate fish as food. But this image is very well done, so I find myself supporting anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Pugilist (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if you imagine them all screaming "Oh! Wow!" it's much funnier :D I find the colour of the tablecloth an important feature for this picture, it complements very well with that of the fish. --Kadellar (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good and very useful. --Brateevsky {talk} 07:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 4433.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 17:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now this is something different! Oh, and it's good technically, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and very original --LivioAndronico talk 21:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting in its perspective, good composition, technically sound. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many many thoughts and condolences to the families of the children from the Josef-König Gymnasium...--Jebulon (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Jastarnia, schron bojowy Sęp (WLZ14).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 13:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bunker Sęp, Jastarnia, Poland. All by 1bumer -- 1bumer (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1bumer (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mrtony77 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite ugly structure, but looks surprisingly good as whole composition. -- Pofka (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but the lighting is too flat. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would prefer less space on top and more towards the sea. — Julian H.^✈ 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice high difference in the composition, although Julian has good points, very nice colloring. Basvb (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Pitt Rivers Museum Interior, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 01:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Јованвб (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This takes me right back - I used to queue for lectures on the first floor walkway on the right. --Baresi F (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An amazing picture! I wonder how was it possible to have nearly everything in focus with f/8. Those used to make panoramas know how tricky it can be to deal with the various plans in the photos. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The trick is to use the hyperfocal distance rather than focus at infinity as most people do (when using autofocus). Also, this was easier than many of my church/cathedral interiors where I try to get everything from about 50cm away to infinity in focus, there was nothing nearby nearby which needed focus. I think the nearest pillars were 3-4 metres away which makes f/8 a bit easier to work with. Diliff (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 07:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:View to Sifjorden from Sifjord, Senja, Troms, Norway in 2014 August.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 12:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Јованвб (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition of this image confuses me. Is the main subject meant to be the plants in the foreground, or the land/water in the background? Combining the two doesn't work for me I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is certainly a way above photo as usual for Ximonic, but I find the light is flat, and the composition is not quite there. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this composition quite good and the mood wonderful. Lots of wow for me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Before all, thanks for this nomination! I like this picture and view but to be honest, have no special feels for it. The mood of the weather was quite wonderful when seen by oneself but not so optimal for photography. Instead of having a very specified subject this is more like postcardish kind of a photo giving a good idea of the local landscape... Which it does rather well as it is quite typical scenery for the area. Anyhow, I stay curious about external points of view from other people. Thanks! --Ximonic (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finally I think it is worth the star. Yann (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like this double-minded composition --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is. FP. --Hubertl (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Villanueva de la Concepcion.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 09:40:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by imehling - uploaded by imehling - nominated by imehling -- Imehling (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Imehling (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well captured and nice sky, but most of the land is in shade. For FP it needs more "wow" and better light would give you that. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Though the white house is a very nice addition to what would otherwise be a drab landscape. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Too much shadow spoils the general impression somehow. --Tremonist (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Light painting screw.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 07:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Running full speed backwards circling a torch laughing created by Karsten Knöfler - uploaded by Karsten Knöfler - nominated by Karsten Knöfler -- KKnoefler247 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- KKnoefler247 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting. But what is it? --Tremonist (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An accidental product out of boredom, i added info above. KKnoefler247 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different with lots of wow and sufficient quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual, but nice and FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Immediately catches your eyes. -- Pofka (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very interesting, but noisy. Sorry. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Solidago rugosa 001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 05:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for nomination Christian Ferrer. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice yellow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A no wow and a distracting background would be enough to oppose for me. But here it's not even processed correctly with (compression ?) artifacts all over the place even where it's originally blurred, and a lot of jagged lines. - Benh (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done AC removed.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Benh, sorry. — Julian H.^✈ 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background separation not enough for FP -- Colin (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk)
Oppose per Colin. --El Grafo (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brasilia Eixo Monumental Nat Congress Ministries from TV Tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 18:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Brasilia, capital of Brazil, as seen from Brasilia TV Tower: eastern part of Eixo Monumental (Monumental Axis), National Congress (two towers and two hemispheres) and ministries (in green on both sides) buildings. Created and uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, very grey sky, very busy and unpleasant photo, and this is not quite sharp ... -- RTA 06:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Potentially interesting subject but no wow (cropped buildings on both sides don't help). Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weather conditions could have beeen better, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from the Cup & Saucer Trail.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 15:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by me -- Óðinn (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Óðinn (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent colors, but insufficient sharpness especially in the trees just below the wind turbines. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The King is right. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dito. --Tremonist (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, per others. You might not have had this problem on a brighter day. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness could be better, but the composition is good, and the colors are very nice. For this camera, it is a very good picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ακρόπολη 6912.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 15:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An almost night view of the Acropolis of Athens from Pnyx (the darkest part of the photo has been removed). All by me -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too dark below. --Tremonist (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I would say better crop is required. There is too much black in the bottom. Furthermore, the upper fog surroundings aren't that interesting as well (but it's fine because it focuses your view into the Acropolis). I think more centered version would look way better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can try to recover some detail from below from the raw. Pofka, you mean a further crop? --C messier (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this: http://i.imgur.com/CtE4NwZ.jpg :) If it would be possible to recover some more detail from the bottom, then it would probably look even better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Pofka and his suggestion. But I'm afraid the subject itself is a bit soft.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done cropped No raw for this set (and only) - Merphy's law :P --C messier (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. I really like the way Acropolis is lightened here. -- Pofka (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looks very washed out as after too much highlight or shadow recovery. Some areas of the subject show almost no significant brightness changes. — Julian H.^✈ 20:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too big dynamic range to adequately capture with only one frame. Too dark foregorund and too many burned highlights. The illumination appers more white than what I can find from a Google image search for illuminated night shots. Also it is a bit too soft for my taste and there is a little fringing. For such a subject, shoot raw, try to combine several bracketed exposures to better catch the extreme dynamic range. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's actually four frames merged into one. And it has more DR than most of the other images in the category, with much less blown highlights. --C messier (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That information is worth adding to the file page, which has an exif indicating it is a single 6 s exposure. It is surprising that the end result does not exhibit a larger dynamic range when that is the case. May I ask how you have combined the exposures and how large the EV difference was? Do you still have the source images? It is my experience that you need a separation of 2 EV for four exposures with my entry level and not terribly new DSLR. There may be another optimum for your camera, which I am not familiar with.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Combined as descripted here (although the brightest was the base, because otherwise, the stars appear blacker than the sky), it 6s, 2,5s, 1/1,3s and 1/5s with same f, ISO and exposure compasation, and I have kept the original images.--C messier (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @C messier: Thanks for the information. If my math is correct that corresponds to steps of around 1.2 EV, 1.7 EV and 1.95 EV, which is a slightly odd spread of the exposures, especially the span from 2.5s to 6 s is a little low (1.2 EV), but it should be fairly OK, I guess. I do not know how well the GIMP method described works as compared to other methods. If you are interested in sharing your source images I could try and have a go at it using PTGui to make a 32 bit floating point "super raw" tif and postprocess that in lightroom as an alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Slaunger: Were can I upload them? They are useless on their own to upload here. And if you can align the pictures, I have also a nearly identical set of exposures, but with raw with 6w, 1,6s and 1/4s. --C messier (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @C messier: In PTGui alignment is easy, and raw as source is better too, asCA can be removed efficiently in Lightroom prior to exporting to PTGui in 16 bit tiff for HDR fusion. Where to upload? Hmmm, well I used Dropbox, when I had Diliff help me with a restitch. If you do not want to share them in a public folder, I can email you, such that you can share a private folder. Any other file sharing service of your choice is another option, if it is not too big a hazzle for me to access. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Slaunger, check your e-mail. --C messier (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @C messier: : Thanks, I have send you a few candidates by mail. Not a vast improvement, but in some respects perhaps an improvement, in others perhaps not? Have a look, and see if you fand any of them relevant for upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Slaunger: , thank you for your time, but the jpeg-based looks overprocessed (with a black halo around the acropolis), the other looks better, although a bit too yellow. --C messier (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @C messier: New versions mailed to you, less processed and less yellow (I am not too convinced of the results to be honest, except for the foreground vegetation). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Slaunger: thank you for your time, I experience(d) a problem with my PC and I wasn't able to upload them. --C messier (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the dark grey light-polluted sky isn't good. Prefer your one with blue sky but neither are sharp enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air National Guard wraps up training at Global Dragon 150319-Z-SV144-004.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 15:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Muncy - uploaded by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. -- Fæ (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose I am sorry, too wow for me --The_Photographer (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very catchy at low resolution. Reminds some kind of video game or something. Definitely has that "Wow, what's that??" feeling. -- Pofka (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wow is certainly there, but the overall image quality is not there, and it is Overprocessed for my taste. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this may be one of those cases, where WOW trumps quality. Processing seems appropriate for this kind of picture – I'm even inclined to say that more of that "funky" processing wouldn't necessarily hurt if it moved it still further into the direction of video games and science fiction movies. Photography does not always have to try to resemble what the human mind perceives as "reality" as closely as possible, even at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow does it for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have to go neutral despite the wow factor. In addition to the quality side it has another downside which in my opinion is the composition. It looks like it's trying to be central oriented but it's still quite not symmetrical. Enough flaws make me go below the support mood this time. --Ximonic (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Dandelion, April 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 11:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Henry Marion (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of artistic expression. --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the idea, the lighting and how the bright subject stands out against the dark background. I would have preferred a slightly deeper DOF and/or a focus point just a little bit further away, to have the whole central "docking station" in focus, if possible. A bit more space on the left and a bit less of it on the right side could maybe improve the composition as well. --El Grafo (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I really like the composition, but the depth of view is to small, only a very small part of the seeds (is that the correct word?) is in focus, more to all in focus would have really added to this image. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Danish West Indies 1904 10 Daler.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 14:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by National Museum of American History, uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Danish West Indian 10 daler gold coin (1904) depicting Christian IX of Denmark.
Support The most amazing picture of a coin I have seen in a long time. -- Yann (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very strong nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear image --Charles (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Details! -- Pofka (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Godot13 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice and sharp. -- Kamranki (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really clear and sharp. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Henry Déziré, Tête de Bretonne au ruban rouge (avant 1913), Musées d'Art et d'Histoire de La Rochelle, cliché Max Roy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 13:12:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Henry Déziré/Max Roy, uploaded by Araynaudreversat, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting painting, high quality reproduction. -- Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution is high enough to show the painting's features fully. --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine reproduction of an interesting portrait. --Pugilist (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks so /$/)#"?%, but OK since painting. L'Breton. --Mile (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More good paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Megachile montenegrensis female 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 20:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are those white balls pollen? -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the pollen of Malvaceae spp. is very large. Gidip (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --LivioAndronico talk 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Picture is very good, but contrast and brighhtness is to low. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A very good image but yes, it lacks a bit of punch; contrast can be boosted a little I believe. Other than that, I also feel that the image is towards a "cooler" temperature; try "warming" up the white balance? -- Kamranki (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- New version uploaded. Gidip (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK now. Yann (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balles2601 (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera

File:Pencil 01 kamranki.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 08:27:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kamranki - uploaded by kamranki - nominated by Kamranki (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kamranki (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of high resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I hope it takes more than size to get something featurable. Or one could as well macro shot any object at home, and submit here. - Benh (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm actually more than happy with featuring macro shot of everyday objects, but the issue I have here is the execution in this instance. There's burn out part on the shaft of the pencil, and also is that fringing I see at the bottom part of the pencil? -- KTC (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the lighting: Top and bottom of the wood section are well-lit, while the center section is quite dark. So the lighting diverts attention from the sharp center section to the not-so-sharp outer sections – should probably be the other way round, if you ask me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unexceptional macro photo. -- Colin (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. -- Pofka (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Good, but maybe Valued image? --Brateevsky {talk} 07:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /KTC (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playa Paraíso, Villajoyosa, España, 2014-07-03, DD 01-02 PAN.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 11:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic view of Paraíso ("Paradise") Beach in Villajoyosa (Valencian Community) at the Mediterranean Sea, Spain. Poc o² 11:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like everything is too bright overall. I see that the individual pixels aren't actually blown-out, so perhaps you could pull it back a little in Photoshop? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KoH: I lowered the luminosity overall a bit and the highlights a bit more. Poc o² 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Composition is a bit simplistic, but nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I give you + if you make a bit more -EV (stones, sand is too much brigth). I like "lonely tree shot", would be better if some more to the rigth. --Mile (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile: I uploaded a new version with an additional reduction of brightness, I agree that it looks better now. Regarding your second comment, are you suggesting a different crop? Poc o² 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Much better, even island can be seen better. Crop perhaps wider to the left, so tree wouldnt be so much in corner, but since i dont know what on left side was, maybe crop is best of the rest. --Mile (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely colors and marvelous mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Southern sea lion, L'Oceanogràfic (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 00:03:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens) at L'Oceanogràfic. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a litte bit too centered, but in all, supported by my opinion --Bojars (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, just a QI for me. For a zoo photo, I'd expect better sharpness and the framing / background isn't inspiring. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot! --Halavar (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality image; however, as per issues raised by Colin, IMO not at FP level. Perhaps could also have done with some direct sunlight to really bring out the iridescence of the wet fur, and increase the overall contrast --Baresi F (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Σπάρτακος (talk)

Info Demoted to 'not featured' due to sock double vote. 4 October 2018. --Cart (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altar of Santi Bonifacio e Alessio (Rome).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 16:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See note. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jacek Halicki,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing sharp, overexposed areas, even though, a little bit dark photo. The right column is not even close to be in the correct perspective... -- RTA 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing sharp isn't correct...--LivioAndronico talk 22:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nothing on focus, than nothing sharp... -- RTA 06:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change glasses,is better...--LivioAndronico talk 21:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak support not ideal, but enough to FP in my opinion --Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI only, and tight crop at base leaves no connection with ground. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is the altar, the altar floor and I see it ... opposition with no sense for me --LivioAndronico talk 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A very good photo indeed, almost there! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Even the smallest details are perfectly visible, no blown areas, the lighting is really nice. Though, it might be even sharper a little bit. Though, it probably meets the minimum FP standards. -- Pofka (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pofka,more sharpness,thanks. --LivioAndronico talk 20:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support weak, because slightly out of symetry --Hubertl (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 17:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Aythya nyroca at Martin Mere 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 23:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ferruginous duck, Aythya nyroca, at Martin Mere, UK. All by me -- Baresi F (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi F (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~- Pretty darn nice, but that black shadow in the top left ruins it for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crisco 1492. I've tried to clone out the shadow - is that any better? --Baresi F (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beatiful bird! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, solid and very nice color. Basvb (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 04:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent quality but little magic. The tight crop is an obvious minus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too would prefer a bit more space ahead of the duck. --Charles (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magic is really fine with this one. -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Smooth. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Balles2601 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 17:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 09:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition, but IMO it's too noisy.--XRay ^talk 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little too greyish for me. Has nice aspects though. --Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tremonist—the image is now slightly brighter overall. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm satisfied now, looks great! --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lighting is not bad but not enough going on in the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An excellent composition and lighting somehow spoiled by poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was it stitched in-camera on with PC? Are there raw source files or JPG? It is a very high-resolution image, so I'm happy to review after downsizing on my PC. I tried reducing the image to 6MP and it is wonderfully sharp and mostly noise-free at that size, except for bottom left. I think the scene and composition are good enough it is worth trying to improve the quality. Christopher if you have raw sources, I'd be happy to see if I can improve it (I wouldn't publish them without your permission -- I'd send any results back to you). Email me if you want to try this. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Colin, thanks for your offer. To be honest, I'm quite amazed by the comments saying that my panoramics have a poor quality—if instead I'd provide an image at 50% of the size, probably no one would say a such thing and the resulting image would still contain 13 Mpx, way above the requirements for FP. Sounds like an easy fix, doesn't it?

As for the RAWs, I wouldn't mind sending them to you if I could but the stich is made of 8 images of 33.4 MB each, for a total over 250 MB, when my internet connection in Vietnam already struggled with uploading the mere 24 MB of this current image. Also, I did play around with the noise reduction/sharpening settings of Lightroom but I ended up preferring the original version and judged this noise fair enough for the resolution. Note that this has been taken at ISO 400 with a Fuji X100S, known to do pretty well with higher ISOs, but the light was low at that time and the original RAWs are quite dark, so that might explain it. Maybe I should have cranked the ISOs rather than boosting the luminosity in Lightroom?

Anyhow, these FP critics are truly getting more and more disappointing over time—I think I'll just reupload a smaller resolution to prove my point and stick to that with the future ones. That'll make my panoramics more FP-proof and easier to upload, double win!

Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have pushed the exposure/lighting which has exposed the noise too much. But I'm in no rush so I suggest we can just wait till you get better internet access and upload to DropBox or similar if you want to. I suspect even a 50% reduction wouldn't satisfy the pixel-peepers and it really does look like you've not optimised the noise reduction. Let me know if/when you are able to do this. -- Colin (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, it just came to my mind that instead of cranking up the luminosity directly on the RAW files, I've done it after stiching............... such a clever boy. I'll upload a new version soon. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and composition are very good. Sharpness is OK for an image of this size. Yann (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done XRay, Alvesgaspar, Colin, and Pofka—the image should have much less noise now! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann --· Favalli ⟡ 01:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support also per Yann. --El Grafo (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution so downsample (for review) to around 24MP makes the sharpness good. Great scene. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann and Colin. --Baresi F (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per lighting complaints; too noisy and unsharp in the land and the far side. Great idea, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel, could you downsize this (with a reasonable algorithm) to 14MP (around 50%) for review. I don't think your complaint about noise or sharpness holds, other than by pixel peeping, which only encourages people to upload downsized images and is harmful to this forum/project. At 100%, this image, on a 100DPI monitor, is 3 metres wide. If you are looking for noise at 30cm viewing distance on a 3m image, that's not fair. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: OK, I was unaware of that. But I still have an issue with the lighting. And it doesn't look like my !vote changed the outcome. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 18:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Pancuran Tujuh, near Baturraden, Purwokerto 2015-03-23 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 04:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Crisco 1492. Pancuran Tujuh is a sulphur spring in Baturraden District, Purwokerto. This panoramic image is from 40 frames and shows it (and the... erm, "uniquely" shaped outlets) in great detail. Note that the name means "Seven Springs", and all seven outlets are visible -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support It's good. ~~But one small comment: The cup at the right is a little bit disturbing.~~--XRay ^talk 13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC) -- OK now. --XRay ^talk 05:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! That's the thing I hate about Indonesia sometimes; the "nature" tourism is rarely natural. ~~I'll see if I can clone it out.~~ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plenty wow and well done with good detail. I would recommend removing the cup with Photoshop, though. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco, there's a white drinking straw in the middle at the bottom -- it isn't very troubling but if you are editing anyway, it should be easy to clone out. I've added a note about an area I'm concerned is a stitching transition rather than the edge of steam. Can you check your source images to confirm if this area is authentic or the result of stitching. If it is a curved stitch edge, perhaps you can re-do the join with layers in photoshop, or use masks in PtGui to favour the clear frame over the steamy one? -- Colin (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. Doing now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What causes the vagueness/mistlike area just above the yellow parts in the leafs? Is this mist, and thus unpreventable? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These are sulfur hot springs. That's steam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Yann (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks wow for me. Feels like an average travel snap, dull lighting, distracting building in the background that doesn't really compliment the main subject.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An average travel snap which is 69.8 megapixels in size and sharp all the way through? If that's average, I want your camera. (Also, the building leads to a cave which is believed to have been the place where the spring's discoverer lived while treating himself in the waters; it's a monument to the discoverer and an intrinsic part of the site. Further details are in the English Wikipedia) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - By "average travel snap" i am referring to the composition and lighting and atmosphere of the photo. It should be obvious i am not referring to the file size. Besides, large sizes and sharpness could also well mean that it is a QI - FP require more than that.--Fotoriety (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't specify composition, however. Simply saying "average travel snap" can also imply the equipment and methodology were lacking (pocket camera, no tripod, no stitching in PTGui, no post-processing). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now you're just being unnecessarily picky and confrontational: "average travel snap" and "distracting building in the background" can both refer to composition...but if you want to make a scene...--Fotoriety (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I was simply saying that your term "average travel snap" was not inherently about composition (though your examples were), and thus it was unclear to me whether you intended this to refer solely to the composition, or whether there were technical issues that I'd missed (lack of perspective correction, color discrepancies, CA, etc., all of which are also common in "travel snaps"). That's not being "unnecessarily picky" or "making a scene", but "seeking clarification to improve one's work". We are, after all, all working together to provide good quality free imagery, and I'm always looking for ways to improve my contributions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Your desire to improve your photography is commendable.--Fotoriety (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment XRay, Colin: Cup is gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if possible, so add please a geo-tag too. Thanks, Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing outstanding and featurable for me.--Hubertl (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with previous opposers, ugly composition. Btw relevant overexposed parts --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 18:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Postbriefkasten im Innenhof von Burg Ludwigstein, Hessen, Deutschland IMG 1325 26 27 28 29 30 31 edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 13:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Christoph Braun (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but what's so special? --Tremonist (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps there is no special. Why should it? For me it is a very good composition und a faultless image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality image, no magic. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A clear and good image, but nothing very special here. --Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good image, but it's missing something special to make it stand out. --El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others. Nothing featureable. --Hubertl (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) (16757875775) (cropped).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 21:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrew C - uploaded by Natuur12/ cropped and reuploaded by [[Basvb- nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The image gives me a wow-feeling, the two very static cranebirds, simply ignoring each other and watching in the distance, also not bothered by the busy background (enhanced by the vagueness of this background to the viewer). They really portray that they don't give a damn around what happens around them, and are just happily standing on their single legs. - Basvb (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bojars (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JPG artefacts everywhere. Natuur12, can you save at a higher quality setting please (e.g. 90). Also, if you have any room to expand the crop vertically, that would help. It would be good if you could also update the version with Basvb's left-right crop as it is always best to save from the source image, than to re-crop a JPG (unless using lossless-crop tools). -- Colin (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, the source image is from Flickr (Natuur is not the photographer), when I look at the source file on flickr it seems that he has downloaded the highest resolution. Has information been lost in this process? If I compare the image to the original one on Flickr I can't see any loss in quality. The file has been cropped using logless setting in CropTool. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've sent him a mail on Flickr. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't very observant this morning as I see now you used CropTool. Andrew C has uploaded a new version to Flickr and I've uploaded it to Commons, and a lossless crop too. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours and the pose of the birds. The background naturally has other birds in the flock and have just the right amount of blur. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that well defined and not a QI yet. Background distracting and image may not be vertically aligned. --Charles (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles, you may be right about a slight vertical tilt, but the vertical crop is too tight to fix this (unless one wants to start using Photoshop to replace missing mud/sky). -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 07:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trichoglossus moluccanus Colchester Zoo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2015 at 14:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overprocessed. Feathers look strange. --Kadellar (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad image quality or overprocessed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Feathers look a little bit oversharpened. Otherwise nice image. -- -donald- (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment which parts of feathers? where? D kuba (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Light is better here, but overprocessed. --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Retama March 2015-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 11:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Bridal veil broom (Retama monosperma) fully flowered, taken in Tróia Peninsula, Portugal. This is one of those cases where I have no idea of what the reaction of the reviewers will be. I was really impressed by the beauty of this shrub when I took the photo. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame we're not marking pages as ideal wallpaper selections, because this would be perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, there is no wow at all. --Hubertl (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A sea of white... --Tremonist (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it doesn't work for me as an image. Moving in closer might have helped, as zooming in to 100% gives quite nice (sub-) images nearly anywhere within the frame. Also, it looks underexposed to me, as I would expect the white flowers to be much brighter. --El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hauptbahnhof Berlin von Westen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 09:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Fabric of architectural elements, Berlin central station. Created, uploaded and nominated by Denis Barthel -- Denis Barthel (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Denis Barthel (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great colors and detail. I find the composition a bit unsettling though, as you have the right half dominated by vertical lines, but on the bottom left there are curved lines drawing attention away from the center, and then a different architectural element placed in the top left. Ultimately, I've spent quite a while trying to decide on my vote, and I must admit that the composition is interesting at least, so I'll give my Support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition is not really distinguished for me --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, fine details. --Hubertl (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fontana del Quirinale (Rome) - Statue of Dioscuri.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2015 at 16:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Livioandronico2013 -- LivioAndronico talk 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The golden side-light is good but not quite the right angle -- the face is in shadow as is the horse. The face is also not sharp. -- Colin (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,might be. But it is curious that you judge only and ever my photos ....very curious --LivioAndronico talk 20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely close to the truth. -- Colin (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make me laugh right, then we can see , how many photos you've reviewed yesterday ??? Surprise, just my! grotesque situation --LivioAndronico talk 07:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you micro managing the time I spend on Commons? I was busy setting up the Photo Challenge yesterday, among other things that are none of your business. Stop nominating images that aren't even QI and then you might get some supports from me. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

busy? You? Ridiculous.....5 edits. I don't care your opinion like the others.Is only that you spend your time ever only for my nomination....answer to this.Of your waste time I don't care

--LivioAndronico talk 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think your innumerate and bad-faith insults will stop me reviewing your images, you have underestimated me. If you don't care about my opinion, don't comment on it, or me. Your attitude towards oppose voters is rather likely to see you blocked at some point. -- Colin (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should stop people like you, with opposition vencative and meaningless. Fortunately others know you. Don't worry I'll never block for reply to you. However, it is useless, you're vindictive and I do not care about your opinion. You aren't an objective person but strongly venicative... is true You are trying to play God again.. However, from now on I'll not answer more to you. E 'useless and do not want to waste my time.--LivioAndronico talk 19:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a nice photo, but there's far too much shadow on the left. --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your objective opinion --LivioAndronico talk 19:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --A.Savin 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black cutworm pupae.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 21:33:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab, Uploaded by Natuur12 - nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pupea of Agrotis ipsilon. While this pupea is really small the object is sharp and very detailed. It illustrates this lifestage of Agrotis ipsilon perfectly and it has the WOW-factor for me. Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be nice to have a scale in the bottom corner. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Very sharp and detailed, but I don't like the lighting. The bright spots detract from the overall image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lights at both edges are disturbing; but overall OK for me considering the production complexities. J e e 11:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting is fine for me. The details are very nice here. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I too agree; lighting is just fine. And yes, a scale would be nice to have. Great image otherwise. -- $Kamranki$ (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, D kuba (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV --· Favalli ⟡ 00:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lighting seems not ideal and crop is a little bit unbalanced, but these are minor points imo. --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for an immovable object: the lights at both edges are disturbing! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the opposing voters, but in the very end, its a great work. What I do not understand is, the photografer says, he used some Macro-flash, but it seems, that there were at least two light sources left and right. --Hubertl (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Campilhas March 2015-1a.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2015 at 19:17:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is the most iconic country view of the Alentejo region in Portugal: an undulated field populated by a few solitary cork oaks. In the present case the view is much enriched by the bright green of growing rye or wheat. Taken yesterday near the village of Cercal do Alentejo and the dam of Campilhas. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simplicity at its finest. Maybe a rule of thirds on the horizon would be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of the opening credits of Six Feet Under. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Windows XP is out ;-). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to spoil the party, but it is not there yet. There is a potential, but the composition is not optimal: the tree is too small, and the rule of third not respected. Something like File:Campilhas March 2015 edit.jpg would be better. I also think the colors are oversaturated. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Yann: Thanks for the suggestion. The idea most often associated with the Alentejo countryside is the one of emptiness, loneliness and silence. That was precisely what I wanted to convey with this photo and the original version does it better, in my opinion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! --· Favalli ⟡ 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As it is, I think the tree is too black (too much contrast) and saturation feels unnatural, too. I'm not even worried about this being realistic, I just think it would also look better with a more natural look. — Julian H.^✈ 06:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Meerkat (Suricata suricatta) Tswalu.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 15:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Great composition and colors, but rather lacking in sharpness and image quality (e.g. color noise in the shadows). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I really like colors in this one. It actually looks like a painting. Though, I think the left side should be a little bit cropped. Or maybe not... Not sure. The quality could also be a little bit higher, but just because of the colors I choose WS over the WO. Just set it as my desktop wallpaper. These creatures are just lovely. -- Pofka (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition and colors are perfect. The animals are sharp enough. The noise is not so bad IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per King. At thumbnail this is gorgeous, but the critters faces are somewhat soft at full size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors but shallow DOF and tigth crop. --Mile (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann - beautiful light and subjects. Slightly soft at full size, but not enough to be a problem. --Baresi F (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice animals! --Tremonist (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support not the sharpest, but very nice light and composition. --Kadellar (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality not sufficient in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈ 15:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kadellar and the noise is not so much, also nice pose. --Laitche (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Riga Skyline Panorama, Latvia - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 18:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Pofka, that was on my 'maybe I'll nominate' list so it's a support from me. Diliff (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For the record, it has a slight issue with the straightness of the horizon (although I've already tried to fix it and had some trouble) and some minor stitching glitches on the water that I will try to fix. Diliff (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was never a fan of this kind of panoramas, with extreme distortions and lighting contrasts. In my opinion nothing really interesting in the composition mitigates those flaws in the present case. Big is not necessarily beautiful. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The interesting thing is that the entire 360 degree view is visible in a single image. It's an image that rewards you for looking for viewing it full screen and looking for details. Yes, you're right that it's impossible to get nice lighting in all directions but you have to accept the image for what it is and what its strengths and weaknesses are, I suppose. Diliff (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Alvesgaspar. 360° panorama looks so strange. I would crop it to get whole riversigth, would be better. And resize would benefit. --Mile (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot even open it. I really adore most of Diliff's pictures, but I don't see the use of this one. Sorry. The size itself doesn't make it featurable in my eyes. --Code (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't even see the use of it? I can understand if you don't think it's a very aesthetic view of Riga, but of course it has a use. I don't think there are few better ways to show what the city of Riga looks like (the architecture, the relative position of buildings and natural features etc) than a 360 degree view from a central vantage point above the city. I admit that 360 degree panoramas are sometimes awkward to view because the large size, cylindrical perspective (meaning horizontal straight lines become curved) or the aspect ratio, but if you can't open it, you could try a bit harder as there are plenty of options available (including downloading it and viewing it in an external image viewer if your browser won't do it). Diliff (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it's interesting how times change... 8 years ago, an 360 degree image (inferior in resolution and in stitching quality) was given a very different reception. Diliff (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Diliff: Well, probably "use" is the wrong word here. I'm sorry, it's always a little bit hard to explain all these things in English, it's not my mother tongue. However, the picture may certainly be useful somehow as it shows a complete view of Riga. What I meant was that I don't understand the benefit of having a complete 360° view in just one picture. I tried to open the full size picture in Chrome and in Firefox and none of them worked. Maybe I could download it and try to open it in Photoshop but to be honest, that's not the user experience I'm searching for on Wikimedia Commons. Of course, the trouble with opening it is no reason to oppose here. It just makes me restrain from voting. I really hope that you don't understand me wrong, your pictures are great. It's just that this is not what I would support in getting featured. --Code (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do believe that displaying such images in a flat manner does them a great disservice. If this was in one of those special-coded 360-degree panorama viewers... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like this. Shame the tool seems to be broken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Code, saying you can't open it is a really lazy comment. Of course you can open it. Look on the image description page and you will find a Flash viewer and a Non-Flash viewer for this image. The Flash viewer is more interactive but the quality at 100% isn't as good as the non-flash one. Both make it fun to explore a city 360-panorama. The question for you is "what makes you think opening the entire image in a browser window is a sensible way to view this 360-panorama". -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: As you might have noticed I restrained from voting because I couldn't handle opening that picture. So it would be nice if you could restrain from calling me lazy, too. Thank you. --Code (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Code, I'm glad you didn't have the nerve to put an oppose vote, but your words were a strong oppose. Your comments are a bit like someone wanting a refund on their train ticket to London because the journey didn't involve enough flying and didn't end up in Paris. Such pictures take a lot of work to prepare, so if you can't be bothered to find the two links that Wikimedia Commons provide just below the preview so that you can have great "experience" with them, then I'd call that lazy and a bit insulting when you comment negatively here as a result. -- Colin (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I'm not happy with most of your comments, too. But I still have to live with them. So you should accept mine as well. But anyways this discussion leads to nothing. Have a nice weekend. --Code (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good quality, but unbalanced composition. I'd consider supporting a rendering of this panorama that centers on the stone bridge. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view. --Tremonist (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree that this isn't a nice composition if viewed as a whole, but that's a bit like complaining that a page from Where's Wally? doesn't look good from 3 meters away. Being a high-resolution panorama, it really starts to shine when viewed zoomed in, so I've taken the liberty of adding {{LargeImage}} to enable links to the interactive zoomviewer. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my.. unrealistic, now? In what sense is it unrealistic? That we can't see this 360 degree view with our own eyes? That seems to be a very poor reason to oppose IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Viewed as a image that fits my monitor, it isn't anything much special. But use one of the interactive panorama views (see comment above) and you have the chance to explore this city from a high vantage point in fantastic detail and good light. This is a technical feat with extraordinary value, so for that reason deserves to be featured. Those opposing are, with respect, judging the wrong thing imo: it isn't so much a single image as the source-data for a panoramic explorer. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- there is some noise in the picture, but it is still very good. Nikhil (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support By using the scroll bar at full resolution I'm not able to see any bad distortion here, it's one of the best of this page. -- Christian Ferrer 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinary 360 degree horizon. -- Laitche (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Hoist training 150219-G-CZ043-105.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 07:57:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Petty Officer 3rd Class Dustin Williams (U.S.C.G.) - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Ariadacapo -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's so special here? A rare action scene? --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The scene is perfect, exactly what I would look for in a FP, light and quality are also very good. Just the way in which the dolphin is almost cut off is increasingly unsettling the more I look at it. Cutting off a little bit on top would hide the strong distortion of the rotor, but that's a minor issue. — Julian H.^✈ 09:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Julian I think it's a good scene, but the crop/composition is far too much tight IMO -- Christian Ferrer 19:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Julian: really nice shot, but the crop is unfortunate IMO. Gyrostat (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horizon way off horizontal --Charles (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jumping Spider kamranki.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 05:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Straight out of the camera. Resized-down by about 20% and cropped a bit around the borders. Created by kamranki - uploaded by kamranki - nominated by kamranki -- Kamranki (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- $Kamranki$ (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, D kuba (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hind legs are out of focus. Focus stacking is often necessary for these kinds of shots. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice face, but parts of the animal are blurred. --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough DOF --Charles (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reynisfjara, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-17, DD 164.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 08:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Basalt sea stack in a black lava beach under the mountain Reynisfjall near the village Vík í Mýrdal, southern Iceland. The three basalt see stacks in the background are the famous Reynisdrangar. All by me, Poc o² 08:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 08:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment need a crop.--Claus 09:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where? bottom? I thought about that what wanted to keep the reflexion of the rock in the water. Poc o² 12:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the left bottom corner is a little bit disturbing. --Code (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I decided to crop the bottom. New version uploaded. Poc o² 13:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dann würde ich aber auch noch ein Stück rechts wegnehmen, damit der Stein wieder im goldenen Schnitt liegt. --Code (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poc o² 14:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Crop is better (don't like that outjutting rock in the original). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bold composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the rock doesn't work for me, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 18:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 12:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and light--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, just barely This falls into the category of images I desperately want to like. The composition is great. But the cliff at back seems oddly flat, and the ridgeline there suggests a little too much sharpening. Perhaps it would have worked with a blue sky behind it and higher sun. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Дворец-Марли-(Петергоф).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 13:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G-- Aleks G (talk)-- Aleks G (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aleks G (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but could sky could be lighter. --Tremonist (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2009 G3.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 09:35:37

See also

5 FPs of Pachygrapsus marmoratus
@Claus Obana: not a Pachygrapsus marmoratus --Christian Ferrer
@Claus Obana: not a Pachygrapsus marmoratus --Christian Ferrer

