Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 14:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:12099 on Severn Valley Railway.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:12099 on Severn Valley Railway.jpg
Oppose Composition-wise, it is as noted QI-level. Technically, in addition to the noted CA on the window frames to the right, there's also some posterization/blown highlighting on the cloud at center top. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 23:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cataratas do Iguaçu - Vista de cima.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cataratas do Iguaçu - Vista de cima.jpg
2013
926
1588
1257
3781
2836
this area in the alt version is a sample of artefacts
Mild Oppose - I feel this picture is missing some wow, compared to other photos in the same category, such as [1] (spectacular but a bit noisy), [2] (a fine picture but with less sky than this one) and my favorite: [3]. For my money, the last one is the one we should feature, and in fact, I'll put it in my FPC cue in case no-one nominates it first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support The horizon could be sharper, but on the whole this stands out among waterfall pictures. Moving my support to the edited version below. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is very explored place to photograph, even us have better photos, sample, in the end of rain season, in a better hour to shoot... This photo is in the dry season, less water, less power, with a longer expose, the cloud could go away, a huge area of pure artefacts (note), and the lack of sharpness let me think that this is just a snapshot, not a FP. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer Canon PowerShot SX40 HS is a superzoom, and have a M mode. (see?}
And the equipment not been adequate, is not a excuse to us classify as a good photo, or give more credited for this. ;) Actually, with technique even me know how to suppress the limitation of using a compact camera to create a long exposure look... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know this camera and how is difficult create a long exposure, basically you need hack the camera installing another operative system, also the sensor problem that impact the image quality. In this image composition the zoom is irrelevant imho --The Photographer (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again:
"Canon PowerShot SX40 HS is a superzoom [camera], and have a M mode. (see?}"
"And the equipment not been adequate, is not a excuse to us classify as a good photo, or give more credited for this. ;) Actually, with technique even me know how to suppress the limitation of using a compact camera to create a long exposure look... "-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't say that we need 30s of exposure, just that a longer exposure could clear the clouds, the image is average to bad. And the editions added a huge amount of artefacts -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't know whether I would have supported this version if it had been the only one offered, but I find the shorter-exposure version clearer and more alive. Both versions have merit, but I don't get what the advantage of this version is supposed to be, and whatever it is, it's lost on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crested lark singing.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crested lark singing.jpg
Oppose - Nice picture, but in my opinion, it's well below FP level for bird portraits, which requires much more focus and detail than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 08:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galite-Galiton 119.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galite-Galiton 119.jpg
Oppose Per Ikan. A tighter crop, generally being larger and less sharpening (the latter two of which are probably related) might have put this one over the top IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg/2
Support the picture was nominated before and deleted per legal issues, but now file was restored per legal considerations changing. -- Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very OOOooooh!! I actually had to triple check that it had the right license since it is one of the more restrictive licenses (CC BY 2.0) but that seems to work. Someone check again just to be sure, please. Also, looking at the place on Google Maps, I can't tell if this place really looks like this or if the pic has been created by mirroring one element twice (which I suspect since all shadows are identical) in which case this should be mentioned in the file description. w.carter-Talk17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is against the rule: "Digital manipulations .... Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable." --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The manipulation is that this exact place does not exist. One half of it is how the building looks, the other half is just a mirror image of the place. Like in a kaleidoscope. As an example, I took this image and used the same technique to create this more stunning image. w.carter-Talk23:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should expect everyone to click the Flickr link, so I'm glad you added "This picture uses mirroring" to the English-language description (someone should translate that into French). That having been explained, I have no further objection. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can accept the photo as FP such as the guidelines are right now, BUT I also think we should use this photo as a starting point for a more broader discussion at a more proper place on Commons about new categories and guidelines. We will always encounter new things that the site has not been prepared for and I think the site should adapt accordingly. I was recently in a similar discussion about something new that did not quite fit the policy at English Wikipedia In The News when one of the main news was the Pokémon Go mania. No one had anticipated that a pop culture phenomenon could be newsworthy. But it was solved and accepted. w.carter-Talk09:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well frère J, I haven't opposed it! ;) Don't get me wrong, I'm just as wowed by this image as anyone else, I only want to get all the technicalities and Formal things right before I vote for it. You know all the boring things that have to be right before we can call a pic Featured. One of these is what category this should be in. We promote images of fantasy places in paintings all the time, but should this really be in the /Places/Interiors category? Not everyone are as savvy as we when it comes to image manipulations and someone may see this and want to go and have a look at this amazing place only to find that it does not actually exist. And it can hardly be in the /Non-photographic media/Computer-generated or...? w.carter-Talk09:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting and highly artistic approach to a place that deserves more photographic interest now that fop finally seems to be established in Belgium. I've been to that station many times but didn't have time to take pictures yet. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What would you say to the argument that a great photo with mirroring is not only beautiful but also educational in showing what can be done with that technique? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since there is no category in FP for digital experimentation. It is very cool, but apparently FPs should correspond with objects in a more encyclopedic way. w.carter-Talk16:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that was just a long exposure of a tram/local train going by. And that place actually exists, bridge railing and all. Funny you should choose a pic of a place where I've lived so I can vouch for the correctness of the view. Problem would probably be that with digital manipulations the possibilities are endless and we would be swamped with "cool" and "cool-wannabe" pictures. As our Alchemist-hp pointed out, this is not what Wikimedia is for. There are plenty of photo sites for that. I vote for this remaining an encyclopedia. And there is already the Category:Digitally manipulated photographs, it's just not linked to FP cats in any way. w.carter-Talk20:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's entirely proper to discuss the aesthetics of this site, what they are and should be, but it's not correct to call Commons an encyclopedia. This site is a repository of photos for the use of any Wikimedia project and also for per se educational reasons. It is not simply an annex to Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I know that. I oversimplified right here and now only to be brief since this is not the place for such a lengthy discussion. w.carter-Talk02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So now we got two pics that are photoshop compositions at the FPC, this and this. Both are created from two images put together to create something that doesn't exist, now this one could be on its way to get promoted to FP while the other one is discarded as a "fake". So where is the logic? w.carter-Talk16:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stopped asking for logic in here, there are too many emotional votings being given ("ooooh, that’s nice!") without any rational reconsideration. Some voters appear to ask, "do I like it?" instead of, "is it really worthy in every respect to be considered among the very best images we’ve got on Commons?" --Kreuzschnabel18:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 16:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Commons:Featured picture candidates/
Oppose Looks great but lacks quality. Insufficient DoF, most of the face is unsharp (in fact, only eyebrows and nosetip are sharp). Cutout line visible around the head. --Kreuzschnabel16:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I like the photo. I haven't been there, so I'll trust you on the colors. A Google Image search results in images that are much grayer, but that just seems to me to be an overall difference in how they took the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course, I'm sure there is a good reason for that non-centered image. But not every place is worth a picture, and not every place is worth a Featured Picture.--Jebulon (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure Jebulon but we do not change the subject, what you said? It is not centered ... and I responded to that. Then you should upgrade your opposition to what you really believe and not just "is not centered". Everything else is subjective and surely you would not have responded if I had just written to me (which you did not) I do not like etc.. thanks --LivioAndronico(talk)11:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the issues mentioned by the other opposers, it’s certainly overprocessed to me. Looks as if motion blur has been tried to be fixed by sharpening. Fine double contours on all the details. --Kreuzschnabel07:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more personal argument about an unwelcome vote
You don’t need to argue. By nominating, you virtually asked me for my opinion about the image, and there it is. Try to say thanks. And pleeeeease try not to take any oppose as a personal insult. --Kreuzschnabel06:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must be more calm, I ask an opinion but possibly objective and unspoken things at raaaaaaaaaaaaaaandom. I insulted you? just that you say it is false --LivioAndronico(talk)12:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You dind’t at all insult me, and I assure you it takes much more to upset me. I just wonder why you – please excuse for my choice of words – seem to feel so pissed off any time someone opposes your nominations. Nobody else in here behaves that way (except Spurzem from time to time). If you plan to keep others from opposing: Won’t work at all. --Kreuzschnabel21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure he’s a good guy, I never said nor meant he wasn’t. He just shares your habit of going spare on any opposing vote. And I am expressing my personal opinion, which is just an opinion. Please keep from tagging it as "false", since your personal taste is not a general standard of wrong or right. It would be false if I wrote things I do not really think, but I don’t. --Kreuzschnabel12:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and you tell me Ikan Kekek how many people approve this comment? You know how many times I've had comments so always false by the same people? This photo is definitely overprocessed? Ok Since it is "safe" why nobody approve? But please .... seriously!--LivioAndronico(talk)07:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in debating minutiae with you. I merely observe that your behavior is bad, and if you want me to, I will point out every time you engage in behavior I consider bad, and that would cause you to be suspended if you did it on Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care your opinion, here we are on the commons, for me the way you do it is painful, we have to do? Differences of thought! If you haven't interest,don't do...simple --LivioAndronico(talk)09:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 16:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Betty Friedan 1960.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Betty Friedan 1960.jpg
Support Good job with another photo of a historically important woman, at the time when she most gained her fame. I wish it didn't have the flash shadow, but there's only so much you can do, and frankly that just came with toning down the blown background. I also love the very contemporary expression on her face, like she wouldn't a mind a cigarette, a drink or preferably both after the photographer's done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Daniel said it best. It's great that you've been doing such a service by restoring and nominating pictures of historically important women. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see why this would be among "our fines images". The hard shadow on the wall behind her, the cut hand … To me it looks like something in-between a planned shooting and a casual snapshot, it lacks something special. In other words: No "WOW" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without knowing her, the photo gives no indication of her activities and is ordinary in all other aspects. IMO not outstanding enough to be featurable. --DXR (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The description gives a link to the Wikipedia article about her and describes her as an "American feminist and writer". If you don't know who she was, I suggest you read the linked Wikipedia article to start with. She was a very important feminist writer and was highly visible in the media in the U.S., to the point that her name would be one of the first that someone, or at least someone around my age (51) or older would mention if asked to name feminist leaders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I looked her up and of course, she is notable. But frankly the argument, look her up to see her notability defeats the point of a Commons FP. This is a bland photo of a woman, who happens to be important. That may be a very good justification for an enwiki feature. Equivalently, I would not support a feature of a boring picture of some house somewhere, in which something important happened. I expect something more from the picture itself, something which is there here, for example. --DXR (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe some value although I did not know her (not a criteria of course, even for a 56 years old fellow here), but the quality of the picture is not excellent IMO (harsh shadow for instance).--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 13:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - It's no secret that I love Dominicus' sensibility, and I think this photo with its wonderful reflections and gradations of light, reminiscent of Netherlandish landscape painting of yesteryear, is a great work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It actually might be too dark now; I'd split the difference. However, I would understand that your priority would be to address the concerns about the colors below. I don't see the problem - the colors look real to me. But that's beside the point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes, that is better. Not enough wow for me to support the nomination but I see no reason to oppose. That's a fine image. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Slightly less yellow. Could possibly turn back to the first version.
Comment - I'm perfectly happy with this version, and I actually consider it the best of the three, providing that the colors are now accurate. You really should ping everyone, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Totally ok with me. And to add: 'Ping' is a Wiki-slang/jargong for the notice you get when another user mentions you on a page, other than your own, to get your attention like Ikan just did here. This is necessary when you alter an image during review so those who have already voted can say if they approve the new version as well. (There is a discussion about this on the talk page.) w.carter-Talk07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing impolite in the statement. And I feel quite the same (it’s a nice picture, a bit soft and noisy, some grass blades pixelated on the right side, I suspect oversharpening – all in all I don’t see an outstanding piece of photographic art here) but that has become quite normal. On FPC, we used to consider, "is this really one of the very best images on Commons?", now it seems to be rather "well, it’s not too bad, so I’ll support it" for many voters. Well, if this is the direction things develop here, I know I am free to leave. It’s just the FP star rapidly losing its meaning for me. --Kreuzschnabel19:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Different people respond differently to different photos. For example, there is a core constituency for macro photos with bokeh. I like some of them but have a lot less tolerance for unsharpness and especially vertiginous backgrounds than others. That doesn't make pictures I oppose "nothing" or cause the star to lose its meaning because others like photos I oppose. And some viewers don't respond to this kind of landscape photo the way I do. It sucks when, as has often happened, the photographer takes offense at opposition per se and posts petulant remarks, but I do think we should all, while expressing our opinions, try to be polite, and I realize there are cultural differences, as New Yorkers tend to be blunter than people from many other parts of the U.S. and my experience so far has been that Germans are much blunter than New Yorkers (not to mention French people, for whom etiquette tends to be quite important). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter hurt? I just presented that this is a photo of "nothing" per dictionary "not anything", do not have a subject, and I reinforce this idea to made clear. Don't make this a soup opera. Peace. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton21:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No intention whatsoever to make this into a soap opera. Just have in mind that this is an international site and words and meanings are interpreted differently in different cultures so we all have to be very careful. A lot of peace to you too. w.carter-Talk21:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I think this nomination has supported to many transformations since the beginning of the evaluation process, per the debate mentionned above.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThis is not any of the original two versions I voted for. It has lost some of its fairy tale glow and become a more ordinary photo for me. Even if I liked this version I would withdraw my support just because of all the significant changes being done with the photo during the voting process. It is simply too confusing. w.carter-Talk21:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but mid-day light isn't appealing. And photo is a bit overprocessed (plants are looking unnatural on the background). --Ivar (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 18:04:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik ja härjatall.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik ja härjatall.JPG
Oppose The reflection is not perfect, looks like it was a windy moment when the picture was taken. The whole picture looks somewhat overexposed, too. The light situation is not that interesting and the colours are very pale. In other words: No wow. --Code (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I respect this picture and feel a little like a stinker for opposing it. My reasons are different from Code's: I feel like there's too much water in the picture, and from this viewer's point of view, I feel like I'm sort of drowning in it, maybe partly because of the angle. I'd like the photo a lot more and might very well support it if it were cropped to just in front of the reflection of the building on the right, because I like the sky and would feel like that's the right amount of water. I admit that this isn't fully thought through and might not be a completely logical point of view, but it's more substantive than if I just wrote "no wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Not by default, since it could also include a bit of uncertainty about the tech quality which has very little to do with the wow-factor. :-P w.carter-Talk10:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted (the chimney and its reflection do not align vertically, so either the water surface or the camera are slanted) --Kreuzschnabel07:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose QI, yes. But I have personaly dozens of such pictures of similar views to submit here... This is not original neither outstanding. For those who don't know, FP reviewers are kindly requested to review some quality image candidates, then they could see the difference, and what is expected here in FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That request is certainly well taken. However, I do look at QIC quite regularly. We simply have a difference in taste. I'd like to see the dozens of similar photos you've taken. Perhaps I'd find them more appealing than other photos that have been featured. And so be it. Differences in opinion make things much more interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 07:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lac de Tunis Sud 19.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lac de Tunis Sud 19.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 01:48:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rocks at Bodega Head on a foggy morning.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rocks at Bodega Head on a foggy morning.jpg
Support A little waxy looking on the left side at close range, but that might be an effect of exposing for the fog. And the rest of the image is too great. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2016 at 21:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Полярное сияние.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Полярное сияние.jpg
Oppose per others. Irritatingly, some star constellations are doubled (see the Pleiades on the left) due to multiple exposuring. --Kreuzschnabel12:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of what's mentioned above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 22:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Momento Espacial II.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Momento Espacial II.jpg
Support "Just a sunrise", but I like the sun's way of trying to fit in this composition. Tones and shapes make this photo look like a painting. A good example of using the rule of thirds too. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a good pic, but I find it hard to be wowed by one of thousands of look-alike almost monochrome images of sunrises/sunsets. w.carter-Talk08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This actually a bad sample of how to use a rule of thirds. Plus, bad name, bad description, not a relevant as a educational media, for me, not even QI in Wikimedia Commons, community based in educational bias. (funny photo in WLE, but of place not listed in the contest, a photo of farm). -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton21:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 22:11:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Very nice idea but not executed all the way. A more "just roofs"-pic would have been better. Now you give away the surprise directly by showing too much façades. I did a cropped version, but seeing all the tricky licenses and other things on the file's page, I dared not upload it. :-} Instead I left a friendly and easy-to-remove crop-suggestion-note. Hope that's ok. w.carter-Talk07:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@all: This nomination is gone, ok. But its interesting to me to read your opinions. I see my photos different then you. And i can learn, thanks. The crop-suggestion is good. I have see this as civil-ingeneer and second as photographer ;) --Ralf Roleček20:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 02:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - I think the idea is that the composition itself is the point. It's quite good, but doesn't quite reach FP level for me. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's partly the cropped tree to the left of the house. I kind of wish I could vote to feature it, but I don't feel able to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know the place very well, as the Marais poitevin(Marais poitevin) ("Grand site de France") is not very far from my native city, and this place and house are very typical and localy well known. It is worth a visit, with a traditional boat. Yes it looks "impressionist", but unfortunately, the light comes from the wrong direction and the facade is in shadow.--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2016 at 14:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Bazylika w Wambierzycach 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Bazylika w Wambierzycach 02.jpg
Oppose Good idea and composition but too soft on most parts of the building, sorry. In 2016, I expect a 6 mpix FPC to be crisp sharp. --Kreuzschnabel05:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Borderline on the sharpness issue—I think you might have benefited better with 100 ISO in that situation, but I wasn't there—but the asymmetry doesn't work for me, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 07:49:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Al Hitan1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Al Hitan1.jpg
Oppose The skeleton looks great, but the empty space in the left corner and the big bank of dirt with shadow at top don't help the composition overall. INeverCry18:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I half expect to see C-3P0 walking up on the side and spotting the Jawa sandcrawler, I agree with INC that the composition isn't wowing enough. Also it's a little unsharp and perhaps posterized in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 22:42:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:16-03-30-Jerusalem Mishkenot Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7637.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:16-03-30-Jerusalem Mishkenot Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7637.jpg
