Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 17:59:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Minor quality issues, but the conditions under which the photo was taken and the huge WOW factor can excuse those. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I tried to rename the file to correct the typo in the filename, but something went wrong (I got a message "Ordering CommonsDelinker to replace all usage" and then it got stuck). I hope that nothing is broken. Sorry for that. --Ximeg (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 18:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de nuestra señora de la Chiquinquira.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basílica de nuestra señora de la Chiquinquira.jpg
Support -- Bravo, The Photographer! A nice depiction of an unusual place! Not perfect (noise, lack of detail) but good enough for making justice to the subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 14:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica January 2013-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica January 2013-1.jpg
Oppose This is definitely a QI, but I don't see this as FP. Sorry. Just to much of this road in the image and as it is dominating that much it is ruining the wow factor for me. It would had been better when there would be bigger focus to the sea. Maybe a crop would also help here. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would recommend a crop on the left for two reasons: 1) the pole is a bit distracting at that position; either leave more space to the left (not possible in post) or remove it completely; 2) currently, the road is too centered. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i really like the right part of the image with the sky and the sea! but i also think a crop will improve the images.--ArildV (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Here is an alternative version with a crop on the left and bottom, trying to address the issues raised above. Please feel free to add different vesions!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mood of an upcoming storm is captured nearly perfectly. I would have supported without any doubt in case of a more special motif, but just an empty beach promenade like here, I find way too ordinary... The image resolution is really wow indeed, but someone who supports just because of that should have a look in full view: not really sharp, parts of the sky look pixelated. All in all: not special enough to me for an FP, sorry. --A.Savin23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 14:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 22:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Severn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Severn.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Imam Reza shrine.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Imam Reza shrine.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 03:06:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support as nom. I was so happy when this guy sunbaked on a flower for me... and let me get close enough to use the macro lens! Llez's colourful green one reminded me of this. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 14:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Katarina kyrka och kyrkogård January 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Katarina kyrka och kyrkogård January 2013.jpg
Comment Thanks for the comments. In summer, the trees are much more disturbing (thanks to the leaves) and the church is surrounded by centuries-old trees (the first trees were planted at the cemetery in the 1710s), and there is no better angle. I think it's very relevant to show both the church and the cemetery in a single image, and a good illustration of the separate articles on the cemetery in Norwegian and Swedish Wikipedia. Snow is a part of life in Stockholm, sometimes we have snow from November to March. Personally, I like the beautiful winter light and colors here.--ArildV (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - hmm, actually the shadow isn't that evil to me because it harmonizes with the dark nordic sky what makes the overall contrast still OK. However, let's be honest, it's "just" a good-quality photo of a building. For an FP, one may (and should!!) demand some more - here we have a nice winter scene, but a rather ordinary one; some of your other winter photos (like this one) have much more of special, as you probably will agree. Let's keep COM:FP a place for that special pictures. --A.Savin22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 23:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Sharapova at 2009 Roland Garros, Paris, France.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maria Sharapova at 2009 Roland Garros, Paris, France.jpg
Oppose Agree with others, too tight crop, unfavourable expression, cut shadow. The moment the ball is impacted would be IMO a much better choice Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition in order, i've seen tighter crops on acclaimed images and i just love the action. Not all the world sits still for you to use long exposures. Well done. Kleuske (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 07:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Penobscot summit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Penobscot summit.jpg
Currently, quality problems are visible in the 1,280-preview. It might be possible to get decent quality with downscaling and additional highpass-filtering and sharpening, and a closer look at the banding problems in the sky. Although the dark areas on the ground and some plants will stay very fuzzy. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we can't feature strong artifacts. If you really want to try again with a smaller resolution, go for it, but I suspect that Julian is right - it needs a total reprocess.--99of9 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 19:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose To get some attention to my previous question. I consider image severely over-saturated and think this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral tending to oppose. Very nice indeed, but some areas are overexposed, I find the field in background a bit oversaturated, and yes, the excavator and the hut are disturbing a little (could easily be removed). By the way, only for my own culture, it is "US-FoP" OK ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 12:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Praying statue of king Amenemhet III - 1840-1800 BC - Neues Museum.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Praying statue of king Amenemhet III - 1840-1800 BC - Neues Museum.JPG
Neutral Very nice lighting and composition, but the face should be sharper. The bottom part of the image is much sharper. Is it possible to have a higher resolution version? This one is rather small, and I think that's "one point less" for the image. Is it a studio shot? (in the museum). --Kadellar (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I couldn't bring my telephoto lens in the museum so I had to take it with a mid range zoom: in order to "use" the curtain as a black background I had to stay far and then crop, so this is the higher resolution available. --Jaqen (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 17:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sangaste mõisa peahoone1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sangaste mõisa peahoone1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 06:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:USS Cassin Young in Dry Dock.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:USS Cassin Young in Dry Dock.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 20:39:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Uca leptodactyla in Margarita Island.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Uca leptodactyla in Margarita Island.jpg
Oppose Nice and useful, but to me it's lacking detail a bit. The resolution is barely above 2 MP. For a subject that doesn't "run away" I may demand some more, sorry. --A.Savin11:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture in which George Chernilevsky brought up is Original and also FP in commons. I made up my mind to put forward three photos separately. It is momentous to note that Opium Poppy flower is transformed in new set. For more details please link to [1]---Alborzagros (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; but there is not a need to update our FPs according to en:wiki. Further note that they moved the FP to the gallery and may de-list soon. The name Opium Poppy is used for Papaver somniferum but it is not very important. Not a fan of too many sets otherwise there is a strong link between the pictures like dorsal and ventral side of an insect. So Oppose. JKadavoorJee08:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 14:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/ Image:Sguathi Vederne.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/ Image:Sguathi Vederne.JPG
Oppose Overexposed tree (left and right) and part of the rock, bluish tint on the rock and tilted (see water line). Nice place indeed. --Cayambe (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 08:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grohman peak eastern face 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grohman peak eastern face 2013.jpg
Oppose Missing sharpness (especially at the top part) with regard to the optimal shooting conditions. Cannot figure out the reason, your 24-70 / 2.8 should not be that bad. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 12:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Power County Wind Farm 002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Power County Wind Farm 002.jpg
Support: High quality, good composition. I would probably crop a little bit from the top and brighten a little bit, but that's just my opinion. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 13:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spb 06-2012 University Embankment 01.jpg (1st nom)Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spb 06-2012 University Embankment 01.jpg (1st nom)
Info The image shows the most prominent part of the University Embankment (with some historical buildings of the Spb State University) in Saint Petersburg, Russia, as seen from the St. Isaac's Cathedral, during a changeable weather. All by A.Savin --A.Savin13:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 20:12:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I withdraw my nomination I still think the image has great lighting and is of superb quality, especially for an animal that is primarily nocturnal. Too bad not many share my point of view. :) Nossob (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Nossob (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 20:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
This picture shows an aerial view of the summit of Hochblauen/ Black Forest (1164 m) and communication tower. In the background the Upper Rhine Plain is visible.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 03:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:C-17 test sortie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:C-17 test sortie.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 17:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pesten Überblick.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pesten Überblick.JPG
Info The image shows Peesten a borough of Kasendorf in northern Part of Bavaria. On right side is the old castle, on left side you see a Tilia with a frame work, which is used once a year for dancing in the tree. created by Benreis - uploaded by Benreis - nominated by Benreis -- Benreis (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene needs perspective correction. The bottom crop cuts through an object. There is some chromatic abberration around the base platform of the foreground object. --99of9 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 17:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poincaré Petit Journal 26 janvier 1913.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poincaré Petit Journal 26 janvier 1913.jpg
, just one century ago, the front page of the weekly illustrated supplement of "Le Petit Journal", january 26, 1913, celebrating the election of the new french President. One can see on the file page the correction I've made from the original, very damaged. It is not a "restoration" of an old nice quality print, please remember it is only a sample of a cheap newspaper... It has historical value because of the centenary, and because Poincaré would be the President of France during the "Great War". High resolution upload.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 04:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:William Blake - Sconfitta - Frontispiece to The Song of Los.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:William Blake - Sconfitta - Frontispiece to The Song of Los.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 06:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2013 B Ulrich Seidl 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2013 B Ulrich Seidl 2.jpg
Weak support - weak for the same reason, that King points out above as I personally like an alternative cropping without the black sliver better, but this is still a good shot. --heb [TCE] 11:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry no, the background isn't good enough for a featured portrait, though the expression & the technical quality are flawless to me. --A.Savin23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 12:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skyline de Chicago desde el centro, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skyline de Chicago desde el centro, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 14.jpg
Comment Of course it is great, but it is tilted (building leaning left on the left and right on the right) and there might be some distortion. Ademas, some correction of exposure, on the building on the left is needed IMO .--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 13:45:22 (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 10 Feb 2013 at 20:57:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Canteloupe and cross section.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Canteloupe and cross section.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size is to small (less then 2MP) + not acceptable license (GFDL 1.2 only). Please see the "Formal things" - Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 04:25:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Stunning place, but the perspective distortion is disturbing, more like looking down a barrel than a big hall. As per Commons:Image_guidelines, Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 10:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Graxaim.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graxaim.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 22:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Straightforward picture and theme, suggesting that it was a routine shot. Maybe so, but the composition and image quality are very good and some apparently minor details make the difference. For example, the plant in the foreground and the spatial perspective in the left side. This picture illustrates something which I've been seeking for longtime: making FP worth images out of banal nature subjects. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback! I am happy that you like the results and you found what you had been looking for a long time :) Nevertheless as author I can tell you that this view was quite impressive to me, and I have travelled a lot! Poco a poco (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the place: very impressive in reality, but difficult to catch in a good image. Nice composition. Good balance between the harsh light on the foreground and the hazy background. Some minor noise in parts of the sea. -- MJJR (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 09:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, I feel almost like the young boy saying that the king is nude, but I don't think that this picture is special, I sincerely think it's boring. You all pardon me. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 05:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SanBernardinoMountains8000feetsign.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SanBernardinoMountains8000feetsign.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 07:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 13:33:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jan Miense Molenaer - Two Boys and a Girl Making Music - WGA16091.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jan Miense Molenaer - Two Boys and a Girl Making Music - WGA16091.jpg
There's a lot going on in this image... No bird in the birdcage (a sexual allusion), the girl is wearing part of a curass and is using a (spanish?) helmet as a drum, a bible under a broken winejug. Also a rommelpot is being used. Allusions to the Eighty Years' War? The date seems to match. Kleuske (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 14:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cactus from Macanao Peninsula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cactus from Macanao Peninsula.jpg
The underexposure is fully fixed and the problem with backlight is at least a lot less problematic than before. The editing has created some noise issues, but nothing too bad. I won't oppose, but I still think the lighting conditions are just not optimal for showing the cacti, and the corrections unavoidably create a slightly artificial appearance of the photo, therefore: Neutral. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info The illumination is natural, there is a high image range, to thereby be able to have an image without overexposure or subexposures. I disagree, however, I respect your point of view, thank you very much for your comment, always help to improve the standard. --The Photographer (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, levels forced to turn the image lighter make the scene unreal, haloes around the clouds, cactus on first term hides highest mountains on the background, colours way too saturated --Juan Lacruz (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose The lighting was not the best for the shot, and the usage of the flash (see EXIF) gives and artificial effect (brigther areas there were you'd would expect rather darkness). There is also some noise on the cactus in the foreground and the sharpness of the vegetation behind the cactus is not convincing (probably due to agressive denoising, since the first version was better on this). Furthermore, I agree with Juan in both comments, the cactus hide the highest summit of the range of mountains in the background, which is disturbing and affects the compositon, and the green channel is oversaturated. I think that the idea overall is good but the result is not a FP to me, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 09:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gelber-Frauenschuh-Holzminden.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gelber-Frauenschuh-Holzminden.jpg
I would suggest to look more precisely: a) From a compositional viewpoint a front view is much better than a side view. There is one clear diagonal line going through the photo. I spent a whole day at the area around yellow Lady's-Slipper and believe be a side view is VERY boring from a photographic viewpoint. b) a central characteric of this flower is shown much better in a moderate front view: The stamen over the "slipper" has the function to attract insects that fall into the "slipper" and pollinate the flower during living the shoe. Isn't it striking that all photos on EN-WP or this botanic descriptions are front-views? c) Light: For me it is a nice backlit situation which brings out the texture of the flower very well. I respect your assesment but I think it was a bit hastily. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle of view is good. The leafs in front can be cropped out. The problem is the light. You should have used a flash+disperser. Gidip (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination due to missing support. I like the photo (esepcially the light) very much, but obviously I am the only one :) --Tuxyso (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 16:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Archeological Museum of Macedonia (by Pudelek).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Archeological Museum of Macedonia (by Pudelek).jpg
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the dark foreground, the crane (though it can be retouched), and the barrel distortion. --A.Savin23:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the designer never intended this building to be square. I like the addition of a bulge between framing curves, like a smile. Penyulap ☏15:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the users above explained to you that this image needs perspective correction. I spend some time to correct your image. Sadly... as I see, you reverted to the previous version.. which has strong perspective distortion. Ggia (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 19:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Digitized Sky Survey Image of Eta Carinae Nebula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Digitized Sky Survey Image of Eta Carinae Nebula.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 17:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 20:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grampus griseus Reconstitution.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grampus griseus Reconstitution.jpg
Comment Nice illustration, please see notes about border pixelation. Please could you add a more detailed description of how you drew this and what was your goal?, Information about brands, among others. Additionally, correct the fin cut piece. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 20:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antidorcas marsupialis, male (Etosha, 2012).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antidorcas marsupialis, male (Etosha, 2012).jpg
Comment I don't see any chromatic aberration in the area mentioned (right-side ear). It's the regular coloration of the springbok pelage (the white border folding into the blacks). Yathin sk (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the ears and not the horns. I see it now. Thanks. I'm not sure how to fix it. So, I would appreciate it if you could fix it (or point me to some instructions?) :) Yathin sk (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 09:09:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hermitage pavilion in Tsarskoe Selo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hermitage pavilion in Tsarskoe Selo.jpg