Info Two FPs is too much. We need chose one. (Original nomination)
Delist G3 -- Claus 09:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep different images ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As they are very similar I would have not promoted the both but now that they are... and none of the both harmed the reputation of the FP label IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 10:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These pictures are quite valuable for FP. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. -- KTC (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijani soldier without legs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2015 at 19:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ilgar Jafarov - uploaded by Interfase - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unexceptional image quality (harsh shadow, for example) and subject's face is hidden. Limited documentary information supplied. -- Colin (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Colin --Charles (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Colin. The image seems to be made for propaganda purposes and useful only for such. --Don-kun (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Picture's purpose without description unclear to the viewer. --Tremonist (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venezuela - Caracas - Zamuro rey - Sarcoramphus papa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 20:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Paolostefano1412 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crazy head! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A little bit noisy, but acceptable. --XRay ^talk 10:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 22:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The_Photographer (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miyagawa (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support love it --Charles (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding portrait. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Support Carneval is over, but... --Schnobby (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Olokhan Musayev at 2008 Paralympics 9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 09:24:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ilgar Jafarov - uploaded by Interfase - nominated by Interfase -- Interfase (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interfase (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The chair in the front is disturbing. The image needs more sharpness. At the left there is a single arm.--XRay ^talk 09:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks sharpness. --Tremonist (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panthera pardus orientalis Colchester Zoo (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2015 at 14:44:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 14:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharp but not FP. Uninteresting artificial surrounding and background, no wow. Maybe slightly tilted as well. --Kadellar (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice cat, but the image is too greyish overall. --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Campanula glomerata Mitterbach 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2015 at 17:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Clustered Bellflower (Campanula glomerata). All by -- Uoaei1 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shallow DOF. Is there any particular reason doing flowers with telezoom ? --Mile (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info This is not done with a macro-lens, not with a telezoom. DOF for macros depends on the projection scale only, not on the focus length. So with a smaller focus length, you would have to get closer, but the DOF is the same. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case stacking would be even easier. You would benefit a lot. --Mile (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile, the focus seems rather haphazard. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riverside Trek Fest 2014 (14349292930).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2015 at 18:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by IowaPipe (on Flickr) - uploaded by Miyagawa - nominated by Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- What more could you want than two Star Trek actors who dress up as their characters some fifteen years after their show ended! Anyway, it is Robert O'Reilly as Gowron throwing sweets to the kids, while J.G. Hertzler stands behind him. You'll note that while Hertzler's make-up really matches the show, O'Reilly wears his quite lighter than on television. Miyagawa (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legal oppose I believe the appearance of Klingons generally, to say nothing of specific characters, is covered by Paramount's copyrights for Star Trek, and thus this cannot be a free image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first I've ever heard about a make-up design being copyrighted. But if that was the case, then wouldn't every cosplay image also be copyrighted? Paramount has the copyright to the Klingon language, but I think it ends there. Miyagawa (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, yes, copyright extends to the costumes worn in the movies and show (Paramount paid people to design them for that purpose, after all). And photographs whose primary subject is people in costumes and/or masks depicting characters in a copyrighted work, where such costunes were created for the work and are not either representations of historical or current attire or otherwise commonly worn for any purpose other than depicting those characters or others like them, regardless of context (i.e., if the photo were of Rainn Wilson and John Krasinski wearing dress shirts, slacks and ties passing out candy at a parade, this wouldn't be an issue), then they cannot be free images. At least that's how I read COM:COSTUME. The fact in this case, the two cosplayers are themselves the actors who played the characters in question makes this even more clearly a third-party copyright situation and thus ineligible for Commons.

Please remember when looking at images on Flickr that very few users over there are the masters of copyright law as applied to still images that we are over here. You can't take their word that it's CC. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, would you please clarify, are you a lawyer? You haven't stated either that you are or aren't, and you seem to be giving advice on interpretation of a somewhat murky area of law. - Jmabel ! talk 03:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am waiting for the legal question to be solved. --Tremonist (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --What more would I expect? Well, let me guess… may be a red bucket with yellow dots? Or may be a higher f-number which would leave the face of the second character in focus too? Or may be even a closer shot of the main character at the very moment he throws the candys? But that last one might be based on too high expectations. Sting (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Swan at Martin Mere.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2015 at 14:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Black swan, Cygnus atratus, at Martin Mere, UK. All by me, -- Baresi F (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi F (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason for oppose. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bravo --LivioAndronico talk 19:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 21:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A quality image for sure, but it lacks any wow for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 17:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Oenothera biennis, Vic-la-Gardiole 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 05:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info It have been already candidate here. I tried to correct some of the issues of the first version. -- Christian Ferrer 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 07:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 17:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Stockholm Schärengarten.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 18:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Top of an island within the Stockholm archipelago in the early morning sun. All by -- CHK46 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CHK46 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Great lighting and colors, but sharpness is suboptimal. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, the picture has been assessed Quality Image.--CHK46 (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For well-lit static shots of landscapes/architecture, I generally have a higher resolution requirement for FPC than QIC. At QIC I'm fine with a D800 image which is totally blurry at full-res as long as it is flawless at 2 MP, but the same won't fly at FPC. When I scale this image to 6 MP, the trees and grasses look like brushstrokes in a painting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just took a look at my own FPs and a few of them have comparably unsharp areas, so perhaps I'm being unnecessarily harsh here. I'll change to weak Support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - also for the helpful comments.--CHK46 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sharpness is acceptable for me; in print it wouldn't even be that noticeable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness isn't perfect but acceptable and the composition is good. Reminds me on some happy days in my youth. --Code (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and captures the "Skärgård feeling" well (at least seen from my tourist point of view) --Pugilist (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 17:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Warrior Games athletes honored at Navy-Air Force football game 141004-D-DB155-022.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2015 at 12:40:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by EJ Hersom - uploaded by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. -- Fæ (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scene is "caught" well! --Tremonist (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The athletes face and body are all in shadow.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caught in the exact moment. --Pugilist (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tell me if I have completely unrealistic expectations for sports action shots. I'm sure that's very hard to get right, but the focus is quite far behind the face (on his shoe I think). Also, the brightening of his face and shoulders wasn't done particularly well in my opinion, with a relatively obvious brightness falloff. — Julian H.^✈ 10:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great moment captured, but as Julian pointed out, the focus is on the boot, rather than the face/body. The face/body are still reasonably sharp despite that, so I won't oppose over it. -- KTC (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning. Tomer T (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. It's unfortunate that his face is in shadow, but the moment is captured so well that it mitigates my reservations about the lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of a kind shot. Natuur12 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 17:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Aerial photograph of Zunderdorp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 13:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I've made dozens of aerial photographs out of airplanes but have never accomplished to make a better one than this. The village shown on the picture is Zunderdorp in the Netherlands. - Supercarwaar_talk 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Supercarwaar_talk 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to say so, but the image is not sharp at all. All fine structures are erased or drowned in the denoising process. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a great view, but not sharp enough. --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of vertical motion blur (surprising given the settings you used). It could also use some contrast in editing. — Julian H.^✈ 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basel - Stadtpanorama vom Münsterturm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 15:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw. Info: High resolution city panoramic view of Basel, Switzerland (northbound). The picture is annotated. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm surprised it doesn't have your trademark quality. Did you have to recover shadows? I love the "bended" pattern composition but the scene is like cut in two with that right part in the shade. Unfortunately. Why couldn't you go farther on the left? And I too think you should add color space to your images. - Benh (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't so much "add color space" as find out what software is removing this essential component from your JPGs. Your raw software will set it. I suspect GIMP, which I'm surprised to see used considering how professional your other equipment is. GIMP doesn't even support 16-bit TIFF yet. I have checked with EXIFTOOL and the colour space is 65535, which is "uncalibrated". It should be 1 for sRGB and other EXIF tags are required if AdobeRGB. So this file is just wrong. Photoshop complains (if you have it set to warn) that the file has no colour profile. The fact that the tag is present but not 1 makes me wonder if the colours are actually correct. I don't know GIMP but perhaps you've ticked a box to "strip out unnecessary EXIF data to save space" or similar option. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The weather situation was like you can see it on the picture. The quite shiny part on the left and the very dark clouded area on the right (maybe you dislike this two opposed parts). But in all parts the cityscape is visible very well. So why should this be an issue of the quality or GIMP? --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with quality is that we can't trust the colours. Aren't they rather important? A proper colourspace is an essential part of the JPG specification and any software that allows it to be removed is faulty (sadly not uncommon among software not aimed at professional photography). The above JPG states the colourspace is "uncalibrated", which means every browser and image viewer is left to guess what colour to display. Some will guess sRGB, others (some Macs) will simply pass the numbers straight to your monitor which may be set to AdobeRGB, sRGB or some random variation. The fact that it isn't set to sRGB makes me rather suspicious the colour profile is actually something else, which has been ignored/stripped out by software. It might not be GIMP, it might be PtGui, though Dillif doesn't seem to have any problems. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see a problem with the colors. Everything looks natural to me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would do, on your monitor. It's like you promise to pay me 100 for doing some job. Is that $100, £100 or €100? Nobody knows, and we can only guess. I don't see what the big problem with fixing this is. You've gone to all the trouble of buying the best camera and the best calibrated monitor but then fail to export your JPG with standard EXIF data needed to ensure everyone sees what you see. Just read the manual on your software and figure out what option you've chosen that removes this essential EXIF data from the image. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my first FP-candidate with the same workflow I do for nearly every image (RAW-image as basic, PTGui of stitching necessary, GIMP for final works) so I wonder why in this image there should be a problem and with other pictures there isn't. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go through all ur noms, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time the issue is raised on one of them. I think Sting mentionned this a few years ago. Anyhow, it's an easy fix on ur side, and it would greatly improve reliability on the colours we see, even though I suspect most software revert to sRGB when no color profile is embedded. - Benh (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and several times. And I got tired trying to make understand stubborn contributors (no offense meant) about the importance of color profile (among other points).

This is not about “fixing a problem” but about not creating one, as an additional action was taken to delete the color profile. It's about preserving the integrity and thus the quality of an image. The way Internet browsers react is already difficult to manage, together with an infinity of computers/monitors configurations an you have a big mess. Posting an image without color profile is just adding one more clue.

So what's the point? It simply doesn't make sense to insist trying to give useful information imho.

There are sooo many voters here who find many images so lovely, judging them after they even didn't displayed them at full (100%) size (or, at least, their comments make us think that), so why change that perfect workflow which leaded to so many prized images (here, of course), isn't it? (generally speaking, not personally)

Sorry for the bitterness I may transmit through this comment. Just my 2 cents, as usual. Sting (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1/2 cent more: “I'm sorry, but I don't see a problem with the colors. Everything looks natural to me.” And, sure, everybody here and elsewhere on the planet looks at your pictures through your monitor, right? Typical. Sting (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use several different monitor to look at my image and in non of them I see a problem and no one could really explain that exactly should be the problem here because of the cut out color profile. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been explained: people might not see the colours you intend to present them. The difference might be subtle. Why? because the value of your colours doesn't have any reference, so software reading it can only guess and apply one by default (to simplify if I read value "green 60%", should I display 60% on a 0 to 300 scale _180_ or on a 0 to 200 scale _120_ ? Without the profile I can't tell). I also think that you did everything in sRGB, and if I were to write software, I would revert to sRGB by default, so it's possible (won't go as far as to say likely, but I mean it) that we see the right colours. Anyhow I personaly don't say I see the problem, but that you should prevent it by making sure your workflow doesn't strip away the color profile. It's probably something which takes you only a few minutes (shorter than arguing) and it's a big gain for everyone. - Benh (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too did point you the issue a while ago. - Benh (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose JPG lacks colourspace information therefore colours are arbitrary. In particular, the degree of saturation and precise hue of each colour is uncertain. What shade of blue is that sky supposed to be. Or how vivid red is the tennis court in reality? Is that bright blue van in the middle really that colour? Without a colourspace, the red 255/0/0 pixel in a JPG is just an arbitrary number. Is it the most saturated red your monitor can display (many Macs will treat it this way) -- if so, then it will be radically different on a wide-gamut monitor compared to a standard-gamut monitor. Or the most red in the sRGB colourpsace (many applications will default to that, but perhaps your image was really AdobeRGB). Or will your colour-managed application simply pop-up a warning when you open the file (as Photoshop will do) saying "I have no clue what colours to display, could you guess for me". Wladyslaw, I don't see how you can claim ignorance of the problem, since if we have failed to explain it then a quick Google will turn up plenty websites that explain how this is simply an essential component of a well-formed JPG. Rather than repeating that it isn't a problem for you, perhaps you could make an effort to find out which part of your tool-chain is screwing up. Download EXIFTOOL or upload your images at each stage to Jeffrey Friedl's Exif tool and you should see where it is going wrong. It shouldn't be hard to fix, just the wrong option chosen somewhere. Oh, and seriously consider getting Adobe's "Creative Cloud Photography" program, your monitor will thank you for it :-). -- Colin (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral IQ is OK, but that roof make me feel there is a pagoda not church. I would do other projection. --Mile (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try it, there is no better one IMO if you want a distortionfree image of the main part. Wladyslaw (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It's too dark on the right. Better weather needed! --Tremonist (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic. Sorry -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe some lectures in geometry would help to recalibrate your comprehension for "what is realistic". --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot say much about the colors since I am travelling and don't have a calibrated monitor with me right now. The scene is nice but I really miss a portion on the left (left bank and part of the bridge), plus the weather was not of help, either with some sunny areas and others darker, the result of weather and crop looks unbalanced to me, sorry. Poc o² 18:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the photo should show the beauty of this city from a idealistic perspective (and this perspective is usually desired in presentations), it's technically not good. Then, the objections to the clouds/the weather are okay. But if the photo should show this city from a more realistic perspective, as seen there most days of the year (ie not always and everywhere in bright sunshine), then this photo is excellently made. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fernsehturm St. Chrischona - Dreibeinkonstruktion.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 10:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting, but is it beautiful? --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question for yourself or for me? Counterquestion: Has a FP-object always to be beautiful? Nevertheless what beauty really is. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A picture does not necessarily need to be beautiful here, that's right, but the impression of cold and partially even dirty concrete is not what I favour. The picture is technically good though. --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FP doesn't need only pictures of churches and cute animals. Beside of this: the concrete is very well-kept and not dirty. Please concern: this building is exposed to wind and rain and stands on top of a mountain. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree an FP does not have to be beautiful... The crop seems a little tight at the top. Is there a special reason you are not showing us more? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of concentrating on the unique tripod construction. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhat exactly shows this image? Could you translate title from german (9i guess?) to english? D kuba (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "TV tower Saint-Chrischona. Tripod construction".--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. So now i'm Neutral due to tight crop, even in a bottom left corner. D kuba (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is there even a tiny bit more height you can give, or is that the limit to the image you took? The very top of the tripod is cropped. Compared to this photo the scale of the base is hard to judge. As an abstract photo, the trees and bright colours detract compared to this photo. Have you considered black and white to create an abstract photo of the concrete tower? -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral At the opposite of Colin it's more the shadowed trees at left that I don't like very much, and I agree that a (people) scale would have been a good thing, however it's a striking image IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For scale reasons you have a door. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quite a mundane shot. -- Fotoriety (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to mix up banality with relevance. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so. -- Fotoriety (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support The longer I look at it the more I like it. But I think such an abstract picture would be even better in black/white. --Code (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about converting into blach/white. But from my point of view this image is not abstract but a usual detail view of a very relevant part of this building. It's an architectual/ingenieering documentation and why not showing all colours? --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Striking image of a modern structure. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The perspective is very eye catching but it's really frustrating that I can't go higher (even just a bit, at least to the top of the jonction of the three legs) while browsing. Added a note to show you a stitching error. And color space again... - Benh (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 5 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old bunkers near Lakšárska Nová Ves.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 10:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Doronenko - uploaded by Doronenko - nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doronenko (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too greyish overall, what might be intended here. --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of clipping in the clouds, oversharpening and ultimately a relatively simple subject that might need better light or a really interesting composition to make it interesting enough. — Julian H.^✈ 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pamukkale sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 01:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Travel Coffee Book - uploaded by Pikolas - nominated by Pikolas -- ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 01:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~★ pikolas ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 01:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too cloudy at this lovely place... --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --The compact digital camera shows unfortuatelly its limits: lack of dynamic, lack of optical resolution. Sting (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm really sad to oppose a beautiful moody picture like that. I love the view and the pinkish sky, but these are not enough to compensate the quality issues pointed above. - Benh (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Singapore Marina-Bay-Panorama-04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 16:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cccefalon - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 16:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Marina Bay is a great area, but the weather could have been better when this photo was taken. --Tremonist (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too faded out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts—I almost thought it was winter in Singapore when I looked at it owing to the surfeit of cool colors. In addition, why crop out half of what looks like a very narrow building on the right? Either keep it, or get rid of all of it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I also think, that it is good for QIC but below FPC level. However, I appreciated that 1989 found it worth to nominate here. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liebfrauenkirche Säben Detail Christusstatue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2015 at 03:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanguard at Faslane 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 21:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by CPOA(Phot) Tam McDonald - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 21:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 21:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Impressive, but does not look "real" somehow. --Tremonist (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ok quality, overdone editing to improve drama and bad banding in the gradient to black in the upper area. — Julian H.^✈ 16:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Julian, the black gradient on the top is just too unrealistic. It is also a bit tilted comparing the sea level on both sides Poc o² 18:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP, 29.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 21:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! And a beautiful church. --Code (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for a single exposure. Moody. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but the crop is too tight, and the display panel is too distracting. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kenraiz (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Apse, Assumption Church, Windsor 2015-01-17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 00:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Central altar/apse of Assumption Church, Windsor, Ontario. Though now no longer holding services, it remains one of the oldest church buildings in Ontario. All by Crisco 1492 -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 10:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had meant to vote for it in the enwiki FP nom but I didn't, so this makes up for that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good done! Poc o² 18:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Church interiors on FPC are mostly boring. However, this one works for me. --A.Savin 23:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Barranco de Pecenescal - Fuerteventura.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 17:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but it is boring. I want something more, a big car, a big house, or a elephant. And I do not like the color of the right part.--Claus 18:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please have a look at this actual candidate [2]! Where is the big car, the big house, or the elephant??? BTW, didn't you see the cars and the two buses (=big cars) on the road? --Llez (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But there is a tree. That's what I want.--Claus 06:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trees in this region...? --Llez (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Frame transition is fairly clear (tagged). Looks like somewhat different exposures or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded a completely reworked version.
  - Much nicer (though the added exposure gives it a bit of a washed out look, considering how bleak this is I don't think I mind). Only question left is: what's that purple stuff in the clouds to the far left? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Corrected --Llez (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like the vignetting of the single frames make a somewhat strange effect. Or are the darker parts in the sky caused by something different? --Code (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I made an Anti-vignetting of each frame and the a complete new stitch. I think, it's much better now --Llez (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support now. This is one of the rare cases in which a panorama picture makes sense. --Code (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Crisco. Yann (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:West end of Karang Bolong, Nusakembangan, Cilacap 2015-03-21.jpg