Comment - Nice picture, except that the sky and its reflection are noisy enough to bug me at full size. Can you denoise more? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for some little yet serious problems: 1. the distracting streetlamp ought at least to be cloned out. Could have been avoided by a slightly lower camera position. 2. Picture is noisy (sky and sky reflection) and oversharpened (e.g. edges of the bush on the right). 3. I find the composition a bit irritating, I’ve got no idea what size that sphere is and what’s the distance from it – I reckon the camera’s rather close to it. I’d prefer a more distant shot at a standard focal length to get a better feeling of dimensions, never having seen it for real. That’s a matter of taste of course, it just keeps the wow off me. --Kreuzschnabel 14:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC) – Vote changed to Neutral, I’m still not quite sold on this one but no reason to keep it from a feature. --Kreuzschnabel06:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the street lamp could take a hike, but I don't have any problem with size definition since there are three spotlights at the base as reference points. w.carter-Talk15:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSomething went wrong with the edit, the part where the lamp was is now considerably noisier than its surrounding. I reckon the cloned area wasn’t selected for the denoise. Won’t look fine in a print this way. Would you fix it? --Kreuzschnabel06:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe das nicht mit Auswahl gemacht sondern auf einer Smartebene mit Pinsel und verschiedenen Deckkräften. Bin noch mal drüber. --Ralf Roleček15:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thank you for denoising. I feel like this photo is worthy of a feature now, partly because what's depicted is quite interesting, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 10:17:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canário do campo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canário do campo.jpg
Support I normally don't comment on bird photos since I know zip about bird photography, but this very lucky shot reminds me too much of traditional Chinese bird paintings like this to be ignored. Really nice! w.carter-Talk11:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree. I really like this photo, and appreciate that the grasses as well as the bird - including its tail feathers - are clear. The slight softness of the head is no big deal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it were me I might have cropped to a square ... but this bokeh is so sublime and pleasing that I enthusiastically defer to the photographer's choice here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 18:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Daurian redstart (female) in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016 V.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Daurian redstart (female) in Sakai, Osaka, February 2016 V.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 21:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:George Charles Beresford - Virginia Woolf in 1902 - Restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:George Charles Beresford - Virginia Woolf in 1902 - Restoration.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 21:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Männikjärve raba vana laudtee.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Männikjärve raba vana laudtee.jpg
Oppose Colours are nice, I like the contrast of green and purple even in dull lighting. But the image appears to have suffered from severe noise reduction, then tried to re-sharpen (foreground grass blades look oversharpened to me while most parts are still soft and lack detail). As for composition, I’d have taken a viewpoint more to the right to get the boardwalk(?) more diagonally into the frame instead of having it run straight away from the viewer. --Kreuzschnabel07:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose A place with lots of potential, but somehow I feel this wasn't the right moment for photographing it. This would probably look gorgeous under a blue sky or in light morning mist around sunrise or with heavy mysterious fog or maybe even in pouring rain. Don't get me wrong: the dull mood fits the scene, but somehow it's not dull enough to make me go "wow!". Also I think a slightly lower angle might work better (not a reason to oppose, though). --El Grafo (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 04:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Terrasse Taisho - Les saveurs du Japon mises à l'honneur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Terrasse Taisho - Les saveurs du Japon mises à l'honneur.jpg
Oppose Sorry, for me this is far from being one of the very finest images on Commons. As for composition: too much space on left but the napkin cut off on the right, the far plate is partly covered by an entirely unsharp glass of juice, arrangement looks random. As for quality: Large parts of the dish are unsharp (bottom dish show some motion blur as well), insufficient DoF. --Kreuzschnabel07:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The unsharp orange glass and very bright knife and fork spoils it for me. Would have been better on a non-glass table as well. w.carter-Talk08:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what the photographer was thinking, again, but the background's too busy, and the crop in the napkin could have been avoided. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 23:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Камениот мост во Зовиќ.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Камениот мост во Зовиќ.jpg
Support - Others may have detailed criticisms, but for me, this is beautiful. Only one criticism from me: I might prefer if the tree on the left weren't cut off. But so be it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very lovely place but at least the right tree could have been spared a cutting, and maybe loose the person on the bridge. w.carter-Talk08:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Kreuzschnabel and W.carter: The only way to take this image is to stand on a rock in the river and there is not much choice on the angle and the arrangement of objects. The ideal view without cropping the tree wold have been possible if the photographer was standing in the river, while it is not possible to eliminate the object to the right because it will spoil the view of the bridge. I agree about the man standing on the bridge (though it does not seem to change too much) but the other things are simply as they are. Here is a view from the bridge to the side of the river where the image was taken from.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps turn the camera 90 degrees and take a 4:3 standing pic. Anyway, here at the FPC all photographers are asked to do the impossible such as walk on water, hover in the air or go through locked iron fences. That's standard. ;) w.carter-Talk09:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or choose a shorter focal length. Anyway, we judge images as they are nominated without taking the circumstances into account. Sometimes it’s just not possible to take an FP :-) --Kreuzschnabel19:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just borderline on the saturation, and after all that might just be a natural event. But ... I agree with others about the cut tree. I can see that the photographer wanted to include the bend in the stream, but it didn't work. Either frame the image to include the whole tree or crop out the left third so that we would only expect to see the part of the tree that we would be seeing. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2016 at 09:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Complejo San Francisco, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 79-81 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Complejo San Francisco, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 79-81 HDR.JPG
Info Night view of the religious complex of San Francisco, Historic Centre of Arequipa, Peru. The complex, founded in 1552 and of mixed style, consists of a Franciscan church, a convent and a minor temple known as the Third Order. Its simple but robust construction made possible that it conserves very good for over 400 years in spite of the frequent earthquakes. Poco209:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question It's a really good photo and the two guys with their bottle are part of the composition, perfectly positioned under the doorway btw, but is it possible to remove three or four of the other rubbish (can, mugs, cig pack, bottle cap)? w.carter-Talk11:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
W.carter, I've edited it and uploaded a new version, but I don't feel 100% comfortable about this kind of edits. As it was a Sunday night I assume that it was dirtier than otherwise and that's why I guess it's ok. Poco212:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest Poco, it really was just a question not a command, hence the 'question'-template. :) Any good reason for not doing the edit, such as the one you provided above (authenticity), would have been legitimate and acceptable. If you don't want to alter a pic, just say so. I think most editors here would agree, if the reason was solid. Anyway:
Comment Imo, the composition is uncomfortably tight at the bottom. Was that intentional or did you run out of space? --DXR (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DXR: I couldn't go further back as there was a road with a lot of traffic. Otherwise I'd had looked for a futher position. There were also some cars parked around the place, so, I didn't have that freedom. I could though offer a more generous crop at the bottom but the stairs will still be cut off and I'd also lose a bit on both sides. Poco220:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 05:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 03:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ceriagrion cerinorubellum-Kadavoor-2016-04-11-002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ceriagrion cerinorubellum-Kadavoor-2016-04-11-002.jpg
Info Prior to copulation, male odonates transfer sperm from the genital pore on abdominal segment 9 to the accessory genitalia on segment 2 (intra-male sperm translocation), a type of behavior peculiar to this order of insects. Males may transfer the sperm to their secondary genitalia either before a female is held, in the early stage when the female is held by the legs or after the female is held between the terminal claspers. Most damselflies do it just after grasping the female in tandem as shown here. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jkadavoor -- Jee03:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for great educational and encyclopedic value. Although I wish the picture could be clearer, it's still really good timing (and/or great patience) and a great moment captured by the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review. I too wish if it could be better and if I can cover the entire subject inline. But there were a lot of challenges: 1. Though the damselflies are much friendly while mating, they are not so friendly until a wheel posture is established. So we photographers patiently wait till then. Here I broke that rule as I had many wheel posture of these damselflies earlier. I've nothing to loose than one single chance even if they get disturbed and fly away. 2. There is lot of motion as the male is applying a lot of force to bend/lift his abdomen, still carrying the female. 3. This (the transfer or charging the secondary genitalia) lasts only seconds and soon they advance to the wheel position. 4. There were foliage between the lens and subject, and I just found a view even if it was not fully inline. :) Jee06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I'm normally not wowed by photos of insects/bugs/etc.(please forgive the bad terminology), I think that capturing such a brief event, the photo has good educational value. w.carter-Talk07:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly most interesting and VI for sure but the composition (plenty of space on top but bottom insect cut off) and lighting lacks photographic excellence for me. I am aware this is not a studio shot and there was no time to choose better light and/or framing, but then we judge the result, not the circumstances. --Kreuzschnabel12:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you find a notice saying that that new pic was in Public Space and totally copyright free? I can't find one so please direct me to the right place. w.carter-Talk16:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 04:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - This photo is a little small for FPC. It dates from 2007, which isn't old enough to really be considered a historical photo, normally. And the photo itself doesn't strike me as especially outstanding, though it was certainly good for 2007. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The US military is one of Commons' greatest contributors of good and cool quality pictures, there are much better pics than this now. w.carter-Talk09:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2016 at 22:01:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I can't help but like it! It is refreshingly unassuming and simple, but them again I like my photos not too complicated. w.carter-Talk07:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I see the nice idea behind this but am not quite sold yet on it. Lighting a bit harsh, the whites nearly blown and poor in detail. Maybe gradient curves drawn too steep in postprocessing? --Kreuzschnabel12:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting image, but not striking enough to be an FP. Also, light seems a little harsh and that robs it of some color. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand these criticisms about a so-called "harsh light" or so. I did not (and I shall not) post process this winter evening nordic light, because it was so. There is no overexposure, and there is no loss of details, even in the whites. Of course opinions about striking or not are understandable for me (i.e. the famous "no wow" and variations around it), but I'm sorry to disagree about the light, which was excellent enough to provide a very detailed shadow... My only post-processing here was for the verticals (of the wall: the sentry box is leaning for real, which I found interesting). Thanks any way to all for comments and votes !--Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 18:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед на Скочивирска Клисура.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед на Скочивирска Клисура.jpg
Support - I'm finding this good enough to feature, but I'll definitely be interested to read comments from people who have sophisticated knowledge about the technical aspects of digital photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 12:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Ribble Head Viaduct, Yorkshire Dales, England. I had in mind to just look for a good point of view but once I was there halfway up Whernside, the light became fascinating miraculous, changing rapidly. Unfortunately, I couldn’t catch an instant with both the viaduct being sunlit and a train running over it. Still, I think it’s a very good image of the structure and its surrounding. --Kreuzschnabel12:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky is a bit light but I can live with that, always tricky to get the right light on a wide vista with the clouds moving about. I also like the way the arches of the viaduct sort of "mirror" the bluff. This photo's got more curves than Mae West! ;) w.carter-Talk12:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I like the viaduct, but the glary light in the sky and distant ridge unfortunately spoils it for me, and since that ridge is such an important part of the picture, I don't think cropping it out would be a good idea. I hope you have a chance to take photos of this view again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have little hope to catch that kind of lighting again, and the viewpoint is accessible per foot only so you cannot just pop up there to take a photo when it seems suitable --Kreuzschnabel09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I don’t give a damn about the silly babble I uttered yesterday" (w:Konrad Adenauer) ;-) Really, I appreciate all of your comments on either side, the more as I am quite aware this image is not perfect. --Kreuzschnabel19:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just to set things straight : f/2,8 doesn't necessarily mean "Bad DoF". Depending on the subject, everything may (or not) fall into "focal plane" (or close enough to it, so that it doesn't appear out of focus). To me everything is in focus here. - Benh (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Distance to viaduct approx. 1.8 km. Maximum aperture of lens is f/1.8, maximum resulution about f/2.8, hyperfocal distance at settings given (calculatory) about 130 m. --Kreuzschnabel09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More technical observation than a judgement on featurability, but the image looks quite strange at 100%, especially the stone wall and shrubs in the lower third. ISO 200 should not require much denoising, yet it looks a bit like denoised and resharpened. Looks like good camera and good lens, so is it the raw converter? --DXR (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all your critical comments which made me think another time, and I came to the conclusion you are right about the technical quality. This has been done by RawTherapee of the raw image file, yet I somehow overdid it. I’ll re-nominate another version derived from the JPG out-of-camera. --Kreuzschnabel07:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 05:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View from Skaftafell National Park July 2014 -3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Skaftafell National Park July 2014 -3.jpg
WeakOppose. Impressive view but the body of water is a bit awkwardly placed IMO. It takes up half of the horizontal space and doesn't go down to the bottom edge, which makes it too large to be a peripheral part of the composition and too small to dominate the scene. A rule of thirds would have been better here, but even covering slightly more vertical space would have been an improvement. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per KoH too. That’s what I was thinking on the first glance. The composition is somewhat unbalanced: virtually nothing on the right half, the water surface on the left is soo dominating but then it’s cut off. Does not work as a whole in itself, if you know what I mean, looks like a random framing taken out of a fascinating scenery. It does strike me and make me want to go there and see for myself, but rather for finding a better framing than for the very image as such. Strange :-) --Kreuzschnabel06:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The nays have it - because they're right! Thanks for all your comments. I'll upload and nominate an alternative that tries to address the issues mentioned. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 05:52:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beeld van Heilige Christoffel in Broekhuizen (Horst aan de Maas) in provincie Limburg in Nederland 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beeld van Heilige Christoffel in Broekhuizen (Horst aan de Maas) in provincie Limburg in Nederland 01.jpg
Support -- The lighting really makes this look like an execution scene, reminiscent at least in mood of some classic Crucifixion paintings or perhaps a lynching victim hung in a tree. I find the picture moving. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It’s a nice idea and moving, right, but apart from the saint being mostly in shadow, I find the resolution too low on the main object to be featured (95 percent of the not-too-many-anyway pixels have been sold on surrounding), and it looks oversharpened (overdone edges). --Kreuzschnabel06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no argument to make on technical matters, so I wouldn't at all suggest for you to change your vote. However, I really resist the notion that a photo in which a statue is the key point of it has to have a disproportionate amount of space taken up by the statue. As is often the case in landscapes that include a particular focus, the subject really is the statue within the landscape, and the larger point is the way the light and surroundings give the sculpture meaning. And to me, the statue being in shadow is perfect for making a poetic statement about its meaning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn’t make my point clear enough. The composition is fine for me, just the altogether resolution leaves too few pixels for the main object. If this had 16 or 20 megapixels it would be fine. At this low resolution on the main object, the sharpening effects are too harsh for me. --Kreuzschnabel07:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues aside, I don't think the composition works. The horizontals don't work well with the the strong vertical of the subject. Perhaps something tighter on the statue might have worked? Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: As I said, there are very strong horizontals in this image, given a sense of motion by being mostly from a river and clouds. And in the middle of them is this vertical pillar and statue, like a limb fallen into the river. The effect to me is more disruptive than dynamic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to say, I think people are focusing so much on the trees that they're missing the forest, and it's frustrating for me that I see what I consider great art, a composition that really moves me, and most of you are meh about it. I've been on the other side of this in other nominations, but I'm truly surprised by the opposition to this. And it's not that I'm saying you lack reasons: obviously, you do and have given them. But what about the poetry and the meaning? That's not enough? Is this truly so low-quality technically that you can't look at this and see something that speaks to you in an intense way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can’t help remembering that someone in here made a remark some time ago going like, "Different people respond differently to different photos" ;-) --Kreuzschnabel10:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course. But that doesn't mean I can't be frustrated, and the amount of opposition is very surprising to me. I frankly didn't really anticipate any reason for opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was to support, because I find this picture beautiful in many aspects: light, composition, subject, mood... But the sharpening white line around the whole main subject, even visible at thumbnail, is a no-go for me. I'm sorry .--Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the sharpening line and would never have nominated the photo if I could see it, but I did notice several small dust spots above the sculpture's arm this time. I'm going to withdraw, because obviously, this photo has no chance of being featured. I guess my eye for technical issues still needs a lot more development, even if I end up feeling the same way about photographs' overall quality as works of art in the end. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)I withdraw my nomination[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 00:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coruja-listrada (Strix hylophila) no Parque Estadual Intervales.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coruja-listrada (Strix hylophila) no Parque Estadual Intervales.jpg
Oppose - I like the owl's eyes, but the bird is not quite sharp enough for me, and mainly, I don't like the rest of the composition for the most part, as I find that it's not really conducive to moving my eyes around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 05:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St-Etienne-du-Mont Exterior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St-Etienne-du-Mont Exterior, Paris, France - Diliff.jpg
Support - I'll be surprised if this is controversial: A beautiful church exterior by D. Iliff plus an excellent, unnoisy sky. The crops are fairly close on both sides because of the location of the church among other buildings on the place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unusually for a Diliff, this composition doesn’t wow me. Quality is excellent of course but the busy foreground, which can’t be helped and is not the photographer’s fault, still keeps the wow off me. And I don’t find the shadows appealing. --Kreuzschnabel06:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support And not only because it is my own parish church... Such a picture of this church is very difficult to take, and the result is very good for me (foreground not busy at all...)--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jebulon. I agree with you, it's quite difficult to take a better image (maybe possible to have better lighting though) because of the parked cars in the street. As I said to Ikan below, I took this while standing on the Pantheon fence to get enough elevation to avoid the parked cars. And of course waited patiently for traffic to disappear from view. :-) With more visits and planning for the ideal lighting, it could be improved further but the angle and perspective of this image is probably close to ideal. A single straight frontal view will introduce too much distortion because you would need to get too close to the building in my opinion. Diliff (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the distortion and still would have to have it spelled out to me for me to see it. But since this picture obviously isn't going to get the votes for a feature, I withdraw my nomination. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nomination anyway. I agree it's probably not quite at the FP level. The distortion is largely unavoidable though - most European churches are surrounded by nearby buildings and it makes getting the spire in shot impossible without significant distortion. I don't actually think the distortion is that bad in this image however, as I managed to get quite far back. It's less aesthetic though because of the off-centre composition, which the angle of the street required. I took the photo while standing on the fence of the Pantheon to avoid parked cars obscuring the view of the church. Exterior views are always tricky compromises with the environment. If you think the distortion on this one is bad, have a look at this one. :-) It's not possible to get any further back than this without a tree and office building obscuring the cathedral, but the tower is so tall (it's 87 metres tall and I think it's probably only possible to get 30-40 metres back from the front of the building so the angle to the top of the tower is 65 to 70 degrees) that it ends up being pretty disfigured by distortion. Diliff (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 14:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Пълнолуние над Рила.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пълнолуние над Рила.jpg
Oppose This pic just got declined, and not in a good way, at QI. I don't know why you thought it would go better here. On another note: This is strictly speaking a photoshop composition of two pics, like this one was. The question is again if we should have a category for all these digital manipulations or just dismiss them as the rules says now. w.carter-Talk16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 17:44:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lahemaa mustikad.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lahemaa mustikad.jpg
Support The path to a Swede's heart goes through bilberries... Nice photo too, or more accurately, having picked buckets of them I see this as an extremely good representation of the berries. :) w.carter-Talk18:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 11:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама од археолошките ископини во Тауресиум 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама од археолошките ископини во Тауресиум 1.jpg