Oppose: I guess the exposure is fine, but the trees have strange edges making the picture look like the sky was replaced or heavily edited. Also, the trees look strangely contrastless and flat. Might also all be the result of some HDRi-editing. I don't know, but it doesn't look right. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Good image, and I don't see the problem with leaves, but something is wrong with the spire. This can and should be fixed --Ximeg (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, okay, you're won, I have uploaded a NEW VERSION without any software correction (except cropping the tree from left side and perspective distortion correction, of cource). Do you like it, my little lovers of untouched purity? --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 09:24:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Opening chess position from black side.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opening chess position from black side.jpg
Oppose Sorry, a bit dark to me, and there are some strange (sharpening?) haloes on some of the white pieces. Nice idea though, perhaps a good choice for focus stacking. --A.Savin11:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 20:20:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aleksander I ja Napoleoni sõdade mälestusmärk1 (Mõdriku).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aleksander I ja Napoleoni sõdade mälestusmärk1 (Mõdriku).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 18:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Петергоф,-верхний-сад-фонтан.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Петергоф,-верхний-сад-фонтан.jpg
Support Strongly disagree with A. Savin. But maybe use a mask to selectively brighten the left part of the fountain, if possible. Gidip (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 23:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grazia Maria Pinto - Trento 2013.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grazia Maria Pinto - Trento 2013.JPG
Neutral Sharpness is OK (focus on the eyes), expression and composition is nice. IMHO the problem is not DoF in general but that the out of focus areas (especially the hairs) look somehow strange / overprocessed. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 22:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Morvich.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morvich.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 05:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:African Spoonbill-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:African Spoonbill-001.jpg
Oppose Per B.p. Furthermore I think the current 2mp minimum bar is not high enough nowadays, due to the increasing of the resolutions of most of cameras...--Jebulon (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 23:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 08:41:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Florence - Apothéose de Cosme Ier de Médicis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Florence - Apothéose de Cosme Ier de Médicis.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 19:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps fulvus 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps fulvus 3.jpg
OpposeNeutral per The Photographer. Also no information: Exif? which zoo? Why the unrelated 'other versions'? B.p. 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Other issues resolved. Thanks for that. B.p.17:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EXIF metadata restored, it was lost somehow. This is a free wild bird near La Cañada, Ávila, Spain. I've also removed the unrelated other versions introduced by user Kirill Borisenko, which doesn't have a personal page in commons.--Juan Lacruz (talk) 17:10, 02 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 20:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support You should think about the saturation, nonetheless a very beautiful and artistic image. I like the transparency of the water and the texture of the rocks. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 11:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpg
Comment to Leyo: it is not a HDR, just a "normal" blue hour image (approx. 1/2 h after sunset, ISO 200, f=11, shutter 13 seconds, tripod) -- Arcalino (talk) , 19:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 02:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam.png
Comment Considering its significance, I think that can be overlooked. Photographs of Ethiopian royalty or any African royalty of this period with anything close to this quality are very rare and under-represented on Commons. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 10:32:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:001117 15-44-2002-To-grupper-rosa-Qajar-Fliser2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:001117 15-44-2002-To-grupper-rosa-Qajar-Fliser2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 10:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question I cant find any information on the museum's website about the CC-licens only a short statement All pictures from the David Collection that are reproduced must be accompanied by the caption and the name of the photographer.? The photographer's name is also missing, maybe Pernille Klemp?--ArildV (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here, unfortunately, is that its not a two-dimensional public domain work (it is not painting for example, but it is an object). I hope I'm wrong, it's high-quality photo of a valuable and interesting items.--ArildV (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 12:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Buzz Aldrin - Campus Party 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Buzz Aldrin - Campus Party 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fuerte de San Felipe, Setúbal, Portugal, 2012-05-11, DD 12.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fuerte de San Felipe, Setúbal, Portugal, 2012-05-11, DD 12.JPG
New version uploaded with a fix for the bent horizon, a reduction of saturation and increaed sharpness (although the first version of the picture was not really sharper that the last one, actually denoising then was higher). Could you review the image again? Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The oversaturation is still leaving artifacts in the waves close to the shore and you see strange effects in the water through the branches of the tree because some areas are oversaturated and others are not. Horizon and crop are better now. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 06:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Osaka Castle 02bs3200.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Osaka Castle 02bs3200.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 19:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Charron Freres Accordion.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Charron Freres Accordion.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 18:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Evangile Jean Grandes Heures Anne de Bretagne.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Evangile Jean Grandes Heures Anne de Bretagne.jpg
, the beginning of the Last Gospel according to John, out of the Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany, Queen consort of France (1477-1514). This illuminated unique book is from 1503-1508, the image is a stitching of 260 pictures, restored by me, one may find the original in the history file. Very high resolution.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much ! The comparison (please see file page) with the original could be interesting, IMO. Erasing the letters in transparency of the following page was a challenge...--Jebulon (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 21:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Speicher Zillergründl 08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Speicher Zillergründl 08.jpg
Support Some blown whites, which in this conditions is rather inevitable, but otherwise a very nice image with a great sharpness -- MJJR (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 20:33:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Starlets (Macro).jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Starlets (Macro).jpeg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 19:44:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Церковь-Иверской-Божией-Матери.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Церковь-Иверской-Божией-Матери.jpg
Comment The upper branches need to be cloned out. The shadows should be lightened, and the remaining perspective distortion should be corrected. --A.Savin20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 20:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Top of Atmosphere.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Top of Atmosphere.jpg
Support But can someone please take out that one bright pixel sitting in the dark part of the moon. Thought it was a monitor artifact at first, but it moved when I scrolled. Vote unchanged. -- Hellbus (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 20:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kozica górska .jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kozica górska .jpeg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image has a watermark, has no description, is not properly categorized, is not identified and is OOF. B.p.22:12, 7 February 2013 (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 12 Feb 2013 at 23:20:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bati girl.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bati girl.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 07:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Pansy, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 31 01 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Pansy, Burdwan, West Bengal, India 31 01 2013.jpg
Info The Peacock Pansy (Junonia almana) is a species of nymphalid butterfly found in South Asia. Created / uploaded / nominated by JoydeepTalk07:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me slightly too bright / washed out. A nice photo but neither composition nor sharpness or colors evokes "FP wow", sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful; I'm a bit confused by seeing the variation in colours and marks with my pictures (1, 2). Is it due to aging or is this the true dry season form? JKadavoorJee09:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your two pictures are taken on June and December. A big time gap but colours and marks are almost the same. I think it is due to aging. Why I always get the old ones? :( JoydeepTalk17:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 23:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Policía Militar en Maracaibo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Policía Militar en Maracaibo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 11:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
weak oppose Impressive sharpness, nice photo. I do not really like the cutted background, I get the impression that something is missing because the moutains with its rising lines are clearly identifiable as those. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 12:03:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:T.C. Steele - Sunrise - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:T.C. Steele - Sunrise - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 08:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winslow Homer - The Herring Net - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winslow Homer - The Herring Net - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 12:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plantago ovata 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plantago ovata 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 20:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liceum building in Tsarskoe Selo 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liceum building in Tsarskoe Selo 02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 21:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sulfur mining in Kawah Ijen - Indonesia - 20110608.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sulfur mining in Kawah Ijen - Indonesia - 20110608.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sémhur (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Corrections made to the picture since the beginning of the procedure: cropped at right to avoid lens flare and chormatic aberration; decreased a little an underexposed shaded part behind the lake; eliminated a stiching error in the lake.
I have cropped the picture at rigth to avoid lens flare and chormatic aberration, and decreased a little an underexposed shaded part behind the lake. Sémhur (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 18:18:51 (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 Feb 2013 at 18:17:54 (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 Feb 2013 at 14:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tvdjava iz vazduha.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tvdjava iz vazduha.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has significantly less than 2 million pixels. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 23:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Isle from Lamlash.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Isle from Lamlash.jpg
Comment Two remarks: 1) I think the composition is too centered. 2) Did you use a polarizing filter? The sky's color changes from light to dark blue, and I'm guessing it's caused by a polarizer since the focal length is 17mm (more likely to happen to wide-angle) and the exposure settings are 1/80s at f/8 (about 1-2 stops slower than ordinary daylight). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 10:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Would cropping off the left two boats help? I did consider it but the Isle is centred in the middle of Lamlash bay so an off-centre position might have less EV. I can't remember about the polariser as this was last summer but I'm aware of the problem it can cause and agree this might be the reason. I could see if some Lightroom adjustment can balance the sky better. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 12:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica, sun covered parking near the beach with cyclist.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica, sun covered parking near the beach with cyclist.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 11:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Odeon of Kos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odeon of Kos.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 19:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Island Sep12 img 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Island Sep12 img 07.jpg
Info This image shows an important feature of the Peacock Island ensemble (UNESCO World Heritage) in Berlin, Germany. All by --A.Savin19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thatched-roof villa in the Maldive Islands.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thatched-roof villa in the Maldive Islands.jpg
Oppose - sorry no, the overall quality doesn't fully convince - could've been sharper, some clouds seem overblown, some CA. --A.Savin20:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 09:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ArT of opEN doors project Funchal 03.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ArT of opEN doors project Funchal 03.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Technically good portrait. The reflections in the eyeball could be removed and the highlights at the glossy forehead could be reduced. I'm not convinced by his pose (especially the slanting shoulder), the visible bits of his right ear and the rather prominent first button of his shirt. No wow. And before we start discussing what a wow-factor in portrait photography should look like (again), have a look into Commons:Featured pictures/People. Portrait photography remains one of the toughest genres, especially here on FPC. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the pictures in the category may be wow but are no portraits. Regarding the minor issues, we have to keep in mind that this is a person who can only spend a few seconds for photographers (which is my wow). You can hardly prepare them nor change anything during the shooting. Cheers, —DerHexer(Talk)19:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We aim for evaluating the image on FPC, not the effort/hardship for its making. I don't think the time frame matters at all in this case - it is a self-made limitation and could easily be circumvented by asking the politician for a private photo session or extend the time per photo ratio in the project. The project's current mass processing is unlikely to encourage perfectionism or an eye for detail. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you do; and I evaluate lots of FP's in this category as worse than this one which is why I nominated it. Surely, you can disagree, I neither mind nor care because evaluation is unobjective, related to the people who participate in this evaluation, their personal mood, understanding of FP, etc. pp. (which you can perfectly see here in different opinions on this very photo). But, imo, looking at all circumstances how a photo was taken can at least improve your understanding of it, isn't it? Besides, I strongly doubt the easiness—a Minister-President will not take more than 5 minutes for such photography (which he did for us). Plus, we can discuss whether photos have to be perfect to be featureable (what all Wikipedia articles are not) or if they should just copy the reality (why in fact should I have removed the button or cut off his ear to make a, in your opinion, perfect photo?). But that would take us too far away. Cheers, —DerHexer(Talk)19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you do care, hence your reply in the first place. Our guidelines state "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." Furthermore "Extensive manipulations must be clearly described in the image text [...]" Some issues as expressed above (highlights at the forehead and eyeball reflections) could be easily edited, complying with our guidelines. Don't get me wrong: You shouldn't "remove" the button or "cut off" his ear. I didn't propose photoshopping them away and even if you would chose this option you could do so by adding {{Retouched picture}}. A more sophisticated pose could have prevented these issues and within thoughtful consideration and preparation lies the quality I consider decisive for a Featured Picture. I don't think that this has to be an either-or-discussion: a perfect (insert your definition here) photo is capable of displaying reality. It's always refreshing to see this kind of debate sprouting its shoots from opposing votes such as mine, for in the end it remains a subjective verdict. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ofc, I reduced the highlights and reflections. If you think that it's not enough, do not hesitate to improve my picture. I would be very grateful. Cheers, —DerHexer(Talk)23:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me this is a fine portrait with good pose and composition. When I evaluate "wow" factor in cases where it's not clear-cut, I ask myself, "Does this image make me want to read more about the subject?" And here I'd say, yes it does. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent studio portrait. Nothing better to expect in this genre. If this one is not FP, then we also should delist this or this one (just to name a few). --A.Savin20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. A lot of other portrayals on FP are much worse than this one. Espcecially (sorry Peter Weis) the one of Angela Merkel. Nearly everything is wrong there (light, level of details, composition, expression, massive NR). The photo here shows a State Premier of a German state, perfectly photographed. And I also agree with DerHexer: A State Premier (Ministerpräsident) has for sure not many time for comprehensive preparitions. "Asking the politician for a private photo session" is not an option in this case :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other. Eine Softbox links und rechts mit richtig eingemessenem Licht, ergibt zweifelsohne ein perfekt belichtetes, scharfes Bild, aber leider kein Exzellentes. In dieser Situation muss sich der Fotograf nur um das Motiv/Person kümmern und dann dürfen solche Sachen wie oben erwähnt nicht passieren. Man bürstet auch die Schuppen von der Jacke wenn sie da sind, den bei dieser Auflösung sieht man nun alles. Der Herr Haseloff wäre ihnen für diese Aufmerksamkeit dankbar gewesen. Was mich auch noch stört, ist die unterschiedlich Darstellung der beiden Schultern, entweder beide angeschnitten oder beide komplett sichtbar. Bei weniger schräger Schulterstellung, ergibt sich auch kein so heftiger Größenunterschied der Schultern. Leider ist mein Englisch so schlecht, dass ich meinen Kommentar in Deutsch schreiben muss um Missverständnisse zu verhindern. Ich denke du hast nun viele Tipps bekommen und das nächste Mal klappt alles besser. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Die Schuppen hatte ich eigentlich weggestempelt. Aus irgendwelchen Gründen waren sie nach Abspeichern wieder da. Kann ich natürlich noch weiter entfernen. Tatsächlich ist das ein Ausschnitt aus einem Foto, in dem beide Schultern vollständig aufgenommen sind (ähnlich wie hier); tatsächlich gefällt mir das aber so besser. Grüße, —DerHexer(Talk)10:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per A.Savin and Tuxyso. I just find very funny that, during aaaaall these very serious technical discussions, nobody notices the dust spot at right (annotated). Sorry to be so "basic".--Jebulon (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 11:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 00:00:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chloroplast division.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chloroplast division.svg
The transparent background can be a problem on many of the non-English Wikipedias. On many of the non-English Wikipedias, containers such as thumbnails have a grayish background which show through your image and give it a dull appearance. For example, here is a link to your image in a thumbnail container on my sandbox on the German Wikipedia. The same applies to most of your other SVG images, many of which are very beautiful and high EV.