File:Black Madonna from Wrocław (Breslau) - bg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2015 at 22:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good,nice composition --LivioAndronico talk 07:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See notes on the picture. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
trochę to poprawiłem, ale z tymi drzwiami od początku były problemy --Pudelek (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good quality image, but no wow. I see nothing featurable here. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info Version of the picture without the door at the corners. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, this version is better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the other but this is good too. --LivioAndronico talk 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Black Madonna from Wrocław (Breslau) - bg.jpg

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 4462.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2015 at 07:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good quality. Yann (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papilio demodocus larva Stratford Butterfly Farm (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 06:56:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 06:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 06:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful ! Sharp enough and nice simple gradient background. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the interplay of all the shades of green. Great detail, so great that I don't mind the very minor unsharpness of the bottom of the branch. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image --Charles (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 16:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sharpness and bokeh Poc o² 18:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Park zamkowy w Pszczynie 03promykjck - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2015 at 20:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Poranek - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice mood and lighting but I guess a bit tilted CCW. --Laitche (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded the alternative (The right thumbnail). -- Laitche (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the slightly tilted version, but both are great. --Pugilist (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either one. Spectacular lighting and atmosphere. A bit unsharp in parts, but OK for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support either one The sort of image I would always like to be able to say I took. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (The right thumbnail)[edit]

Info Fixed the CCW tilte. -- Laitche (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Laitche (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:Park zamkowy w Pszczynie 03promykjck - 2 edit.jpg

File:Pipe-burst-after-erosion-in-a-steam-pipeline-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 06:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Destroyed 36 bar steam pipeline of a soot blowing system. The pipe bend bursted in consequence of internal erosion.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico talk 08:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It took some time for me to understand what exactly I was looking at (the image is not very self-explanatory, but the caption helps). It is undeniably well taken though, and very detailed. Diliff (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, too. Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This must have been a nightmare to shoot. Very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 16:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A potentially ordinary (though EV-rich) image made transcendent through judicious use of lighting. And not something we see here nominated for FP regularly. Very well done. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All has been already said. I enjoy the detail of the rough surface Poc o² 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice studio shot. Not eye-catching at thumbnail size, but amazing when viewed fullscreen and size. - Benh (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:20150331 Mali vs Ghana 182.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2015 at 15:44:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pyb - uploaded by Pyb - nominated by Punishar -- Punishar (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Punishar (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What we'd expect from a news outlet the next day; nice compositional dynamics. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely players should be identified? --Charles (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that slightly crop the top and the bottom would be better. --Laitche (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good scene! --Tremonist (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:20140402 MCDAAG Jahlil Okafor dunk.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 23:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TonyTheTiger, edited by Diliff - uploaded by TonyTheTiger - nominated by TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am nominating this because of the current prominence of the subject. Okafor is an American college basketball player who played his freshman season for the 2014–15 national championship Duke Blue Devils team that won the w:2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament last night. He recently won w:USBWA National Freshman of the Year and w:Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year. I took this image last year and feel its current encyclopedic value is high. -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good shot, but picture lacks resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree Poc o² 17:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does resolution mean in this context? The image is 4 Mpixels, which is well above what is required.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that detail or sharpness would be a more accurate term Poc o² 22:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 4985.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 04:56:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rather like this series. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing featurable for me. Too many parts (e.g front left) are out of focus. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well executed (focus / DoF is fine for me) but I'm not seeing anything above a good QI. -- Colin (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are other images similar to this, and this one doesn't jump out at me composition-wise. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good for sure, but what's so special? A question of composition. --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georgian (604).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2015 at 12:28:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Topnika - uploaded and nominated by Jaqeli 12:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jaqeli 12:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, but lower part of the sword is blurred. --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some areas are too bright to show good detail and colour, especially the face (although the information appears to be there). In the darker areas, noise is really strong, especially given the realtively small resolution. The sharpening seems overdone to me, contributing to the noise visibility. — Julian H.^✈ 16:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, per Julian, and too-tight crop on left. Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is really interesting but the picture quality (grainy picture) is below the pain threshold, sorry. Poc o² 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i know that has nothing to do but it seems Altair of Assassin's [3] --LivioAndronico talk 12:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:VanGogh-starry night ballance1.jpg, delisted and replaced[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2015 at 13:13:49

Info We have a bigger one (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Claus 13:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Sure --LivioAndronico talk 13:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - This should really be a given.15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Delist and replace Yann (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist and replace, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. Yann (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beschadigde paddenstoel. Locatie, tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 04.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2015 at 15:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Damaged mushroom. Location, garden sanctuary Jonker Valley. Shaggy parasol (Chlorophyllum rhacodes, synonym: Macrolepiota rhacodes).created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 06:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution! --Tremonist (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A agree - great resolution, but i think mushroom is to yellow. Normally it is more white. D kuba (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Small correction WB.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's still too yellowish, furthermore I am not sure why this image should be one of our best mushroom images. Detail is good but not extraordinary and the exemplar itself is not outstanding either. Poc o² 18:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Small correction WB.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mechanical-calculator-Brunsviga-15-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2015 at 15:54:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Brunsviga 15 mechanical calculator with serial number 202550. The shrouds had been removed to reveal the internal mechanic. Produced by Brunsviga-Maschinenwerke Grimme, Natalis & Co. AG, Braunschweig between 1934 and 1947.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 16:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top. Uwe, do you have a picture of the machine with the shrouds? it would be great to have in the description a thumb of that version. Poc o² 17:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info I'm just working on that and also on an alternative view from a 45° angle. Unfortunately, the shrouds are worn out and it will take some efforts to restore the surface. Getting all the dust out of the mechanic took me two hours. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Same light settings, same position, you can make an animated gif of it :) A shame, the shroud is so badly scratched. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support D kuba (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow factor to me. Love these kind of interesting old objects and it's beautifully shot. There's a stain that I've pointed as a note. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I removed the stain; it was a scratch in the canvas. Thanks for the hint. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support High educational value and technically sound shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Really love it! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 12:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support} --Tremonist (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausgezeichnet! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive, high ev and some wow--ArildV (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture of a historic object, the sort we don't see here very much. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Baresi F (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Thai Airways International Boeing 747-4D7 HS-TGP MUC 2015 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2015 at 18:38:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Thai Airways International Boeing 747-4D7 departing runway 26L at Munich Airport, all by — Julian H.^✈ 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category: Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Support — Julian H.^✈ 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one. --Laitche (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. I like the fact that it captures the blurring effect the emissions have on the atmosphere. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support fantastic! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! Gyrostat (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Party-poop oppose I hate to be the one to spoil this, but that wing and aileron touching the tower just ruins it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Flaps, not aileron. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Still doesn't change my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a good position that we can see the air flow dynamics from the jet engine, if the different position, we can't see that, like a left wing's engine :) --Laitche (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Daniel. But it's still very nice and it helps to see what comes out of motor. - Benh (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I join the opinion of Benh and Daniel Case. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Vincent van Gogh - Starry Night - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2015 at 19:48:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Starry Night Over the Rhone, by Vicent van Gogh. Created by Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by Dcoetzee (Bot) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support How we can vote oppose in any art picture? --The_Photographer (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Next FP Nomination: File:Hans Holbein the Younger - The Ambassadors - Google Art Project.jpg. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If all art painting are FP then non of those pictures are really FP, because the art is invaluable --The_Photographer (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point in these cases is not to judge the painting itself but the quality of its reproduction: resolution, contrast, brightness, color fidelity, etc. Imo

In this case I don't remember the real painting, so I won't vote. Sting (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7...--LivioAndronico talk 20:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too dark! The sky is grey, but it is blue in reality.--Paris 16 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't remember the original painting, but the lighting is really not ideal in my opinion. Some of the protruding features even cast strong shadows on the surface. A little bit of light from above to highlight the texture is ok, but this seems to be lit almost entirely from above. — Julian H.^✈ 06:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We dont want change "original" colors and light --The_Photographer (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it should be changed here for a good reproduction. — Julian H.^✈ 16:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colors and light are created in our brain, not from an untouchable reality. The range of light and colors, is built on the configuration of each mind. What I'm trying to say is that there is a correct representation of this work, however nobody can know more than the author. The senses are exposed and create an alternate reality that differs every human being in this world, realities, however, intersect never actually touch, there is no way I will be able to see how you see the world. A world that sometimes is a reflection of our own memories, experiences, ourselves. I'm not refuting your comment, simply a reflection. --The_Photographer (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's just that whether or not the light source is small and located above the painting is a rather objective thing. — Julian H.^✈ 09:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above.--Paris 16 (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP, 52.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2015 at 20:53:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 06:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but a little too shady. --Tremonist (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tremonist Look now again. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's ok now, thank you. --Tremonist (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bnei Hazir tomb and Tomb of Zechariah.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 15:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moataz Egbaria - uploaded by Moataz Egbaria - nominated by معتز أغبارية -- معتز أغبارية (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- معتز أغبارية (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose An impressive shot in thumbnail. Good light and composition. However, it suffers from what appears to be a somewhat shallow DOF (or quality problems with the lens) at the edges of the photo, where the focus is very soft. f/5.6 and 1/1600 s seems like a not optimal setting. f/7.6 and 1/400 s would probably have given a better image quality (while keeping the ISO at 100). It is not visible in the EXIF which lens has been used? -- Slaunger (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too little contrast. --Tremonist (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is very interesting but this photo is not at all the height, blurry and low contrast even remotely nameable for me, sorry but I think so. --LivioAndronico talk 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LivioAndronico please take a look here. We havn't an argument {{Strong oppose}}. this isn't valid. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Done Thanks --LivioAndronico talk 11:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bnei Hazir tomb and Tomb of Zechariah2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 15:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moataz Egbaria - uploaded by Moataz Egbaria - nominated by معتز أغبارية -- معتز أغبارية (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- معتز أغبارية (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From the vantage point, the two tombs look severely tilted as if they lean towars each other. However, from other vantage points, like here, it is clear that the tombs are normal vertically aligned. Very interesting scenary though. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky underexposed, in addition to criticisms above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition problems. --Tremonist (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The subject is very interesting but this photo is not at all the height, blurry and low contrast even remotely nameable for me, sorry but I think so. --LivioAndronico talk 16:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caroline sada landscape.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 20:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Caroline Sada - uploaded by Tuvalkin - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (not sure if uploader can vote, though…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Beautiful colors. Weak for the low resolution despite being a technically unchallenging shot. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support very good composition,but not the quality --LivioAndronico talk 09:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice photo but I assume it's too much downscaling. --Laitche (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but quite small. Yann (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The colours could be brighter. --Tremonist (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --I almost voted for it: nice colors and mood with the white flowers, the denoise and downsampling saved the image from the use of ISO 800 (at 1/500 for a landscape!), but the plastic-like clouds well at the center, result from the denoising, ruins everything. A pity. Sting (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An FP scene, but not captured at FP quality in my opinion (as described in detail by others). — Julian H.^✈ 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Agree with the opposes but still see reasons to promote it. Poc o² 18:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough quality for a so downscaling image. -- Christian Ferrer 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chalkhill blue butterflies (Polyommatus coridon) mating 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2015 at 16:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Chalkhill blue butterflies mating at Aston Rowant NNR, Oxfordshire, created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing shot!:) D kuba (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. I have to mention that I got a deja vue from this. Maybe there has been a similar photograph featured before. --Ximonic (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every year, at about this time, dozens of similar candidates will pop out over here. If my memory is still trustworthy. - Benh (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this was taken last year - the chalkhill blue only flies July/August in Southern England --Charles (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Balles2601 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Neutral A bit blurry and blighted flowers are disturbing, but nice. I uploaded the downscaled version for reference, mostly downscaling is not good way, but in this kind of case, It rarely works well. IMO. --Laitche (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Besides oversharpened, a little noisy. --Laitche (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good composition, nice light. I miss some geodata in the file page, or, as a minimum an indication of area in which the photo was been taken (more specific than southern England). It looks a tad oversharpened around the center, and quite blurred at the edges of the photograph. On the other hand DOF is difficult for these shots and the photo has large resolution. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The location clue is in the info description above! Aston Rowant NRR, Oxfordshire - North Side to be specific. DOF very testing as you say - hand held a few inches off the ground on a steep chalk hillside. --Charles (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, and that piece of information belongs to the file page, which shall accumulate all relevant information about the shot. I have added that information now, as well as a proper location category. It's part of the home work prior to nomination. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Charles (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Lmbuga (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just terrific colors. -- Pofka (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Familie Julius Schürer Augsburg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 06:55:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown - uploaded by Seewolf - nominated by Seewolf (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seewolf (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically, for its time, this appears to be a high quality photograph, although it really could do with some restoration to remove scratches, spots, etc. As a group portrait photograph it does not stand out to me as anything special wrt expression and composition, unless there is a point I am missing. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great overall, but lacks a little resolution and is too dark below (problematic contrasts), the latter is most probably due to the original photo's appearance. --Tremonist (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grundarfjörður, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-14, DD 095.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 16:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Poco a poco - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 16:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the subtle lighting in this. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination 1989! This landscape was indeed idyllic Poc o² 09:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good view, but too nebulous. --Tremonist (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaghori mission DVIDS304673.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 14:36:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by James May - uploaded by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator, intended for Commons:Featured pictures/People illustrating patience/impatience of boys. -- Fæ (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute but no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: First, if you want to demonstrate the varying degrees of fidgetiness of little boys, a video would be much more effective. Second, isn't this assumption a little sexist? Like little girls, or FTM adults of both sexes, aren't equally capable fo being fidgety and impatient? Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A souvenir picture for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stick or arrow coming out of the head of one little fellow. Poorly composed image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When you vote an oppose, write a reason please. Could you read the voting section of this(FPC) page. --Laitche (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Mallord William Turner - Dort or Dordrecht- The Dort Packet-Boat from Rotterdam Becalmed - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 16:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joseph Mallord William Turner/Google Art Project, uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Very high resolution (47 Mpx), typical of Turner's paintings. Category: Non-photographic media. Yann (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 23:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but not a fan of the black 1px border on the bottom and right. — Julian H.^✈ 16:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploading a new version now. Yann (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The_Photographer (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Ragdoll Kater, drei Jahre alt, RAG n 21 seal-tabby-colourpoint, Januar 2015.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2015 at 06:17:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ragdoll, about three years old, color/pattern Seal Lynx Point - created by BlackIceNRW - uploaded by BlackIceNRW - nominated by BlackIceNRW -- BlackIceNRW (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop, the composition doesn't work for me. Sorry cute cat! --Laitche (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough eye-catching for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just looks odd to me. Only the face is sharp. --Charles (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute, but the chroma noise level is a bit high in my opinion and for the fact that only the face is in focus, it takes up very little of the image. — Julian H.^✈ 06:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that it is a good capture, the background is not disturbing and the pose is nice, but the area in focus is just too small. According to the EXIF data the lighting conditions were just terrible (ISO2000, f/4, 1/40s) Poc o² 18:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighting conditions were not easy. That's right. But do not count at the end the result? The light also contributed to the fact, that the cat shows an incredible relaxation. And that the head is in this area of the image plastically in the foreground, makes the image especially from my perspective to an extraordinary photo. Also be accentuated always occurring characteristics of tabby patterns, which generally are limited to the head. So that is highlighted, what is important in this picture; and nothing else. Is this way of working not exactly according to the rules given here? Nevertheless, I thank you particularly for the support, but also for the negative comments, because they show at least clearly an interest for this photo. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight at bottom and a bit showy, but not artistic, composition IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) female underside.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2015 at 19:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:TempleTank.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 07:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Water tank in a temple in Hyderabad, India

Info All by me -- Nikhil (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The roof of the structure is CCW tilted. The pic appears to be oversaturated and the overall detail level is not on par with FP. For me, wow is not there either. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Slaunger are you?~~--LivioAndronico talk 16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Livioandronico2013, it was I. Apparently, I did not press enough of these: '~' when I saved my review. Thanks for the heads up. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice picture with some problems as stated above. --Tremonist (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anyway per ~~anonymous~~ Slaunger --LivioAndronico talk 16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Velvetbean caterpillar, eggs 2014-06-06-14.48.01 ZS PMax (15753693807).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2015 at 21:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sam Droege - uploaded by Natuur12 - nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really great and very detailed image of the eggs of Anticarsia gemmatalis. The lightning is okay and the position of the eggs just gives it a little extra. For me this image has the WOW-factor. Natuur12 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Totally per Natuur12. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks good and useful, but I miss a scale. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surely a great image of these eggs. --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. — Julian H.^✈ 16:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting subject, but, is there a way to reduce the noise a bit (or at least of offering an alternative version)? Poc o² 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--BlackIceNRW (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting and different. --Pugilist (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Nice image but noisy. --Laitche (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but noisy --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Zierliche Koralle Ramaria gracilis.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 17:43:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Batumi (42).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 20:46:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Batumi, Georgia