Mild Oppose - You've definitely established the importance of the ruins, and photo looks to me to be of good technical quality except for the water spot (? oval-shaped) I found near the upper right corner, and the sky is very nice and much less noisy than in many photos we see here. However, the composition doesn't grab me and the crop on the left feels arbitrary to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I thought the site is well depicted and the technical quality would make it enough for an FP but it's already clear that something is missing at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 08:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galite-Galiton 127.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galite-Galiton 127.jpg
Mild Support - I'm honestly not convinced, but I find the motif interesting enough, along with the light and shadows on the cliffs, to say that it probably belongs on the front page. I don't know whether or how many others will agree. It's not a slam dunk (totally obvious choice) to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks wow, and quality issues (noise reductioned and oversharpened, I guess – crisp sharp edges but no details on areas) --Kreuzschnabel12:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 21:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bill Clinton speaking (2015).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bill Clinton speaking (2015).jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of everything mentioned above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
IMHO, the FPX template is not a tool for driving the last nail into the coffin after considerable opposing but rather to keep FPC which clearly have no chance from gathering dozens of opposes ;-) --Kreuzschnabel13:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the idea was that if a picture clearly was not going to get any support, it might as well be FPXed after a decent interval. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 16:21:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Good picture, the red on the carpet seems oversaturated. Too much empty space on the right though for a balanced composition, crop suggestion added. I usually don’t like the habit of alternatives in here but I’ll make an exception in this case :-) --Kreuzschnabel16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit unbalanced to me. Since nothing else is symmetrical, I don't see why the pillar has to be dead center. A crop like the one suggested above would be better. w.carter-Talk08:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nicely taken picture that unfortunately, to me, has too many discordant elements for FP (QI definitely, though). Perhaps as a closeup of the soldiers it would have been stronger. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 19:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch Panzerhaubitz fires in Afghanistan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dutch Panzerhaubitz fires in Afghanistan.jpg
Probably not noise, but rather JPEG compression artifact, which cannot really be removed. File size is pretty small for 6MP. --DXR (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. It's regrettable that this is a JPG and not in a less lossy format, but after looking at it again, I think it's worthy of my Support, in spite of the noise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like what the picture captures, it's a great shot, but I'm just not sure about the file itself with the over compression and resulting JPEG artifacts. -- KTC (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose – it’s a great shot (of the photographer), and I’d support regardless of ethical opinions about warfare, if only the tank wasn’t that noisy. (Talking of image noise, the acoustic noise was to be expected.) --Kreuzschnabel14:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 06:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I'd like this even better if you had the entire rim of the crater on the right side, but this is quite good and striking. No unsharp foreground in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 19:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info View of a row of corners belonging to the Saksaywaman walls, a citadel on the northern outskirts of the city of en:Cusco, historic capital of the Inca Empire, today Peru. The first sections of the citadel were first built by the Killke culture about 1100 and expanded by the Inca from the 13th century. The dry stone walls are composed of huge stones, which boulders are carefully cut by workers to fit them together extremely tightly without mortar. All by me, Poco219:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate oppose Very nice colors, and I can see what you were thinking, Poco, but unfortunately the lines of perspective just aren't there enough for me to be wowed enough to support. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 21:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Venezuela - Gran Sabana - Perico carasucia (Aratinga pertinax).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Venezuela - Gran Sabana - Perico carasucia (Aratinga pertinax).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 08:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parc National de Jabal Zaghouan 176.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc National de Jabal Zaghouan 176.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of everything stated above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 09:09:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016-07-28 15-00-15 magasin-sect-bosmont.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016-07-28 15-00-15 magasin-sect-bosmont.jpg
Support - I find this interesting enough to feature. I enjoy the color and direction of the light and the shapes and colors of the space. For some reason, it's very hard to zoom to full size without the file stopping to function, but I was able to zoom back and forth just enough to be able to fairly judge the picture before it crashed again. Is anyone else having this problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No problem seeing it at full screen. Only enlarging it to full size, and when I accomplished that, toggling between full and full-page size were problems. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 08:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - I like this photo, but I'm not feeling a wow, and perhaps that's because of the cobwebs; I'm not completely sure. I may reconsider later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 15:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 08:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont des Catalans - Fonds Trutat - MHNT.PHa.138.b34.002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont des Catalans - Fonds Trutat - MHNT.PHa.138.b34.002.jpg
Support - That's a photo whose quality stands up today. I think it's good enough to feature as is, although if anyone wants to digitally restore it, that would be good, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 05:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Bergpanorama am Potamon-Stausee.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Bergpanorama am Potamon-Stausee.jpg
Oppose - I'm sorry, I think this is below FP level because of the large very unsharp area toward the near right corner at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on sharpness handling
:Sorry, but you can't have a sharp foreground if you want to have a sharp background. This is how optic works. Beside of this I wonder what is so important about some bushes and it's a very small unsharp and not disturbing area. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also sorry, but you are wrong. A focus stack from 2-3 images and your image will be complete sharp. Otherwise you can cut the right side or take images with less unsharp foreground. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A focus stack in non-studio-condition is nonsense. Beside of this the image atmosphere is with this part better than without. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Focus stacking without tripod is nonsense, no need to discuss this out. Beside of this I see no need and no improvement for this image to make here focus stacking. A landscape image is not a still life. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Natürlich muß man beim Focus Stacking ein Stativ nutzen und natürlich ist es kein Problem es bei Landschaftsaufnahmen wie dieser hier anzuwenden. Wie auf diesem Bild bewegt sich da kaum etwas. Aber jede Diskussion mit Dir artet doch nur in mühseligen Wortspielereien aus. Ich sagte nicht das Du es hättest machen sollen oder gar müssen, ich wollte nur sagen das es möglich wäre! Daher gebe ich es auf, es hat eh keinen Sinn. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC) P.S.: auf dem Bild vermisse ich trotzdem den Stausee ;-)[reply]
We've seen plenty of great panoramas here that aren't drastically unsharp in the foreground. It's one thing to have reasonable blurring in the distance, but if you want to argue that this should be a Featured Picture because that's what your lens took, I'm sorry, but that's a weak argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A weak argument IMO is your's. The unsharp area is very little and it does not affect the perception. Next time I downscale the image at 2560 x 976 and you'll not have this problem. Cheers! --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, big panoramas that we've featured have not been drastically unsharp in the foreground. This is Featured Picture Candidates. The other picture you nominated is fine. To me, this one is not for a Featured Picture. Others may disagree (and one already has). Good luck. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The unsharp foreground doesn’t bother me but please take care of the black strip along the top edge which is visible even in the preview. Slightly uneven background sharpness but still OK for me. Would be nice to add the Panorama template for information. --Kreuzschnabel07:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 21:19:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - Focus seems soft except for the second panel from the top of the picture frame, which also has the best lighting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
::@Benh: What's your problem with Livio? This vote is just rude, and out of the three votes you've got on this page, two are opposes of Livios FPCs. Other than that you've commented contradicting one of Livio's votes and not done much else. Why don't you get a life and stop following Livio around? It's getting tedious to see you on every single FPC of Livio's trying to insult him and start problems with him. If you opposed other FPCs or even regularly voted on other FPCs by different photographers, I wouldn't say anything, but you don't even try to hide that you're targeting him. INeverCry06:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say that, but the problem with Livio is that he's reacting very rude everytime someone opposes one of his nominations. This is why I personally stopped voting on his nominations (with one little exception), but I don't know if "stop following Livio around" really is a solution. I believe that many of his nominations pass FPC simply because there are users who don't oppose just because they don't want to get insulted by Livio. Regarding the picture Benh has clearly a point here. --Code (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[unindent]Comment - My take on this is that Benh is clearly being sarcastic, which in my opinion is unnecessary. But otherwise, I think any objective person, such as a person new to FPC (which I was a few months ago) will clearly see that Livio often is abusive toward people who oppose features for his pictures. Not everyone - he has yet to abuse me for opposing his pictures, because I sometimes support them. But I think it's quite unfortunate that intemperate behavior on FPC is tolerated. And by "tolerated", I mean that users evidently have wide latitude to be unduly personally indignant over negative reviews and react abusively without consequences such as suspension of posting privileges. But as for people not opposing in order to avoid an intemperate remark: Please, go ahead and oppose if you think it's warranted, and feel free to ignore the response; it won't kill you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek being you new does not know many things to people who are here for years. You say that often exaggerate, perfect do examples please .You do not speak at random thanks. Besides read before writing, Benh on 3 votes at least 2 are oppositions to my photos and has never voted for. Gently tries to be precise since you're here recently but talk like you know all thanks.--LivioAndronico(talk)22:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't have to have been here for a long time to see abusive remarks that wouldn't be tolerated as a pattern on Wikivoyage. I should know, as I'm an admin at Wikivoyage. I'm not going to waste my time giving examples, as any observer can see that you often lash out at people for opposing. It's certainly possible that because I'm new, I missed some previous history of those people abusing you, but the things you object to as non-factual are usually matters of opinion, and moreover, your reactions are in many cases extreme and very unpleasant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unpleasant? ONLY COME HERE TO OPPOSE TO YOUR PHOTOS AND PLEASANT FOR YOU? Inventing REASONS ABSURD is PLEASANT FOR YOU? But at least you read read what I write? if this is agreeable to you means you're a masochist, well I do not! Try to look at everything, not just what you want to see, thank you.--LivioAndronico(talk)09:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is absolutely not true. I have never had a fight with Daniel, Never cry and you too if the opposition is "normal" without insulting and without inventing reasons to oppose. You and also Behn you're opposites in a "normal" to the nomination which is not passed by a single vote. I did complain or say anything? Another untruth is that if the nomination passes is because they vote support. If they had "fear" not vote support. Kindly answer me, thanks.--LivioAndronico(talk)09:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand you, sorry. What question should I answer? Concerning the picture: For my taste it's partly too dark and the white balance seems to be wrong. Moreover I think that you often add too much contrast and clarity for my taste. The top part shows some CA and is blurry, at the bottom the crop is unfortunate. However, I'm not going to vote because I don't want you to say that I only oppose your nominations. To make it clear: I would be happy to give you a support vote. It's just that your actual nominations aren't reaching the FP treshold in my opinion. I know that others think different and I completely respect their votes, of course. --Code (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep changing the subject? I asked you
1) if it's incomplete what's missing ???
2)The last time you voted contrary I have told you something? I complained?
It's funny that you don't even recognize that this is exactly the behaviour I was complaining about. However, to give it a last try: I didn't "change the subject" at all. I tried to answer your questions as good as I could. But again: 1) I told you what's missing (at least part at the bottom but after having a second look I think that on both sides the crop is too tight as well). 2) You didn't complain last time I opposed but you've often complained about my (and other users') votes in the past. I'm not going to waste my time searching for difflinks, everybody here knows what I'm talking about. 3) I don't know why so many users support each and every of your nominations. Maybe their taste is just very different from mine. Maybe there are other reasons. BTW, in my opinion the standards here at FPC have lowered in the last months but maybe I'm wrong with that. --Code (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you’re wrong but then I’m wrong the same way. There are voters who appear to support any pic which is just nice, and well exposed. We used to look for outstanding, exceptional images which are more than just well done. This one isn’t even well lit! That’s what I meant recently by "the FP star is losing its meaning for me". --Kreuzschnabel06:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Code or you do not understand or want to understand ..... you defend Behn but changes the subject. I do not give a damn about the quality of the images we are talking about something else, that is, people who vote negatively on my pictures and stop. Of course if you tell me crap I have to defend myself in my part so, maybe from your not. The photos maybe missing a part? Can not you see what ridiculous? Maybe? Tries to be serious and bring evidence that even I have time to waste with you or other false things!--LivioAndronico(talk)07:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly clear from the very beginning that this discussion would lead to nowhere. Lesson learned, thank you. --Code (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't expect all this fuss. User:INeverCry, you won't drag me there. Just get back to me when I do something against the rules, and get back to photography which is the topic here. My oppose is valid (seriously, a cropped subject?). Period. - Benh (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
certainly Benh it is true that you are a rude. Why do not you put some pictures and see what you can do? it's nice to criticize when you do not do anything else.--LivioAndronico(talk)06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LivioAndronico, not sure you r really interested, but you are free to look at them on Flickr. And btw, FPC is not a contest... I'm not after these stars anymore, it's lost its meaning a long time ago. - Benh (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the light is too uneven so it looses some of the wow for me, there is also some CA at the top grate/window that should have been taken care of prior to nominating. w.carter-Talk12:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.carter – uneven light. Given this is the natural lighting of the location, this object simply needs additional light to take an FP of it. --Kreuzschnabel14:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 13:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Philippe Echaroux - Portrait de Jonny Wilkinson.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Philippe Echaroux - Portrait de Jonny Wilkinson.jpg
Neutral I don't know... the metal-shiny texture of his skin brings to mind words like "Iron man" or "Man of steel"... not necessarily bad associations for the man, but for a portrait... hmmm. w.carter-Talk15:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar as other nomination: Great image but there are quality issues. Eyes are in focus here but DoF is still too shallow, his nose is too unsharp for me. Bokeh looks artificial, showing hard edges from selection to be blurred. --Kreuzschnabel16:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2016 at 05:35:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hans Holbein, the Younger - Sir Thomas More - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2016 at 05:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Henrietta Carpenter by Margaret Sarah Carpenter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henrietta Carpenter by Margaret Sarah Carpenter.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 23:27:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hamilton - 2016 Monaco GP 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamilton - 2016 Monaco GP 02.jpg
Oppose Sorry, it is not the rain, but noise an jpg-artefacts all over the picture in full resolution, in addition blue CAs on the left front of the car. --Llez (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 16:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Pałac w Ołdrzychowicach 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Pałac w Ołdrzychowicach 01.JPG
Oppose Sorry, but the light conditions are not convincing. Would be better if the sun shined on the building's facade. It's certainly a high quality picture but not special enough for FP, IMO. --Code (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request a good image, but can you please remove the visible CAs (especially on the right)? So I'd like to give you my support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC) P.S: my hint for new images: please don't use ISO 800 = to much noisy.[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 10:05:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Festspielhaus Bayreuth 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Festspielhaus Bayreuth 2016.jpg
Support - At first, I found it inconvenient that the trees block part of the view of the Festspielhaus, but as I look at the photo longer, a feeling of peace comes over me as I perceive the rough sense of symmetry of the trees being to the left and the right and how that positively affects the form as a whole. The Festspielhaus and flower garden are attractive, and I find this photo solidly deserving of a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 11:23:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schenson Uppsala domkyrka 1889 - Restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schenson Uppsala domkyrka 1889 - Restoration.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 16:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Very nice picture, sharp and all, but just like with the previous bridge picture you have to give more exact info about locations and such. Look at how other featured flowers are described, what categories they are listed under and how the text is formatted. This is a whole new division from QI, I helped you with the first one but from now on you have to do all that yourself. :) w.carter-Talk19:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2016 at 07:11:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Passing By the Earth, He Xuntian's handwriting (1999).jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passing By the Earth, He Xuntian's handwriting (1999).jpg/2
Oppose - I was wondering what the significance of this was. w:He Xuntian says "He Xuntian (simplified Chinese: 何训田; traditional Chinese: 何訓田; pinyin: Hé Xùntián；born in 1952 in Suining, Sichuan) is a modern Chinese composer, creator of a new musical language and also a music composition professor at Shanghai Conservatory of Music." OK. So he's notable. However, there is nothing very visually interesting about his handwriting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that shadowing or just writing on the other side of the paper showing through? If that's all it is, I want to oppose twice... INeverCry07:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My oppose here is purely technical, the photo is in low res and the colors are in the paper have that 'rainbow effect' a mix between CA and posterization. However, this kind of calligraphy where the word themselves form an impression of the sentiment of the poem in the text is a very subtle art form, totally lost on most Westerners. The words may indeed be on both sides of the paper, since this is a technique sometimes used in Chinese art to either get the impression of shadows or to show two sides of an object or a poem. As a work of art and if you read the poem, I find it fascinating! w.carter-Talk09:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any shapes in the writing that are metaphoric and refer to the meanings of the words would need to be explained. Even a Chinese-language explanation could be roughly translated via Google Translate, but without any explanation, those of us who can't read the calligraphy have to fall back on whether the shapes per se are sufficiently interesting for us to want to feature the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ikan, of course I realize this. I only wanted to express what I saw as the merits of the pic as well as its flaws when I 'Opposed' to it. I mean, we are supposed to leave a clear report of why we object to pictures, as you so often point out to those who just leave their "o". But I assumed it was allowed to also express what we thought was good with a pic when we oppose, even if it is only a personal point of view or something that others may not understand. w.carter-Talk10:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you thought I was contradicting or arguing with you. I was simply expressing another thought that your post prompted me to have. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 06:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, I don’t see anything special in the photographic work here, and then uneven light doesn’t help. QI for sure but no feature on my side, no wow, nothing extraordinary – you got the point. --Kreuzschnabel06:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 07:25:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Чомга (Большая поганка).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Чомга (Большая поганка).jpg
Comment Lacking location data, makes it useless for information pages on wikipedias. That apart, a nice pic - I like the water activity. - MPF (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel. This didn't even make it past QI. It is advisable to wait until a picture has cleared that first step until nominating it here where you have additional artistic and quality criteria. w.carter-Talk19:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 13:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ثعبان في مصر 3.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ثعبان في مصر 3.JPG
Oppose 1. Not very useful without knowing the species (or genus, for that matter) 2) technically OK, but not outstanding 3) framing/crop looks kind of random 4) while I'd like to see more black and white photographs here in general, I don't think b&w makes much sense for this image. --El Grafo (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 07:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:16-03-30-Ben Gurion International Airport-RalfR-DSCF7550.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:16-03-30-Ben Gurion International Airport-RalfR-DSCF7550.jpg
Weak support The ceiling and pillars are just interesting enough to offset the rather loud promotional wrap on the baggage claim. And I would like to see more FPs of airport interiors. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 05:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bloeiwijze van Aster x frikartii 'Mönch'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloeiwijze van Aster x frikartii 'Mönch'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg
Neutral - The flower is quite good, overall - not all the petals are fully in focus but the anthers and so forth are great. However, I don't love the dull green bokeh as contrast. The sum total of all of that is my neutrality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 10:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I really like the contrasting colors and textures. There's one slightly strange crop effect: the little bit of foliage sticking out near the upper right corner. But I don't find that a reason to withhold support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 10:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Cobbler at Cobbler's Cliff Backa Brastad overhead view.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Cobbler at Cobbler's Cliff Backa Brastad overhead view.jpg
Info I apologize if anyone is offended by this image, but the people who made these rock carvings about 3000 years ago saw things differently than we do. Västra Götaland County has the highest density of petroglyphs in Sweden. The ones in Tanum are even on the World Heritage List. This figure, probably a Weather God, that started the whole petroglyph research science in 1627, is one of the largest rock carvings of a figure in Sweden. It is placed on an almost flat slightly curved rock so you’d need a crane or a drone to get a full overhead shot of it, every other angle produces severe perspective distortions. I came up with the idea of using panorama tech on it, and it worked like a charm! As far as I know, this is the first photo to depict the figure without any perspective distortions. The different shades of grey are the colors of the rock, not shadows. -- All by me. W.carter -- w.carter-Talk10:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2016 at 17:34:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sandhamn August 2016 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandhamn August 2016 01.jpg