There are a number of shaded rectangles that don't match the text in steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 which should be altered or removed.
The image is not smartphone friendly. I don't have the statistics ready to cite, but a very large fraction of Wikipedia usage is via smartphone. It's OK on a standard tablet, but hard to read on a mini-tablet. In the future, try to remember the diversity of devices on which people will access your images.
Going along the same lines, this is not a low-vision-friendly image, especially the light green lettering in the middle.
Despite all of these reservations, I'm still giving my support, since I know that you will do your best to fix the issues, if not necessarily here, but certainly in your future productions!
When I first started to illustrate for wikipedia, I put white backgrounds on everything, for the same exact reasons you mentioned. However, I read several guidelines that recommended that we use transparent backgrounds (and several complaints against another illustrator for using opaque backgrounds), so now I use transparent backgrounds for almost everything, reserving opaque ones for pictures that need fake alpha masking, as the mediawiki renderer doesn't support true SVG alpha masks, and space images, which take a black background. If it's that important, I could upload an opaque version, though I would rather not as I am trying to reduce "version proliferation" which makes it very difficult to issue updates and improvements. 1 language × 2 opacities = 2 versions isn't too bad, but think 2 opacities × (3 languages + 1 numbered) × 2 editable/ineditable versions × 2 titled/untitled = 32 versions to create, upload, interlink, and update.
I own a smartphone, and I know all too well how frustrating web browsing can be on one. However, for this picture, the only way this would work is breaking open the circle and laying it in a linear sequence (ruining the "cycle" element). I am sorry, but it is hard enough to convert something three-dimensional to two-dimensions, going down to one dimension is simply too restrictive.
That's a stylistic thing ;)
The green text in the light font is simply a footnote, and I might even remove it—I'm not completely sure what the source meant about chloroplast DNA replication.
I'd be interested in reading the guidelines that you mention. Guidelines can be changed, although I know, from personal experience, that the MOS is maintained by a bunch of language lawyers who can be exceedingly intolerant of opposing points of view. By any chance can you point me to the proper subsection, chapter, verse of the vast, sprawling Manual of Style? Thanks!
After some searching, I finally managed to find it in Help:SVG, under the FAQ section. I also found that example of someone opposing an illustration for an opaque background, though it's on a FPC from 2007. I suppose that Help:SVG guideline should be taken with a grain of salt—it also says you shouldn't use Gaussian blurs because the renderer won't render them (Not true, the renderer is *very buggy* with the blur, but it renders them . . . sometimes.). Still, I think a better approach would be to be able to specify the background in the Thumbnail syntax, though you'd have to talk to the Mediawiki people to do that.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"However, if your image really needs a specific colored background, create a rectangle the size of the image, fill it with the background color of your choice, and choose the command Object → Lower to Bottom." — That is what I regularly do for my own images, since several of them appear on the German and French Wikipedias, and the default grayish thumbnail backgrounds on those wikis really stink. For example: File:MMX with optical resonators DE.svg, File:MMX with optical resonators fr.svg. The various multiple image containers on the English Wikipedia have grayish backgrounds as well.
I don't think that WarX was criticizing white versus transparent backgrounds. The image in question had a transparent background. I think, rather, that he meant that the image should have been cropped to have minimal margins. Another possible interpretation of his comments, maybe, is that he thought some other color than white would be preferable... who knows, mauve? Chartreuse? =)
Being able to specify background color would be a nice feature. I'll try suggesting it. But the specific issue is that the different language wikis are apparently operating on different branches of the base code, and new features like the default white thumbnail backgrounds in the English Wikipedia haven't propagated to all of the other branches. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 23:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cyanobacterium.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cyanobacterium.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 17:17:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kose kirik suvi 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kose kirik suvi 2012.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 21:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I arrived a little late. It is always very frustrating to photograph morpho. A single image can not give the visual impression we feel. The two eyes do not see the same reflections or the same color. Should be made of stereoscopy. Is very easy to do but difficult to display. Techniques displays make great progress, we are not far from being able to make our images steroscopie on COMMONS. Thank you to Citron... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 09:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baobab Tree-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baobab Tree-001.jpg
Oppose Baobabs don't run ;-). An FP candidate should be crisp all over and void of CA. The blurry bushes to the left are also disturbing. Lastly, what happened to all the rest (15,862,928) of the pixels? B.p.14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 01:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:E-2C Hawkeye and Mount Fuji.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:E-2C Hawkeye and Mount Fuji.jpg
Oppose Wonderful image, perfect moment, great composition. But thats too far away from being in focus to me - sadly. The noise is also quite visible but could possibly be corrected in a sharp image. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, avoid using other templates than the simple "support", or "oppose" templates, and write "weak" or "strong" or other comments manually. The bot does not recognize other templates, and it may cause problems in counting votes, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 11:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Naval College Greenwich view from the Thames.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Naval College Greenwich view from the Thames.jpg
WeakSupport. I'm a little conflicted here. On one hand, a clear blue day (maybe only a few clouds) would make for a nice reflection on the water. On the other hand, the lighting here is quite dramatic. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slight sharpening haloes around the two domes, and some magenta pixellisation in the sky at left, but all in all, a very good picture I like. FP worthy, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too harsh contrast, soft (looks like a too strong denoising), lines and curves in the sky, white balance too yellowish, too much sky and water. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 17:37:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento, vistas panorámicas desde Toompea, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 21.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ayuntamiento, vistas panorámicas desde Toompea, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 21.JPG
Oppose insufficient quality: general noise, posterisation and strong noise (pixelation?) around the blown lights, illuminations and the buildings in the background. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not too bad, but the tower in the middle is bothering me. It would be much better with a crop on the left and/or more space on the right to use the rule of third. Yann (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 13:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Britain Needs You at Once - WWI recruitment poster - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee Poster No. 108.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Britain Needs You at Once - WWI recruitment poster - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee Poster No. 108.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 14:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brussels Cinquantenaire R03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brussels Cinquantenaire R03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 17:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Nicolás, Tallinn, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 06.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Nicolás, Tallinn, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 06.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 17:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:TGV Artésia à Modane.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:TGV Artésia à Modane.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 16:01:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The spectacular star-forming Carina Nebula imaged by the VLT Survey Telescope.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The spectacular star-forming Carina Nebula imaged by the VLT Survey Telescope.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 21:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Trafford park hook and chain.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trafford park hook and chain.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 17:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Upsidedown Rainbow.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upsidedown Rainbow.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:22:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Burrard Bridge in Vancouver during blue hour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Burrard Bridge in Vancouver during blue hour.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 13:27:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de tradición escocesa, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de tradición escocesa, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 02.jpg
(weak) Oppose the tree is (nice and) not the photographer's fault, but it's disturbing to me; otherwise very good photo, but not too outstanding. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 13:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dwarf Mongoose-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dwarf Mongoose-001.jpg
Seems like a simular situation. I have no problem if the 5 day rule is revoked by removing the bot action; it allows more time for comments and criticism on the photo and that is always valuable. It does however leave a nominator with a problem is the 5 day rule is revoked after he/she nominated an additional photo --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 02:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El popular Jesus Ríos (Venta de cepillados).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El popular Jesus Ríos (Venta de cepillados).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 06:59:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I wish I had the space to give... I've got profile shots of the elephant drinking. It suddenly (for an elephant) turned and started toward the jeep. The guide lurched away leaving me with some very angled images. This is the best crop possible to produce a level image. - Godot13 (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there instructions on how to add an other version? This other version is a different image (of the same subject). -Godot13 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But is it acceptable if the subject is standing straight to the camera? Agree with the opinion of Llorenzi about the tight crop on the top and on the bottom. JKadavoorJee15:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 12:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de la Torre, Tallinn, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 12.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de la Torre, Tallinn, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 12.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 21:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thought and spirituality - Rakan sculptures at Otagi Nenbutsu-ji, Japan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thought and spirituality - Rakan sculptures at Otagi Nenbutsu-ji, Japan.jpg
Comment Original and interesting subject, but I think that some improvements are needed. The colors look a bit washed out to me (try to increase temperature) and the first row of heads is not helping the composition at all. I propose to crop them with help of some cloning work for the head on the left. Poco a poco (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are overexposed areas and image is to unsharp. Heads in front should be cropped out. Photos referred by Jkadavoor are far better. Subject is interesting, thou. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 09:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 20:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lightning3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lightning3.jpg
Support I came across this picture while editing some astronomy articles over at the English Wikipedia, and though, "Wow, that certainly is one of the most striking (pardon the pun) pictures of lightning i've ever seen". I know it looks grainy in the nomination, but at full resolution (right click the picture and select "Open in new tab"), it's amazing :). According to their image description, its already been featured at the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I agree with the Israelites. -- Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is of very poor quality (e.g. noise, CA,...) and is of minimum size to boot. B.p.22:13, 10 February 2013 (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 12 Feb 2013 at 14:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anadara brasiliana.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anadara brasiliana.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 19:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 23:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guerrillero Heroico signed by Alberto Korda.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guerrillero Heroico signed by Alberto Korda.jpeg
Support The image is a) historic and b) quite (in)famous (depending on your POV). IIRC it's taken in the field and not a studio. Reasons a) and b) supercede any technical issues IMHO. The only thing that bothers me is the difference in contrast between the top and the bottom. If that's an issue with the scan, please rectify. Kleuske (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The copyright for this photo had already expired in Cuba before Cuba joined the Berne Convention on February 20, 1997. So my understanding of copyright law is that the photograph should be public domain in the United States. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 03:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rocky bay gnangarra-12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rocky bay gnangarra-12.jpg
Support -- knowing the subject of the photo (a bay on the Swan River) it is a good catch of an otherwise notoriously difficult process to capture the locale (which has nothing to do with 'wow' by the way), short of a helicopter shot, which would minimalise the features caught. In consideration of the location, the people and boat on the lhs, the beacon in the middle and the rock on the right give it adequate referent points. SatuSuro (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 14:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg
Oppose It's an almost square object, needs definitely more space at both sides (and maybe a bit at the top). Some moiré at low floor windows. Sorry. --A.Savin 15:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Support To me it's much better now! --A.Savin18:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've corrected moiré and crop. Left, right and top is now symmetrical cropped. Support if possible (or change to neutral) --Tuxyso (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question HDR is always a matter of personal taste. But can you please mark the halos? I see none. The mood / light was that dramatic (setting sun shines at the building, including the nice reflections on the glass surface). --Tuxyso (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blue sky is slightly lighter next to the building, particularly on the top right. Perhaps you can fix that with a couple of very gentle gradiants in Lightroom or similar. Colin (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I think these are no halos (I must confess that I cannot figure out the meant areas even not in 100% view). Probably the effect is due to the use of a polarization filter --Tuxyso (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the "blue sky" as noticed by Colin, but the same phenomenon is visible on the cloudy sky at left too. Actually, all around the building.--Jebulon (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call me eyeless, I cannot see any problems. Please mark the areas with the note tool. @Jebulon: If you say halos all around the building you probably identified the construction for sun protection misleadingly as halo, see details on ThyssenKrupp website. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I marked the most prominent halos. They are very strong, and more visible the smaller the image is (so it's not as noticeable in 100% as it is in the thumbnail). The effect is probably around 200-300 pixels wide and consists of an approximately gaussian brightness transition of the sky (becoming brighter) approaching the building, and a brightness transition of the building (becoming darker) approaching the sky. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with HDR but would one expect a halo to be that large? Tuxyso, it is really hard to see at 100% but if you put the image in a paint editor and copy a small rectangle of sky to the far right, then paste it again and drag it leftwards you should see the transition to lighter sky. The effect is really more like a vignette -- perhaps that's what we are seeing and something easily correctable in Lightroom/etc. Colin (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've worked on the halos (nearly invisible on my monitor). Please take a further look and change to support or neutral if possible. I cannot really explain this effect. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done A further attempt, according to brightness values in LR it is now very balanced. What do you think? BTW: I am still not convinced that the halos were "very strong" (as stated above). We are now at a gradient filter of 0,34 EV (!!!) Probably the previous assesments were a bit "pernickety" --Tuxyso (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, in the current version, the difference in brightness that should be 0 is still around 10%. Originally, it was around 20% (blue sky on top, directly on top of the building, compared to the blue sky about 150 pixels higher). I think that's quite considerable. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about the other areas (right and left)? It is very difficult for me to correct something that is not visible on three different (one of them callibrated) monitors of mine. Nonetheless: I will give my best. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Julian, please be aware that the sky is not the same shade of blue all over. It is naturally lighter towards the horizon and towards the sun. I'm not saying there isn't a halo or vignette but that one can't expect the sky to be constant. BTW: can folk please avoid using the "small" tag in discussions. It has considerable accessibility problems. -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info / Done I've again worked on the sky. Support or not... I can now only underline Colin's argument: This is not studio photography but a vivid photo with a cloudy sky. You cannot expect 100% homogene brightness distribution. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral then. I don't expect 100% homogeneous brightness distribution, but I also don't think 10% variation within a few degrees of sky aren't natural. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 07:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orleans - Cathedral int 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orleans - Cathedral int 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 13:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-2013.jpg
Done Marginal correction (0,3 tilt and distortion) but it was there... You're right I had luck with the weather: Sun was still shining and a snow front was just arriving :) --Tuxyso (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly how I'd expect the headquarters of a major German multinational to not only look but photograph. And oh the light ... nice juxtaposition of late-day sun with the gloomy skies. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 16:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wieliczka, Jana Matejki; Kopalnia soli- kierat konny węgierski; A-580; 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wieliczka, Jana Matejki; Kopalnia soli- kierat konny węgierski; A-580; 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 14:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Images licensed with solely "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. --Ivar (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (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 13 Feb 2013 at 18:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arco Triunfal da Rua Augusta, Plaza del Comercio, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012-05-12, DD 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arco Triunfal da Rua Augusta, Plaza del Comercio, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012-05-12, DD 02.JPG
Oppose -- Sorry guys, for someone who knows the place, this is way overdone. That was not the best time to take the shot due to the weather and the works going on. I'm afraid that the attractiveness of the image - the colors and the nice mood - isn't really part of the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked into the category, which is full of pictures of the subject mostly with blue skies and without works and I am not delighted. The fact that the road is blocked allowed me to make a shot free of people and "bad" wetter conditions are often not just a challenge to make good pictures but sometimes even a plus. My opinion. Poco a poco (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without works, it would be perfect. But i really enjoy the atmosphere. The weather is definitely a "plus" --Kirua13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 21:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 15:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thousand feet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thousand feet.jpg
Oppose Interesting subject but quality is not at FP level. An important part of the picture is overexposed affecting colors and causing some CA. In addition -my taste- a more vertical perspective would actually make it more spectacular. Poco a poco (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This picture had me confused for a few seconds. (That's not a bad thing) I kept wanting to rotate is 90 degrees to the left thinking it was some kind of fence :) It is and interesting subject for sure. A more vertical shot would have been better, especially if it would show a bit more of the walkway on the bottom of the frame. --Uberprutser (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion, each of these pictures may be nominated as FP candidate individually. But I think it is more interesting as a set. Miniatures made between 1503 and 1508, for the Book of Hours (a book of prayers) belonging to Anne of Brittany (1477-1514), Queen consort of France. I've done some slight restoration by enhancement of colors, removing some spots, dusts and tears, add a correct black background, add a scale, and so. Please notice the very high resolution (each picture is a stitching of 247 images). In case of interest, I advice to have a look on the whole book (many other marvels to bee seen)-- Jebulon (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wonderful set! But are you sure about the number of images in each stitch? Maybe 12, in this case? (I go often there and stitch old maps and charts; you need a lot of patience and hard work!) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Joaquim. Please open one pic on the BNF website at the highest resolution available, and count the total number of 256pxX256px squares I've had to upload and stitch together, with no possibility of mistake... It appears that a "script" exists (I've heard about PERL or "Python"), but I don't undestand what it is and how it works...--Jebulon (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look for example at this case: [3]. At maximum resolution, you need to put together 12 images. But you have first to displace the navigator tool to the bottom, so you can use the whole space. Each individual image is much larger than 256x256! I use the 'print screen' key to transfer each image to the graphic application and then stitch all of them by hand. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent example of a featured set. I think adding individual images under other versions will help re-users to find them while visiting any single picture. JKadavoorJee13:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong support Very good! But if every photo is a stitch of 247 single photos why do you upload "only" in 3.168 × 4.808 resolution? Commons should benefit from your great work. Furthermore details of your repro setting could be interesting for other photographers (which lens, which lightning, which software, which setting, ...) and could be (if you like) added in the description. Nonetheless: Thumbs up! --Tuxyso (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tuxyso. These pictures are uploads from the Website of the French National Library. At the highest resolution, you can only upload little squares of 256px X 256px, and stitch them manually (with GIMP), very carefully, like a puzzle (or make a "screen print", and stitch too, see Alvesgaspar comments above). This was the first part of my job (very difficult). The second part was in improving each picture (cleaning, removing dust spots, correcting dirt, enhance the colors, the contrasts etc..., again with GIMP). Please have a look on the description page of one of them (no matter which), and follow the links. Then you could make the comparison between the result and the original.--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informations are not missing! See file's talk page (also that one), metadata and disc on de:WP. Just improper upload by Tomer T, only file description needs to be corrected.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 23:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glenfinnan Site.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glenfinnan Site.jpg
Support Lots of wow. Only defect I can see is a very small amount of CA on the ridges of the hills. Overall a very good and impressive image. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the alternative you linked is imo over-exposed - the sky is blown and trees too light green. "If you don't like the weather in Scotland, wait five minutes...". On a cloudy day like this, if the wind is strong, the lighting in the glens can change from one minute to the next. Those two photographs are taken four minutes apart and a half-stop different exposure. The scene here, where some of the hills are getting sunlight and others in deep gloom is quite characteristic and natural. -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two pictures are totally natural and effectively taken almost at the same time. As Colin says, weather is changing so fast there. Jkadavoor, what do you mean by linking the other picture? -- Kirua (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish a bit more lights if possible. I like the light in the middle of second half; but all else is a bit gloomy. Further, I wish a better AOV, giving emphasize to the memorial (?); here the picture seems more emphasize to the bright rights side. Just my opinion; the place is not familiar to me. JKadavoorJee04:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I added some more light, especially on the dark parts. For the AOV, I have other pictures emphasized to the memorial. I want this one to show all the site, including the viaduct on the right side. Thank you. -- Kirua (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose For sure a nice landscape and view but I am not convinced of the quality. To archieve a higher level of details should not have been so difficult in this case. IMHO especially the right part (bridge) is underexposed and misses important details. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 23:21:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 23:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:TulaSite08.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:TulaSite08.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 14:49:12 (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 Feb 2013 at 10:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AmirKabir naghashbashi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AmirKabir naghashbashi.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 22:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Badab-e Surt Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Badab-e Surt Panorama.jpg
Oppose Very good composition and light conditions, but the quality is just not up to it - lack of fine detail and sharpness, signs of nonqualitative retouching. --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComment Very posterize image - or lowers the contrast, which are close to the brightness of merge into one, or excessive noise reduction --Aleks G (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 19:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vendedor de agua de coco II.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vendedor de agua de coco II.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 22:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vergleich zwischen Manga und Foto.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vergleich zwischen Manga und Foto.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 10:40:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eyee.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eyee.png
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the images fails the size requirements. B.p.10:49, 15 February 2013 (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 Feb 2013 at 06:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antarctica 6400px from Blue Marble.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antarctica 6400px from Blue Marble.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 18:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Begegnung-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Begegnung-01.jpg
I added a more accurate location. G. Vlakte is a very well popular hole and I think I know this rhino because of the injuries on his head and location [4]. In January he had fought and killed a competitor in the area. ;)
Support the tension between these animals is very unique, nice shot.The filename is probably not optimal: Begegnung01=encounter01 --Tuxyso (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 16:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beischlagkopf Oberdörffer Apotheke, MHG, Hamburg, Deutschland IMGL1399 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beischlagkopf Oberdörffer Apotheke, MHG, Hamburg, Deutschland IMGL1399 edit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 10:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) - Back - USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) - Back - USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 20:01:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica January 2013-4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica January 2013-4.jpg
Info Minimal composition of a heavy sea, in the line of this recent FP. But I prefer the mood and simplicity of the present one. Please notice the details of the waves and the Bugio lighthouse, barely visible due to the haze and spray. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eye catching works; but not much EV (including the previous FP). We may feature a few occasionally, but not many. @Alves: What should we do if you capture better moments of the sea in future months?JKadavoorJee15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 19:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 13:56:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Christen Eagle II N49AE EDST.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Christen Eagle II N49AE EDST.jpg
Question I guess this is a takeoff? Then you would have almost perfectly captured the moment where the pilot pushes the stick in order to lift the tail wheel off the ground before gaining speed and finally pulling her up. --El Grafo (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
→ description updated (Habe mir erlaubt, das Stichwort "Start" mal mit in die Bildbeschreibung zu packen, da ich das für eine sehr wertvolle Zusatzinformation halte …) --El Grafo (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 20:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Defense.gov News Photo 110609-N-XD935-137 - U.S. Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Bryan Myers maneuvers around a ship s propeller looking for an inert training explosive under a Barbadian coast.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Defense.gov News Photo 110609-N-XD935-137 - U.S. Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Bryan Myers maneuvers around a ship s propeller looking for an inert training explosive under a Barbadian coast.jpg
Neutral very nice and interesting image, but I miss something. Maybe it should retouched for a bit better quality/colors --Slick (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 16:26:03 (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 17 Feb 2013 at 08:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Interesting subject but composition poor. The elements on the right-hand-side are distracting. I suggest a crop off the right and bottom -- see image annotation. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 21:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Faro, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-13, DD 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Faro, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-13, DD 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Henriksdalshamnen January 2013 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henriksdalshamnen January 2013 01.jpg
Documentation of a current trend in Europe (and part of the world), rebuilding our industrial urban places
It is the last phase of a massive urban development project that has been ongoing for 20 years, and it is relevant to show how architecture has changed in the project over time.