Info created by David Gaberle - uploaded and nominated by Jaqeli 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jaqeli 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info --I uploaded an edited version: cleaned, denoised and a bit more contrasted. Sting (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --I like very much the composition and the mood: natural and calm foreground opposed to the modern and high skyscrapers at the sides. But why the hell did he used ISO 800 at 1/420 for this landscape? The filename as well as the description are also minimalistic and made me almost vote against it. Someone knowing this place would be very welcome to add information. Sting (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Good composition and colors, albeit a bit washed out (and lighting could be at a better angle). I think the use of line in this image is excellent, especially with the curves on the park benches. The ISO 800 actually caused less deterioration of image quality than I thought. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I denoised it. ;-) Sting (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Average composition, upper half all too blue. --Tremonist (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tigth crop, crane in the middle.--Mile (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the composition could work in a non-backlit scenario, although it's very tight on both sides either way. As it is, the background seems too faint and the foreground too shadowed to really work for me. Several distracting objects don't help with the already complex composition. — Julian H.^✈ 16:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from FOP concerns I'm not convinced either by the composition. The interesting elements are in the far left and right, the lighting is just okay but sharpness isn't, and especially the left side lacks contrast. The (drunk?) guy laying on the bench is not helping either IMHO Poc o² 17:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted oppose I love photos like these in which 21st-century Earth actually does look like all those 1970s sci-fi paperback covers said it was going to (O Lujiazui! O Dubai!). I think the trees in the front, and the lighting and the clouds, work even better with that in mind. But ... all those technical flaws noted above, especially the tight crop at left, are valid criticisms. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ripon Cathedral Organ, Nth Yorkshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 10:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- . The image is quite dark but I think this reflects the ambience of the interior of the cathedral and the dark wood used in the organ case's construction. It was built in 1878, almost entirely from scratch by T. C. Lewis of Brixton in London. Diliff (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It leans to the left, or, somethime is good to mention its off-centre shot to make that clear. --Mile (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Mile - Image is slightly tilted to the left. D kuba (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted and too dark, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The tilt has been corrected. Part of the problem is that I don't think the organ case is entirely symmetrical, so it looks like it is tilted when it's actually not. As for the darkness, the wood is genuinely dark. Dark wood when brightened looks a bit unrealistic, but I've brightened it up slightly. Your thoughts? Diliff (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My thoughts are that I'm gonna Support you now. Well done! --Tremonist (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, angle is ok, but you lighten image too much (colors was dark, but very good - captured the unique climate of interior of the church) - windows are overexposed now:/ D kuba (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The windows are too bright and that becomes disturbing and the bottom crop is not convincing either, I created a note (feel free to remove it after having seen it) Poc o² 17:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Have been looking at this one for a while and actually wanted to oppose because the camera it's pointing up too high, and that gives me neck ache by just looking at it... But quality is just too good. Couldn't you step backward? Also agree about the unfortunate windows. - Benh (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I could have stepped further back and usually I do that, but sometimes objects look more interesting from a more extreme angle and I thought this organ was one of those. I don't see the issue with the window though. It's overexposed because clear windows have no detail to show and appear bright and white in person, unlike coloured stained glass. I can reduce the exposure of them but dull grey windows generally look a bit fake and HDR'ish. Clear glass windows can only really look white (unless there is a deep blue sky outside). Diliff (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. And yes, I wouldn't darken windows either. They are what they are. One suggestion maybe : making the lines converging a little less? In any way I really wouldn't mind that this becomes FP. - Benh (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it will become a FP, but no problem. I took some nice photos of some cathedral organs in Picardie a few days ago - Laon and Amiens (which I see you visited with your fisheye lens a few years ago!) - which I'm hoping will be a bit more successful. Diliff (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EV, but not one of your best ;o), let alone Commons. The extreme perspective and the crop at bottom do not work for me. You should try at COM:VI. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bohinjsko jezero panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2015 at 13:24:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Solid quality, nice lighting and beautiful landscape but not sure whether it is one of our finest. I think that there is too much water and shore, maybe a lower position would have helped. I would have probably concentrated also on the tower and bridge and chosen a different crop, not sure, though. Poc o² 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first it looks like an ordinary picture as per Poco, but the shallowness and clarity of the water make for a unique effect. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be cut a little here or there, but is fine overall. --Tremonist (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. It's well done technically, but the light isn't really special (especially on the right) and most importantly, I can't really find something satisfying to focus on. The church is more or less hidden and lost among clouds of the same colour, for the vegetation to look good, it's not really the right season. I agree that the water is somewhat interesting, but I'm not quite convinced it's enough. — Julian H.^✈ 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Diego, it is not bad but I don't think the composition deserve a fp promotion -- Christian Ferrer 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Female African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) with juvenile, Daures, Erongo, Namibia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 15:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Greg Willis - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the second nomination, the first being here. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support maximum elephant on "one" image. A dream shoot in the true wildlife for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - too tight crop for me. D kuba (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little blurry on the bottom left, but still good overall. --Pine^✉ 07:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this but the crop is too tight. --Laitche (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Laitche Poc o² 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grand Canal panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2015 at 18:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmitry A. Mottl - nominated by Dmitry A. Mottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I do spot jagged lines from place to place. Maybe the downsampling could be done with better algorithm. The scaffoldings don't help either. I didn't support for nothing: I like the place, composition and slightly side lighting. - Benh (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I find it "zoomed in" too much, with insufficient space on the top and bottom. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great panorama view. --Tremonist (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It looks indistinct vanishing point owing to uneven rows of houses. And I think it is a reason of this unclear and confusing composition. --Laitche (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wow. The framing is too tight up. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Naqsh-e Jahan Square by Pascal Coste 1 edited.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 16:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info 19th century drawing of Naqsh-e Jahan Square, Isfahan; this drawing is the work of French architect, Xavier Pascal Coste, who traveled to Iran along with the French king's embassy to Persia in 1839. Created by Pascal Coste - uploaded by Marmoulak (edited by مانفی) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it had been a photograph, I would have cropped of some of the sky, but I think it would be to tamper too much with the artists intentions to do that on this drawing. The drawing is interesting in all its 'vacantness' and different. I like the colours. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much sky, I agree, but, as said already, it's no photo! --Tremonist (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, dull colours, staid atmosphere. -- Fotoriety (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Monfie (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm old here and I remember well... nothing new... 4,5 years later. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: Nothing? And the colors? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing...--Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petriny (10).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 19:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SimcaCZE - uploaded by SimcaCZE - nominated by User:SimcaCZE -- Simca 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simca 19:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Love the composition but very grainy and noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry,for Daniel --LivioAndronico talk 07:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a bit puzzling to have people complain about the noise here. I do not find the noise distracting here (and it certainly isn't very noisy to anybody who has ever seen a D800 beyond ISO 8000), and this is a dark environment which obviously doesn't offer a tripod as solution. I however wonder whether the location really is that dull. I don't know if it would hurt EV, but the image looks like it could use a decent contrast boost. If I load the JPG into LR and add 1 EV, +50 Contrast, +30 Clarity and +30 Vibrance, it suddenly look pretty engaging and interesting. --DXR (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philadelphia Street Map, 1802.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 22:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by P. C. Varte, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info Philadelphia Street Map, 1802. Category: Non-photographic media/Maps.
Support -- Yann (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything's readable, fine! --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! D kuba (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps

File:Regent Street 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 18:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Before you assess, the road actually goes slightly downward from left to right, and I've checked this with this site. The London folks will probably confirm. It's also actually curved, though the projection amplifies the phenomenon. -- Benh (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely executed. To cover such a huge field of view you have to introduce some extra geometrical distortions to capture it reasonably in a 2D projection. I think you have utilized very elegantly that the road curves already for this purpose. The projection amplifies the curvature of the road, but it gives you the benefit that locally in the image the proportions look farly OK everywhere. I am impressed by the DOF. The pavement close to you is sharp, which is tough to achieve without parallax errors and I suppose you have used a quite small aperture, like f/13 or so? Unfortunately, this interesting technical information, like exposure, ISO and number of images is not available from the EXIF or the file page. I would recommend filling in the {{Photo Information}} template as done, e.g., here to make this informtion available for the curious reader. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger, I try to focus on the hyperfocal point (hope it's the right name) to get as much sharp parts as possible. My exposure blending soft, enfuse strip away my EXIF data. I forgot to put them back with exiftool but as a compensation, I filled the data you asked for. Now you can tell I shot at f/8.0, which is the sweet spot for this lens but I probably could have stopped down a bit more. I had to downsample to keep the (extremely) stretched edges reasonably sharp, and as a side benefit, everything from the front sidewalk to the building is sharp. - Benh (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was five stops off in my guess, but then again I had not noticed you had downsampled . Thanks for adding the information I asked for. It is very instructive. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral No good picture for me. It is unrealistic and so distorted that I can hardly imagine how the buildings are in reality. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great job. -- -donald- (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A disorienting projection, but I like it. The most astounding thing is that Regent Street is so empty! Not sure that your HDR was completely successful though, as the shadow detail is a bit darker than would be ideal and the colour balance seems a bit yellowish to me, although this could be due to the sunrise, I guess. Diliff (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I too like the empty street here. Was hard to achieve ; I didn't expect London to be this crowded (it's a league ahead of Paris for sure) so I had to be very patient, even at 7:30am. I certainly will check back the WB, you know the place more than I do, so it's good to have this kind of feedback. For the HDR issue, you are right. I only used two exposures, as the bright one was mostly white and I was afraid it affects the other area in an unpleasant way. I'll try to blend the three exposures also, just to check. - Benh (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Laitche (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps contrast boosted a little too much. -- Colin (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Diliff: and @Colin: , I tried a quick (miss time) reprocessing to fix the issues you raise: here. This time, I used the three exposures, so I was able to pull out more detail from the shadow parts, without noise tradeoff (which I think would have been OK without the bright exposure anyways). I also tried to address the WB issue, which was more a saturation/vibrance one I think. Colin, for some reason (probably that my +3EV exposure is mainly white here), the output from my exposures blending is very washed out. It's a reason I have to go heavy on the contrast. Personally not very satisfied, but waiting for your feedbacks before tweaking it again and possibly uploading a new version. I can also go back at my 2 exposures version and tweak that one instead. @Slaunger: , this time, I added the EXIF back with exiftool. - Benh (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand from previous conversations with you, you don't use Lightroom? I think you'd have much better results from processing a 32bit HDR file in Lightroom than through exposure blending. Also, if your outputted blended image is lacking contrast, perhaps you need to adjust the tone curves rather than just bump the contrast in a linear manner. That way, you have more control over contrast adjustments and you don't darken the shadows too much in the process. I prefer the processing of the dropbox version. I think the highlights are slightly overexposed though, but shadow detail is much better. It could still probably be improved further with processing in Lightroom but if this isn't an option, I'd be happy to support the updated image. Diliff (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I prefer the version you have here. I can warmly recommend the proposal by Diliff to make a 32 bit HDR file in stitching SW (such as PTGui) and then use lightroom for the tone mapping. It gives you many more options for controlling the exposure and colours accurately. It is like working with a "superraw". -- Slaunger (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Diliff and Slaunger Have tried. But 1. it's ressource demanding and I need to upgrade my memory or HD, and 2. the result doesn't please me. I like the fact enfuse gives you the choice with which parameter has more weight in the blending process. But it's also probably that I don't know how to use Photoshop's Fusion HDR Pro. - Benh (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK great thing I shall have done years ago : reading the manual. Will try to use enfuse with 32 bits depth tonight. BTW, if anyone has a HDR workflow recommendation, I'm curious to compare. - Benh (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lightroom gives you so much more control though. You treat the 32 bit file exactly like you would process a RAW file, except that instead of a standard RAW file's 12 stops of dynamic range (roughly), you get a theoretically unlimited number of stops to work with. From that file high dynamic range file, you can apply gradient filters, adjustment brushes, tone mapping (with a lot more control than enfuse). You can essentially treat different parts of the image completely differently, 'painting' tone mapping across an image as required. The only limiting factor from my experience is that the overall tone mapping 'tonality' is a bit too micro-contrasty, as I've mentioned before. Apart from that one disadvantage, which you can minimise by decreasing the clarity slider, it's by far the most powerful HDR workflow tool. I thought I'd explained the workflow before. I'm happy to explain in more detail but if you haven't got Lightroom or a PC capable of running it properly, it's all academic I suppose. Diliff (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @Diliff: : Exactly! -- Slaunger (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balles2601 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A different but nice projection! It has WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. My brain does not accept this kind of projection (nothing new...). The light is not excellent. Be happy: this pic will stay visible here a little more !--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "We are making us the world as it pleases us". Too distorted for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you do too with your focus stacked images, dear Alchemist-hp. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Jebulon and Alchemist-hp. Certainly has its own aesthetic value but a featured picture shouldn't be that distorted IMO. --Code (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the nom would get such opposes, but it's good to take risks sometimes. If you're familiar with FPC, you may have noticed I tried a lot of very wide angle non conventional view, without getting it right. But I disagree with the fact a FP shouldn't be that distorted. We have many FP with more distortion, only that we don't necessarily notice it because of the nature of the subjects, or people did it better than I did. I planned the shot and got that bending on purpose, the result looks harmonious in my view. I'm fine with the fact you don't like the result but I hope you separate this from a non desired distortion. And again, the street is already curved. The projection only did exaggerate that. - Benh (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"exaggerate". You wrote it ! 😉--Jebulon (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get ur point (sivouplé, donné moi explications) but yes "exaggerate", like in "the street is already curved, hence the bending", and not as in "the street was straight, and the projection bended it dramatically". - Benh (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J'aime pô les fish-eyes et autres traficotages, ça me file mal à la tronche.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Jebulon and Alchemist-hp, but nice.--Lmbuga (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others.--Hubertl (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fish-eye or wide angle views are legitimately used in photography. I have definitely no problem with distortion or a special view. But this (technical perfect) image is just overwhelming me. Maybe the buildings on the left and right side account for this impression. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've carefully chosen this view (best compromise imo). But given that it's on a non promotion trend, I may consider tweaking the projection and a tighter framing (because I actually thought like you too at first about the sides). Will think about it. - Benh (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too much distorted imho --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --Baresi F (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --LivioAndronico talk 03:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Per Alchemist-hp e Jebulon --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Striked --Cart (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice Poc o² 08:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info Post-promoted due to sock double vote. 12 October 2018 --Cart (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Fra et romersk osteria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 07:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info In a Roman Osteria is a well known genre art painting from 1866 by Carl Bloch. He appears in the painting in the background with his back against the observer. The paiting here was commisioned by merchant Moritz G Melchior, who is also seen in the background of the painting speaking with his friends at the same table as the painter. The painting is inspired by Italian Osteria Scene by his master Wilhelm Marstrand. There is a Google Art Project version of the same painting here on Commons, which is featured on the English and Spanish Wikipedias. It has same resolution, but half the file size. I prefer this uncompressed version, although they look very, very similar. There are a lot of interesting elements in the composition, which I will not reveal here, but let you as the observer see for yourself. Just be careful not to further upset the young man in the painting. It could evolve into a fistfight if he is furher provoced... -- Uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thanks for this nomination! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cat is very attractive! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Thanks for nomination! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 10:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BlackIceNRW (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Kimanis Sabah SOGT-Kimanis-02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2015 at 05:51:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Flare of Sabah Oil and Gas Terminal in Kimanis, Malaysia while a thunderstorm is approaching from Crocker Ranges. The flare is part of the overpressure safety relief system.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI but no wow, or not enough for an FP, largely because of all the visual clutter. If you can reshoot, strip it down and simplify: Just shoot the very top, with the flare, against a blue sky. See how that works. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this composition doesn't work for me and lacking of wow factor, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too cloudy, sorry, even though the clouds look interesting, too. --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Junglefowl on tree.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 09:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Philip Pikart -- Xenon 77 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xenon 77 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent shot with good timing, light, pose and color. Good composition too, but I think it can be improved furher by cropping a bit off to the right to off-center the junglefowl (see annotation) and give the impression it has even more space to the left to emit its sound in. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for remark, image edited! --Xenon 77 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Bojars (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak oppose Nice photo but the head is blurry. A pity. --Laitche (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice photo but the head is out of focus because of too shallow DOF(f/4), A pity and sorry. (IMO) --Laitche (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me blurry is something different than hitting the great feathers of the bird instead of the eyes which is only visible at 24MP of resolution. Lesson learned: The next time I'll upload lower resolution.--Xenon 77 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenon 77: : I understand your frustration with this argument, but please do not downsample in the future just because of this review. @Laitche: : I think your review is a little unfair. The image resolution is very large. If you look at it at, e.g., approximately 6 Mpx resolution (three times the minimum requirement), I think it has very good pixel quality. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it. I mean the DOF(f/4) issue exactly, but this was taken ISO640, if use around f/11, probably motion blur would happen I assume so I used the word "blurry". But I should have written it more politely and carefully, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better with the crop. Yann (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity about the head but per Slaunger. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico talk 07:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly blurred/unsharp right leg of the creature. But excellent composition and colours. --Pugilist (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that sharp in the head. Can you add binomial name. --Charles (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Catedral de Salisbury, Salisbury, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 49.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2015 at 18:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the spire and cloister of the Salisbury Cathedral, located in the city of Salisbury, Wiltshire, England. The temple, an Anglican cathedral, is one of the leading examples of Early English architecture and was consecrated in 1258. Its 123 m (404 feet) spire is the tallest in the United Kingdom. Poc o² 18:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

View of the spire and cloister of the Salisbury Cathedral, located in the city of Salisbury, Wiltshire, England. The temple, an Anglican cathedral, is one of the leading examples of Early English architecture and was consecrated in 1258. Its 123 m (404 feet) spire is the tallest in the United Kingdom.