Neutral Sorry to spoil the party but in my opinion, this is where a wider angle gives a more dramatic effect. I also think this misses some contrast (I wouldn't be afraid to add it in post). As it is it's a bit dull. But overall, it's still a nice picture to look at. Just not quite on the FP level to me. - Benh (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2016 at 06:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gangrel 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gangrel 2010.jpg
Comment - I had no idea who this guy was, so I got to w:Gangrel (wrestler) in a few steps, although now that I see the "div class" line, it explained what he does. To me, this photo is more weird than great, but I'll probably abstain from voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose this might make a good VI or WP-FP, as the pose seems to fit the subject, but for Commons … The background is less than optimal, even the photographer calls it "Bleh!". The lighting setup works pretty well for the more conservative portraits from that event, but somehow I don't really dig it on this one. For example, this very similar image (same photographer, different Wrestler, similar pose) works much better for me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 06:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf03.jpg
Oppose Hmm, well, I'm sorry to oppose as I really like the colors of the sky. But the rock as such doesn't wow me - and it's lacking sharpness in parts. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but all the dead vegetation around it sort of spoils the pic for me. The opening in it that would make it notable, is barely visible. Pics of stacks tend to look better when they are free-standing, like this. This does not wow me. w.carter-Talk09:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support Might be just another good picture of a rock outcrop but for the radiant perspective lines created by the clouds and the branches. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 06:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Passerelle du Moulin de l'Evêque, Montpellier cf01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passerelle du Moulin de l'Evêque, Montpellier cf01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 07:01:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St. Andreas, Karlstadt, Altar and Choir 20160727 5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St. Andreas, Karlstadt, Altar and Choir 20160727 5.jpg
Support I don't like the distortion (see memorial at right), but I support per nomination arguments. And good quality.--Jebulon (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I thought about this photo for some time and looked at it several times on different days, and it just doesn't wow me. I find the focus a bit too soft for FP, and I don't love the light in the stained glass windows. I also find the view itself less than impressive, through no fault of the photographer. This picture is very good and will be featured, but it's not quite a FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2016 at 08:59:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View from Skaftafell National Park July 2014 -4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from Skaftafell National Park July 2014 -4.jpg
Support - Thanks for the ping. I think this version is better than the other one. The shape of the visible part of the lake and the clouds is neater in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I consider a crop suggestion to remove the disturbing foreground at the right corner and to centralize the composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. I know that the lower right corner isn't ideal - cropping it would remove too much of the foreground however. As for centralizing the composition: well, that's what provoked some criticism during my first nomination. So I'd say it's better to leave the pic as it is. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, this one works better for me. Reminds me of the pictures I took in the Canadian Arctic last summer, which I shall be getting to uploading soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2016 at 05:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ανεμόμυλος, Χώρα Σερίφου 9514.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ανεμόμυλος, Χώρα Σερίφου 9514.jpg
Support - I just really like this photo. There's a slightly unsharp area close to the near right corner, but in the context of a beautiful panorama, I don't consider it close to disqualifying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that depends on the quality of your sceen and it's settings. On a laptop and ordinary screen it's ok and blue, on a really good 37" it can be a bit violet as you say. w.carter-Talk13:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 21:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Lagune von Balos1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Lagune von Balos1.jpg
Support - To me, this is good quality and beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC) - Provisionally changed to Oppose in view of the stitching lines Ivar notes, which I hadn't noticed but at least one of which is super-clear to me when I focus on it and needs to be remedied. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2016 at 23:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Mild Support - This would be the 4th Strix aluco FP. I'm not feeling blown away by the photo, but I think it's a good portrait of an owl on a nice clear piece of wood and probably good enough for a feature. In my opinion, among Strix aluco FPs, it would be second-best to this one. This one has a very good composition and the sleepy owl is cute but nowhere near as clearly photographed, and this one is cute but seems fuzziest and is a very small file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2016 at 17:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Warwick Castle May 2016.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Warwick Castle May 2016.jpg
Comment I don’t guess so … there’s a slight parallax shifting between the frames (alignment of street lamps and building outlines). --Kreuzschnabel14:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the same spot, but as it is a stitched panorama rotating the camera is unavoidable. I don't have a GigaPan so the source images aren't going to be at the exact same angle. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - That's pretty excellent. I won't waste time with petty criticisms, as the overall quality of all 3 pictures is so good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good idea and very well executed although the sharpness of the single pictures could be a little bit better. --Code (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a New Yorker, but I laughed at that! Not only Philadelphia, but think of the photos of the Pittsburgh skyline we featured, for example. Interestingly, the first 4 pictures to show up in my search of FPs in Category "Skylines in the United States" are from Baltimore; Rochester, New York; St. Louis; and Portland, Oregon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 16:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:11-07-29-helsinki-by-RalfR-007.jpg
Support - This is a complex picture, sure, but it's rewarding for the eyes. Reminds me of some great abstract paintings with multiple lines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2016 at 06:45:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Finntorp November 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Finntorp November 2015.jpg
Info Winter images of a abandoned petrol station in Finntorp, Nacka (Stockholm). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I'd normally go for these abandoned places, I don't find this photo good enough for FP. The November light is right for such a gloomy place, but the angle (with the building sticking up over the roof), crop (too much asphalt) and such are not right. Taking a pic of such a place you need to prowl around, go hi and lo, wait around for different light, experiment and then see what did work when you get home exhausted from your acrobatics. Finntorp sure has changed since I last visited it... w.carter-Talk07:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Oppose - I like this composition, but some of the whites are blown out at present. Some of the trees are unsharp, too, but I'm willing to tolerate that as part of the whole. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition but I don’t approve of lighting nor quality. The bright yellow background makes the foreground even darker and bluer than it naturally is. Then, there’s a zig-zag line around the roof which certainly isn’t real. Image looks oversharpened, with sharpened noise speckles in the darker parts (e.g. the roof posts). There surely is a special atmosphere about this picture, and it will work perfectly on an album cover but does less so on our pool of encyclopedic media. --Kreuzschnabel14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I like the idea of photographing vacant or repurposed former gas stations myself (there are probably going to be even less of them over the course of this century, even without assuming a mass switchover to electric or hybrid cars, since mileage is going up and the number of drivers is either holding flat or going down, adding up to less need for gas stations altogether, and as a result I've been taking pictures of former gas stations near me), this picture is not FP for me. Per Kreuzschnabel, but contra some of the other oppose !votes, I am fine with the composition ... but not the light. It should IMO be either all in sun or all in shade (better still, if that is desired, on a cloudy day). Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 05:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - I love the iridescent wings, and the picture is clear enough at full-page size for me to feel justified in supporting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 10:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallnitz Seebachtal 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallnitz Seebachtal 01.jpg
Strong support Very nice. What particularly sets this one apart for me is that, unlike most Alpine landscapes we've seen nominated here, this one has a strong wilderness feel to it, more akin to mountain landscapes elsewhere in the world (yes, there's a building visible through the trees, but you have to make the effort to see it). I want to fish in the stream, I want to climb the mountain (more accurately, I would like to have the technical skills to climb the mountain).
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 06:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallnitz Säuleck 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallnitz Säuleck 01.jpg
Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose, but I find that that very dark area on the right pretty much blocks my eyes' movement. Otherwise, of course, it's a beautiful scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Thanks. I'm not feeling really convinced (could be the mood I'm in, so I'll check again within a couple of days), but that's sufficient for me to be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Lovely image. Would probably have been more of a slam-dunk support if a narrower aperture had been used, for sharpness on the mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 13:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galichica, pogled kon Ohridsko ezero.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galichica, pogled kon Ohridsko ezero.jpg
Oppose Just not working for me, sorry. Could be that sky Code spoke of or the very heavy dark lattice-shadow from the guard rail. Hmm... w.carter-Talk19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W. Carter. This is one of the best "sea of clouds" pictures I've seen here; however the additional elements do just enough to detract from it. (I should nonetheless give the photographer credit for getting something out of an iPhone that I couldn't reject simply on that basis (Although that may explain the sky)). Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t think the guard rail really looks that ragged. Rather stitching errors here. Then, posterization on sky and (really bad) on the near edge of the clouds. Pity, as I tended to support from scenery and composition first. This photographer certainly needs better gear. --Kreuzschnabel14:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2016 at 19:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral (Parma) - Ceiling of right chapel and dome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral (Parma) - Ceiling of right chapel and dome.jpg
Oppose, unequal luminescence in the image, too dark area at the right side, very busy, some cut parts at left and right, a square version with only the middle could be away better. (prepared for range of the author, tip, I don't care). -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good quality but no more than QI for me. Since this is a documentary photograph of a static object and not too special in itself, it needs at least a perfect lighting to be featured. --Kreuzschnabel05:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 15:25:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:KarpaSvNikolaOhrid.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:KarpaSvNikolaOhrid.jpg
Support - I like this one, too. It's exciting, striking and has a wonderful kind of rough symmetry between the rock face and the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great! :) Can we also see some fixing of the CA as two other editors have commented on? As soon as that is done you'll have my support, since it's a really nice pic. w.carter-Talk08:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice! Unfortunately there's a lot of CA in the branches (fixable). I would support the nomination otherwise. (Although the picture is also quite small). --Code (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan. Although the CA in the branches does need get fixed, I like that they are there because they help differentiate this from the too-often seen climbing photo where it seems as if the photographer is hovering in the air near the climber, kinda like Spock at the beginning of Star Trek V. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a small amount of purple CA at the bottom but the overall quality and composition are wort a Support. --Code (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 19:21:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salineras de Maras, Maras, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 17.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salineras de Maras, Maras, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 17.JPG
Info Worker carrying a sack of salt on his shoulder in the salineras (salt evaporation ponds) in Maras, Peru. The salt is obtained in Maras since the Inca Empire times and the site is currently composed of around 3.000 ponds of 5 square metres (54 sq ft) each. As the location is surrounded by salty mountains, subterrean water deposits the salty wather in the ponds and the water evaporates due to the exposure to the sun. After aprox. 1 month the level of salt reaches 10 centimetres (3.9 in) and is removed in sacks in the way you can see here. All by me, Poco219:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although not as colourful as it could be, it surely works. And the valley setting is really different from my experience with seaside salineras. --C messier (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it wasn't for the person in the picture, it could be another 'mystery picture' where the scale was anyone's guess. A very soft palette. w.carter-Talk21:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 15:16:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:First attempt to fly -- juvenile western gull (Larus occidentalis).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:First attempt to fly -- juvenile western gull (Larus occidentalis).jpg
Support - I think this photo is beautiful. The overall composition is super, in my opinion, including the textures of the rocks and the amount of land vs ocean. I love the way the mother is looking at her child and that you captured a moment when the young gull had its wings open, and I think both gulls are clear enough, given that the photo is about this moment, not a closeup exemplary portrait of a gull showing all its individual feathers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 11:30:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Old international bridge Tuy-Valenca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Old international bridge Tuy-Valenca.jpg
Support Surprising how omnious an ordinary brigde can look in night lights. Psst: You are allowed to vote for your own picture here. I assume you would vote {{s}}... --w.carter-Talk13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced for quality, sorry. Though the idea is striking, the frame is too soft considering the low resolution (diffraction at f/14 I suppose), and the large turquoise areas around the lamps (and on the ceiling beams) don’t help, adding to the WB being a bit on the cold side. I think, in colour this would have required HDR processing (would avoid the lamps being blown), but it might work well in b/w. --Kreuzschnabel13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The color/lighting is just a deal-breaker on both of these for me. I'll have to download a copy and convert it to B&W to see how it looks. INeverCry19:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To me, this version has the best quality, but the color is radically different, and I wouldn't be able to support this if the color is incorrect. Harpagornis, was the color as shown in the version you submitted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, two totally different moods. I'm leaning towards the first/Matrix version, the second/Star Wars version looks too stark and cold. B&W looks like the Cold War and gives me the creaps, HDR just looks poisonous. w.carter-Talk10:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Am I the only one who's very confused now, with 4 different versions? To me, the scattered light is not a deal-breaker, and I'd like to know which photo has the most accurate color. I'm guessing it's probably the first version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on all of these at this point. I love the image ... I expect to see Darth Vader walk past flanked by stormtroopers any minute—but can we decide which version we're going to nominate? Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of think the decision about which one to go for will fall to you. Most of the questions have really been about: Which one of these images is closest to how the bridge actually look at night? Only you can answer that, since the pictures on Google Maps are taken during daytime. Just let us know and hopefully things will sort themselves out. We should at least be able to narrow it down to two versions. These chaos situations have unfortunately become a habit here... I think you should be glad so many people are interested in your image and think it is good enough to discuss so much. :) w.carter-Talk18:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the first version and the HDR version are quite different in appearance. Also, the lighting is better in the HDR version. But right now, no version has enough votes for a feature, so while on your say-so that this at least somewhat closely resembles what you saw, I'd be happy to support it, I am not going to oppose the first version in favor of this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the HDR version has better lighting, but if no one objects, clean and leave the first version. Thank so many opinions, but this will be a chaos. --Harpagornis (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(procedural comment) Please cross-link 'other versions' of an image when creating them, for sanity of curation efforts. Thanks. Reventtalk23:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 11:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apples.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apples.jpg
Oppose Nice idea, but the whole thing actually seems a bit, well, ordinary for me. If you are arranging apples in a stict pattern, go all in for a wow factor: turn them so they are arranged in size or shape as well, make all stalks point in the same direction or something like that. The water drops on them also detracts from their surface, totally unnecessary, may look good on a single apple or a basket of them but not here. w.carter-Talk21:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I am not bothered by the water drops and the photographer may not have had control over the arrangement of the apples, but I do think a tighter crop might bring out the appley goodness here even better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I agree that these apples may not be under the photographer's control, but we have previously expected folks here to do better pics of gulls since they are so common. Well, apples are even more common and much easier to handle than gulls. w.carter-Talk07:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've had gulls try to physically attack you? I guess the gulls in the U.S. are a little less aggressive. In my experience, they're only interested in stealing your food! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Living in a seaside town I know them for the devious monsters they are. I'm not the only one. Each year here the media is full of reported gull attacks. Google "måsattack" (Swedish for gull attack) and you'll see. w.carter-Talk21:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 21:24:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seagull feeding on a dove2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seagull feeding on a dove2.jpg
Oppose Sorry but at 1.55 Mpx the picture is far below the 2.0 Mpx limit needed for most FPs, it is not sharp enough, it is too widely categorized and has no geo tag. w.carter-Talk21:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above comments. Yann (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 19:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flora MacDonald monument.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flora MacDonald monument.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 22:18:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:"Chuveirão" na Caverna Timimina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:"Chuveirão" na Caverna Timimina.jpg
Support - The light conditions mean that there's a degree of unsharpness. I find that OK, and it adds an air of mystery to the view. I like the composition a lot and the shaft of light and its reflection really help -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 17:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Yes it is a nice dreamy scene, but there is nothing in the pic that makes it stand out and make it an FP for me. A mist photo need some little extra element, otherwise it's just mist. Sorry. w.carter-Talk19:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There's nothing in this photo that helps my eyes move around the picture frame, and the mist doesn't make an otherwise boring motif featurable, in my opinion. Good QI but no FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 16:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Historical building close to Municipal Market of São Paulo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Historical building close to Municipal Market of São Paulo.jpg
Mild Oppose - Sorry for potentially slowing down the feature a bit, but here's my pro and con for whatever it's worth. Pro: Nice composition at full-page size, and a very good idea. Con: Dull light that I find somewhat unpleasant to look at, and it's a bit out of focus at full size. I perceive the dull light at full-page size, too, whereupon my mild opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and review, btw only for clarify the darkness that you see is the result of pollution, São Paulo is one of the most polluted cities in America, with a population of 40 million. Every morning an ash seen in the windows that eventually adheres to all structures, this is an old facade uncleaned in decades. As you can see in google maps, this facade is dark even on sunny days. This is a photo taken with a D300 and I enlarged the photo digitally and perhaps that is the effect you call Out of Focus, a D300 would never have gotten that size. A hug --The Photographer (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 10:22:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paisaje cerca de Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 83.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisaje cerca de Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 83.JPG
Support - I have to admit, I really can't accurately predict which photos will draw strong opposition, so I'll just keep nominating pictures I particularly like, because the only way to find out whether they'll get featured is to nominate them. And for whatever it's worth, I love the starkness and yet variety of this landscape and the clear colors and shades. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose – very good quality but the large shadow in the foreground spoils it for me, striking me like a menace. And I agree the horizon appears tilted CCW. --Kreuzschnabel13:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm actually quite fond of the shadows. I think this renders much better than your other pictures of South America with flat and harsh lighting. - Benh (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 19:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bessie Smith (1936) by Carl Van Vechten.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bessie Smith (1936) by Carl Van Vechten.jpg
Support Oh yes, despite the pattern, don't think anything can be done about that. Curious to see which song from her repertoire Daniel will choose for this. w.carter-Talk21:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I love Bessie Smith, and this is an interesting photo, with her facial expression and the feathers, but the crops bother me, so I'm undecided about whether to feature it. I'm not convinced this photo and this one aren't better compositions. Any thoughts of restoring those? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a terrible reproduction of a good photo; the second is quite possible. I'll put it into the list for later, but do think we can have more than one FP for her. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2016 at 01:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:17 Years of Sekar Jepun 2014-11-01 32.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:17 Years of Sekar Jepun 2014-11-01 32.jpg
Info The Sekar Jepun dance troupe of Sanata Dharma University performing an Oleg. Oleg is danced by one male dancer and one female dancer. It is meant to evoke two bumblebees flittering about a garden. All by Crisco 1492 -- — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 22:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Svidník - Vojnový pamätník a cintorín sovietskej armády (by Pudelek).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Svidník - Vojnový pamätník a cintorín sovietskej armády (by Pudelek).jpg
Support Nice symmetry—I mean, it was what the designer of the monument obviously intended, but not every photograph can capture it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 09:32:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bigorski manastir kambana.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bigorski manastir kambana.jpg