Commons is not just about documenting churches and old houses, we create a unique photo archive of contemporary life and development. Today, we are delighted when we find old pictures that show how cities looked like then.--ArildV (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A nice photo, correct and clean. But not special enough for FP imo. You should have left some convergenge in the verticals, this way it seems that the building is larger on the top than it is on the bottom. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Alvesgaspar that the vertical-perspective-correction has made the building look odd. Sometimes the only way to get a building looking right is just to get further away. Colin (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your comments.
People here asking for perfect straight lines, with less perspective correction, people will oppose and say "need perspective correction".
As Colin points out, you can go further away. But there is a problem, the buildings in the background will become more prominent if you do it (compare here File:Henriksdalshamnen February 2012d.jpg). And it would destroy an important part of the composition, to isolate the main object from the background,
Neutral The level of detail is impressive and worth to be feautured. But I think the crop, especially the large area of pure blue sky and the top, is not optimal (see crop suggestion in notes). I would support a different crop. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 13:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Howrah Bridge, Foggy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Howrah Bridge, Foggy.jpg
Neutral An old bridge and fog is often a good combination. Often it will be better if a small portion of the bridge is more visible, or if there are any colors as contrast. Here it's just fog. For example, 1 or 2.--ArildV (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Same as ArildV said. Obviously, due to the fog, there is just too little contrast—all I can see are birds. Sorry, but it's not very useful to illustrate the bridge or birds for that matter.—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 14:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 20:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Arresting image for sure, but I'm not at all convinced this is reality. The dunes are a radically different colour to the rocks/scrub/scree on them. Looking at the EXIF with this tool shows significant global increases to saturation and vibrance as well as the usual levels. Hard to say what other changes were made in Photoshop to the tiff intermediate. Perhaps someone can link to pictures with a similar effect that are unprocessed to show this kind of image is reality, or Yathin sk can say what adjustments were made using a "Retouched" template on the image description page. Colin (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose. Yathin sk says the adjustments to the original image were to make it look like he remembered rather than to make a saturated abstract. Sometimes reality does look unreal. Colin (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just uploaded the full resolution. I like the cropped version because it gives a sense of unending dunes (the Namib has ~100km of dunes) but the Sossusvlei area is the only place to see the red dunes (older dunes). You're welcome to play with it/upload a new version if preferred. :) Yathin sk (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you upload this full resultion untouched version as a separate file e.g. File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011) original.jpg and then we can offer it as an alternative for FPC. I can see that some of the oddness is in fact natural but like Jkadavoor I prefer the uncropped one and the original colours are fine too. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't nominate this and I prefer not voting on this but I'm still curious to learn and to answer critiques. Original version: File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011) original.jpg. What's overdone? I'd rather shoot conservatively with the camera and tweak colors on a more powerful computer than the camera. I used to shoot with Nikon D70/D300/D2x before moving to Canon 7D/1Ds III/1D IV so I've seen it first hand how amazing Nikon can make photographs shot in auto-saturation mode look, compared to Canons! I'm only bringing up the Nikon/Canon issue because I've also seen other Canon users needing to work harder with post-processing/colors than Nikon users. Also, my humble suggestion is that if you choose to use harsh words (like your earlier comment about whether this being photography at all), please back it up with a more detailed feedback (like @Colin did so wonderfully). -- Yathin sk21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those harsh comments never took place, maybe it is your imagination! . There are two things I don't like: the lack of detail; and the apparently unnatural colors. The first issue seems to be the result of the convection of warmed air from the heated ground, much agravated by the use of a telephoto; the second ... I don't know but I suspected that the colors had been somehow oversatured in the digital lab. That is why I withdrew my first comment and decided to wait and see. Anyway, I much prefer the uncropped version! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm high on internet addiction but thank you for sharing your thoughts. It is much appreciated. This is what, an hour or so after sunrise on a cool/cloudy day and was already so hot -- but that's what deserts look like whether it looks good on photo or not. I prefer not to use the telephoto for landscape but the spot of light on a sand dune with a live tree in front was too good to resist an opportunistic landscape composition (something I do rarely!). I only tried to show the colors that I saw and I can say that it was more similar to the cropped version than the uncropped. Cheers! -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Yathin, try not to take it too much to heart. It is such an unusual view that many of us can't compare with known reality. Thank-you for uploading the original as this confirms your FPC isn't as unreal as I thought, though I still prefer the original colours. On Commons, there is a bias towards faithfulness whereas many photographers these days are digital artists. I'm not against tweaking the image in Photoshop/Lightroom but there comes a point where it deviates enough from the original that the "retouched" template is useful to be honest about how different the final image has become. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It is an interesting thread and I was a little shaken at first because I thought I had only done adjustments to look like what I had seen. I was actually surprised with a nomination and then having to come for its defense . Thanks for your constructive feedback though. -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Between this image and the alternative below, it came down to a choice between composition versus naturalness of colors. Composition won, but I had a lot of flip-flopping. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Switching my support to the alternative version. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks the way I remember it too (only I got stuck in the sand just at that time of day after a 50 km rush to get to the prettiest dunes ;-(). B.p.13:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer this crop with the sky. Colours; I've no problem with both. I think Schnobby who had a photo of this place can give a comment about the real colours. @Yathin: Hello from your nearby place, Kerala (now at Kasaragod); you've so many wonderful contributions. JKadavoorJee13:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Real colors: a very difficult question. We were there in August, it was cold, there was even frost. Also it depends on the insolation, the sand in the air, time of day. In Peru we once had an incredible sight of mountains at sunset with colors really unnatural, but true. So one has to be careful, I think. I like the photo!--Schnobby (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jkadavoor. I've not thought about this until now, but it is looks that most visitors to Namib-Naukluft seem to shoot around Dune 45, Sossusvlei and Deadvlei but rarely any of the dunes along the way (which are as impressive). I couldn't find a similar image on Google, but there was one with similar lighting: [5]. It's probably because most prefer shooting with wide angle / medium telephoto, but I only had the 500mm on which I was using in the hopes of re-spotting bat-eared foxes that I just seen in the area. So, just an opportunistic landscape that caught my eye that fit into the lens I was carrying. Yathin sk (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly this one. Not even for it being more natural, I just like the composition and the colours here, and I don't get the composition of the edited version. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rail tracks in Auschwitz concentration camp (396530514).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rail tracks in Auschwitz concentration camp (396530514).jpg
strong oppose I see no reason why this should be FP. Picture has some technial issues (sharpness, DoF, tilted horizon). I do not like the compositional idea. But my main point: I am not convinced that such an artistic interpretation "yellow rose on rail track" is appropriate for this awful place (color-black editing especially with flowers is ofter used for wedding photography). --Tuxyso (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose selective colouring is rarely a good idea and in this case the presence of other items of the track makes it look even more contrived.Geni (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 06:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Waere affbeeldinge Wegens het Casteel ende Stadt BATAVIA gelegen opt groot Eylant JAVA Anno 1681.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waere affbeeldinge Wegens het Casteel ende Stadt BATAVIA gelegen opt groot Eylant JAVA Anno 1681.jpg
Support Nice, interesting, great EV. However, it needs an english description to understand what is shown. Not many people here can read 17th century old Dutch, I guess ! If I'm not wrong, it is a map of the city of Jakarta in Indonesia, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 14:28:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 12:54:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landeck-Zams Hbf Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landeck-Zams Hbf Panorama.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Golfo Charco de los Clicos Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Golfo Charco de los Clicos Panorama.jpg
Support Stunning and I am amazed at the lack of CA with all those sharp horizontal lines. What camera and lens was used here? --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my picture is nominated. Thanks Tomer T. I use a Nikon D700 with a Nikkor 24-70 2.8. Sorry, I do not know what happened to the metadata. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 20:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Geographical coordinates of the camera location added to the image description. Further noise removal is surely possible but I am afraid that more details of the darker regions of the image will get lost in the process. Pdellani (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following your commentaries about the picture noise, I gave it another run and applied a different approach to noise removal. Small artefacts and image defects were manually corrected, while some histogram-based optimization and some fine curve-based adjustments were also performed. EXIF information with details from the original capture added. Pdellani (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 06:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ardabil Carpet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardabil Carpet.jpg
Comment The size is enough acceptable and big (1,248 × 2,411). There are many FP in commons in which clicking and zooming are needed to assess them in details. Alborzagros (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Size and details are not good enough, but better photo is not achievable. This 10 meter long carpet, lied on the floor in museum and taking direct photo is impossible. [6] This photo is from museum official website. --Monfie (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 17:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral There's a featured image of similar behavior that I feel is much better (by the same photographer) imho. Not sure if I like the square crop or the composition with the legs cut off. -- Yathin sk (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 11:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Daedongyeojido-full.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Daedongyeojido-full.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 09:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg
Neutral Quality is great, originality / subject is also FP to me. What bothers me is the background on the right side. It looks like a kind of wall (was it taken in a farm/laboratory?), giving to me the impression of a snapshot. It could be cropped or (better but more work) replaced with a similar background to the one on the right Poco a poco (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (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: Previously featured as File:Drohnenpuppen 79d.jpg. Only one version of a picture can be featured at any time.
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 Feb 2013 at 21:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Friesenbergsee und Friesenberghaus, Zillertaler Alpen 10.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Friesenbergsee und Friesenberghaus, Zillertaler Alpen 10.JPG
WeakSupport. Nice composition, though with slight quality defects (blown out snow, and a bit softer than I'd like in general). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 17:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Groynes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Groynes.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 12:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marrus orthocanna NOAA.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marrus orthocanna NOAA.jpg
What do you mean? Bp is right, both pictures are similar being this one the one with higher resolution. The other one should be then delisted Poco a poco (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Overwriting existing files says "Files that have been awarded a special status like Commons Featured Picture (or the equivalent on another Wikimedia project) should never be overwritten - the status applies to a particular file version, and even minor changes should be uploaded as a new file." The other one will be delisted after.--Citron (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Overwritting a low resolution (featured) picture with one with higher resolution is just common sense. I cannot believe that anybody here could have a problem with that. Ignore the rules when they don't support the project.
It seems a complicated issue as some people involved and trying to fight for their stands. It is not advised to overwrite an EN:FP; but here the EN:FP version is already a separate file. As in case of COM:FP, I think the consensus here can be considered to overwrite the existing file. My only concern is about the uneven crop (as I expressed earlier). So Support to overwrite. JKadavoorJee06:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 09:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mionochroma aureotinctum MHNT male 2 faces.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mionochroma aureotinctum MHNT male 2 faces.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 20:11:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Nacional da Serra das Confusões - 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parque Nacional da Serra das Confusões - 04.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 15:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tauroctony.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tauroctony.jpg
Neutral Nice shot, but noise level could be better for a still motive. ISO 100 + tripod had done a better job. Are tripods not allowed there? --Tuxyso (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tripods and any "professional" equipment are not allowed without prior permission from management and certainly not during daylight hours -- the place is absolutely mobbed. You can see from my settings (f2.8, 1/30s and iso400) that the light level is very low. This image hasn't been downsampled, so I think the noise/resolution is fine at 100% -- it improves to excellent at 66% reduction which is still a bigger photo than many nominations and many times higher than the minimum criteria of 2MP. So I think expecting ISO 100 levels of noise and sharpness isn't realistic. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there is nothing I can do about that now. If you have a few hundred quid spare, I'd be very happy to go back and have another go :-) -- Colin (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 23:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Times Square Ball from above.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Times Square Ball from above.jpg/2
337
3557
100
100
5616
3744
On the other side of this scaffolding is the upper screen of the tower
2783
2059
100
100
5616
3744
The ball itself in its staging area: this area is hidden by the large screen that the illuminated year digits are also placed atop.