Support -- Poc o² 18:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual perspective - that totally works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support i love this kind of perspective --LivioAndronico talk 12:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please check for dust spots carefully, I have marked two of them. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks, will fix them tomorrow evening Poc o² 10:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dust spots removed sorry for the delay Poc o² 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good idea with the framing. Very nice composition. You have a lot of color noise in the shadows, I guess from raising the shadows. Could you try to address that? Alternatively, instead of lifting the shadows, what would happen by leaving them dark? Would it emphasize the framing? -- Slaunger (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Love the composition, but the edges of the building look overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked the fringe between sky and the shadows a bit to reduce the oversharpening effect Poc o² 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sharpening (or desaturation of the blue?) fringe is very visible. The spire at least should be vertical. Thoughts about ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have applied a slight tilt and reduced sharpening in the areas with high contrast Poc o² 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings

File:Clanculus pharaonius 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 07:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing patterns of nature. Very beautiful. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I am fascinated with this picture! Maybe I will be trivial, but Llez's images are really valuable for the Wiki project and authentic pieces of art! $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 10:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Jacopo Werther. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support // Martin K. (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I've given up the idea to oppose your shell pictures. But at least you should provide something without obvious issue : the top middle shell is blurred. On repeatable shots we shouldn't let that pass. - Benh (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks, I agree with your comment, at least with the second part. The top middle specimen is replaced --Llez (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes fortunately we share different opinions for some points :) Unfortunately, now the WB isn't on par with the other views, it looks a bit more blueish. For some reason, it looks to have affected the upper rightmost shell. Arguably a minor issue, but which ruins the consistency it had before. Also, the NR treatment isn't the same, there's more noise on the new view. But I still see this as an improvement. - Benh (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You look to have fixed the issues I mentioned. So I remove my oppose. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Many thanks, yes I made some improvements an some new shots --Llez (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. You did the fix even though you needn't to have the picture promoted. - Benh (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones,_shells_and_fossils

File:Comestible rose in the Laquenexy orchard garden, Moselle, France (01).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2015 at 17:02:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Restart the nomination due to a bug. Info created, uploaded & nominated by M0tty -- M0tty (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- M0tty (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest another crop with one/two thirds.--XRay ^talk 09:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, even the water drops are clearly visible, so: good resolution! --Tremonist (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be positive species id for FP? --Charles (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unknown species/cultivar... Kenraiz (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice water drops on leaves and good colors on main subject. I do not like the centered composition and dark and somewhat cluttered background. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dark background (leaves are not clutter) makes the rose stand out. Sharp where it needs to be. Kleuske (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Slaunger. --Laitche (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Centered composition works for me here Poc o² 08:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Hans Holbein the Younger - The Ambassadors - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 21:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Ambassadors, by Hans Holbein. Created by Google Cultural Institute - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --LivioAndronico talk 07:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- GREAT --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A classic painting, important both in the history of art and the development of Jacques Lacan's psychoanalytic theories. I don't need to see it in full res to know it's an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

Comment One of the most important and mysterious paintings of the History, IMO. All the symbols are very interesting and full of surprises.--Jebulon (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Wells Cathedral Organ from Inverted Arches, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 10:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. There's what appears to be a tiny bit of lens flare (noted) but I really don't mind either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see more from you. I love how we can read the sign asking that persons "forbear" walking or talking in the nave during services. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like you just cropped half a meter of the door at the bottom instead of showing the whole wall. What was the reason for that? Poc o² 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nikhil (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and the seventh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Poco. Yann (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:2014-Barn-in-Arkengarthdale.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 07:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kreuzschnabel - uploaded by Kreuzschnabel - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 07:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition, beautiful colors. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky looks burnt out on the right side, and NR or whatever gives oil painting look when looking too closely at the leaves of the trees. Lighting could be better. - Benh (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like the lighting; cloudy days tend to enhance the lushness of green fields. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good but the light is dull. --Code (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the light. --Hubertl (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dome of Church of St. george in Locorotondo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2015 at 08:30:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's symmetric and impressive, even though its cut a bit above and below. --Tremonist (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some +EV maybe in shadows. --Mile (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, apply a cw tilt. Is there a way to see the whole circle (it is partially cropped at top and bottom)? Poc o² 17:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Poc o²,what you see slightly cut is not the dome but the outer circle, though not, with my objective I managed to pick up one, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better Poc o²? Are you with us? --LivioAndronico talk 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better, indeed. If you apply a further tilt in cw direction (see that the windows are not yet perfectly parallel), then you have my support Poc o² 09:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Poc o²,I can't do more of this. Thanks.--LivioAndronico talk 11:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was asking for less that that :) You almost have it, don't desperate, in the current version you applied to much tilt, I added a note. Poc o² 11:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-re-done Poc o² is becoming a birth --LivioAndronico talk 12:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is close enough in this version, you got my support Poc o² 12:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only for know....why weak Lothar Spurzem? --LivioAndronico talk 21:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

… because of the cut below. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm....ok thanks --LivioAndronico talk 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 16:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 5012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 16:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting shot by 13 sec exposure. --Laitche (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear composition. --Hubertl (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A clear compositional idea with good colors and overall image quality. A very interesting way to represent the subject of 'bearings'. Speaking of bearings, could the existing categorization to Bearings be made more specific? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A pleasing abstraction from a common industrial object. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is better, if all those bearings would parallel would have been though a nicer rythm picture Poc o² 08:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Intern of St. George in Locorotondo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 10:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly better than your other church shots, but still little wow overall. Not tack sharp, and some lack of details. And again, the bar is pretty high on the subject. There's a "stitching" error on the upper corner you might want to fix. - Benh (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for info. I don't think in this way,but accept your opinion. --LivioAndronico talk 23:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is this a single exposure? If so, well done. Light and colours and overall quality is good. Exposure control could be better, and it is noticeable that there is a slight deviation from symmetry in the vantage point (follow the suspension chain of the chandelier). Neutral because church interior bar is very high. Still, definitely a shot to be proud of. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Slaunger is a single exposure.Thanks.--LivioAndronico talk 08:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Benh, a good photo of a interesting church, but not an outstanding one. --DXR (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh, and I have to say that if I had voted in some of your former nominations I'd have opposed. Your other current FPC offers, on the other side, thanks to the lighting the special ingredient we expect in Commons for our finest pictures. This one doesn't. Poc o² 08:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even I could do it Poc o², but I have been so 'polite enough not to say, do not like to be theatrical, but many here like to be. So today I will behave the same way.--LivioAndronico talk 09:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incluso yo podía hacer tan Poc o², pero estaba lo suficientemente cortés no quiere decir, que no me gusta ser teatral, pero muchos aquí gustaría ser. Así que hoy me comporto igual modo.--LivioAndronico talk 09:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get your point, you can try it in Italian, if you like Poc o² 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you mean that sometimes you believe that if you would have to vote all nominations many of them you would oppose, but you just opt not to participate. And from now on you will refrain from abstaining and always vote if you think it is not a FP, as you just did in one of my nominations. I have no problem with that as long as you are consistent and don't focus on certain people. In regards to me, I rarely have time to vote over all open FPCs but I did it today (as you can see in my contributions), at least for those where I believe to have enough competence to judge whether it is a FP or not (illustrations or paintings are not the case). Poc o² 10:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No te preocupes, yo también tengo la experiencia--LivioAndronico talk 10:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --A.Savin 16:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear canvassing. This silly egocentric behaviour by "Livioandronico2013" is just ridiculous. --A.Savin 22:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing ridiculous is that you are an administrator --LivioAndronico talk 23:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a first time. And yes it gets ridiculous. Nothing seems to forbid that but just imagine that everyone behaves the same way... Would have been easy for me to ask a support vote in my last nom (it failed for a single support) and to get it. - Benh (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is ridiculous that people come here only and only to oppose only my photos, but this is not said and not stressed ... There are some people horrendous here ,but luckily they are only 4 --LivioAndronico talk 07:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not less ridiculous than if people come here only and only to support (you surely have been summoned here via e-mail, ComputerHotline?), despite the fact that the picture - while being more than sufficient for QI - obviously isn't amongst the finest of Commons. Thanks for further personal offenses Livioandronico2013, I rarely saw more childish behaviour. --A.Savin 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it, but looks like you're actually right. It's really not encouraging people to stay. Hope we don't have to play NSA in the future... - Benh (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I am horrendous because I voted against this picture. If we had been 6 people, than we would have 6 horrendous people in the project. You are allowing yourselft too much. And public canvassing on top of it. I just requested a disciplinary measure to this unacceptable behaviour. Poc o² 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I was in Castel Gandolfo to make my bad foto.No Poc o², sorry I expressed myself in the wrong place, I did not mean you, DXR or Benh (with DXR plus I a very good relationship), I spoke in general is a case then the opposition was 4, I did not realize, sorry.I spoke for example of those childish and vindictive administrator of A.Savin(block me,don't worry) that connects puts two negative votes only and only at 2 my photos and disappears, even a negative vote without even motivate !!!--LivioAndronico talk 14:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Livio, the world is better without offensive attacks.

If my vote stirs controversy, I remove it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry,I understand 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk)--LivioAndronico talk 15:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LivioAndronico: keep always smile. All opposes are for me suggestions to make my images in the future better. Take it easy, because we all are here a big "commons family". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are three stitching errors. I added the image notes. --Laitche (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Alchemist-hp ,Thanks Laitche --LivioAndronico talk 15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The two of those at the center part were fixed but a little weird waves appeared instead, and the rest at the left side is still not fixed. --Laitche (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, a QI. If the subject had great wow or the image quality was perfect, I'd overlook some 1px stitching errors. But the image quality isn't at FP level, with softness and lack of detail probably due to aggressive NR and too much local contrast applied. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Eh? It looks there are two vertical edges at the left side of the pillar, likes Trompe-l'œil???, Image note. --Laitche (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)~~ Probably my misjudgement. --Laitche (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butomus umbellatus - harilik luigelill Keilas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 02:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good technical quality and excellent light. I do not think the composition is quite there. See suggested crop in annotation. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness of the flower is good but the bokeh is not convincing, too loaded Poc o² 08:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steinen-Hofen - Evangelische Kirche(2015)5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 04:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. But I would like the church a bit more right. Otherwise than we would lose the trees at the right. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice landscape, but unfavorable composition - empty space in the middle, too tight crop ... --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It seems a bit oversaturated to me. --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proportions of the church spire does not look right. It looks vertically compressed and somewhat skew. The proportions in e.g. this photo gives the impression of a more pointed geometry. Otherwise a very idyllic scene, although it appears a tad oversaturated. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would support, but you need to provide image without issue for FP. Despite many requests, and not only from me, none of them has a color space. - Benh (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned in many of this cases: I don't understand your point. I never cut of the color space of the images. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It misses the "scale reference" for color. If you don't mind sharing details of your workflow, I'd be happy to help checking. - Benh (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated and, as mentioned, the composition isn't ideal. — Julian H.^✈ 17:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours look too saturated, but how do I know what they should be as all the numbers in this JPG lack any scale. If this image was an encyclopaedia, it would be like all the mountains and rivers were measured 1045, 645, 236, etc, without metres or feet. Commons:Image guidelines, which is what FP is tested against, requires the EXIF define the colourspace, preferably sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014-12-18 Fortuna, Johannes Benk at Neue Burg, Vienna -hu- 6224.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 22:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Hubertl, Fortuna, a figure by Johannes Benk at the roof of the Neue Burg, Hofburg, Vienna-- Hubertl (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good weather, nice composition, high quality and it has educational value. --Code (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Equipped" the girl --LivioAndronico talk 07:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light. --Ximonic (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The quality(detail, sharpness) is just a QI but not a FP and other elements are not special, means no wow. Sorry. --Laitche (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obvious QI, and interesting light, but no wow. It looks like a shot anyone could come up with, although I can see that at 800mm, not anyone would get this point of view. Am very envious of your gear ;-) - Benh (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Fotoriety (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the comments above. A good shot, but I'd expect more for FP. The lighting is not optimal either resulting in some disturbing shadows. The centered composition could work for me but the piece of building in the background is distracting. Poc o² 08:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect picture without any errors! Congratulations! FP for me! --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But with halos... --Laitche (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do I try to improve my photographic skills when, obviously, having friends amongst contributors seems to be enough to earn votes. Or maybe I'm wrong and it's just that the statue from Vienna has dragged Austrian users here ? - Benh (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and Italians ... --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - At least the Italian votes, and all other but the two last, are from regular contributors here. - Benh (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I really don't catch you. What's wrong with that?--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well you're right, nothing is wrong if we go by the rules. Surprised to see these users popping out when the nom was on a negative trend. Wouldn't be suspicious if they were more regular contributors to FPC, and not Austrian. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not that regular a contributor here after all. - Benh (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Benh: Let's enjoy the FPC :) --Laitche (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Christ Church Cathedral Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's actually a college chapel! "Cathedral" is its "second function" so to speak. :) I like the wheel window! Impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I've probably cropped the (already cropped) banisters left and right Poc o² 09:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Joukowsky-Pressure-Shock-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 04:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Float gauge, destroyed by a Joukowsky Pressure Shock

Info A float gauge of a separation vessel, destroyed by a Joukowsky Pressure Shock from an interconnected fluid pipeline. The pressure shock squeezed the symetric float gauge until it burst. It is a rare example for a material failure of a rotation-symmetric hollowware as consequence of external overpressure.
All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice with something new. An otherwise boring object presented as well and interesting as possible. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is a shadow in front of the object and that makes an imbalanced composition, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Oppose I'm opposing, but really I'd be fine to see this FP, because it has wow. ~~It's more so that my message has more impact :)~~ Just that I agree with Laitche: noticed the shadow in front is recurring in your last studio shots. I have no doubt you carefully chose the lighting scheme but I think you should get rid of it somehow. An additional light source just on the shadow, perhaps? - Benh (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could crop out the object from the background, but I fear, the object will lose depth without the shadow. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you shouldn't remove the shadow. As you say, they help give sense of volume of the subject. This is a reason I like proper studio shots like yours and Alchemist-hp's, and not all those with the background removed. Instead I would try to adjust your lighting setting so that the shadow doesn't come so close. Easy to say and it's just my two cents. - Benh (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Info The object is back in the damage evidence archive and I don't have a hand on it now. However, if it seems helpful, I can reprocess the image and brighten the shadow area. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes maybe brightening the shadow with a gradient mask... I would try. - Benh (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I applied brightening of foreground shadows --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely an improvement. I'm in :