Mild Support - That's very picturesque and a good composition. I think the sky will come in for some criticism, and not everything is crystal clear. Also, I would like for the black spot to the right of the cross to be cloned out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. This could have been a fantastic pic, but the processing of it has resulted in some strange light and odd dark patches in the sky that makes the whole thing look unnatural. Sorry. w.carter-Talk13:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 17:52:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bloeiwijze van Geranium 'Rozanne'. Familie Geraniaceae. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloeiwijze van Geranium 'Rozanne'. Familie Geraniaceae. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpg
Info Inflorescence of Geranium 'Rozanne'. Family Geraniaceae. Location, Garden sanctuary JonkerValley (Netherlands). Rather new cultivar. Rich and long flowering with beautiful large flowers. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 00:42:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weekend music on Paulista Avenue, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weekend music on Paulista Avenue, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Oppose The composition here doesn't quite work for me; we have the keyboardist cut off at left and a guy watching at far right recording the musicians on his phone who doesn't add to the composition the way a full inclusion of the keyboardist (a closer focus on the musicians) would have. The street sloping down to the left isn't optimal either. I would have moved the focus to the left to include the musicians fully and have the group of watchers balance the composition at right instead of the guy with the phone. INeverCry01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - As a musician, I definitely like the idea of this photo, but I'd like to see a more outstanding photo of one or more buskers. This is a very good photo. I'm not sure I'm feeling it as FP, but I respect it. I might reconsider later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inappropriate use of level sharpening in photoshop. Have a look at the DoF - it is changing within one distance. For example the woman with the dotted skirt is (partly) sharp while the man left of her (with white T-Shirt) is totally blurred. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a composite picture, because the weather was too darked and it was imposible get more DoF (on focus peoples and the musician with the Saxophone) --The Photographer (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you were thinking it could be, but it didn't come out that way. There's too much going on for the intended subject to be clear. It would be a good tourist shot, and maybe a QI, but it's not featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2016 at 16:17:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prohvet Eeliase kirik Vasknarvas 2014 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prohvet Eeliase kirik Vasknarvas 2014 01.jpg
Qualified support Slight distortion on the onion dome at the top of the steeple, but again I suspect that was the result of a more-necessary perspective correction. Otherwise a very well-composed image of a country church. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — the quality is good, but the half of the photo are leaves. For example, the photo on the right is more valuable for Wikipedias. --Brateevsky {talk} 08:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my opinion, the photo you link, while perhaps more likely to be a Valued Image, doesn't have a featurable composition. This one might; I've been undecided on that, though I certainly like several things about the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2016 at 14:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - I'd like the composition better if you also had kernels in the upper right. I appreciate the effort, but I find that the empty white ~1/3 of the photo weighs it down, impeding eye movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 06:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aarhus City Tower set fra Europa Plads.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aarhus City Tower set fra Europa Plads.jpg
Oppose A good quality image of the building, but the light is harsh and glaring, especially the sky and clouds. Even if the light was perfect, I don't see what's special about this. INeverCry06:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I found this photo very restful to look at. I think the composition suits the building, and these kinds of buildings can merit a feature, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I have to admit the others' arguments have shown me drawbacks I didn't initially see in this picture. I still like it, but regret that I will now be Neutral on featuring it. Very sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Good pic on the building itself but unfortunate angle, busy foreground (the rusty truss is awful), and the blown cloud spoils it entirely. Needs another vantage point. Too much room on top, making the building look small. Altogether not an excellent photograph IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel08:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 10:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
My feeling is that bokeh like this is already a major distortion of what someone would actually see, so in that case, why is it worse to change the color to serve the composition? No-one here seems to agree with me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 08:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Transit of Mercury, 2016-05-09 1352z.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Transit of Mercury, 2016-05-09 1352z.jpg
Comment Could you please provide some more info in the file description and include some links to Wikipedia articles for those who are not astro nerds, like what the transit is really about, the planet passing in front of what, how often this occurs, seen from what angle, things like that. For the uninitiated it is just a dark dot on a grey disc explained by a lot of numbers. Also the camera facts do not go in the description, they are redundant there since you get a full list of everything at the bottom of the file's page. Take a look and you'll see. w.carter-Talk09:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for fixing the description! Nevertheless, we have become spoiled by NASA and all the new tech with color photos so a B&W photo like this is not enough for FP now. w.carter-Talk21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral At frist I thougt "wow", the event is not easy to capture in a nice way. And this image is a good and clear documentation of the event. But compared to File:Transit Of Mercury, May 9th, 2016.png it shows less quality: the limb of the sun is blurry, the flares and the sunspots are less sharp and mercury itself is distorted. --Dirtsc (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2016 at 13:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016-07-27 Seagull in Zandvoort aan Zee (freddy2001).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016-07-27 Seagull in Zandvoort aan Zee (freddy2001).jpg
Support The "Yeah, so what?" expression of this gull just cracks me up! :D Fortunately, I also think it's a good picture with cool and soft colors and very different from the usual pretty and cute birds we normally see on FPC. This one stands out. I can see it on a thousand internet memes with some text in the blue field. I'm trying really hard not to get on with some myself right away. w.carter-Talk14:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but for a portrait of a gull, the bird isn't that clear, and gulls are so common that you should have ample opportunities to get a picture of a gull with a similar facial expression but better resolution. I also don't love the background. My general reaction is that the entire photo is less focused than ideal, and therefore, although good, not a FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2016 at 19:24:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rock doves in flight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rock doves in flight.jpg
Question Pardon me for being just a little suspicious since we've had our fair share of digital manipulations here lately. I see that you are using some heavy equipment and you have done some amazing photos before, but is this all in one shot or is it a composite of several pics? You know the old saying: "If something seems too good to be true, it probably is." If it's all koscher, then take my question as a compliment. w.carter-Talk19:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then I must say I'm very impressed! And of course I'll support it. Good and lucky shot. (even if some of the birds have a very slight CA on their featers, you might want to fix that)
Regretful oppose Very well done, but this just looks like a flock of pigeons flying to me, with nothing striking about the birds and the way they are placed. Perhaps there are too many of them ... looking at it in closeup, in groups of two or three, I was more struck. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a flock of pigeons but then you got this almost white, perfectly placed one in an peace-dove-pose. On my way to work there is a farmer with a sense of humor. He has about a hundred white sheep plus one single black grazing in a large meadow. I've been waiting for months now to catch these guys in good light, a good position in a good part of the field for a shot. No luck so far. They are in the shade, they are lying down in the tall grass, blocking the black sheep, showing me their butts, etc. And sheep move a lot slower than doves. How I envy Laitche this shot... . w.carter-Talk07:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral while I can see the idea behind this photo, I feel pretty much like Daniel. With another flying pattern, this picture could have been striking and beautiful. - Benh (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 14:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 16:44:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Timbellus miyokoae 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Timbellus miyokoae 01.JPG
Support - Whites might be blown in a couple of places at full size, but I really like the shell and I think that on balance, this photo merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 15:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trascoro, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 109-111 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trascoro, Catedral de Sevilla, Sevilla, España, 2015-12-06, DD 109-111 HDR.JPG
InfoRetrochoir of the Roman Catholiccathedral of Seville, Seville, Spain. This wonderful Baroque style retrochoir is work of Miguel de Zumárraga and was finalized in 1635. It was constructed with precious materials like marmor or jasper and it's decorated with bas-relieves and bronce busts. The gothic painting in the middle shows the Virgin of Los Remedios, very popular in the Reconquista times and still very devoted in Spain. The temple is since 1987 a World Heritage Site according to the UNESCO and is the largest Gothic cathedral and the third-largest church in the world. When it was completed, at the beginning of the 16th century, it became the successor of Hagia Sophia as the largest cathedral in the world, a title the Byzantine church had held for nearly a thousand years. The cathedral is also the burial site of Christopher Columbus. All by me, Poco215:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Perhaps the brights might be a bit blown out in places, especially the whites, so you might see if you can improve the photo further, but it's a beautiful scene and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2016 at 20:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Hercules (Rome).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Hercules (Rome).jpg
Oppose - This doesn't really strike me as a Featured Picture. The path in front of the temple is glary and blown and the temple itself is mostly in shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some purple CA in the branches. The blurry bird should be cloned out. The description is insufficient IMO and a geotag should be added, too. Besides that the sharpness is quite good and the subject is interesting. Nice to finally see something different. --Code (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 16:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - That's a very nice landscape, and I would support it except that the crops on both the left and right bother me because they cut things off in a way I find distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sort of unsharp on the mojuntain, colors kind of dull, composition kind of chaotic and frankly I'm not sure spring—or at least these weather conditions in spring—was the best time to take this picture. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One word came to my mind – uninteresting. Sorry but that’s what it was. The image just doesn’t focus on anything, leving me wondering: What’s the message? The composition does not offer any clear lines leading my eyes through the frame. Is the distant church on the ridge of any importance? Then, there’s quality. Details are soft even at that small image size, the bright cloud in center is blown. The flat light doesn’t help, making colours looking even more washed-out. I would oppose on QI as well for this. So, there’s no wow at all on my side, neither for quality nor for composition or lighting. Then, maybe I am missing the point, so: Why is this image supposed to be one of the very best we’ve got on Commons? --Kreuzschnabel21:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 15:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Given that you provide such a good view of the proboscis, I almost feel that this photo deserves a feature because of that alone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 20:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - That's one of the best photos I've seen from you. Congratulations! But aren't they mating? That looks like a movement of eggs from the female, whom I presume is on the right. If I'm correct, this should be specified in the description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 20:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puente de la Constitución de 1812, Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 21-24 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puente de la Constitución de 1812, Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 21-24 HDR.JPG
Info The 1812 Constitution Bridge, commonly known as "La Pepa Bridge" is a cable-stayed bridge that spans the Bay of Cádiz connecting the city of Cádiz with the Iberian Peninsula, Andalusia, Spain. The bridge, constructed between 2008 and september 2015, is 34.3 metres (113 ft) wide to host 2 lanes in each direction and 3,092 metres (10,144 ft) long, being the longest span 540 metres (1,770 ft). I has the second highest height for maritime traffic in the world (69 metres (226 ft)) after the Verrazano–Narrows Bridge in New York, USA. Poco220:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom part of the image (the sea) let the image composition be unbalanced. The reflections arn't so beautiful that we have to see them entirety. At least not the whole bridge reflection is visible but only the lights of it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 19:36:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - Thanks for photographing this motif. I enjoy it. It's especially nice to see the plant growing out of the hulk on the left - life springing from a dead ship. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 22:31:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Järise järv Saaremaal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Järise järv Saaremaal.jpg
Oppose - I dissent. Even with the rainbow, this isn't an interesting enough composition for me to support featuring it, because the rest of the sky, to use a painting expression, "flattens out." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2016 at 22:04:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise near Krzna river, Poland (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise near Krzna river, Poland (2).jpg
Mild Oppose It's a very pretty picture, but as I said on a similar pic not long ago: A mist photo need some little extra element for FP, otherwise it's just mist. A sunrise is not that extra. Sorry. w.carter-Talk08:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This sunrise has something special: the contrasting diagonals of the mist vs. the clouds. But that's not enough to make this more than a good to very good picture, in my opinion. And since I don't find it extraordinary, I don't support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 11:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf7.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf7.jpg
Question - I've been tempted to oppose this for a feature, although I like the photo, but perhaps you could help me decide otherwise. Wherein lies the high educational value, as you see it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 04:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Perry Anderson at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Perry Anderson at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre.jpg
The light does nothing good for this photo. I'd support removing it. As for the whole natural bit, Ansel Adams altered his own images freely as did Galen Rowell. Artists aren't slaves to circumstance. INeverCry06:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2016 at 23:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Giorgio in Braida (Verona) - Dome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Giorgio in Braida (Verona) - Dome.jpg
The only other photo I found in a Google image search has a radically different color. However, this seems to be a much better photo. I'll offer Support based on the idea that this is the actual color, but if someone who knows the church contradicts that, I will pull my support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given author's records regarding colour accuracy, it's worth a check. These two other pictures from Flickr [5] and [6] are much closer to the image you refer to on Google. - Benh (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but apart from the quality issues I don't think that this is special enough to be featured ("no wow"). --Code (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per concerns about color accuracy in what is otherwise a pretty well done image. Love that Masonic image in the middle ... maybe bad things will happen if this is not featured? Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 09:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I'm happy to see others nominating my pictures I'd never expected they could be FP(C). Thanks to W.carter (and all others nominating my pictures). I love this bench seen in Bredevoort. May be another image (like File:Bredevoort (NL), Parkbank -- 2016 -- 1397.jpg) is better (from my point of view). And Ikan Kekek is right, I would not have nominated this one. But it's (only) my point of view. Thanks to W.carter and his point of view. --XRaytalk15:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I really like this pic, a lot more than the other you mentioned. In this pic the bench is reclining peacefully in the foliage, a strand of leaves leaning over it, in the other it looks as if the bench is tipping over and being swallowed by the greenery. The perspective also add to this pic over the other's Audrey-style. w.carter-Talk15:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the sort of thing you'd think would be featurable, but it is, for certain je ne sais quoi reasons, as we say in English . Thanks again for showing how there is nothing, at least not that can be photographed freely, that cannot be a featured image in the right photographer's hands. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my point exacly. Since I come here to Commons from the writing side at Wikipedia, I'd really like an FP for every article/weird subject on the WP not just landscapes or churches. ;) I think it'll be ready about the year 2158 or so. w.carter-Talk13:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 05:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile pelecanus occidentalis in flight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Juvenile pelecanus occidentalis in flight.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 06:33:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klagenfurt Domplatz Stadtpfarrkirche Hll Peter und Paul 09092015 7245.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klagenfurt Domplatz Stadtpfarrkirche Hll Peter und Paul 09092015 7245.jpg
Comment - I really like this photo at full-page size, but at full size, the focus is seeming a little soft to me, at least on my monitor. Could that be tweaked without otherwise damaging the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks clearer, but why did the reds on the signs on the umbrellas and the Kimbo sign on the building turn into grays in this version? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 06:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Candidplatz - exit.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Munich subway station Candidplatz - exit.JPG
Info The premises and characteristics of brutalist architecture are all too often categorically dismissed as urbanistic obscenities. There are many examples that aesthetically work very well though. This passage, leading from the platform of Munich subway station Candidplatz to the surface, is one of those. What I like about it is the minimalist, absolutely reduced, yet visually almost magnetic, maybe futuristic approach to designing a very banal, merely functional architectural feature; all by myself --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great! Very impressive light control, if that's the correct expression. Question, though: Is this really Brutalist architecture? Minimalist, yes, but I think of Brutalism as something else. And I like this architecture, too, given how you depict it, but I probably wouldn't take much note of it, otherwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting question. If the/one definition of brutalism is based on the notion that "surfaces of cast concrete are made to reveal the basic nature of its construction," then this passage qualifies easily as beton brut is almost everything you get to see. Any architects/art historians here? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 10:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Opel Rekord P1, Bj. 1958 (Foto Sp 2016-06-05).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opel Rekord P1, Bj. 1958 (Foto Sp 2016-06-05).JPG
Comment I was to support, but i'm disappointed by the black. No difference between the tires (no details) and the shadow under the car. This should be corrected IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 13:23:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:16-01-11-Wien-Schwarzweißfilm-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:16-01-11-Wien-Schwarzweißfilm-01.jpg
Info sorry for Google translation, my english is too bad. The image is original without electronic editing and trimming the negative. The converging lines are intentional, the subject is no other way. Upper limit is very nearly the top of the gate, on the right edge of the target. The publication "STOP", the bollard and the person form a diagonal line, I have waited for this moment. Without the person would only be a white hole the target. The atrium is typical of the dynamic range in black and white, but nowhere 100% white. The clear film grain based on 4800 dpi at Negaticscan. All by --Ralf Roleček13:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm... a nice little "Der dritte Mann" nostalgia over this, not sure it's FP though. But huge kudos for having the guts to nominate something different! w.carter-Talk15:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see what you were trying to do, but it is not there yet. The idea is good, but the composition isn't. Yann (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 14:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:North Harbour Lysekil warm and sunny.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:North Harbour Lysekil warm and sunny.jpg
Info The boardwalk in the North Harbour is the place to be during summer. Everything there has a maritime theme, flowerbeds are boat-shaped, sunbeds are wave-shaped, sculptures are fish-shaped, etc. Now that the boats and tourists are gone photographers have the run of the place for the lines, cliffs and sea. All by me -- w.carter-Talk14:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 13:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама од Крстец.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Панорама од Крстец.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 16:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Welcome back here! Now before we start voting on this pic, could you please give some more details in the description for those who are not familiar with racing, like who or what is "Fojón and Maceda", the model of the car, what country the race is in and so on. The model of the car should also be in the catagories along with other things that might help editors locate this picture for articles. w.carter-Talk17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I totally understand the idea of a blur for speed, but that doesn't mean I love looking at it, and other photos of racecars in action that we've seen haven't had quite that blurry a background, if I remember correctly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The plane-photo is primarily a great pic of a well lit, good angle, beautiful plane against a blurred background (panning speed instead of bokeh). Here the light is too harsh and flat, too much uninteresting asphalt (its texture does not alter with speed panning and it "slows down" the pic) and unfortunately the only clearly distinguishable spectators have ended up on the hood of the car. Panning is very difficult, but as stated before, here we ask the impossible of photographers. w.carter-Talk08:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it has some speed and is rather sharp, the composition is not one of the best with too much uninteresting road in a straight-from-the-side-shot. Not an FP for me. w.carter-Talk21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yo estaba hablando en sentido figurado por la emoción, no de la técnica borrosa, sólo que la foto dar una sensación de movimiento. La discusión no es sobre la técnica, sino de las cualidades artísticas de la foto. (sorry for my bad Spanish) w.carter-Talk12:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W. carter. Blurred though it may be, the background is large enough and filled with enough recognizable objects to be competing with the car for the viewer's attention. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 10:10:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster Maria Engelport (2013-07-09 01) Kirche.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster Maria Engelport (2013-07-09 01) Kirche.JPG
Oppose There are still some technical flaws: visible CA (see column on the left), the stained-glass windows are overexposed (need several exposures put together to reach FP level I think), and there’s something wrong with the perspective. Though the side columns are vertical, the horizontal lines on the altar are considerably leaning to the right. Overall level of detail is rather poor compared to most featured church interiors we’re having already. Altogether not a bad picture but below FP threshold for me, nothing outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel10:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 05:39:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-13-Teotihuacan-RalfR-WMA 0203.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:15-07-13-Teotihuacan-RalfR-WMA 0203.jpg