Support -- I tried nominating this image once before (after being suggested to by the graphics lab so we could find out what needed to be tweaked.) Since then, it has been de-noised, and the white balance has been tweaked. I still stand by my previous argument: this is a very rare shot we got here, and the fact that its also been freely licensed is also quite a rare feat too (since getting the necessary privilege to go up here might be a bit tricky if you're not a member of the press). ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a full frame camera. A tripod would probably not fit, even if it could, this is an ultrawide fisheye, and for a camera facing down it's inevitable that some part of the photographer and/or his gear would be visible. Would you rather be looking down at human legs or tripod legs? --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea and the composition but the quality is just below the FP (and QI) threshold. I would have chosen an earlier time with more natural light, increased a bit the shutter time and reduced the f-number. There was play room to do so, and so reduce the ISO to 800, where the 5D Mark II provides a much better quality Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally do not like this fisheye look. Due to fisheye the spoiling feet of the photographer are inside the photo. The quality (noise, level of detail) is not really good, and could have been better with other camera parameters than (1/125 sec / ISO 1250 @ 15mm) --Tuxyso (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I rotated it 180 degrees for a better vertigo effect. Should we see if the graphics lab can remove the feet? I had brought up both of these modifications there before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is. This is a rare opportunity while he is assisting in setting up a robotic camera just above the 3 in "2013". So I can't understand suggestions like choosing a different time or equipment. JKadavoorJee07:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 09:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo sparverius 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbo sparverius 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 13:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zeche-Zollverein-Schacht-12-Foerdergeruest-2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zeche-Zollverein-Schacht-12-Foerdergeruest-2012.jpg
Support I asked the photographer to provide this photo under a free license for WP-COM because I like it very much. IMHO in has a very good quality (D800 resolution, sharpness), nice composition and beautiful colors and shows an important place: UNESCO World Heritage. Compared to other photos from this place this one is outstanding and worth to become feautured. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very nice, but I'd try is to reduce the exposure of the bright limelight on the upper left part of the structure, it spoils the symmetry Poco a poco (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the part at the very top left? The bright spot at 1/3 from the top at the left side is imho good and represents the nightly lightning of the object very well. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pro: High resolution. cons: Burnt highlight (as for poco), false colours (strong yellowish cast, compare to other photos in category), too tight crop, completely almost black background. -- Smial (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong with the colors. Look at this photo File:Zollverein_Schacht_12.jpg. It was widely used on every Zollverein article and is even warmer than this one. The colors result from the nightly lightning. I know the building exactly and can say that this colors represent reality well. You are also wrong with the black background. It has a VERY dark blue tone. For me especially that dark background accentuates the nice buliding. The highlights aren't fixable in JPEG, probabably I will ask the photographer, but I think it is marginal and does not hide anything of the structure. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a lot of time for the selection: I viewed the complete set in 100% full res (still have them in LR) and after in detail viewing I came to the conslusion that this one is the best, especially regarding sharpness and colors. The photographer was first very sceptic to put it under a free license (due to the possibility of commercial use), I explained the idea of Commons in detail and in the end he acknowledged for two photos. Please let us NOT discuss if another photo might be marginal better. Please be satisfied with this one, support or not. I like this photo very much. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 23:29:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Norwegian Coast Guard (SAR) Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma (Svalbard, 2003) 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Norwegian Coast Guard (SAR) Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma (Svalbard, 2003) 03.jpg
Support Admittedly, there is more noise in this image than I would like, but IMO to correct for it would blur the details (and feeling) of the image.-- Godot13 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 19:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 17.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 17.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 15:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eurytellina lineata.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eurytellina lineata.jpg
Oppose Inconsistent and uneven lighting. (BTW, EV is irrelevant at commons, nice to have it but by no means necessary.). B.p.22:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree. For me, every media in Commons should have some educational value as a basic requirements. We label the most valuable in a scope as VI, good pictures as QI, and with big wow as FP. For pictures with no EV but big wow, I would like to go Flickr Explore. JKadavoorJee05:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to disagree of course, but this is as it has always been here at commons. Wikipedia has always put the emphasis on EV (resulting in allowing small images there), but as you rightly state above, at Commons FP is for wow, QI for technical quality and VI for EV. Flickr a is popularity vote system for images of all sizes and of all licenses.
Yes; I agree with you on EV alone can't be considered as a criteria for FP as for VI/EN:FP. But I can't agree with EV is irrelevant for FP in Commons. EV should stand as a base for any educational repository. My only intention is to discourage some zero EV nominations pop up once in a while. JKadavoorJee06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jacopo, I can understand your confusion as you are not a regular at FP (15 edits at FP in the last 5 years), but this fact has been on and off discussed at least since I started in 2006. It is thus not an opinion nor an interpretation, it is just the nature of FP here on commons. We want to feature images that can be used for wow, as well on wikipedia (where EV is important) as anywhere else (where EV might be trivial). Value ≠ EV. (and yes I meant EV at FP on commons, not in general) B.p.13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@B.P.: Wikipedia ? which ? There are so many independent wikipedias... In the french wikipédia, there is no FP, nor any picture contest (fortunately...). But I think we all agree, actually. It depends of the point of start of the thinking.-Jebulon (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment EV should be a major criteria for evaluating FPC. I think too much importance is given to minor quality issues. Yann (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 11:38:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose очередная скучная церковь. Ещё и наполовину закрытая деревьями. Никакого восторга и интереса фото само по себе не вызывает, не вижу никаких оснований для номинации. --Алый Король (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 16:46:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 2467 and Surroundings.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 2467 and Surroundings.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 01:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ramses Station.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ramses Station.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 20:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 22:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vatican Museums Spiral Staircase Looking Up 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vatican Museums Spiral Staircase Looking Up 2012.jpg
If you look at the other photograph (from above) at the centre of the bottom of the staircase is some kind of sculpture/vase thing. It gets in the way of taking a symmetrically-centred photograph from below. I had to hand-hold my camera above my head -- tripods are forbidden. The low light meant a slow shutter of 1/8s. I think the small amount of blur in a couple of areas isn't distracting and only noticable when pixel-peeping at 100%. Colin (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're entitled to that opinion :-) In my defence may I point out the composition arrangement: the centred rooflight is absolutely aligned vertically/horizontally and the spiral that starts at the bottom-left kisses the left and top edges before heading inwards. The intricate relief detail contrasts with the gently lit curved ceilings. The man on the stairs lookup up at the skylight adds interest and gives scale. And the interior is well exposed (too easy to underexpose this shot). The closest I've seen on the internet is this (which has the sculpture/vase) or this (which has one less turn because they didn't have my fisheye). So I'd like folk to consider those attributes of this unique image against any little defects. :-) Colin (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 14:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Петропавловская-крепость.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Петропавловская-крепость.jpg
Neutral - I'm not sure. It's a good image, but we already have similar view as FP where I find the lighting conditions more atmospheric. I think that for a further FP of Peter & Paul Fortress we need a more special shot. --A.Savin22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 09:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Elephant mock charge. Discharge from the temporal gland indicates musth. Raised tail and head, ears open and curled up trunk are traits of a full on charge.
weak Support I'm not too fond of the composition, and it's not as sharp as it could be, but this definately has "wow". Could the information provided here (raised tail etc.) please be added to the description page? --El Grafo (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the guidelines, please avoid the use of other templates than the "officials" marks "pro" and "contra", and write "weak" or "strong" manually. The bot does not recognize other templates, and it makes troubles in counting votes. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I can see, it's not explicitely explained in the guidelines that it's not a good idea to use those "non-official" templates ;-) However, thanks for pointing it out – I'll keep that in mind for the future. --El Grafo (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 06:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- A nice picture but far from the exceptional level required (imo) for the FP star. The angle is not the best as well as the light, making the black parts devoidof any detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 14:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose It's always a good idea to put a photo first to Commons:Quality_images_candidates and after successful QI to FP. IMHO this image is neither QI nor FP, sorry. No QI: CAs, sharpness, distortion, overexposed areas, no FP: see "no QI", no interesting motive, composition or light, sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2013 (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: poor image quality and extreme geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2013 (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 2 Mar 2013 at 10:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is strangely cropped at left, quality is poor and geometric distortion excessive -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 21:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F35A.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F35A.jpg
Calm down. I repeat myself: you are not the creator. I didn't suggest that you lied, just pointed out that in this case, and according to your link, the creator should be "Lockheed Martin" or per default "anonymous", but not you. That's all. Poco a poco (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you notice on the page, unlike all the Air Force-authored images, it says 'courtesy photo' rather than a photographer's name. This particular photo was taken by Lockheed Martin, the manufacturers of the F-35, and given to the Air Force (for PR use, I imagine). The original is on their Flickr page, which has it listed as All Rights Reserved. As it wasn't taken by a member of the US Armed Forces, it does not qualify for Public Domain. All that aside, it's a pretty average image at best, and frankly wouldn't be FP worthy even if it was PD. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2013 (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 20 Feb 2013 at 16:19:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:12-07-12-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:12-07-12-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-010.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 16:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-06-12 15-48-27-vue-doubs.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-06-12 15-48-27-vue-doubs.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 19:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013-02-05 14-31-52-fort-roppe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013-02-05 14-31-52-fort-roppe.jpg
Oppose photo has good quality,for sure, but motive, composition and light dos not appeal to me. A narrow cellar way photographed with a wide-angle lens. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is lacking an object of interest and the image seems bland. While technically sharp, the image seems to lack a purpose and any historical meaning is lost with the two-word title and image description. Mono02:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 00:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cigarette smuggling with a book.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cigarette smuggling with a book.JPG
Oppose Sorry. But per Alvesgaspar (the background). + crop below is unfortunate, IMO. Excellent idea and interesting subject though.--Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice object (assuming that it is real, is it?. The file description doesn't say much) and original FP. The shallow DoF doesn't bother me but the crop avoids my support Poco a poco (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 10:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Sea from Jordan.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dead Sea from Jordan.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 03:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak Support Elephants are my favorite mammals and I've spent a lot of time with them both in India and east/southern Africa. The one thing that is frustrating about photographing elephants is that when they are calm they don't do anything of interest for a photograph. It is certainly the case with elephants in well-protected reserves. This is a good photograph but I feel it is not special enough for a featured photograph because I don't like the stance of the animal and the colors are not vibrant. ~y (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. While there is unfortunately nothing I can do about the stance, I loaded another version of the image which is slightly brighter without, I hope, seeming artificial. Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The colors are much better now and I also see more Kruger tones in the new version! The only time I've ever had a chance to photograph an animated African elephant was the very first herd I ever saw in the Serengeti. Since then, I've seen a lot of elephants but they've all been very well-behaved. -- ~y (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was only able to locate 7 FP images of live elephants, none of them drinking, less than half engaged in any movement. Is this image FP? Not for me to decide. But where are the FP's of elephants? With respect --Godot13 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take every species separately; so this as an African bush elephant. I can't see much distinguishable features on this picture than the two FPs and other pictures already displayed there. My opinion may be a little biased because I'm from Kerala; I see elephants on our streets frequently. JKadavoorJee06:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 00:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 22:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Imo, there is a lack of contrast in the jacket/hat-area, it's all the same black. Hence, it is very hard to distinguish the black parts of the hat from the jacket, and virtually impossible to distinguish the collar, pocket or sleeve from the rest of the jacket. Also, I find the flag disturbing - in combination with all the golden parts scattered all over the uniform, that's just too much "action" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compared to other FP portraits this one is very good: Nice background, good studio light, good composition, great expression. This is how a portrayal of a person should look like. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 07:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- Sorry George, a nice picture but not special enough for FP. I don't like the tight crop and the too busy background. Quality is just OK. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 21:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Model of wood fall succession on deep sea floor - journal.pone.0053590.g008.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Model of wood fall succession on deep sea floor - journal.pone.0053590.g008.png
Oppose EV is rather mangled by unidentified and/or unidentifiable organisms because of poor resolution (lack of location info further inhibits identification). The core-thing to the right is not explained and thus rather disturbing. And as Kelvinsong said, SVG would be much better here. B.p.17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 00:39:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ngc1316 hst.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ngc1316 hst.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Petri-Kirche-Innen-Altarbereich.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petri-Kirche-Innen-Altarbereich.jpg
Info I've uploaded a new version. Do you think it is better now? The ceiling and floor is quite orange / red in real, but I think you were right that it was over-saturated. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but not one of the best examples of HDR at Commons imo. Insufficient dynamic range (overexposed window with lost detailes), some noise in the roof and unfortunate cropping at the bottom.--ArildV (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you precise your argument? As still mentioned: The floor and ceiling have a quite extrem color in real, it is not due to overprocessing. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 21:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Planta energética de Iru, Estonia, 2012-08-12, DD 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Planta energética de Iru, Estonia, 2012-08-12, DD 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:13:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ryssebergen 2012b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ryssebergen 2012b.jpg
Info Forest in Ryssbergen (literally translated in English: the Russian hills), Sicklaön. Nacka. An old and beautiful forest very close to the center of Stockholm. The photo was taken in late May, to capture the beautiful and fresh early summer greenery and late (after eight o'clock) in the evening, to get the evening sun in the background.