Support. Thanks for taking my suggestions into account - Benh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Very good quality and high EV but not enough for me for the FP bar. I wonder why the shadow is in front of the object and would expect better lighting in the center of it since that should be the interesting area. Furthermore the subject is not really an eye-catcher. Poc o² 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:NSB BM 69 Vieren - Ørneberget.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 19:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love trains --LivioAndronico talk 07:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Water reflections of trains" ... not something we have a category for yet, nor would (ahem) it have been intuitive to have had one, but after this we have no excuse. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 17:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Comment A little bit the camera was shaking by mirror action perhaps? --Laitche (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Poc o² 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Porto Covo March 2015-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2015 at 21:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Unexpected gate: should we knock at it? The purple flowers are Hottentot Figs (Carpobrotus edulis), the yellow ones are Treasure flowers (Gazania rigens) and Hawkweeds (Hieracium sp.). All by Spring 2015 and Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors, nice light, and good composition. Yann (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nikhil (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is it possible to set the spatial data in this file? As a viewer of the picture I'm looking for the exact location of the gate. Because the city, specified Porto Covo, has a large expansion. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Code (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are surely not loosing the touch. Very nice work. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a poorly categorized QI, no wow. --A.Savin 00:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surreal, and nicely done at that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I would choose one third sky only.--XRay ^talk 07:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per XRay, but I love you for this kind of ideas, Alvesgaspar. A'Savin is not wrong, you have to improve your categorizations, my friend.--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Slaunger (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Roskilde Station 2015-03-30-4761.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 12:45:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Roskilde station is the oldest railway station in Denmark for the first railway connection in Denmark between Roskilde and Copenhagen. The station was opened on June 26, 1847, while construction of the main building was still ongoing. In 1848 it was finished as well. In 1998 the railway station was resturated such that today the colors on the facade are identical to original building. The architectural elements are believed to have references to Villa Borghèse in Rome. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Partially overexposed, partially blurred (slight DOF-problems). But an very interesting perspective, well resolved and a friendly overall view. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @BlackIceNRW: : Thanks for your review. Regarding your assessment that it is 'partially overexposed', would you care to elaborate what you mean by that? If I look at the historgram of both the original raw, and the uploaded version, where shadows have been lifted, I see a histogram in Lightroom which is in fact very far from having any kind of clipping in the histogram. The histogram has a smooth tail going to zero at maximum brightness. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Slaunger, the mentioned program is a good tool, but I am relying at least on my eyes (as you surely too). The photo was taken on March 30th at 17:32 at sunset. The light comes from the top right. Some small areas that are illuminated with this "hard" light, are displayed in a blinding light, that I find slightly overexposed. For example, the side door of the rather dark car on the right hand side or the woman with the bag in the front. Her face and hair seem to merge themselves. But I judge here at the border of Perfectionism, possibly even of the Grotesque. Overall, the picture looks realy good for me, but under the bottom line it is not perfect for me. The selected time of day and the associated lighting conditions could be better. The same picture at a different time of day ... and the picture will get my voice. Nevertheless: For these lighting conditions really a good picture! --BlackIceNRW (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BlackIceNRW: Thank you for taking your time to elaborate. Yes, I do understand the point about a perceived-by-eye overexposure not seen in a histogram, and I understand the lightening details you mention with the woman and the car. I just wanted to check it was not an issue with your viewing equipment. One thing I do not quite understand though is your mentioning of hard light at 17:32 at sunset (it is actually 17:12 as is evident on the clock, but that is a detail, my camera clock is apparently not entirely correctly set). I think that this time of day at this time of year is very good for photography at this latitude. The light is getting soft and pleasant, but not yet 'reddish', and the shadows are still so short that neighbouring tall obstructions do not cast shadows on the main subject. But still, there are a lot of shadows on the building, and I have had to lift the shadows quite a bit to soften up the dynamic range. Maybe it is these shadows, that you refer to as being the root cause of the 'hard lightening'? (I have no objection to your vote, just curious to understand your observations). -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Slaunger: The issue with the shadow is undoubtedly significant. As an example, the above mentioned woman: Here, I believe that through the interplay of blur in the shadow area (caused by the movement of the woman and the glaring light) and "hard" light from the right side, the result does not look perfect. Maybe also the exposure time with 1/320 sec was a little too long to make a better capture of the woman. But I do not want to lose in detail here. Looking at the whole picture, the exposure time is certainly well chosen. Ultimately, I still believe that the light conditions and slight problems with the depth of field (largely regardless of lighting) are the main reasons for my inner skepticism in the detailed view. But I'm sure, with a view of the whole picture you can argue about it and other friends of photography see this different anyway. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The framing is tight, and there's some softness issue on the borders (strange?). Some chroma noise, probably as a result of strong shadows recovery, and strange haloing around the bench on the left... but I like the lighting a lot, and enough to support it. - Benh (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Benh: Thanks for your (always) useful review. I have uploaded a new version, which tries to address some of the issues you raise. You are correct shadows have been lifted quite dramatically, and this has introduced some chroma noise. I have increase chroma NR from 25 to 33 in Lightroom, as I found it did no noticeable harm to the detail level. I have also worked on the weird bench halo you mention, and finally I have decreased exposure by 0,11 EV, as there were a few burned spots. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know and as of 2015, Canon DSLRs suck (sorry) with dynamic range. Recovering dark areas is often not a good idea. But Lightroom seems to be a bit clever. The amount of NR looks to be related to how much an area was brightened up. If anyone can confirm or not... So yes, in my opinion, you did well to increase chroma NR in this case. - Benh (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, I am not at all happy about the dynamic range of the sensor in my Canon EOS 600D. I should have gone for Nikon or Sony. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but after scrutinizing, I barely see any difference, excepted the decrease of exposure. Do I miss something ? - Benh (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Benh: : That's OK. The 0.1 EV change is subtle, but visible. You have to look carefully to see any difference due to the increased chroma NR, and the repair on the bench halo is not a removal of the halo, but it is less prominent now. But the new verions is actualy different (promise). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Correct remarks for DoF by BlackIceNRW but good enough. --Mile (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice image, some minor technical problems though. --Tremonist (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always --Lmbuga (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I do not think that the image stands out from normal photos of comparable buildings. The light is okay, but not special. The field curvature issues have already been mentioned and are quite significant. You probably couldn't do much about the plants, but the lamppost that almost leaves the image is a bit distracting to me. Overall a nice QI, but no FP for me. --DXR (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with DXR and in addition I have to say that the lack of sharpness on the left is also an issue Poc o² 08:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Worcester College Chapel, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the rays on the lights. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really amazing. Not much else to say... - Benh (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as always --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usual David's high standard, no issues with the crop here to me Poc o² 09:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Wwii woman worker-edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2015 at 13:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical.
Info created by David Bransby, uploaded by Liftarn, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support ~~Has something on hers nose and upper lip but~~ the quality,the image size,the expression and freckles.... I really like--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fo a historic photo of course--LivioAndronico talk 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support outstanding 70+ years old photo. And the freckles .... --Pugilist (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Do our quality standards mean nothing? Yes, it's a great photo but whoever edited it or created the JPG has trashed it. Have a look at File:Woman aircraft worker, Vega Aircraft Corporation, Burbank, Calif.1a34456u.tif, the original tiff, and examine the background. The JPG presented here has such obvious blocky artefacts you could play Tetris with them. This is an image worthy of careful restoration, by someone who knows what they are doing, and I'm sure someone at FP could be found to do that. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: New version uploaded: rework from TIFF, less compression, and also correction of issues mentioned by Livio. Yann (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support 30 years later, I will remove the Weak ;) --Laitche (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm please don't misunderstand the above comment, I don't mean the World War II. It's a very good quality of 70+ years old, a photo but not a big ~~event in the history~~ historical moment, it's a working lady, so. --Laitche (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment actually the "working lady" does in fact represent a minor historical turn: Rosie the Riveter --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Martin Falbisoner: Yeah, that's why I support this, similar things(Women's volunteer corps which was organized during WWII, in 1943) happened in my country, if just a working I wouldn't. --Laitche (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think “a big historical moment” is rather suitable than “a big event in the history”, so I've changed the sentence. --Laitche (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colors. D kuba (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 5003-7.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 16:44:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think it is a very good idea, but for me the composition gets a little too cluttered with too many different kinds of objects to relate to in the same photo. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but i don't like a composition like this one. D kuba (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above; plus, i don't like the worn-out yellows because they make the image that much more dull. --Fotoriety (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per D kuba. Good quality but to my eyes cluttered composition without anything that really draws the attention of my eye Poc o² 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality obviously but I think this sort of photo is required a more power expression. --Laitche (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting subject, but a straight-on shot with not much in the way of composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Sand by Nadar, 1864.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 22:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical.
Info created by Nadar, uploaded by Scewing, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution picture with restoration of a famous female writer, by a famous photographer. -- Yann (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seeing that it is a historic photo, is very good--LivioAndronico talk 22:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ídem others users Ezarateesteban 22:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scewing (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Adolf Mosengel Dorf in den Berner Alpen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 08:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media.
Info created by Adolf Mosengel - uploaded by FA2010 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 08:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 08:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are strange marks in the lower part. What are they? Yann (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess those are scratches. --Laitche (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you think these should be cleaned? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Yann: For the real one, I'm not a curator so have no idea, about a digital process if those are small parts, I think it's better to be fixed but this large parts, I don't think so, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and nice--Lmbuga (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lmbuga. I'm "wowed"! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was about to say "wow, nice photo, looks like a painting" until I realized it was a painting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended on 24 April. — Julian H.^✈ 15:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Butterfly Knapweed Fritillary - Melitaea phoebe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2015 at 17:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info created by Zcebeci - uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, Good processing skill. --Laitche (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Laitche --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the measure is small --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good and clean macro composition. Good light and nice bokeh. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support And just enough depth of field, too. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Capitol del Estado de Indiana, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 19:07:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Front view of the Indiana Statehouse, the state capitol building of the U.S. state of Indiana. The building, built in 1888, houses the Indiana General Assembly, the office of the Governor of Indiana, the Supreme Court of Indiana, and other state officials. The building it is located in Indianapolis, the state capital. All by me, Poc o² 19:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The perspective is a few strange~~ --LivioAndronico talk 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems pretty sharp actually considering it was taken at f/16. I would have expected a bit more diffraction softness. Diliff (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If Is good for David, probably that I wrong --LivioAndronico talk 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice symmetry but I would have moved forward to get the trees out of the way. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Case, have you really considered the effect of moving forward? A little further forward and there's a great big statue dominating your vision and obscuring the building, and the trees probably aren't completely out of the frame. Go in front of the statue and you'd struggle to fit the building in-frame or achieve a reasonable rectilinear image, and the two other trees would start to dominate. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fully agree with Colin. I can offer other perspectives ([4], [5]), but believe me moving forward was not an option. Btw, I have uploaded a new version with an improvement of the perspective. Poc o² 19:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like those other two a little bit more, if you'd been able to get the treetops in. It's really a matter of taste. Sometimes the perfect angle you'd like is just impossible. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so. Many buildings (particularly in London) don't give you the ability to step back and photograph from an ideal angle, you typically end up with light poles, street signs, awkward angles and lots of perspective distortion. It is a matter of taste but I don't think Poco's alternative images show the building better. This one seems to be the least obstructed view of the building. Diliff (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a colour noise on the bottom right window shade, isn't it. --Laitche (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laitche: I have reduced the CN in a preventive way but withouth really seeing it. If it is still there in the current version, could you please add a note? There was also a bit of Moiré, I reduced it. Poc o² 12:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's maybe a Moiré. I don't mind whether you remove or not. --Laitche (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's removed. --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't fancy the tight crop and both trees but I know how difficult to take this building, and hope you to find more impressive angle in the future :) --Laitche (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trees are disturbing. Not your fault, but... Yann (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (Nepi).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 08:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful subject, lighting, and a nice perspective. The image is slightly soft at 100%, even in the central, brighter areas, which I think may be caused by NR. For me, however, this doesn't unduly detract from the image. --Baresi F (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light and colors make the difference. Good quality. Yann (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for the future FP standard Overexposed the left window, looks like painted with white color. --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion Laitche, however, in the medieval Catholic churches is an effect due to have that within you see that served to illuminate the statue of the Madonna (being in the Middle Ages without electricity). However, the window is very small compared to the pictures and do not think it's so annoying, こんにちは.--LivioAndronico talk 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so annoying, but it looks artificial compared with the right window. --Laitche (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not artificial Laitche, indeed, a lights from the east and the other from the west, to take advantage of the sunlight, as you see there aren't other windows,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's artificial, I said it looks artificial. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sunlight looks artificial...I don't understand --LivioAndronico talk 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, Baresi F described this as soft cause by NR, but I can't believe that photos need NR which is taken with ISO 100, so I think it's unsharp compared with current church interior FPs. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having the church different illuminations even at 100 ISO is created a bit of noise which must be reduced in PP. However before you oppose to one thing and then you come out the other, better let it go that is better, thanks anyway --LivioAndronico talk 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist that, I can say nothing, and thanks for the following comment.(Sorry, this have lots of reasons to oppose so I didn't want to write all...) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There can be many reasons why it has NR at ISO 100. Livio may have increased the shadows brightness which would introduce noise even at ISO 100. It is a scene with a lot of dynamic range, and it is probably as good as it can be with a single exposure. Nothing could have saved the white window, cameras simply don't have enough dynamic range capabilities in their sensors to capture bright sunlight detail at the same time as a dark interior detail. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered the technical limit of single exposure by 24Mpx with APS-C, and I think this shot is insufficient luminous at this scene + this sensor for a FP bar. And after I read your comment of supporting vote, I think it's not good thing that an adjustment the FP standard by each individual, but it's OK for now. --Laitche (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't adjust the FP standard for each individual - that's an assumption you've made. I've opposed many of Livio's church interiors before. I simply wanted to point out that he has improved his photography (composition, processing, and overall image sharpness) and this image has reached the minimum standard for me to support it. Diliff (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I received your intention(means you've not adjust). --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It 'a thought, I tried to explain, then if you believe ... fun.I like the comparison if it is constructive.--LivioAndronico talk 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, If you want to portray a mood of the Middle Ages without electricity, that yellow electric light is so annoying.(If only.) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I enter and turn off at my liking, but please--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support good imho --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo --Charles (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not perfect, but one of the better interior photos by Livio, and I think it is a big improvement on his previous images. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support While I wonder if the white balance on the ambient light from outside could be better corrected, the central portion more than makes up for that (that crepuscular ray is just priceless). Like David says, not perfect but more than good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until you add back the color space. Very nice ray of light otherwise. A bit dark also, but a definite improvement over previous ones, which I wanted to point out. - Benh (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how you would add to the color space? I honestly do not know what you mean Benh--LivioAndronico talk 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... because I don't have much clue about what your workflow looks like. I've sorted out that Wladyslaw had an issue with his Gimp (probably his settings), but you don't seem to use it. If I had to bet on your case, it would be on Paint.net. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And when you don't know something, check Wikipedia (you know, that little encyclopedia we are all contributing to somehow ;-) ) Color space. There's even an Italian version. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I used Photoshop CC,boh...anyway,ok thanks --LivioAndronico talk 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be unsatisfied to leave this issue pending. Can you tell us more about your workflow? From the moment you take the picture to the moment you upload it to Wikipedia. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

after taking the photo I drive, dinner (I joke ).... still nothing that, I adjusted the perspective, cut, added a bit of sharpness and a slight NR. Then a bit of contrast, raised a little brightness and added a few of color ... end--LivioAndronico talk 22:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was more asking how you import the photo in your computer. How exactly do you open it? Photoshop? ACR? Lightroom? Something else? How is it saved at the end? Can you check ur exif at each stage of your workflow to find out the faulty link? - Benh (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I open the nef with camera raw and later with photoshop,and save in jpg...not very complicated --LivioAndronico talk 07:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This photo has been through "paint.net 4.0.5", it says so in the EXIF. I can't trust the colours. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From exif : Software used Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)--LivioAndronico talk 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See "Creator Tool" tag. This has definitely been touched by Paint.NET which imo shouldn't go near any FP photographs. Sure, Photoshop has also been used, but Photoshop CC does not remove colourspace tags. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ops....I really sorry,I had done something without remembering, the fact remains that I was wrong and I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have to use Paint.net for when you have a Photoshop? Can't you just reprocess and skip Paint.net? I'm concerned that not so many look to care about colors accuracy... - Benh (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a nice view for sure, but it doesn't look real to me. The lighting is odd blue and white and yellow that I do not see in any other photo of this cathedral. The shaft of light looks painted-on. And close up the whole thing looks like a painting rather than a photo. I suspect this is a combination of aggressive NR, clarity and sharpening. And the lack of colourspace tag that Benh notes is also an issue. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe--LivioAndronico talk 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice real view, nice light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You are getting my support (for the first time, I guess) here. The execution is not really at FP level: some areas are gone due to overexposure, the picture is overall too dark, I miss contrast, detail is not the best, the bottom crop can be improved, it doesn't look as real as it should (this is IMHO an issue in your processing) but the motif in this case and the effect of the lighting surpasses the mentioned problems. I suggest you to keep on working in your photographic skills, development and -if possible- equipment and go back to this place in one year, and then ask us to replace this FP by an even better one. If you don't do it, it could be me who shows up over there :) Poc o² 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want your support here given that what you write is more negative than positive Poc o², I do not understand --LivioAndronico talk 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it is not polite to those who supported me--LivioAndronico talk 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, since you have a short memory will remember this --LivioAndronico talk 09:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I am owner of my votes. Please, don't do that again. Poc o² 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, forgot that. I will ask my doctor to get a stronger medication, thanks. Poc o² 09:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality's not bad, but still no wow for me. --A.Savin 16:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended this morning. — Julian H.^✈ 15:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Croatia Opatija Women with dove BW 2014-10-10 10-35-13.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2015 at 14:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See note please Berthold--LivioAndronico talk 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for that hint --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit too dark perhaps? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not even a QI perhaps? --Laitche (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is a bit dark but very nice,good composition --LivioAndronico talk 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Could be a little lighter, indeed. --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good backlight. Please, do not clarify it: Artistic light--Lmbuga (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral some Underexposed in right side, and could have a better WB --The Photographer (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a creative shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice mood and great composition. --Code (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inspiring Poc o² 09:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough sharp, lacking of dynamic range as a backlight shot taken at 10:35 a.m.(If the Exif is reliable.). ~~I guess the one of reason of that is caused by a small CCD sensor.~~ --Laitche (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended on 23 April. — Julian H.^✈ 15:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Eurovision Song Contest 1962 - Ronnie Carroll-edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 22:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nationaal Archief- uploaded by Clausule restored and nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The size is small,the quality is not very good,but interesting --LivioAndronico talk 08:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting. --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Framing is either too tight or too loose with the hands cropped like that. Overall quality is not bad but not really convincing either. --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting is over. — Julian H.^✈ 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leccinum versipelle LC0366.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 10:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Orange Birch Bolete (Leccinum versipelle); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support -- LC-de (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 13:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful. Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Results already posted. — Julian H.^✈ 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Lenini mäetipp (J. Künnap).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 20:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info First time when Estonian flag reached over 7000 m. Created by Jaan Künnap in 1989 - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject would also be interesting if the quality of the picture was not so terrible,sorry --LivioAndronico talk 21:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Severely underexposed sky, Was the idea to get both blue and black into the picture to complement the white? Clever but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about cropped version of it? Like the first upload in file history. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was taken at a very high altitude, where light conditions differ dramatically from what we are used to. Shadows are much harsher and skies are much more blue. The effect seems extreme in this picture, so I'd guess a polarizer was used to exaggerate it even more – which would make the very dark sky a creative choice of the photographer rather than an error. You are of course free to like that or not, but I'd like to encourage everyone to have a quick look at the section High-Altitude Blue of Michael Freeman's Capturing Light (Google Books link) before dismissing this as underexposed. --El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support pity we do not often have the documents of this intensity. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support an image for this gallery : Commons:Featured pictures/Historical -- Christian Ferrer 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting is over. — Julian H.^✈ 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:STD Depth Coded Stack Phallodin Stained Actin Filaments.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2015 at 17:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info Deconvoluted confocal microscopy image showing actin filaments within a cell. The image has been colour ocded in the z-axis. created by methylman251 - uploaded by methylman251 - nominated by Methylman251 -- Methylman251 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Methylman251 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support when nature meets abstract art... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could you please provide a magnification factor and/or at least a rough estimate of how big the things we see in this picture are in reality (Micrometers, Nanometers, even smaller)? A scale bar would be great, if possible. --El Grafo (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: I will look for the raw data to make an exact scalebar and reupload. But to give you an idea, from how I image I can tell you (and anyone else interested) now that the pixel size would be 40±3nm so the whole image would be ~163x163(±12.5)um and I know that the thinnest filaments that you can make out would be 140±30nm, which is about the limit of achievable resolution on a light microscope. Methylman251 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange, but exciting. --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No strange for me,because I'm a biologist --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting. I'm ready to support once all relevant metadata has been added to the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: @Slaunger: I've replaced the image with one that has a scalebar, there is also some additional metadata in the file description that I pulled from the lif file. Methylman251 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks → Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Methylman251: : Thanks, sorry I did not come back quick enough to support before the nomination was closed. Not that it would have changed the outcome though. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but like Slaunger I would like to see the metadata --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Posterization in some places, but that's totally understandable given the situation. Great image ... with more like these, we won't need mushrooms. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Slaunger (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside Tr.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely colors--LivioAndronico talk 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely captured, but I'm slightly concerned by the colours of the flower below it, it looks like it's oversaturated or colour channels are blown... But as long as the butterfly isn't suffering the same problem, it's not a big deal I suppose. Diliff (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely composed. I'd suggest cropping in a bit to get rid of that dead space on both sides. But on the other hand that helps diffuse attention from the issues with the flower that David brought up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't want to get opposing opinions to my opposing vote anymore but not detailed overall especially the edges of the wings are not sharp and bright parts are overexposed.(I know it was taken with 400mm lens.) --Laitche (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All votes should be contestable though, and you should be able to defend your position - it's normal. Diliff (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Diliff, I want to defend the FP quality more than my position, for now :) --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should think more to defend your position, trust me --LivioAndronico talk 19:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know well what you want to say, but the FP is for the works not for the members, Thanks Livio. --Laitche (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems like a real life, If people who behave very defensively then would get a success but also that's risky cause they might lose themselves. --Laitche (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful composition, but per Laitche. And I'd add it falls a bit short quality wise, despite the small size. Guessed it was cropped rather than downsampled (I'm not aware the lens used has this big a magnification). - Benh (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bokeh is nice, but quality is low despite not so big resolution. --Mile (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose The bar for butterfly images has moved very high during the last years and I fear this is slightly sub-FPC-standard in terms of sharpness. Very nice separation between bright subject and smooth dark background tough! --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of zoological interest. --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not happy with the format - the crop is tight on bottom and wide at the sides. But sharpness is ok for me. Overall, I can support this image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many gray areas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, especially worried about overexposure and background posterization. — Julian H.^✈ 16:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree somehow with pros and contras...Poc o² 09:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss-Oberhausen-Innenhof-Pano-2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2015 at 10:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High resolution panorama of atrium of Oberhausen Castle ("Schloss Oberhausen"), Germany