Oppose Unlike others, I haven't been there but I keep wanting to move the camera a bit to the left to get the stairs at the far right and see the full slope of the pyramid on the left side. The light also makes the surface a bit uninteresting. Guess Daniel is right. w.carter-Talk08:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I’d at least like to see one side of it entirely to the ground. Has this been stitched of two exposures? There’s a funny foreground center blurring suggesting this. Something seems to have gone wrong with the focus as well, since most parts of the pyramid are less sharp than the foreground grass, and the rightmost fifth is really blurry. --Kreuzschnabel10:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dann hat die Optik ein Problem mit unten mitte. Erinnert an ein Planlagenproblem zu Diafilmzeiten, aber ich hoffe mal nicht, daß dein Sensor da eine Delle hat :-) --Kreuzschnabel14:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 07:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Camel in Jericho, Palestine.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Camel in Jericho, Palestine.jpg
Oppose - Interesting cloth on the camel, but I don't like the crops, the focus or the head-on view, and the file is pretty small, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is unlikely with the opposes above that it will pick up enough support to overcome them
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2016 at 19:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vastseliina castle from east.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vastseliina castle from east.jpg
Support - This nomination is a stretch just because this photo was declined at COM:QIC, but the sole reason for the decline was "The castle fills only 20% of the picture". I won't argue with QIC standards for depiction of a subject, but please hear me out: This is a landscape with ruined castle, not a picture of castle ruins that happens to have a bit of incidental greenery in it: The landscape including the castle, rather than just the castle itself, is the subject. Or another way of putting it is that without the castle, this is a nice landscape, and the castle is the added element that makes the picture special and, in my opinion, featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry I can't share your enthusiasm over this. The landscape may be part of the scene, but did it really have to include that big fir on the left. The colors and the composition, pardon me for being too blunt, but at first glance I thought it was one of those hand colored postcards from the 60s and we were dealing with a restoration project. Perhaps better suited for VI. --w.carter-Talk19:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I normally don't mind things like that tree, but per w. carter it's too big and distracting. Plus, while I love the detail, the color is as he said kind of washed-out looking. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quality and the composition are good to me but it just seems strangely polarised. Is it possible to see another image from the place without using a polariser?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can’t help finding the colours and contrast on the trees rather unnatural (and the clouds, too). Appears overprocessed to me. I don’t say it actually is but it looks like that to me. --Kreuzschnabel11:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - It's obvious that there won't be 8 votes to feature, and also, this photographer contributes only photographs, never comments, so there's no possibility of getting any response to this discussion from him/her. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 17:33:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eugene F. Kranz at his console at the NASA Mission Control Center.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eugene F. Kranz at his console at the NASA Mission Control Center.jpg
Support Ahhh... Nostalgia! "Mr Waistcoat" in one of his trade mark vests. A bit of motion in this pic since he's flapping his pencil. Very nice restoration. w.carter-Talk17:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2016 at 10:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Katherine Johnson at NASA, in 1966.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katherine Johnson at NASA, in 1966.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2016 at 09:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont des Catalans restaurée MHNT PHa 138 b34 002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont des Catalans restaurée MHNT PHa 138 b34 002.jpg
Oppose - Sorry, but to my mind, this is not well restored. There's a very large glary white area, it looks very unsharp, and there are a bunch of scratches. I remember liking the original better, but you aren't showing that file in the history of this file. I wish you would, so that we could easily compare the two versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm novice in restauration and usage of wikimedia and I have not found how to propose again the picture... I have created a new file for the restaured version but you can see the original here, thank you for your comment --Anne-LaureM (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I do like the original version better because it has a frame. However, Anne-LaureM, if you do a more thorough restoration of the photo, I might like it better than both that version and this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's featurable, I think, if properly restored. Per Ikan, this one isn't thanks to the posterized white area above the bridge. I also think the vignetting could be addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 13:17:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I love the colors ... very autumnal despite being shot in the summertime. Perhaps it is the late golden hour of a northern white night that makes it so? Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 04:25:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Blick auf Gramvousa von Imeri Gramvousa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Blick auf Gramvousa von Imeri Gramvousa.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 20:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lago de Como, Italia, 2016-06-25, DD 02-06 PAN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lago de Como, Italia, 2016-06-25, DD 02-06 PAN.jpg
Info Panoramic view of Lake Como, a lake of glacial origin located in Lombardy, Italy. With 146 square kilometres (56 sq mi) it is the third largest in the country, and is over 400 metres (1,300 ft) deep, one of the deepest in Europe. The area is a popular retreat for aristocrats and wealthy people since Roman times. All by me, Poco220:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 20:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 12:38:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Building of the Salins de Frontignan 22.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Building of the Salins de Frontignan 22.jpg
Neutral Not exactly wowed by this "Borg"-cube, too dominant, light is good but for a real wow the sky could have been more special. w.carter-Talk17:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite an interesting composition and a deserving feature in my eyes. I would consider the other view that Daniel prefers, if nominated, but I actually like this composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but it looks to flat for me (the building). I think a photo slightly view from the side of the building will be better, incl. more 3D effect and a better perspective view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 12:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bunker under the Milky Way.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bunker under the Milky Way.jpg
Oppose Even as I marked this as QI, I was thinking that the noise level was just about ok for that since it is a night pic. But I can't say I think it's enough for FP since the bunker is obviously lit in some way and therefore it could have been sharper and not so noisy (comparing with this). w.carter-Talk17:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Milky Way pictures are always noisy for you have to raise ISO settings to high values. Otherwise you won't be able to capture it. Check other FP of the Milky Way (here for example, which you know for sure, or here) . Regarding the image you give as an example, please consider it's a much smaller image, obviously reduced in size to conceal the noise. Moreover, no EXIF information is given, which allows me to infer that it's a double exposure (two different shots blended together for it's the only way to reduce noise in the foreground while being able to capture the Milky Way using an exposure time below 30 sec.) --ElBute (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
We can only speculate, but I think you are going to get this one anyway. I'll be the odd one out per usual. ;) Where does the light on the bunker come from anyway? w.carter-Talk23:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every opinion is valuable to me, even more the "odd ones" ;). Please, keep commenting my photos here and in QI. Regarding the light on the bunker, it comes from a warm flashlight as you indicated. --ElBute (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 19:02:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:16-04-04-Felsendom-Tempelberg-Jerusalem-RalfR-WAT 6559-6565.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:16-04-04-Felsendom-Tempelberg-Jerusalem-RalfR-WAT 6559-6565.jpg
Support I like the lines. I like that this is not the usual perspective looking up the Al-Mawazim steps from Al-Aqsa (and yes, as that picture shows, the light there is never going to go out of its way to be nice to you, as long as the sun's out). I like that this shows one of the most hotly disputed pieces of real estate in the world in its context, with some views toward the nearby hills. This is, in sum, a different take. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2016 at 00:25:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Avestruz alta.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Avestruz alta.jpg/2
[No] invalid vote per the official guidelines: "Voting - Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." Here it is a brand new account, and just the third edit.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 16:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemen van de Boerenjasmijn (Philadelphus microphyllus). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bloemen van de Boerenjasmijn (Philadelphus microphyllus). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2016 at 21:00:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Casino de Montecarlo, Mónaco, 2016-06-23, DD 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casino de Montecarlo, Mónaco, 2016-06-23, DD 06.jpg
Info View of the south balcony heading to the Mediterranean Sea of the Monte Carlo casino in Monaco. The building hosts a casino, the Grand Théâtre de Monte Carlo and the office of Les Ballets de Monte Carlo. The construction followed the plans of Parisian architect Gobineau de la Bretonnerie and took 7 years to complete until it was inagurated in 1853. The casino is owned and operated by a public company, controlled by the governemtn and ruling family, that also owns the principal hotels, sports clubs and restaurants, but does not allow the entrance to Monaco citizens. Poco221:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing like that, Ikan. I hope I can say the same beginning of October after a long trip. I guess Arion referred to this. I had to send some of my pictures from Romania to this DR after I got a hint in QI about the death's year of the architect. A pity. Poco213:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2016 at 17:10:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galápagos sea lions, Santa Fe Island 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galápagos sea lions, Santa Fe Island 03.jpg
Support - I like the composition, and I also find the subject really cute, and also touching because you can imagine the exhaustion of the mother, who has just given birth and is now suckling her baby. One thing I deduce, but which is not specifically mentioned in the description is that the bloody thing behind the newborn sea lion is presumably the placenta. If I'm right, that would be good to spell out in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan's nomination rationale is spot on. The placenta's not the most welcome guest in this composition for me, but it's a natural part of a very well composed photograph. High educational value is a plus. INeverCry02:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t like to see nothing of the mother’s face. Just her backside … Not a feature-worthy composition for me, sorry. Quality and/or pixel size are not overwhelming enough to make up for that. In short: No wow. --Kreuzschnabel11:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a zoo, you have not much choice about your angle of view of course. Seen from this angle, the image just does not strike me extraordinarily. I could imagine zooming on the newborn from about 40 degrees to the left, with the exhausted mother out of focus in the background. Would be more impressive. Maybe not possible in the circumstances, but then, as I keep saying, it takes a bit of luck as well to get a situation where a featurable picture can be taken. --Kreuzschnabel17:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The thing is, I find this composition good to move my eye around, and I don't care about not seeing the mother's face, nor do I imagine I'd prefer for her to be blurred, with the other elements currently in the photo invisible. So it's not just that we react differently to this photo; our criteria themselves are dissimilar, in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2016 at 15:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I'll have to agree with INC. If you want to go for architectural elements and modern vs. alps and old, I think this image that I marked this morning is much better. It also has humor (crane vs tower and 'fragile' vs alp) and great lines. w.carter-Talk19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I pondered quite a bit about this one. Quality is good, lighting is fine, air is clear. I just don’t approve of the placement of the bench in such a prominent position to be in the way of my viewline, and making nearly one third of the frame cover the uninteresting meadow on our side of the bench. Taken from a point slightly to the right would put the bench into the lower left corner, inviting the viewer into the scenery, offering a diagonal line from the bench to the wood on the right midground. But the way it is being placed centrally, the viewer is sort of kept out. My personal impression. --Kreuzschnabel11:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't love the building (lodge?) being cut off, but this composition is interesting to me. Yes, giving the bench such prominence is idiosyncratic, but I'm very willing to accept that as part of a composition that's good to move my eyes around. Plus, we get to imagine sitting on that bench. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2016 at 20:47:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Osh 03-2016 img36 Sulayman Mountain at the viewpoint.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Osh 03-2016 img36 Sulayman Mountain at the viewpoint.jpg
Oppose - Striking rock formation, but I'm not loving the crops and resulting overall composition that much. I like this picture better, although I'd move the crop in a bit on the right side in that case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2016 at 10:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - This is a very good photo, but I'm undecided because this is a much photographed building, and the light is less than ideal in this photo, so I think you might be able to do better on a different day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like that you cropped out the fountain, and the reflections in the water look oversharpened now or something. Brightening the picture may not be a good idea (although, as you say, maybe doing so from the raw file might work better). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2016 at 00:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suíno alta.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suíno alta.jpg
Comment - I'd normally support this kind of picture, but there are strange artifacts on it that need to be eliminated. So pending that, I Oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. All I know is that I see things that shouldn't be there. There are a couple of white smudges at the top right and top center, a smaller reddish blotch over a vertebra, and a very strange artifact with writing on it above the scale. That isn't an exhaustive list. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[No] invalid vote per the official guidelines: "Voting - Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." Here it is a brand new account, and just the second edit.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 20:22:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beach huts at Wells-next-the-Sea 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach huts at Wells-next-the-Sea 2.jpg
Oppose Gets too unsharp too quickly, and frankly the forms are chaotic enough that I don't feel the composition is featurable. Maybe if you went back on "some sunny day" (yes. I know, it's England, but we can always dream ...) and focused on some more specific aspect of the buildings ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry for piling on the negative, but I too want to move the camera a bit left and up to get less steel railing, the rooftop of the last hut and more sea. w.carter-Talk09:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination, thanks for all the constructive comments - it's clear where this is going though - so I guess it's time to take them on board and move on. DeFacto (talk). 09:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 18:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Triumph 1800 Roadster from Great Britain built in 1948 at a vintage car rally in Andernach, Germany, created, uploaded and nominated by Spurzem (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination O.K.! If personal „Wow“ is a decisive criterion to decline than I have to withdraw and I know how to judge in future. Thank you! -- Spurzem (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ich fände es hilfreich, wenn du dir abgewöhnen könntest, auf Kritik beleidigt zu reagieren. Keiner hat gesagt, das Bild sei Mist oder du könntest nicht fotografieren. Aber wenn du hier ein Bild zur Diskussion stellst, dann forderst du andere auf, ihre Meinung dazu abzugeben. Nichts anderes hat INeverCry gemacht. Sei ihm doch dankbar für die ehrliche Rückmeldung. Und ja, „no wow“ ist ein Kriterium, denn ein FP ist – kurz gesagt – ein QI plus Wow-Effekt. Ein FP muß was Besonderes sein, und wenn man findet, daß ein Kandidat nichts Besonderes ist, ist das auch ohne offensichtliche Bildfehler eine gültige Begründung für einen Widerspruch. Wenn du dann allerdings die Nominierung sofort zurückziehst, hinderst du andere daran, den Kritiker zu überstimmen, aber das ist natürlich deine Entscheidung. --Kreuzschnabel19:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel: Danke für Deine Worte. Trotzdem: Wenn ein unscharfes Tierfoto „wow“ ist und das Foto eines Autos ohne Sonnenschein im Hintergrund abgeschmettert wird, fehlt jegliche Sachlichkeit. Dein Foto vom Feldberg zum Beispiel reißt mich auch nicht vom Stuhl; trotzdem respektiere ich die fotografische Leistung und die Arbeit, die drinsteckt, und stimme mit „Pro“. Die andere Möglichkeit wäre noch, wenn ein Bild nicht begeistert oder nicht interessiert, überhaupt keine Stimme abzugeben. Gruß -- Spurzem (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2016 at 21:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Austerdalsbreen LC0406.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Austerdalsbreen LC0406.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 06:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
unfortunately... it seems that the focus sits more on the front side of the blossom than on the bumblebee itself. It's a real pity, I do like the composition, the colors, the bokeh, and the lighting very much --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, adding sharpness in post can't solve focusing issues - but in this case I'm absolutely willing to compromise. I really like this picture and I'll give my moderate support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 17:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drymona water fall and pool north Euboea Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drymona water fall and pool north Euboea Greece.jpg
Oppose Sorry, the camera handling was not appropriate. Though choosing f/16 it is not really sharp; probably camera shake. ISO640 definetly not good enough for such motif and nomination for FP --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At f/16, I suspect diffraction to be the cause of the softness. Foreground water looks posterized, maybe a try on sharpening. Pity, composition and idea are fine. --Kreuzschnabel09:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, every picture is a compromise... Very dark environment, moving water. I've tried several settings for this place, this one is the best. Thanks everybody for interest and reviews. Negative opinions are very interesting for me, especially for this case.--Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 19:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iridiumi satelliidi sähvatus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iridiumi satelliidi sähvatus.jpg
Oppose Quote: "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others". A pretty picture, but that's it. BTW Based on the shutter speed and the pixelated edge, I can conclude that shooting star is a fake. --The Photographer (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I probably wouldn't support the picture being featured without the meteor. If it's not real, almost the entire specialness of the photo is gone for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is called "Iridium satellite twinkling", so I guess not a meteor and not fake. You can go online and see when and where satellites or even the International Space Station will be visible in the sky as the sun reflects on them and this is how they usually look in the rather brief moment you see them. The sunset is most likely a byproduct of taking a photo of the satellite passing. See below. w.carter-Talk06:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should also not be calling this a "sunset", my mistake, since the timestamp says almost midnight and the info on the file page "moonlit". The moonlight can sometimes create what looks like a sunset on long exposures during the bright nights this far north. w.carter-Talk06:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To The Photographer: this image has nothing to do with the sunset as is eminent from the metadata. And this isn't a falling star. As described in the description it is a Iridium satellite. And even the composition isn't random. It is well know when and where will those flashes occur and photographer was there on the spot waiting for it. All is captured on the image. And as W.carter pointed out there is also possible to capture ISS on a photo, then here is an image from the same author depicting just that. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good idea and composition, still the grainy sky keeps me from supporting. The image looks altogether oversharpened, which might be the cause for the pixelating look of the flare. Could you put up a less sharpened version? --Kreuzschnabel08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2016 at 04:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Perry Anderson no Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Perry Anderson no Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre.jpg
To this day we don't have any good example of academic FP, that could be informative and artistic at the same time. I think. it's good beginning.
Weak oppose I like the composition too—it's interesting to see an academic shot as if he were a musician—but I think the picture could be sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 16:27:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - There have previously been comments that many good pictures of animals in their natural habitat weren't featurable because of the effects of camouflage. In this case, I would make that argument. The lack of contrast unfortunately creates some trouble for the composition. However, it might be able to overcome that, except that I think the bigger problem is the lack of any room above the rock, whose top is not visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well, I'm the one who usually makes that argument, but in this case that's not the problem (for me, anyway). However, the light seems a little too harsh even if it's natural, and there's too many distractingly unsharp areas near the lizard. And its tail has been cut off at the tip. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek. Ikan Kekek: camouflage - animal is seen perfectly, and on best time, good light, perfect colours. I am still worried about your screen - lack of contrast? If you see rock, then we are far apart. There is piece of wood. "Rock" above is missing. Its about animal, rock "isnt" missing. For Daniel Case: Yes, you cant get all at FF@600 mm, shallow DOF, did you check exif ? Catching with tail wasnt my purpose, more body. And that tail is very long, that "tip" makes 30%-40% of his tail length. --Mile (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC) People you waste my time too much.[reply]
Comment - It looks like petrified wood, but I suppose it's actually really dried out wood. But really, you think you're always right and everyone who ever opposes featuring your photos is always wrong and we're wasting your time. You were the one who nominated your photo, and so far, no-one has supported featuring it. So who is wasting your time again? I will continue voting on your photos, using my own eyes and quite good browser. Have a nice day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek Keep with comments, just see next time more carefully and be sure. If not - i am opening images sometimes few days to make up my mind. In this case, Case and your comments cant be taken in aspect - our "vision" isnt same. --Mile (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do believe nobody could have taken a better shot in this situation but that does not excuse for the poor crop looking like "sorry, I couldn’t cram the entire animal in". Overlong tails should be left out another way, e.g. by vanishing into the blurry background, as it has been done here, or cropping the image even more to focus on the front part of the body exclusively. --Kreuzschnabel13:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 17:44:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 06:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Transit Of Mercury, May 9th, 2016.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Transit Of Mercury, May 9th, 2016.png
Comment - The information is great and the picture is a very good ground capture. However, I'm not sure a feature would be justified. If, for example, NASA took a better photo, it would be in the public domain and should be featured instead of this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan. And, frankly, I am not wowed by this image. Yes, I know what it is an image of. But I challenge you to imagine a viewer with little, if any, astronomical knowledge put in the position of seeing this image and telling you what it is. They would see "a dull yellow ball on a black background with some small black dots on it" And even after you told them what it was an image of, I would bet that they would not be able to identify which of the small black dots visible is Mercury without blowing the picture up to full size (Try it yourself ... you may well pick the sunspot cluster).
Frankly, I think, full-disc pictures of the sun during inner-planet transits are not as featurable as those that show a portion of the disc with the planet more obvious to the eye, especially near the limb, like this from the transit of Venus a couple of years back. And transits of Mercury are also not as rare as transits of Venus, depriving this image of any claim to historical value (Now, someday, NASA will get that mission done where one of the Mars surface craft will be able to shoot a picture of Earth in transit (unfortunately, barring some way of uploading ourselves to Commons or other transhumanist life-extension projects, I do not think anyone presently here will be around to !vote on that one). Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was the next such transit of Earth visible from Mars does not take place until 2084. That's 68 years, man ... Prince could be reborn today and live his whole life over again, and he still wouldn't get to be here to see a picture like that. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 04:13:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tamanduateí train station of Series 2100 Red CPTM, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tamanduateí train station of Series 2100 Red CPTM, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2016 at 07:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter's Church Nave 1, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Peter's Church Nave 1, Drogheda, Ireland - Diliff.jpg
Das ist die völlig korrekte Darstellung eines so weiten Bildwinkels. Wie aus dem Lehrbuch. Was wäre Dein Vorschlag, um so ein weites Blickfeld abzubilden? Zylindrische Projektion? Dann sind die Bänke verbogen. Oder solche Bilder einfach gar nicht machen? --Code (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 22:39:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haut-Languedoc, Rosis cf06.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 16:57:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frecce tricolori Air show Valtenesi del Garda Manerba 2016 figure scintilla.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frecce tricolori Air show Valtenesi del Garda Manerba 2016 figure scintilla.jpg
Support - I was prepared not to like this photo after looking at the thumbnail, but the more I look at it at full-page size, the more I like it. I understand the significance of the image, of course, but it also gives the viewer a lot to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only 2 planes far apart and not shown doing anything really compelling (like a formation would be), and dingy/gray overall color. I'm not wowed by this. INeverCry21:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 16:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Brazilian family in Rio de Janeiro by Jean-Baptiste Debret 1839.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Brazilian family in Rio de Janeiro by Jean-Baptiste Debret 1839.jpg
I'm no sure if I can do that because 1) That version is different and 2) The voting period is finished. We can wait for this nomination and I or you could create a delist nomination --The Photographer (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 01:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gilbert Stuart Williamstown Portrait of George Washington.jpg
The relevant rule is that each FP is one of the very best pictures on the site. If we have dozens of painting FPs that are absolutely huge, detailed files, I would say that this can't possibly measure up at its small size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Alchemist-hp: We’ve had the size discussion recently. The rule says, Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information […] reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it. So, 2 mpix being the absolute minimum of size, this does not mean that 2 mpix is sufficient in all cases, because nearly any image would "benefit from it". As a general rule, images should have the highest possible resolution (the guidelines say, We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that our best pictures have as high a resolution as possible). 2 mpix is tolerated as long as there was no possibility to upload/nominate a higher-res shot, e.g. if a crop had to be made from the exposure. However, this does never apply to paintings which can easily be shot at full resolution. --Kreuzschnabel20:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2016 at 08:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Come on, guys... Did you open it ? The image does not make justice to the wonderful and delicate egyptian lighthouse, a landmark of the city, but I think that this panorama deserves some support votes, due to excellent details level, and choice of point of view.--Jebulon (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI for sure (although a bit underexposed), by, IMHO, not striking enough. Nothing draws my attention. Fortezza (the castle) is quite off the third's position. --C messier (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info I guess many of the used panels aren't correct adjusted or calibrated. But nevertheless I have brightened the image a bit up. The sharpening process isn't different to my other panos and I can't detect any oversharpend area. This image shows the typical greek urban settlement and the Bay of Almirou . I find this view encyclopedic very valuable and nice, but for sure no everybody has the same opinion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I love the light, but I regret to say that this is not an FP composition to me. The foreground includes some kind of garbage dump on the left and cut-off not very interesting buildings on the right. I might reconsider if you crop out most of the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: Cutting this pano would mean that the image would become a less good proportion. What is "very interesting" on the flats on the right that I shouldn't have cut them off? The architecture is very similar to many others we see in the image. Real garbage we don't see, it`s more a kind of relict of former hovels. Can't find that this is disturbative, this belongs to the culture of Greece. I have endeavored that this parts are not dominating the image and I guess this was successful. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your nomination might be successful, but to me the issue isn't only that the buildings in the near right corner aren't per se very interesting to me to be so emphasized, but that they are arbitrarily cropped in a way that I found disturbing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 21:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I like this very different alp picture with its old vs new (crane/tower) and nature vs manmade (alp/'fragile' box). It also have some great smooth lines contrasting the craggy alp. I find it slightly humorous. w.carter-Talk22:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funny but the composition is too cluttered for me, sorry. If the camera had been moved a few metres to the left, the stack of styrofoam boards (?) might have been covered by the "fragile" thing, and the main objects wouldn’t be so close to the edge, allowing the bed of pebbles to be entirely within frame. Might have moved the yellow crane into a less distracting position, too. So, it’s some minus points off for composition. --Kreuzschnabel06:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your comments and understand what you mean. As to the construction material around there, this isn't a sculpture, it is actually a hotel construction site. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but for me no wow, boring, uninteresting composition, uninteresting foreground, uninteresting crop. Missing and searching the main of this image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2016 at 15:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MJK04043 BOY Valeska Steiner.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MJK04043 BOY Valeska Steiner.jpg
Oppose It’s nice and has a special atmosphere but I don’t approve of the face being mostly in shadow and drowned in noise. I know it’s hard to take live pics on stage in that harsh light … just bad luck. --Kreuzschnabel17:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel: Actually I did that on purpose. IMHO the twilight look and almost in the dark but still visible face adds a special tune to this image, which would not be there if the face is fully visible. I made another shot some seconds later, but I honestly think, the one nominated here is more impressive. // Martin K. (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you made the right choice. Despite the noise, this pic's got "song-feeling" to it and it makes you regret not being at that gig. The other one has more of a "Look-Dad-I'm-on-stage-feeling" to it, the light also gives her a kind of "beard" in that. You really live up to the Wikipedia credo! :) w.carter-Talk18:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite its technical limitations (which I agree with the photographer was a choice he had to make), it's featurable. It's the sort of image that sells the album (or would have, back in the days when you could see it on 12-inch sleeves in the record store). Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 08:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vertical granite cliff at sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vertical granite cliff at sunset.jpg
Info The air and the light in the old Rixö quarry is sometimes unbeleivable. There are no big cities or industries nearby and the light reflects off the fjord beside it. Most of the time I have to desaturate photos I take there a bit, or people would think I was heavy on the post-processing. The deposite below the cliff is mostly mud slush, hence very soft and few details. All by me. -- w.carter-Talk08:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote: I have been thinking about nominating this for a while now, and when I had the chance it fell on top of the Atacama desert and a pyramid(withdrawn)! Pure coincidence and my little place is nowhere near as interesting as those but I'll go ahead with my nom anyway. --w.carter-Talk09:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I quite like this composition and image and vote to support, but what accounts for the subtle variations in blues in the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are different stages of clouds being formed. They are so thin that they are transparent and just barely visible. There is a lot of cool cloud activity here because of all the moist air by the sea. You can sit and watch clouds being formed from nothing or huge clouds dissolving. As you can see in some of my other pics there are also unusual or interesting clouds in some of them. In this case a huge cloud bank was forming behind me and the sun shone through a small opening in it which accounts for the interesting light. w.carter-Talk07:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 14:41:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Capri Portrait.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Capri Portrait.jpg
Oppose Blown whites, posterized sky, poor detail, visible noise on the sea surface, relatively small pixel size. I don’t find the composition really striking either. --Kreuzschnabel20:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 20:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca fuscata - Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien - 2016-07-19 (2).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca fuscata - Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien - 2016-07-19 (2).jpg
Oppose The only bit in focus (the animal’s right eye) is not fascinating enough to make up for the unsharp rest of the frame. I don’t see any special composition here. Could be better without the grassy background on the right, just face and fur. --Kreuzschnabel21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 16:51:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salote Tupou III of Tonga in 1908.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salote Tupou III of Tonga in 1908.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 13:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед на црквата во Тресонче.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Поглед на црквата во Тресонче.jpg
Comment Needs perspective adjustment. The walls of the church are leaning. You should have taken this to QI first, where such things would have been fixed before nominating it for FP. w.carter-Talk13:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice location but 1) needs perspective adjustment, 2) poor detail and oversharpened, 3) object in shadow, 4) posterized sky. Though it’s a nice place, this photograph of it is certainly not one of the very best images on Commons. --Kreuzschnabel14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 08:16:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Assaf sheep.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Assaf sheep.jpg
Oppose This would be a lovely cover for a children's book, perhaps one based on or tied into a BBC series. But that doesn't make it a featurable image here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 05:46:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dokk1 version 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dokk1 version 3.jpg
Neutral The building as such is fascinating, the image at least needs perspective correction since the right side is considerably leaning out. I cannot help thinking that 0.5 or even 1 EV less would have done good, it looks very bright, the traffic light poles are close to overexposure. If this has been brightened in postprocessing, I would encourage to have another go. --Kreuzschnabel15:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 04:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Linaria vulgaris - harilik käokannus Valingu.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Linaria vulgaris - harilik käokannus Valingu.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 22:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment It took three visits to the place and 10 trains to get this one right. Basically you get only one shot per day (the earlier train is too early and too much of the scene is still in the shadows, the next one too late), you want a plain red Allegra unit (ok, *I* want; regular people don't care ;) ), the timing is a bitch because as soon as you see the train cross the bridge you're basically too late, and you'll have to do it lying on your belly and letting the camera hang down over the abyss to get a unobstructed view (thus hikers will inevitably think you're some crazy person and ask you if you're about to do something stupid. Not saying they're not right.).
Support Whoaow!! You even managed to get a partial rainbow at the bottom. But please add some categories related to the place and the waterfall as well, not just the train. I think we might be looking at one of the POTY candidates, and this time it's not done with a drone... Also: Let's be careful out there! w.carter-Talk11:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about cats like "Davos" and "Waterfalls in Switzerland", now added. And if you can't find any specific cats, you can also create them. w.carter-Talk11:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I try not to say that photographers should be rewarded for the effort they took getting the shot, but in this case, well, it clearly paid off. An amazing rail shot that I will probably be passing around to my railfan friends. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 07:01:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Volcanes de lodo, Buzau, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 43.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Volcanes de lodo, Buzau, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 43.jpg
Info The Berca Mud Volcanoes are a geological and botanical reservation located close to Berca in Buzău County, Romania. The phenomenon is caused due to gases that erupt from 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) deep towards the surface, through the underground layers of clay and water, they push up underground salty water and mud, so that they overflow through the mouths of the volcanoes, while the gas emerges as bubbles. When the mud arrives at the surface, it dries off, changing the landscape in ways like you can see here. Poco207:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support You picked the perfect viewpoint for the points of the "canyon" to cover each other just that little bit to emphasize the curves. --Kreuzschnabel15:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 20:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laelatu puisniit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laelatu puisniit.jpg
Info Up to 76 species of vascular plants have been counted there on a square meter - 2nd best result in the world for small scale biodiversity (i.e. no. of species per 1 m2).
Neutral I have some trouble getting excited over this pic since such landscapes are very much "home" to me and I know that photos of them can be so much better than this, but I won't oppose it either since it may look as exotic to others as the Andes are to me. Could also be a bit sharper. w.carter-Talk21:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it's better than the inevitable tide of autumn pics we see from first-time nominators come October and November, it still isn't striking enough to me to be featurable (it would be nice if it drew me further into it than just a few meters beyond the lens, and maybe it would be better on a sunny day). Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Perhaps Wikipedia would be interested in featuring this photo for the encyclopedic fact about biodiversity, but for the purposes of Commons, I'd submit that it's neither an interesting image nor is it composed or cropped in an interesting or seemingly logical way. Sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but it's truly my reaction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A beautiful place indeed but the lightning is flat and sharpness could be better. Wow-factor is low. So unfortunately an oppose from my side. --Pugilist (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly for quality. Flat contrast and poor detail for a less-than-10-mpix candidate. Composition looks random, the message on biodiversity needs explanation. Certainly most interesting but not outstanding as a photographic work as such. --Kreuzschnabel12:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2016 at 22:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sus scrofa f. domestica Hängebauchschwein.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sus scrofa f. domestica Hängebauchschwein.jpg
Oppose Level of detail is impressive but the whole picture is overexposed IMHO, or at least overprocessed, since the white parts on the top (see annotation) are definitely blown and melted into one white area. As for composition, I don’t see anything special here, and I usually don’t find up-down views onto animals (or, worse, children) too attractive. My personal opinion of course, but altogether this lacks wow for me plus shows quality flaws, though EV is certainly given. --Kreuzschnabel10:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Berthold Werner. This is a very good image but it has that touch of human taking a photo of an animal. If you have lowered the camera position, you would have transported the viewer into the world of pigs. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better but I still don’t like the looking-down perspective. Admittedly, nearly all shots of this species on Commons have been taken that way, one of the exceptions being this one which isnt featurable for other reasons but gives a better impression of the animal. --Kreuzschnabel04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 20:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ana rosa metro station, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ana rosa metro station, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Done Barrel distortion, please, let me know if it's ok. BTW, answering your question for someone a Tower could be FP and for others a metro station. In this case what i love of this picture is the composition of diagonals and verticals with the woman descending the metro stairs. As a courtesy, it is always best not to ask why a picture is special because what makes a image FP special is just that, transmit you a valuable information without explanation. --The Photographer (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn’t say, "This picture is not special" but I did say, "I can’t see anything special". Meaning it doesn’t "transmit a valuable information without explanation" to me, so I just wanted to make sure I am not missing the point here. No offence intended. Furthermore, I didn’t oppose. --Kreuzschnabel04:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What makes this photo special to me is its composition, which is harmonious, interesting, has a long depth of field and includes a nice work of abstract art in the distance. I also like the variation between the right and left sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great picture is something you enjoy looking at, an extraordinary pic makes you feel as if you are actually there. This is the latter. An everyday scene captured in such a special way that it becomes like a time capsule. What could be more important than that for this Wiki-project. w.carter-Talk09:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely well composed, and unusually for Wikimedia projects it depicts people in motion interacting with their environment. We need more of that. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this overall, but the stance of the woman closest bothers me; it just isn't flattering to her figure to have her right leg and the right side of her butt bulging out. INeverCry01:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 08:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Colonial house Rua Tristão Mariano 175, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colonial house Rua Tristão Mariano 175, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg
Thank you for your recommendation @PetarM: and I will take into account the next time, however, in this case, the house was protected by a fence that prevented me put my camera on the floor (you could check it on GSM). BTW, In Brazil is not allowed to invade the privacy and this house has been uninhabited for years. A hug --The Photographer (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 20:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Panorama auf Kotsifou-Schlucht.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Panorama auf Kotsifou-Schlucht.jpg
Comment - This is a really sweet picture and I'd really like to support it, except the unsharp area of the foreground near the left corner bothers me, so I will abstain. If you happen to decide to crop it out, the result certainly looks like one I'd vote for. Just so you understand: the haze-caused unsharpness in the background is normal and doesn't bother me at all; it's only unsharpness in the foreground that is unnatural to my eyes and bothers me, because while there are technical reasons for it, there are in my opinion no good artistic reasons for it in this kind of photo. I've posted about this before: How we as artists should not allow our equipment to play us, rather than playing it (to use the analogy of musical instruments). If I think about this too much, I might oppose, but I will not because the panorama looks good except at full size. That's less than ideal, but it might not be enough of a reason to impede or slow down a feature, as the photo otherwise is very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just looked at the edited version. I will let my objection above stand, but I think that since the photo as a whole is so good at full-page size, I'll support a feature in spite of my demurral above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 12:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lech da Pertan y Fermedes sun Mastlé.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lech da Pertan y Fermedes sun Mastlé.jpg
Oppose Very nice place, and excellent composition, but it is too soft for me, and the white cloud in the middle is absolutely not good.--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is possible, but what for? The cloud is just white and NOT overexposed, please check the histogram. I have been blamed for gray snow and now for white clouds. Up here with the crisp air you more easily find white clouds than in Paris or on the Atlantic Ocean ;-). Besides, I looove smooth images as many reviewers. Thanks for your comment. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as it is. The cloud is overexposed - water reflection of the same cloud has details and it's not pure white. --Ivar (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very perspicous observation of the mirror image. I will look for the RAW file which I don't have on my computer right away and upload it on your behalf. Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I agree with Ivar, furthermore all images of the earth, even the more overexposed ones, can have a histogram ok if you if you edit them enough (e.g. overexposed image remapped to grey or with highlight strongly decreased can have a histogram ok, that's change nothing on the fact the camera did not register any details)...and I also agree with Ivar the edition can be improved here. Nice place and composition despite the overexposed cloud. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any repair to the cloud would be welcome, but frankly I just see it as one of the tradeoffs that had to be made for a picture that has otherwise worked out rather well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 20:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zaadpluizen van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zaadpluizen van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 09:45:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral This probably looked much cooler IRL 3D than it came out in the 2D photo, with that cliff sticking out over a precipice contrasting the hills in the distance. Might have worked better if you'd gone further to the left and got a more diagonal line bisecting the image. Others may see this differently. w.carter-Talk11:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 21:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pole with tension weight for overhead lines.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pole with tension weight for overhead lines.jpg
Oppose - I've really been liking some views of pylons in Quebec while traveling there, but this composition is not interesting to me. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 17:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Classic. This is how I prefer days like that: In a picture, and not having to dig out the car from the snow and hope it starts... ;) w.carter-Talk17:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I dissent. Arbitrary-looking crops in front on the left and right, and the composition really doesn't add up to me, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is beautiful, true, but that alone does not make a featurable pic. I can’t see any composition here, it’s an arbitrary crop of a winter scenery. Could benefit from a warmer WB, as clean snow is usually not blue. --Kreuzschnabel13:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2016 at 17:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - With the caveat that I wasn't there, this version looks better to me. Neither version is near perfect, as the lower right and left corners are fuzzy, but I'm willing to tolerate that in view of the quality of the resolution of the fresco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC) - I can't support this alt version with the photographer stating that the colors are wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If color were an intrinsic property of an object, and it was only the perceived color that changed under different lighting conditions, you could match the object’s intrinsic color in printed output, say, under any lighting conditions, and the colors would then match under all conditions. However, because color is not an intrinsic property of the object but rather a sensation, the only thing you can match is the sensation that a particular color induces in your visual sensory system. That sensation will change under different lighting conditions, and it will usually change differently for different objects. So the best you can do is match colors under specific lighting conditions --The Photographer (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 20:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Cosmedin (Rome) - Ciborium.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Cosmedin (Rome) - Ciborium.jpg
Oppose I don't know if I'm looking at the same picture as the other voters do but what I see is:
1) The perspective isn't very fortunate. It's neither central nor is it really a double point perspective. It just looks as there was no space in the middle so the photographer simply stepped at the right. It doesn't look as if the photographer really had a creative concept.
2) The top crop is bad IMO because a part of the arc is cut (ok, maybe this alone wouldn't be a reason for an oppose vote).
3) The bottom crop isn't good as well because of the cut chairs in the foreground (ok, maybe this alone wouldn't be a reason for an oppose vote, too).
4) The whole picture seems to be distorted a little bit, maybe there's some barrel distortion.
5) The picture has a severe lack of detail (look at the icons at both sides) which may be caused by increasing the contrast too much and adding too much clarity. It's oversharpened as well which makes the picture look like a painting, at least partially.
6) There are some blown out parts at the left and in the background.
7) The white balance is too cold (at the top the walls look nearly blue) (ok, maybe that's a matter of taste).
Sorry but do you really consider this to be one of our finest church interiors we're hosting here on Wikimedia Commons? Apart from that, it's a wonderful church which deserves a much better picture. Livio lives in Rome, he could easily go there again and take a much better picture (HDR, central perspective, better postprocessing). A better version would definitely get my support. --Code (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I agree with Code. It might be the best image of this church to be found with a google image search, but that isn't the standard we should be aiming for. I also don't find it to be a particularly interesting or beautiful church. That's not the main reason for the oppose though, but it does mean that it should be an even more technically excellent image to have the necessary wow for FP IMO. Diliff (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fully agree with Code. Plus the columns on the left lean out in a funny curved way. There is some severe distortion in this shot. Sorry, but this is way below FP standard for church interiors set by Diliff’s masterpieces. --Kreuzschnabel13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 21:16:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de África, Ceuta, España, 2015-12-10, DD 70-72 HDR.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de África, Ceuta, España, 2015-12-10, DD 70-72 HDR.JPG
Info View of the main nave of the church of Santa María de África, a Roman Catholic temple located in the city of Ceuta, a Spanish exclave on the north coast of Africa. The temple is dedicated to Santa María de África, the patron saint of the city. In 1421 Henry the Navigator sent to Ceuta an image of Our Lady of Africa that guided to the first temple built to honour her in the current location, but no remains have been found from the medieval age. The church is of Baroque style and the first evidence of its existence dates from 1676. The church undergoed a renovation during the first half of the 18th century resulting in its current appearance. Poco221:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2016 at 05:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paisajes cerca de Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 84.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisajes cerca de Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 84.JPG
Support You know what? If I had shot a picture in the Atacama desert every 5 km 99% of them would look like this one :) the exception would have been this one with a solitary tree in the middle of nothing. Thank you for the nomination, Ikan! Poco205:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flat half-desert country, nothing extra. Maybe, if the donkey could be much more close to the photograph, it could look better. --Karelj (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the depth of field and the perspective ... shows you how vast the desert is. Love that you can't pick out the donkey at first, and when you do it just makes you feel that much more the vastness of the desert. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 06:07:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Six Men in a Boat at Cobbler's Cliff Backa Brastad.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Six Men in a Boat at Cobbler's Cliff Backa Brastad.jpg
Support - Another in W.carter's series of photos of the Bronze Age petroglyphs at Skomakarhällen. Obvious artistic and educational value, in my opinion. (By the way, why is my category a red link? Please fix or suggest a fix if you understand this.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ikan, that was unexpected. I'm glad you chose one of the smaller ones, they are often overlooked in favor of the large ships but they are more distinct and easier to isolate in the jumble of pictures on the cliffs. Six happy guys in their boat, off on a little Sunday raid... Contrast is upped a bit per request, not too much though since the colors are originally rather soft. I used one of the pine needles as a guide. w.carter-Talk09:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 19:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 06:48:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chantry Island Lightstation Tower.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chantry Island Lightstation Tower.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 06:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tren de la FCA en el trayecto Ollagüe-Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 94.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tren de la FCA en el trayecto Ollagüe-Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 94.JPG
I withdraw my nomination I was thinking about cropping it, but I'd lose half of it doing that, not worth it. Thanks. Poco217:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2016 at 01:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bright Red Sun.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bright Red Sun.jpg
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 06:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hersilia-2016-06-19-002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hersilia-2016-06-19-002.jpg
Info A Tree trunk spider (Hersilia sp.) capturing a cicada. "Rather than making a web that captures prey directly, they lay a light coating of threads over an area of tree bark and wait hidden in plain sight for an insect to stray onto that patch. Once that occurs, they direct their spinnerets toward their prey and circle it; all the while casting silk on it. When the hapless insect has been thoroughly immobilized, they can bite it through its new shroud. They have lightning speed, giving the victim no chance to escape." C/u/n by Jkadavoor -- Jee06:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I suppose this deserves a feature out of pure interest, but if it would work to sharpen the spider just a bit, please do so. It's a good-looking spider, though of course I feel for the cicada. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support The image is striking enough that although I would have cropped in more tightly on the, uh, action, it can still be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm a little embarrassed by the proportions, I would have maybe prefer a vertical shooting and then a 45° rotation to have the trunk horizontal...though good picture! Christian Ferrer(talk)22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tree trunk spiders usually seen on main trunk; not on branches. So making the trunk horizontal may reduce the EV. A portrait crop removing empty sky from both sides may possible. (This is a high speed action; just happened close to my range. I didn't made a single step; just raise the camera and shoot. Only later I found I'm able to capture all important moments, including the bite through shroud.) Jee03:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 11:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Odocoileus virginianus fawn, Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odocoileus virginianus fawn, Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin.jpg
Oppose These are skittish and hard to shoot creatures so hiding behind bushes to get them is a must, but having its front legs substituted by an unsharp plant is a no-go for me. The fawn is adorable and very sharp, still the composition is very unfortunate. --w.carter-Talk12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
moderate Too many bad vibes... this is a very good shot - only the unfortunate placement of the plant prevents it from being truly awesome. On the other side: As the fawn is utterly skittish by nature, being partially hidden by plants helps convey the idiosyncratic trait of this animal to the viewer - without hiding too much in the end. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive I find. You could crop the blurred plants on the right side a bit. The blurred plant in the foreground I first doesn’t noticed it so it's hardly a problem for me even if it's a bit unlucky. My focus when I look at the picture is on the deer and the atmosphere of the picture. --Hockei (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 07:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - I don't find the composition as a whole compelling, maybe partly because the bokeh that takes up so much of the picture frame is dull and pretty much just sits there. However, you deserve kudos for focusing on one of the compound eyes. We don't often see that in dragonfly pictures at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 04:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Women model top.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Women model top.jpg
Neutral I don't wanna spoil the nudist party but I don't find this picture particularly enticing. I'm pretty sure it does work well in black&white though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 16:48:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ivor Novello.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ivor Novello.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 21:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 21:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Overprocessed, grainy sky and there is something weird going on in the upper right part of the sky at full size. Colors are interesting though. w.carter-Talk11:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2016 at 09:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Racing-car based on Hanomag 2/10 PS as it took part at the opening of Nürburgring in 1927; created, uploaded and nominated by Spurzem (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Alchemist-hp: Tolles Kontra-Argument! Aber an dem Autochen gibt's nun mal nicht viel zu sehen; mehr allerdings als an einem voll verkleideten Sportwagen. Wenn Du genau hinschaust, erkennst Du drei von vier Rädern, die sich drehen, die Vorderradaufhängung mit der Lenkung, die Lenksäule und das Lenkrad, den Tank und den Kühler hinter dem Fahrer, die Scheinwerfer und die Abdeckplane statt einer Frontverkleidung aus Metall. – Wie ich sehe, läuft es aber wohl darauf hinaus, dass ich die Bewerbung zurückziehe. -- Spurzem (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The poor contrast noted above extends to the blown helmet as well. There also seems to be some ringing around the driver as well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I thought to present an interesting car und to show the speed of it. But this was a mistake. Therefore I withdraw. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 19:06:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Young juniper needles.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Young juniper needles.jpg
Info I was actually photographing something else when the sun lit up these little "stars" next to me and I gave it a shot. Please, no alt version unless asked for though, let's try to get this page back to 'normal'. All by me -- w.carter-Talk19:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried several DoF and this is actually the one that came out best. The different shoots on the juniper were at so many levels, no way of getting all of them sharp (complete focus stacking is not an option on a cliff with a handheld camera). At f/11 many were sharp, but so was also the older parts of the branches and the picture just looked messy, the background also became way to sharp with that. As for the artistic side, the little shoots looked like small bright stars against the darker green/brown and I tried to catch a "constellation" of them, no deeper meaning than that. It came out better that I hoped for since I normally don't shoot plants and I can honestly say that wouldn't had managed even this if I hadn't been looking at so many of Famberhorst's and Iifar's pictures lately. The honor for any good comments for this pic should fall to them, any blame or bad critique is all on me. :) --w.carter-Talk21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm very sorry, but per Lmbuga. I respect your artistry and intention, but my eyes can't make sense out of this photo as a composition, partly because it appears pretty jumbled to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination No problem I see where this is heading, looks like I should stick to what I know best for now. Thanks for the comments though, they are much appreciated. :) w.carter-Talk14:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2016 at 14:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amphithalamus vallei 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amphithalamus vallei 01.jpg
Comment I guess such small object is already beyond the range of macro-photography, imo specialized equipment is needed (like scanning electron microscope). --Ivar (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but looks like binocular is not good enough, because the final sharpness is imho not acceptable. --Ivar (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2016 at 03:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Estação da Luz 2015.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estação da Luz 2015.jpg
Support - Probably not perfect, and I won't be surprised if someone finds some kind of fault with it, but my reaction is that this is wonderful and exciting! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know that such a scenery is not easy to handle but the outside part is heavily overexposed. Then both corners are quite noisy and I feel that the whole picture has a slight magenta cast. Additionally it's not really symmetrical, you've been standing too much at the right side. I could live with these shortcomings if the picture had a big wow but I don't find it that pleasing after all. Sorry. --Code (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, however, It's not a hdr, you can't show the station interior without a external overexposition and in this case the interior is main subject. Btw, let me know if the noise is gone. --The Photographer (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DoneYou can see that the rta example is too much overexposed, and the image on this nomination is much more big. BTW Your station example is in a different position in relation to the sun, you can't take a picture of Luz station (not HDR) without expose the exterior. However, I used another version and I think that it's fixed, please, let me know --The Photographer (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support So ... much ... better ... now. Did you use one of those adjustment brushes? I have some images that could benefit from that treatment. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 14:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Buildings and towers on the Großer Feldberg, Taunus, Germany. At last managed to be there for sunrise this morning. Got them all in first sunlight, the leftmost mast casting its shadow onto the rightmost tower nearly horizontally. I also like the shadow of the near low barrier covering the entire path. Stitched panorama of 6 exposures, therefore high level of detail.
Comment Right vertical lines are tilted (the left vertical lines aren't tilted): It needs perspective correction. Good (perhaps excelent)--Lmbuga (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 12:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support An absolutely stunning creature, but I am a little bothered by the sharpness of that grass it is sitting on. It seems almost "attached" to the dragonfly's head. There is another sharp grass up right that could be blended in with the rest of the bokeh. Thoughts? w.carter-Talk13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a very very little bit oversharpened, and background a very very little bit noisy, but what a marvel ! I would like to know how to take such pictures ! Congratulations.--Jebulon (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 06:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frecce tricolori Air show Valtenesi del Garda Manerba .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frecce tricolori Air show Valtenesi del Garda Manerba .jpg
Qualified support I would have cropped in more tightly on the planes, but this is what a featured picture of this sort of display should look like. Much better than the other nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 16:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2016.06.24.-04-Viernheimer Heide-Viernheim--Krabbenspinne-Thomisus onustus-Weibchen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2016.06.24.-04-Viernheimer Heide-Viernheim--Krabbenspinne-Thomisus onustus-Weibchen.jpg
Support Martin said it! Great picture, gahstly creature, but we need pics of those as well. ...just glad I don't have to take the photo... --w.carter-Talk08:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 16:49:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx rufus - Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien - 2016-07-19.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx rufus - Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien - 2016-07-19.jpg
Neutral Nice idea and well done, yet I think the DoF is very shallow, at least the head should be in focus more or less. Don’t want to oppose for that though since the composition is striking. --Kreuzschnabel17:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes it's a feline, prrr... And you'd think that would be enough, but as a cat lover and having been owned by a cat, I know that these fine beings have high standards regarding their looks, fur must be perfect and immaculate, and an FP should also portray them in the absolutely best manner. No fuzzy hairs! ... Seriously, it's a great image and a great pose, but for an FP there should be more DoF, here it is so shallow that the face looks almost detached from the rest of the body. Very unfortunate. >^o^< w.carter-Talk20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know what kind of Felidae it is, but I call all members of that family "cats", even Bengal tigers. And IMO bobcats are the coolest and greatest of all felines, hence I was very reluctant to 'oppose' this (and on top of that 'promote' that creapy spider above), but here it is all about the photo. w.carter-Talk08:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not sharp enough, in my opinion. Rarity is not so much of a factor when you are photographing an animal at a zoo. Try to get a clearer photo of the feline. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Tony Hisgett - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 14:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 14:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose good QI but lacking wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
06:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment Hello everybody certainly I will improve my photos thank you for your kind comments --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Question - What's the manipulation? The blue color or something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
chromatic aberration --Kreuzschnabel 07:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)_-_Dome.jpg)
Done. Small correction. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Yes, that is better. Not enough wow for me to support the nomination but I see no reason to oppose. That's a fine image. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
) --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_in_Sakai,_Osaka,_February_2016_V.jpg)
_Malabar_07.jpg)
_in_provincie_Limburg_in_Nederland_01.jpg)
_no_Parque_Estadual_Intervales.jpg)
.jpg)
--w.carter-Talk 20:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Request to add a GEO-tag will be nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
_-_Ceiling.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
looked much better for me. Missing a bit more foreground. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
_-_Ceiling_of_right_chapel_and_dome.jpg)
.jpg)
_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Ia-01.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Dome.jpg)
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg)
Fixed - Thanks, Ikan, for your review and hint. I tweaked the image to gain a (hopefully) better result. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
.JPG)
_Kirche.JPG)
invalid vote per the official guidelines: "Voting - Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." Here it is a brand new account, and just the third edit.._Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg)
.JPG)
INeverCry 06:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
_-_Ceiling.jpg)
_-_Ceiling_alt.jpg)
_-_Ciborium.jpg)
Overexposed and be careful - The Photographer (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_in_Sakai,_Osaka,_February_2016_V.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Malabar_07.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_in_provincie_Limburg_in_Nederland_01.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_no_Parque_Estadual_Intervales.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_right_chapel_and_dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![96 File:"Chuveirão" na Caverna Timimina.jpg, featured](#File:"Chuveirão"_na_Caverna_Timimina.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ia-01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_Kirche.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ciborium.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_500_cm³,_Bj._1927_(2007-06-17).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_female_dorsal.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1_iguazu_falls_brazil_2010.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cataratas_do_Igua%C3%A7u_(16).JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cataratas_do_Igua%C3%A7u_-_Parque_Nacional_do_Igua%C3%A7u_3.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_in_Sakai,_Osaka,_February_2016_V.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_Sakai,_Osaka,_February_2016_V.jpg){kind=link}
_in_Sakai,_Osaka,_February_2016_V.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_in_Sakai,_Osaka,_February_2016_V.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Malabar_07.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Malabar_07.jpg){kind=link}
_Malabar_07.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Malabar_07.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_in_provincie_Limburg_in_Nederland_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_in_provincie_Limburg_in_Nederland_01.jpg){kind=link}
_no_Parque_Estadual_Intervales.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_no_Parque_Estadual_Intervales.jpg){kind=link}
_no_Parque_Estadual_Intervales.jpg,_not_fe){kind=link}
_no_Parque_Estadual_Intervales.jpg,_not_fe){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_fea){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_fea){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg/2&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg/2){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg?fastcci_from=1743919&c1=1743919&c2=3943817&d1=15&d2=0&s=200){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_right_chapel_and_dome.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_right_chapel_and_dome.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_right_chapel_and_dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling_of_right_chapel_and_dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not){kind=link}
.jpg,_not){kind=link}
![22:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/August_2016#c-ArionEstar-2016-08-04T22:18:00.000Z-File:"Chuveirão"_na_Caverna_Timimina.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![17:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/August_2016#c-George_Chernilevsky-2016-08-10T17:39:00.000Z-File:"Chuveirão"_na_Caverna_Timimina.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_by_Carl_Van_Vechten.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ia-01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ia-01.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ia-01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ia-01.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Dome.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1397.jpg){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1397.jpg){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_Kirche.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Kirche.JPG){kind=link}
_Kirche.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Kirche.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featu){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featu){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_f){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ceiling.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ciborium.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Ciborium.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Ciborium.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Ciborium.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG/2&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG/2){kind=link}
.JPG)
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_500_cm%C2%B3,_Bj._1927_(2007-06-17).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_500_cm%C2%B3,_Bj._1927_(2007-06-17).jpg){kind=link}
,_500_cm%C2%B3,_Bj._1927_(2007-06-17).jpg)
,_500_cm³,_Bj._1927_(2007-06-17).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_500_cm³,_Bj._1927_(2007-06-17).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_female_dorsal.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_female_dorsal.jpg){kind=link}
_female_dorsal.jpg)
_female_dorsal.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_female_dorsal.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_mating_female_typica_2.jpg){kind=link}