Oppose I aggree with Vamps, but for me the motive is the main problem for support - no Wow. Bruce Barnbaum is famouse for his tree / forest photography and I even do not like his photos - I prefer a clear motive and not only an alignment of rectangular forms. Technically the photo is a slightly oversatuared in the green channel. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the comments. I am aware of the sky, but could not avoid (and HDR images do not work in a forest unless it is absolutely no wind). D7000 has one of the best dynamic range performance in the market, but it is still not enough. For me it was important to capture the sun and the beautiful colors, and less important for the image if small parts of the sky was overexposed.--ArildV (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 17:38:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Striated Heron-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Striated Heron-001.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 18:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Strix nebulosa CT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strix nebulosa CT.jpg
Oppose Level of detail and sharpness do not convince me, sorry. I personally prefer a more vivid background for a living animal. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 18:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Suricates, Namibia-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suricates, Namibia-2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 21:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
weak oppose For sure a very nice photo, but I think especially the left bottom part (also the right) is too unsharp for support. The texture of the water surface is also interestring for the overall statement of the photo. I am not sure if it is "normal" border unsharpness of your lens, or if the problem comes from f7.1. I am not familiar with the quality of Canon lenses. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 08:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise-Fog-Zoutelane.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunrise-Fog-Zoutelane.jpg
Question What "content" do you expect? It's a very typical photo from the Netherlands, all flat land. Luck that nearby Zoutelande are the highest dunes of the Nethderlands. I think the morning mood the fog and dew is content enough :) The house at the right is of a campingground (also very typical). There are not only high mountains and impressive rocks. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Little of the information you just gave me is noted in the image description, that's a small and correctable problem. But more importantly, I don't see any dunes and the house, composition-wise, is placed in the corner of the image and quite small, so as a viewer, I assume it just happened to be there. It definitely isn't a prominent part of the image. The problem I see is that about 50% of the image is filled with vegetation that is dark and has a high contrast. I don't see anything special there. About 45% of the image is filled with a sunrise sky that is, by itself, not more special or beautiful than any other sunrise. The sun is actually already relatively high in the sky. The remaining 5% of the image are filled with a house and a horizon line that looks interesting, but about which I as a viewer have absolutely no information. That's what I mean with no "content". It's not that I don't find the photo beautiful, I just don't see why it's special enough to be named one "of the finest on Commons". That's really all. If a majority thinks it is that special, I'm perfectly fine with this becoming a FP, I personally just think it lacks what I, for the lack of a better word, called "content" (sorry, I'm not a native speaker). There may not only be "high mountains and impressive rocks", maybe nice dunes or the sea or a well-composed scene with grass and trees would do. Or this can just be a really good, but not one of the finest images. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your in detail clarification. I cannot change your "wow perception" and I agree with you that "Wow" should be definitely an important aspect for FP - much more important than marginal technical shortcomings which are ofter taken as a justification for decline. The reason for nomination was that I think the light and mood is quite special notably the high contrast between vegetation and sky (btw: the vegegation is not black, every detail every drop of water is visible). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 08:50:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose noise reduction too visible in the sky (artifacts), unsharp building at the sides (esp. on the right) and per Julian Herzog (but the posterization is a minor problem IMHO). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 00:47:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow Kremlin (2004-05-16).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moscow Kremlin (2004-05-16).jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photograph is underexposed and the image lacks quality: extensive noise and lack of detail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (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 3 Mar 2013 at 21:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower lights the Paris sky.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower lights the Paris sky.jpg
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 below FP size requirements -- B.p.12:09, 23 February 2013 (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 3 Mar 2013 at 11:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puits Arthur 19-02-2013 (3).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puits Arthur 19-02-2013 (3).JPG
Oppose Exactly, it's just a chimney. A chimney with great composition could be PF-worthy. But from this distance, that's hardly possible because I think any good composition of this building would include the horizon/ground, and doing that would lead to heavy distortion unless you go further away. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 10:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sheikh Lotf Allah 3D aa.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sheikh Lotf Allah 3D aa.jpg
Oppose Seeing the thumbnail, I expected a strong "Wow". Unfortunately, I noticed strong distortion on both sides and many stitching issues (see notes) --Kirua(talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The issues are mainly due to the way the panorama is created. Bad software? Bad configuration of it? Which one did you use? In any case the place is stunning. If you provide the different pictures individually, maybe we can help --Kirua (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kirua. Thanks for your comment. I used "Microsoft ICE". I know it is professional and high quality, but It is the only software I know that can make 3D Perspective panoramas. Because of especial condition of this photo, It would not be nice if not perspective, plus it will suffer barrel distortion as you can see in this photo. After all, if still believe you improve it, please write in my talk to arrange to send you individual files.--Monfie (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 19:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:The Fortress of Asolo, TV, Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:The Fortress of Asolo, TV, Italy.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 15:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013-02-05 13-54-49-fort-roppe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013-02-05 13-54-49-fort-roppe.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 15:26:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aegolius acadicus -Fossil, Oregon, USA -juvenile-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aegolius acadicus -Fossil, Oregon, USA -juvenile-8.jpg
Oppose I hate doing this, but I agree with Rute Martins. If someone could edit to the distracting foreground objects to make them less prominent I'd be happy to support this. --TheHighFinSpermWhale18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A sight at which you just have to smile :), only this yellow patch in the foreground spoils the whole impression. If the image is cropped at the bottom or the yellow thing edited out, I'm likely to to support the nomination. --Maire (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 15:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support A 1869 self-portrait of Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard (1802-1872), french chemist, printer and photographer, inventor of the albumen print process in photography. This chemical process was the first way and step to mass reproductions of photographs. Thanks to him, since the 1850s, each photographic print is no more an unique work of art, and can be reproduced ad libitum. In my opinion, this scientist deserves a special place in the "Hall of Fame" of "Commons". Moreover it is a very high quality picture for that time (I've restored it by cleaning the spots, tears and dirt), please enjoy the level of details at full size.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 21:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old house typical of the island of Margarita.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old house typical of the island of Margarita.jpg
Neutral A VERY nice picture with good light, interesting documentary chararacter. But IMHO the young boy spoils the overall composition. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, agree somehow with you and I was aware of it prior to the nomination, but the fact that he looks to the center of the picture also gives to this shot some dynamic, therefore I wouldn't call it "spoiling". Croping or cloning out (hardly possible) is not an option in my opinion. Bottom line: I was fascinated by the lighting, the atmosphere, the place and composition, enough reasons for me to try it, in spite of the child :) Poco a poco (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you are right with the direction of the view. I should better say: the boy directly with the chair behind him spoils the composition. The boy alone would fit. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info You should not play with that. I do not believe in ghosts or any spirit, however, many people claim that a demon inhabits one of the rooms of the house.Babalawo recently tried to clean the room spiritually. In the 1930s a boy of 17 years committed suicide in that room, a shotgun blast in the stomach pit, the reason, he discovered his girlfriend with another boy kissing. This information tells me my great aunt --The Photographer (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light and a good job with removing the boy. But so little is in focus :-(. Basically only the Xmas tree and the door frame to the right. B.p.09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Erasing the boy reminds me too much of Stalinist-era erased photos. What was done was not the removal of a minor image imperfection. It was the obliteration of a human being deemed irrelevant or distracting, and in my opinion is beyond the limits of acceptable image manipulation. My vote would have been to support the original image. I absolutely do not support this doctored photo. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In light of Stigmatella aurantiaca's comment, I think what should have been done here is have two different versions that people can vote on. In my opinion, anything which does not make the image uncontroversially better (e.g. fixing CA or minor NR), such as changing brightness, cropping, removing "distracting" elements, should not be reuploaded over the original in an FPC. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- By removing the boy, you made the video game controller suddenly disappear (see the note on the modified version). The crop also could be better (too much roof IMHO). That's a pitty because I really like this picture and the atmosphere. And I disagree with Stigmatella aurantiaca concerning the acceptable limits of manipulation. What is the difference, ethically speaking, between removing someone from a picture or telling him to get out before taking it, in the case of an artistic picture? Kirua (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's too much editing for my taste. The problem is not the removal of the boy and the chair but the addition of the floor. --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 21:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stained glass window in Osijek cathedral.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stained glass window in Osijek cathedral.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 10:50:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Archeological Museum of Macedonia by night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Archeological Museum of Macedonia by night.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 10:48:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:June odd-eyed-cat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:June odd-eyed-cat.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 14:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 2264 by ESO.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NGC 2264 by ESO.jpg
Question Shall we really feature all the telescope images we should find on the net ? We have three on display at the moment, and I think it is really too much...--Jebulon (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose By Jebulon: No, I think not. Yes, they all look very nice, but more or less very similiar for a person who is not familiar with astrology. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 13:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Садиба Рея (Приозерне).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Садиба Рея (Приозерне).jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Strong perspective distortion, not correctible. --A.Savin16:04, 23 February 2013 (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 28 Feb 2013 at 23:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Protector in Antarctica.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:HMS Protector in Antarctica.jpg
Support, although the ISO is a little high, but given that the photograph was taken during an Antarctic winter, with a very low sun and reflective scenery, I'm not sure that a better shot could be taken. This photo was one of a set of six that won the Royal Navy's photographic competition in 2012. -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photo was taken on March 2, when it is still more than 17 hours between sunrise and sunset (date for w:McMurdo Station 05:21-22:44, 17h 23m 12s). The picture was taken early in the morning, a picture taken at a different time on a sunny day would have been different. That said, I like the image and composition. I cant decide yet.--ArildV (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, it's oversaturated, expecially the blues. Lots of color noice. But is't a great relection.
Oppose Too much contrast, bad colors (should be warmer), overexposed while somewhere underexposed (but I guess that is the contrast issue). --Aktron (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 20:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lisboa Ponte Vasco da Gama 20-10-2010 12-11-50.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lisboa Ponte Vasco da Gama 20-10-2010 12-11-50.JPG
Comment The top left seems to be darkened by vignetting or something else. I think that could be fixed. I also don't really know how to deal with the feeling that I keep wishing the rest was on there. --Julian H. (talk/files) 22:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I love minimalism but somehow deslike this composition, mainly because of the exaggerated empty space. Image quality is supposed to be excellent in this kind of pictures and it is not (lack of detail, sharpning artifacts). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 16:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Addo Elephants-001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Addo Elephants-001.jpg
Abstain -- I have read the comments on the other elephant nominations and asked for this one to be uploaded. Interested to see how it is received. NJR_ZA (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been following the comments here and on the discussion page and looks like there is a strong push for exceptional quality/composition/behavior for FP promotion. I think this is a particularly good shot (I love the light and the water) but the close crop, the harsh shadows and the angle could be better. Perhaps not a FP for me, but I'll watch for other comments before I decide on a vote. -- ~y (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback. I'll comment on it so we can possibly later use this FP discussion if the rules are to be strengthened, but please accept the comments for what they are, just comments; they are not an attempt to justify that this should be FP or an attempt to excuse shortcomings in the photo. Crop: Yes it does seem a bit tight, especially at the top. If I recall the original correctly it should be possible to recrop and if required I will ask the photographer for a new version for comparison. Shadows: Not sure how one would avoid shadows in nature photography without undue post processing of the photo. Elephants are big and make big shadows. Angle: Yes, angle is high (this specific viewpoint is high above the waterhole), that may or may not be an issue, I suspect the angle will come down to personal taste rather than a hard rule. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's always good to have a discussion :). When shooting at an animal below eye-level, the ground usually becomes the background, especially for high angles and the ground rarely makes for a nice photograph. Of course, it's a personal preference. The shadows in wildlife photography is more complex topic as it too depends on the angle of the photographer, position of the sun, time of the day/year, season and latitude! I feel that in this particular photo, the sun is making very dark shadows and different position or a later time of day could have helped in avoiding the strong shadow. EXIF says the time the photo was taken was 14:44 when the harshest shadows are made in tropics/sub-tropics. I also know from experience that herds with calves come to water around midday, so there's little to do except wait for some luck with the clouds to diffuse the light so that there's no harsh shadows. I think it is actually difficult to get a good/interesting photograph of an elephant even though they are so common (like I had commented on a previous FPC)! At first look, Angie Scott's 2002 wildlife photographer of the year photograph of elephants watching a grey heron looks ordinary but I think it is incredibly rare to see something so perfect like that (at least from personal experience in the African savanna). -- ~y (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could only track down a small version of the Angie Scott photo you mentioned; too small to see real detail, but the scene she managed to capture certainly is impressive. Problem is that is a Photo of the Year selected from a huge amount taken by professional photographers. If set the bar that high every FP then we will end up selecting only 1 FP a year. That will dry up the supply for Potd and make Poty obsolete. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought up Scott's picture as an example of how rare it is to get good elephant (and ONLY elephant) shots and not as something to compare FPC. I'm sorry if my comment seemed to imply about comparison with the top professionals in the world. I know that this is a fantastic picture because I almost exclusively photograph wildlife and know the difficulties. I just feel that it could have been better had it been a different time of day and different angle. ~y (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I think a lot of Featured Pictures are fantastic enough to be compared with the top professionals. There are some amazing pictures here. :) ~y (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 15:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo San Ignacio.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo San Ignacio.jpg
weak oppose I know (and hate) those backlit situations very well from my photos. The problem is that the front of the building is in shadow thus details of the building's texture can often not brought out well, as it is the case here. Additionaly the homogeneous sky leads to a non special atmosphere. Probably a more dramatic sky had convinced be to support. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 08:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedrale Notre-Dame de Paris nef nouvelles cloches.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedrale Notre-Dame de Paris nef nouvelles cloches.jpg
Support Very rare event(s), even unique, and pretty good picture IMO. Never seen this, and never seen the nave empty of people ! (Notre-Dame de Paris is one of the most visited monument in the world). Very good conclusion of an excellent idea of Wikimedia France ! --Jebulon (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose By Carschten (composition) + level of detail in dark areas became a victim of massive noise reduction. In the case of such motives the use of HDR is recommendable. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 09:23:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dogon Hunter.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dogon Hunter.JPG
Comment I added a useful category. What I find problematic, composition-wise, is that both his arm and the rifle are cut off, but not by much. The quality however is really good and the content probably quite useful, so I wonder if it's possible to at least improve that. --Julian H. (talk/files) 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if it's useful to add to categories but the four skulls in the background belong to a baboon (Papio anubis perhaps because of geography). It also be a useful addition to the Muskets category -- ~y (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like nearly everything except for the chopped off musket and hand, but that is perhaps making it more interesting? Can't decide, but very captivating for sure. -- ~y (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition could have been better as per Julian and ~y above, but I think there is enough wow, value and human interest to compensate for the shortcomings. I can definitely see this as a Potd and the only way to get there is to become a FP --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 00:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Enterprise free flight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Enterprise free flight.jpg
Support -- There is lots of noise, but let's not forget that the image is irreplaceable - it's a photo of the Space Shuttle prototype in flight - and from 1977. I think it deserves a fair hearing with that in mind. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 22:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 04:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glasses 800 edit.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glasses 800 edit.png
Oppose As per Alvesgaspar. A nice photo, but composition fails with the glasses on the sides cut in half. The big problem though is that I see neither wow or value in the photo. As the guidelines state: beautiful does not always mean valuable. --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not familiar with state-of-the-art 3D rendering, but the quality of the result is amazing. The problem is that the composition is VERY unorganized and misses a clear idea. --Tuxyso (talk)
Oppose Overexposed background wall, bad crop on the sides. And for a computer generated image, I would expect higher resolution. Yann (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 11:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Quality is not convincing. Sharpness and level of detail are very weak. IMHO something went wrong during processing. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe effect Wow, is not in the image quality. But the subject of the image. It is also necessary to read the caption. This is not a simpe starfish fossil. This is the holotype of the species is also one of the genus. This type of photography is normally reserved only pulications scientists. It is a great pleasure to be able to convince a curarator permetre you do this type of image. Try to reach the holotype, try to make images in the condition that you will be offered. My dream is to be able to see all holotypes in our encyclopedias. Thank you Alborzagros.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 13:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hysteroconcha dione.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hysteroconcha dione.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 21:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thurston Lava Tube, Big Island.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thurston Lava Tube, Big Island.jpg
Support while yellow, it does have an interesting effect and accurately represents the conditions of the cave. for a less yellow experience, try editing it to black and white or turning the color temperature up a ways. This is really an artistic preference and could detract from the image's representation of the subject. Mono23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 14:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vase with grape harvesting scenes BM 1897.12-31.189.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vase with grape harvesting scenes BM 1897.12-31.189.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 09:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dugong vs Plongeur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dugong vs Plongeur.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 14:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Note this area compared to File:Acavidae - Acavus haemastoma.JPG. Pictures on right side are not as sharp as on left. But overall good in a reasonable resolution.
Oppose Being large (very commendable) and having pretty colours is not always enough. Individual images have insufficient DOF here IMO. B.p.07:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear B.p., please make annotations where you think the DOF is not sufficient (Glad to hear also opinions of other voters concerning the DOF).--Llez (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 14:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leptaxis erubescens 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leptaxis erubescens 01.JPG
Oppose: First of all: I appreciate Llez's great and VERY useful work. Nearly all of your photographs of shells are technically perfect. But I feel unhappy to feature nearly every photo of that type: They all look beautiful but for a non-shell-researcher (and for the average WP user) they also look very similiar (except the different colors) and (only my very personal opinion) are not that interesting to feature them all. Why not select 1 or 2 of those photos with beautiful colors and outstanding sharpness instead of *-feature them? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This type of work is meticulous, hard to do and takes a lot of time. I personally very difficult to do. Here is the effect of this picture Wow. It is fair to reward work when it is useful. We are not a fashion contest. We're here to freely disseminate knowledge.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per other supporters. Please notice some infos: first, Llez has nothing to do with this nomination, I'm even not sure he is aware of it. Second, some of his pictures of shells have already been rejected here because of lack of technical quality. Please have good arguments to reject this one, which is for me almost perfect. What means FP ? We all have different opinions about this, for me it is certainly not a beauty contest (many other websites for that). What does mean "innovate" ? Why oppose innovation (?) and this picture, which looks very modern for me ? --Jebulon (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 08:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marmot-edit1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marmot-edit1.jpg
Oppose I really like the position and the composition. However, the compression is eating some detail (whiskers) and the stones have significantly clipped whites. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's a beautiful composition and has a great feel for a yellow-bellied marmot's preferred habitat and I see the same technical problems with the photograph as others. However, I feel it has a lot of wow factor, especially the sense of altitude and terrain that is often difficult to capture in photographs. -- ~y (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 11:19:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Here is an image with a big "Wow" for my taste. First, it is not a butterfly. The photograph is not too bad. But the effect Wow, is what is in the image itself. One may see here the first forms of life, 3.5 billion years ago. With a little imagination you can see here a group photograph ... fossil. Look, we all are here ! -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is a fossil stromatolite. Stromatolites are formed over the years by mats (1-10 mm in thickness) of microorganisms (cynobacteria among others) found in shallow, mainly marine waters. The microorganisms precipitate mineral particles, which makes the mat to thicken, but only the upper part survives. Most stromatolites display characteristically layered structures. Only the layers are visible to the naked eye. --Cayambe (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 07:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 19:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question I don't understand how a 15mm lens at f/8 would produce such shallow depth of field. Am I missing something? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies22:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the focusing is very close. I think you underappreciate how close you would have to be to the subject to get it to fill up even this much of the screen. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was at minimum focusing distance (~8") and horizontal FOV of the fisheye lens is around 160 degrees because of the sensor's 1.3x crop (will be 180 with full frame). The photograph was an attempt to capture the animal with a bit of its harsh environment. Also note that the image has been corrected for distortion. -- ~y (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I wanted to do was to save it from being run over by vehicles, but the normally brown chameleon got defensive (rightly so) and that's when I grabbed my camera because it is interesting behavior! -- ~y (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has something of a tilt-look (small world from using tilt function of T&S optics). The techincally quality (e.g. inside of the mouth and sharpness) is impressive. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 14:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysiridia rhipheus MHNT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chrysiridia rhipheus MHNT.jpg
Oppose -- Nice picture: an obvious QI and, probably, VI. But there are just too many FP of the same kind and this one is not exceptional in any aspect. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a stunning image, with a great wow-effect. We need featurable pictures of every species in the world. I'll support other featurable images of this species showing it in its natural habitat, also of the larva, the adult during egg-laying... though this is certainly a very long way to go. It's not the fault of the authors of this type of images, if other subjects are less well covered. Just my opinion. --Cayambe (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not often come on this contest FP. But I'm still very proud to see my pictures. I've never taken a photo for this courcours. This is a study. This butterfly is considered one of the most beautiful, but it is difficult to photograph. A white background lose the edge of the lower wings and a black background comes into confrontational with dark wings. Must try a raking light. The result was not bad. But I know I can do better. I'll vote for it, because at the moment this is the best picture we have of this species. I know and especially the time I spent. Scientific photography is often thankless. We need to attract scientists from other photographers. I think the images in micosocopes or CT imaging. Do not lose sight of the goal. We need to nourish an encyclopedia. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've a proverb: fishing in muddy waters. This is just a friendly mess. Don't try to make benefit from it. We were friends, are, and will be for ever. JKadavoorJee09:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only a picture alone, also a time-consuming work combined with a large amount of experience can produce a "Wow-effect" --Llez (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid Tonchino's and Jacopo Werther's votes are invalid and should not count, because only based on wrong criteria, not in the rules.--Jebulon (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't oppose (the image is too pretty) though I feel the same as Alvesgaspar, but you can't invalidate those votes. Then you would have to cancel half of the support votes for many of the candidates on FPC. B.p.19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@BP: I won't discuss this with you, because you are old enough in these pages, and therefore I think you understand very well what I mean...;)--Jebulon (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is false: the images are made by Wikipedians. The museum gives us access to its collections, but does not affect photographs. But on second thought ... I'm willing to be an institution.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jee, it is hard to follow you in this marmelad mixing of concepts. I'm a member of Wikimedia France, and we try to increase contacts with Institutions in order to have the privilege in taking unusual pictures in good conditions (Château de Versailles, Musée de Cluny, Notre-Dame de Paris, Museum of Toulouse etc...). That's why we (Wikimedians) tag our picture file pages with logos or labels of these institutions. Be happy that the rule here is to "assume good faith"...As for me, EOD.--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 16:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gologory Znak.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gologory Znak.jpg
Info created by Manuel F. Guerrero, U.S. Marine Corps - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral interesting perspective, however looks very "artificial" HubiB (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose This is definitely a QI, but I don't see this as FP. Sorry. Just to much of this road in the image and as it is dominating that much it is ruining the wow factor for me. It would had been better when there would be bigger focus to the sea. Maybe a crop would also help here. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I would recommend a crop on the left for two reasons: 1) the pole is a bit distracting at that position; either leave more space to the left (not possible in post) or remove it completely; 2) currently, the road is too centered. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
--Julian H. (talk/files) 13:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Capsule of a Opium Poppy (Papaver somniferum)
Bud of Opium Poppy (Papaver somniferum)
Opium Poppy flower showing a bud and a fruit in the background
Request can you add please a geotag? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Done Here, geotag is ready. --Tn4196 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
I withdraw my nomination I still think the image has great lighting and is of superb quality, especially for an animal that is primarily nocturnal. Too bad not many share my point of view. :) Nossob (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
chromatic aberration --The Photographer (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Weak support Lighting isn't sufficient and quite distracting bushes, but I like this vulture a lot. — Draceane diskuse 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)_coastal_scenery.jpg)
Question I cant find any information on the museum's website about the CC-licens only a short statement All pictures from the David Collection that are reproduced must be accompanied by the caption and the name of the photographer.? The photographer's name is also missing, maybe Pernille Klemp?--ArildV (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
JKadavoor Jee 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpeg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
_09.jpg)
--Jebulon (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_04.jpg)
--Jebulon (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Saint Matthew
Saint Mark
Saint Luke
Saint John
Keep Informations are not missing! See file's talk page (also that one), metadata and disc on de:WP. Just improper upload by Tomer T, only file description needs to be corrected.
Strong support Solar Police↑↑Speak 16:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
_-_Back_-_USGS_Bee_Inventory_and_Monitoring_Laboratory.jpg)
_2,_maneuvers_around_a_ships_propelle.jpg)
.jpg)
_original.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_coastal_scenery.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpeg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_09.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_04.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_-_Back_-_USGS_Bee_Inventory_and_Monitoring_Laboratory.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma_(Svalbard,_2003)_03.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_05.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){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}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Poster_papaver_5a.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Fix_CA_Version.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_coastal_scenery.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_coastal_scenery.jpg){kind=link}
_coastal_scenery.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_coastal_scenery.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IlkhanateSilkCircular.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpeg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_09.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_09.jpg){kind=link}
_09.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_09.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}
_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_04.jpg){kind=link}
_04.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_04.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Black_Rhinoceros_Gemsbokvlakte.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Back_-_USGS_Bee_Inventory_and_Monitoring_Laboratory.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Back_-_USGS_Bee_Inventory_and_Monitoring_Laboratory.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[5]](http://binghomepages.com/wp-content/thumbnails/1548.png){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}
_Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma_(Svalbard,_2003)_03.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma_(Svalbard,_2003)_03.jpg){kind=link}
_Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma_(Svalbard,_2003)_03.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_05.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_05.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg)
_05.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_05.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_dione.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