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow as a panorama, but the shadow at left is a little disturbing. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, stricking at low and at full resolution. -- Christian Ferrer 11:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Laitche (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and very good --LivioAndronico talk 15:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - When I try to access the file using an older computer, Chrome explains that it will not load the file. Firefox takes ages to try to load the file before it gives up. I can load the picture on a new iPad, but it takes ages (and the browser crashed while I wrote this). The picture sure looks nice (nice composition, plenty of wow, fine technical quality), but I think FP's should be fairly easy accessible. --Pugilist (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mmh, I cannot really follow your argument, Pugilist. Commons is a media archive and should provide photos in the best possible quality. You can access a downscaled version via the image description page. You can also let the wiki software do the work:

--Tuxyso (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd recommend the JavaScript or Flash zoom viewers but they seem to be broken at present (for me, anyway). I don't think it is reasonable to expect a browser to display an image that would be 5.4m wide at 100dpi. It is a lousy way to view such an image. The zoom viewers provide a better experience. Please don't judge our images on the limitations of MediaWiki or your decision to use a web browser to review the 100% image. You wouldn't use a web browser to read a book. MediaWiki has a self-imposed restriction on its ability to downsize, but 7000px wide version. -- Colin (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very wide angle of view leads to extreme distortions when the image is viewed as a whole. The small stairs coming from the left and right at the bottom of the frame look like they would meet at a right angle at the place the camera was standing. From GoogleEarth I can see that they actually are one straight line. This is of course perfectly normal for shots like this, but can be misleading for people unfamiliar with wide panoramas. Hence, I'd like to suggest to enhance the description a little bit to read High resolution XXX° panorama of … to make that more clear (with XXX° being something around 180°, I guess?). Apart from that, Support of course. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, El Grafo, for the useful hint. I've added some information regarding the shooting position and explanation for the curvature of the stairs in the foreground. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its tilted to rigth, could saw that in thumb, on the other hand, stairs bellow are tilting to left. --Mile (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile, I do not really understand your comment. I see absolutely no tilt - neither vertically not horizontally. Question Have you read the image description? The different direction of the stairs I am standing on is a result of the projection (cylindrical). Please add a note to the image if you have still concerns. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info check the line bellow the clock. No matter what projection is, you are positioned in centre as far i see, so shouldt be tilted in any case. On other hand, i wont oppose since lot of work and result isnt bad with minor mistake. --Mile (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support I have to agree with Mile in their observation. It appears to be a local geometrical distortion in the clock region. Does Hugin have the possibility to add horizontal control points? That is how I would control that myself (using PTGui). If you are a real perfectionist you will probably fix that. On the other hand, it is really a minor detail (I did not spot it myself after scrutiny until I read Miles comment), and overall it is a splendid piece of work. It is clear for me that you have been very careful in the entire process from the capture to the processing. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It took me very long to figure out if it is improvable by horizontal control points. It is, but only one horizontal line at the area around the clock is vertical in real. The difference is, according to Slaunger, subtle because only one line at the area around the clock is really straight. I will upload a new version tomorrow (already too late at least in Germany). --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess it's a 270°+ panorama, Am I wrong? --Laitche (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed the camera location. --Laitche (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Results already posted. — Julian H.^✈ 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 07:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Army - uploaded by Lupo - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the pictures of war anyway the quality is not very good,but interesting --LivioAndronico talk 08:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks quite unreal somehow. --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it and wish I was talented enough to take something similar even with my probably much modern gear. - Benh (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a valued shoot, but a bad crop. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Excellent lighting, but agree that composition could be better. Image quality is fine for the time. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting is over. — Julian H.^✈ 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zaaddozen van Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 15:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Seed pods of Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Location, Garden reservation Jonker Valley. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Centered would be better --LivioAndronico talk 19:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rule of thirds. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of botanical interest. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've liked to see more detail, which is partially hindered by the backlight. Why didn't you take the shot from the other side? Poc o² 09:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: sometimes something is not possible.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the intention of this composition but I don't think it works. --Laitche (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. Slight backlighting is what makes plants glow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Results already posted. — Julian H.^✈ 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Merton College Chapel Organ, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2015 at 21:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. The new organ of Merton College's chapel, installed in 2013. Sharp enough to poke your eye out (both in detail and in design!) -- Diliff (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:New College Chapel Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2015 at 21:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. The interior of New College's chapel, looking east towards the impressive carved stone reredos and hammerbeam roof. -- Diliff (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOHOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Singapore Supertree-Grove-in-The-Gardens-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2015 at 18:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Very interesting subject, but unfortunately too tight on the sides, especially the right which is cut off. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is just a part of the much bigger Supertree Grove in Singapore. The trees are standing in a circle and you will always have some of them cut when viewing from ground level. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Neutral in light of the difficulty in obtaining a good composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support is a beautiful structure, the quality is excellent. The cut is not the best but the image is very pleasant.--LivioAndronico talk 12:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely capable of being photographed at an FP level, but in this case the crops, even if they're unavoidable, and the washed-out sky don't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Laitche (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting for sure. --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also per Daniel Case. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wall April 2015-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 15:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Minimalism: detail of wall and window in the Belém Cultural Centre, Lisboa, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a little bit of barrel distortion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about the centered composition.--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, that is a real possibility and it may deserve an alternative version. But what if the !votes split between the two?... What the hell, tht's go for it! Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like these minimalistic compositions a lot! It could benefit from a geocode. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: the exact object location, so you can go there and do a better job! By the way, I appreciate your deferred (and displaced) comments! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Both Neutral but prefer this one. --Laitche (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I am struggling with the notion of minimalism in FPC. I don't mean this as an attack on anybody, but I personally feel that this is a kind of get-out-of-jail concept that makes an image untouchable to a set of expectations we would otherwise have, such as having a lot of EV, being an appealing and accurate representation of the motive, having nice light etc. When I look at the image, I feel that it is a good supporting photo for an article, giving people a better understanding of the facade details, but this is not something that gives me a wow effect or makes me think that the image is outstanding. Such photos might appeal to many, but I am not sure whether this is just because they are unusual and obviously different from boring standard images many creators now think should be FP. I am not denying that my oppose might be based on personal preference (I usually feel that images of entire works of architecture are superior), but at the end of the day, such preferences make our votes. BTW: The WB also looks too cold to me. --DXR (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for bringing this issue to the discussion, DXR. It is a matter of fact that the so-called "artsy images" were never concensually regarded as truly useful for the project (except the reproductions of notable artists) and have usually a hard time in FPC. However we should keep in mind that Commons repository is intended to much more than just illustrating Wikipedia articles. While WP:FPC is focused on the encyclopaedic use and value of the pictures in Wikipedia, that is not the case with Commons, as our FP are used to many purposes outside Wikimedia. I always said, and that is written in my profile of Meet our Photographers (here), that I consider Photography as a means to interpret reality and to transmit such interpretation to others. That is precisely what I'm doing here with the photos of the Centro Cultural de Belém, to which a minimalistic view seems to apply perfectly. Are these images useful, besides being beautiful (for me)? I believe so. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alvesgaspar for your measured response. I think that the point I was trying to make is slightly different, though. I do not want to challenge the value of images like this one, in fact I do think it has EV. I just think that it is quite difficult to assess whether it is outstanding or "the best of commons", because there is little material to measure it against here. In this way, the vote becomes more of a "like vs. don't like" than I personally would like to see in this forum. I agree that WP:FP is more EV-driven, but at the same time COM:FP still is very much biased in the direction of EV on a spectrum between pure documentation and abstract art, at least if we look at what is presented here most of the time. --DXR (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photographing a detail of a building, particularly one of architectural merit, is as important as photographing the whole facade or interior. Having looked at other images of this building, I see it lends itself to a minimalist approach. Here we can concentrate on the coloured bricks, the little dark squares and the squares-within-squares window. No other distractions. And symmetry. I can certainly see this photo appearing in a book that discusses the building or its architect, so for me it is plenty enough educational-value (as opposed to encyclopaedic value, where it is unlikely such small details would merit inclusion). -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wall April 2015-2a.jpg[edit]

Info Alternative version special to @Jebulon: (and also for myself) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's so funny, I've nerver seen the special alternative for an individual :) --Laitche (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one too. It is an improvement that the lower grey 'bar' is not included in this crop. I think it improves the composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's great too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes !--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me the off-center composition distracts from the minimalism. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me a perfect composition, everything centered might be wrong.--Hubertl (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. I also think that the original composition is better. --DXR (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's really a subjective issue, but I fail to get how moving the square to a rule of third point makes it more interesting on such an abstract picture. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not inspiring to me, sorry Poc o² 08:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't find this arrangement as satisfying as the first. -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended on April 21. — Julian H.^✈ 15:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stiftskirche Melk Deckenfresko Langhaus Mittelfeld.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 12:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Ceiling fresko in Melk Abbey church: Via triumphalis of St. Benedict. Painted by Johann Michael Rottmayr (1722), all the rest by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could you please add a category above? Yann (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Christian IXs Chapel Dome Interior 2015-03-31-4812.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 19:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info In Roskilde Cathedral, a World Heritage Site in Denmark, 21 kings and 18 queens are buried in the main building and several chapels, which have been added in a diverse set of architectural styles over the years. One such chapel is Christian IX's Chapel, which was designed by the Danish architect Andreas Clemmensen (in Danish) and completed in 1924. Inside this Chapel is this dome, which is built in Neo-Byzantine style. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, Nice crop. --Laitche (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the creator of a ceiling FP myself, I am honored to state that this image is even better. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent shot, although I would have liked to have seen the arches on the left and right sides more completely. Diliff (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Diliff: : Thanks for your review. You are correct, a wider field of view would have been preferable. No tripod; so had to place camera on the floor on its back adjusted to shortest focal length on any of my three lenses (18 mm). I would have preferred to visualize more of the structure as well if it had been possible.-- Slaunger (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per QIC :-) --Baresi F (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 11:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasing balance of tones. -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Tiradentes escuartejado (Tiradentes supliciado) by Pedro Américo 1893.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2015 at 16:10:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info Tiradentes quartered, by Pedro Américo. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Webysther (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically important painting. Fine reproduction. --Pugilist (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Pugilist. $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 09:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support weak support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find this picture more disgusting than anything. -- Fotoriety (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special quality wise, and nothing to compensate for that. Yann (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info This guy in picture die to change the history in Brazil. -- Webysther (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good, but lacks a little sharpness, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible scene, just disgusting for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The poor quality of this image doesn't deserve this guy who is an important person in the history of Brazil. --Laitche (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low resolution and low quality. Nothing featurable here. -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Webysther 20131026172834 - Rocha com algas e ouriço-do-mar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2015 at 20:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Webysther (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very beautiful, but unfortunately blurred ~~and the water on the right is overexposed~~. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts and Webysther: It's fixable? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overexposed is simple to fix, if the data is in raw, give me one day to see this. About blurred i do no, because the long exp. cause this, water move the plants. -- Webysther (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Overexposed fixed. -- Webysther (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Webysther: A exposição não ficou boa. O melhor seria que a água à direita voltasse ao normal assim: [6]. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done @ArionEstar: Applied over the raw the fixed, the quality is really better. -- Webysther (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Color is better but unsharpness remains. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness is acceptable for a difficult moment for shooting, IMHO. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's kinda good idea but not the wow idea, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good idea, but has technical problems. --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good for IQ, not the wow idea, IMO. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me it lacks some interesting focal point that the eye can rest on. The moss is not of sufficient interest in itself to fulfil that role. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michael Maggs. Composition not working for me either. -- Colin (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus aka American crocodyle.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2015 at 03:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Great head! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great, but lacks a little sharpness. --Tremonist (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A useful image, to be sure, but the angle, crop and composition are not particularly interesting. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Kłodzko, pl. Chrobrego 13 03.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2015 at 19:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No better example of oriel windows on Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add a category above? Yann (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support My eyes are surprisingly drawn to that picture every time I scroll through the huge FPC page. Simple, but striking picture to me. I don't think the lighting can get better than that for the subject : it emphasizes the textures quite well. - Benh (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only when I look this at 1280px, a head of statue and a cable at the right side appear, Here. Why? --Laitche (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the previous version of this photo, I do not know why this is happening, at a resolution of 1280x881 it should be visible the last version. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, That's a mysterious. Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 19:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me a QI with good lightening. But something is wrong with the proportions. The window on the right extends noticably further in the vertical direction, than the one to the left. I get the impression that the vantage point was not right in the middle but has been atempted postcorrected by a perspective correction. It pretends to be symmetric, but is not quite so. It gives an unbalanced composition IMO.-- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose~~ Neutral I don't mind the tight crop for this but the lighting is not appropriate for the subject, the left window's shadow is cutting off and the right window's shadow is reaching the left window, that's the reason why this doesn't look excellent, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, I guess this photo was taken by low-angle notwithstanding it's showing just as if taken by level-angle, so I feel it strange. --Laitche (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Slaunger, he explained very well my own feeling.--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slaunger, Laitche & Jebulon - Capture a photo directly ahead is impossible, because there is a tree. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's impossible but that way(getting strange feeling) doesn't work for me in this case. --Laitche (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't mind change my vote to neutral. --Laitche (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abrimaal (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Possibly cropped too much, but good lighting on the details.[reply]
Support Good light and arrangement. Looked for distortion mentioned above, but isn't disturbing to me. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Chamaeleo chamaeleon - Common Chameleon - Bukalemun.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 17:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info created by & uploaded by Zcebeci - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Nice fellow. ;oD Yann (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, yes, yes! Wow, wow wow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ecdysis. --Laitche (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good with the bokeh as that butterfly picture below. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all the enthusiasm above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 18:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support D kuba (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course --Schnobby (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dura-Ace (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support !!! J e e 11:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 17:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulation! --Hubertl (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC) What is the record number of support votes so far?[reply]
- I don't know but this one got 26 in 5 days(The author abstained) and this one got 29(The author did not vote). Only in the result box this one got 32. --Laitche (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Douglas DC-3 of BOAC at Gibraltar, silhouetted by searchlights on the Rock.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 09:36:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Royal Air Force official photographer - uploaded by Dc3gibraltar - nominated by Dura-Ace -- Dura-Ace (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dura-Ace (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this photo, TBH. Revent (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support dramatic. Tomer T (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the image quality is not very good, it's OK for that time. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic shot of an iconic aircraft at an historic moment: brilliant. --Gyrostat (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julien1978 _(d.) 13:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - iconic aircraft in dramatic lightning captures in historic picture. --Pugilist (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Flight of the Phoenix. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Dieverzand. Dode boom, belangrijke voedselbron in evenwichtig biotoop 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2015 at 06:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Drents-Friese Wold National Park. Location Dieverzand. Dead tree, important food source in a balanced ecosystem. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add a category above? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: sorry I do not know what you mean. Are the English language is not powerful. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Laitche (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality and the composition are good but not outstanding, the blue sky can be seen among the trees ruins the wet-ish atmosphere, Sorry. --Laitche (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me; it is too busy for my taste. Lightning is too dark and dull as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea and the subject, but I'm not fully convinced by the composition - it's quite busy. Just some ideas that came to my head: 1) A lower angle could have enabled you to keep the branches at the top left corner out of the frame. Maybe concentrating on one of the two sections of the dead tree would have helped too. 2) The whole image is quite dark, but not dark enough to make this look like an intentional choice by the photographer (could potentially work very well with this subject). 3) The white balance seems to be a little bit too yellow (you won't have much living green things this time of the year of course, but still …). 4) I've got a suspicion that this subject might work quite well in black & white. --El Grafo (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am also unconvinced by the composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Seems left side trees leaning to the left and right side trees leaning to the right. Is that actually leaning or cause by the distortion with the wide angle lens(18mm)? --Laitche (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I have automatically corrected lens with lightroom 5.7. Can also manually correct. For your information: it is hilly spot.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small correction WB and verticals.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Better with the correction. For me, wow is limited, but the quality is very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the composition is much better but about the quality(especially the colour range) seems rather difficult with EF-M for this photo, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: in my humble opinion is in early April not much color in a dark forest. It was important for me to bring the decay of dead tree good picture and that life in the vicinity of the tree has benefited. And I succeeded in my opinion. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Small light correction.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful but I don't see a FP here. The tree branches in the top left break the composition. Image quality is adequate but not outstanding. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stairway Monsanto Castle April 2015-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 08:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info Granite stairway in the Castle of Monsanto, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At first view it appears as a zig-zag line rather than stairs, but it's really well-made. Is it possible to increase the stones' sharpness a bit? --Tremonist (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very high resolution photo, with more than 22Mp. In my opinion the stones of granite are as sharp as they can be. Any further sharpening would cause undesired artifacts. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the optical illusion created by those dark and harsh shadows. Well spotted and executed – Chapeau! Sharpness is perfectly fine for me. If you can find the stairs on a map, geocoding would be nice. --El Grafo (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thank you @El Grafo: , it's good to know that some of our peers (one, at least!) perceive things the same way we do! Aussi, c'est bon d'être félicité en français! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent jeu d'ombres! At low resolution I have the impression that the stones are arranged in the wall and not that they are a stairs outside of this one. -- Christian Ferrer 08:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suggested a very small crop. Could we have a better file name? --Kadellar (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Kadellar (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice subject! Very good! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kadellar: & @Slaunger: -- I tried to crop a bit on the top and doesn't work out imo. The bright part in the bottom stair was darkened because it was a bit distracting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Did I say how much I love you when you submit this kind of pictures ? --Jebulon (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed you did! Thank you Jebulon, I will try to nominate as many minimalist pictures as I can. Even knowing that most editors don't appreciate them much... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support very clear composition. --Hubertl (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Archaic. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice idea. --Charles (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:2014 Baroña. Castro de Baroña. Porto do Son-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 10:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice place! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful color contrast(sky blue - blue - emerald green - green) and the composition as well. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 18:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dura-Ace (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 06:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've seen so many like this that didn't quite deliver, so it's nice to see one that does. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications