Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 20:38:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Very nice, clear, lot of details, excellent light and composition. Maybe a little down sampled (small size), but no matter. Some negligible flaws to be corrected in the sky (please see notes).--Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 17:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Friendship in Pavlovsk Park 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple of Friendship in Pavlovsk Park 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 03:19:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Above Garmisch-Partenkirchen.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Above Garmisch-Partenkirchen.jpeg
I was standing on a sloped hill overlooking a ridgeline that recedes away from me. Rather complex scenario for deciding the right horizon. I chose to go with a few verticals as people sit straight up most times. Same with the snowman. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am really sorry, but I don't think this view is special enough for an FP. Not the best detail and compo, sharpening haloes on the people. You may compare to this one. --A.Savin12:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel that those mountains with the view of the clouds from the top had potential for FP but the composition is not convincing to me Poco213:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 23:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vista del Puerto de Victoria desde Sky100, Hong Kong, 2013-08-09, DD 10.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista del Puerto de Victoria desde Sky100, Hong Kong, 2013-08-09, DD 10.JPG
Support because I'm somewhere down in that picture, trying to get to the party where it was shot. Besides that, a really good view of the most densely-populated section of the planet at night, an angle on Hong Kong and Kowloon not seen as often. Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 18:48:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Foļvarkas vecticībnieku baznīca.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foļvarkas vecticībnieku baznīca.jpg
Oppose Looks great in the preview but at full res the concerns over quality are quite apparent. Wonderful setting and very featurable if done right. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 17:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palais du Luxembourg, South View 140116 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palais du Luxembourg, South View 140116 1.jpg
Support I have nominated this image as I believe that it is a good representation of the building with even lighting and shadows. I know that the off-centered parts are not perfectly sharp, but please consider the fact that the image has 27 (now only 23..) MP. Two photos taken within a minute have been blended here in order to remove disturbing people. This is my first nomination here, so please critize, but so so in a way that helps me improve. -- DXR (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the quality, colours and light. I would personally prefer a tighter crop at the bottom to balance it with the relatively tight crop on top (or, even better, more sky at the top). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe too much grass, maybe a bit unsharp left and right, maybe tight crop, but wow to me (the two Gardes Républicains, left and right, are nice !)--Jebulon (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed a significant part of the grass (I hope that is allowed during the process). You are right, it clearly looks better. Regarding the sky and the sharpness: At the moment, I do "only" use the 24-70 which is a bit weak at 24mm, cannot afford a proper UWA at the moment...--DXR (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Low sharpness is due to high aperture and not because of lens, panorama at f/5,6 at FF sensor is not so good idea, especially at building like this (two planes which are not so close). If you would put some f/11 it would be much better and sharp toward corners. However colors are nice. --Mile (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Mile, thanks for your input. However, I have also tried shots at f/9 and similar. I am aware of the effects of stopping down etc. but this does not change much too much with this lens at this focal length, unfortunately. --DXR (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support What fun it is to remove "disturbing people" with a digital pen. If only it was so easy in life (or on Commons) :-) -- Colin (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 15:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Munnar tea gardens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Munnar tea gardens.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Quality issues: blown out sky, sharpness, crop. Yann (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (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 8 Feb 2014 at 22:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Belogradchik Fortress (Белоградчишка крепост) - by Pudelek 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belogradchik Fortress (Белоградчишка крепост) - by Pudelek 2.JPG
Oppose The rocks with a strange shape in the second plan are certainly worth a FP, but the 2 rocks in the foreground hide them and ruin the composition. The half cut rock on the left is also not optimum. Either you include it fully or you cut it. Yann (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 08:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Bielefeld Altes Rathaus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Bielefeld Altes Rathaus.jpg
Oppose Sorry, but I think that an image of a building shot at daytime and without strong mitigating reasons should at least match the requirements of a quality image and that is not the case here (clear CA problems, not sufficiently corrected perspective, overall low level of detail). --DXR (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2014 (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: Quality issues as per DXR above. Yann (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2014 (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 5 Feb 2014 at 11:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St Mary, Eversley.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St Mary, Eversley.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 07:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:South Melbourne Townhall Dec 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:South Melbourne Townhall Dec 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 23:44:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bert de Haan.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bert de Haan.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Unsharp, bad expression. Yann (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2014 (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 Feb 2014 at 00:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca katedraal 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca katedraal 2012.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 18:50:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja Sacun Santa Barbara.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dlieja Sacun Santa Barbara.JPG
but what you're saying, maybe my English is not good so I did not understand, but the South Tyrol (Alto Adige) is in Italy. We are no longer in the Middle Ages, we do not parochial :D--Pava (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 10:55:25 (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 3 Feb 2014 at 11:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruddy Kingfisher.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruddy Kingfisher.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 19:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:DR White-necked Crow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:DR White-necked Crow.jpg
weak oppose Sorry, I am not convinced about the sharpness and I'd suggest to crop out or clone out the tip of the leave on the left Poco213:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed, the leave were removed from the left (by cropping) and a little bit more sharpness were added. I'm not sure I've added this alternative version correctly, if not, please help me. --Zanka (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 21:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jaroměř from air 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jaroměř from air 10.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 21:47:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puisenina must lammas..jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puisenina must lammas..jpg
Weak oppose Sorry Kruusamägi, but the picture is not really saying much to me. Sharpness is just ok and the composition a bit odd to me Poco213:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 20:55:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2014 A Erwin Wagenhofer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2014 A Erwin Wagenhofer.jpg
Comment Just comment, not to start a discussion: The picture was taken at the photo call for the Austrian Film Awards, where he was one of the nominees. The setting was prepared by the academy, all people involved with film making, visual art, who basically know what they are doing in concern of stage design, light etc. Personally I find it unusual but interesting (and better than the usual walls with all the logos of sponsoring companies). --Tsui (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the expression (or rather the lack thereof) on his face compelling; and the background is very distracting especially given his choice of attire. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 09:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Embid de la Ribera, Zaragoza, España, 2013-01-07, DD 08.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Embid de la Ribera, Zaragoza, España, 2013-01-07, DD 08.JPG
Info A regional express RENFE 440 series train serving the route Madrid - Barcelona crossing the Jalón River near Embid de la Ribera, province of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. This area, known as Hoces del Río Jalón (in English sickles of the Jalon River), near the bigger town of Calatayud, is famous for its particular landscape with highs and lows due to the erosion of the sinuous river resulting in lots of tunnels and bridges. All by me, Poco209:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't showcase the actual subject in a interesting or even dramatic way. This lacks the wow one should expect to see in an FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination The outcome of this nomination is really surprising to me. Managing this shot was really a lot of work in terms of preparation, exploring the area, waiting time, climbing, among others,... and I liked the result indeed. Thanks anyhow for the feedback. Poco219:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The location is definitely great, I think you should give it another go in spring/summer, when the sun is high enough to light the valley. A 45° angle between sun and track usually gives good results. E.g. see File:RENFE Class 470 Embid de Jalón.jpg (however that picture needs a wider crop new version). --Kabelleger (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the hint. The Renfe regional train is though by far not as interesting as the one in this picture. Furthermore trains here transit seldom (4-5 times per day), but I will try to make several captures in sommer Poco207:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Many american locomotives only vary little in shape, even across manufacturers. Plus you can find this sort of engine all over the world. The RENFE 440/470 have a pretty unique shape (we call them "Backstein", "brick"), and they only run in Spain and Chile (afaik), thus I think the latter are way more interesting. (btw. maybe we'll pay Spain another visit in autumn - don't know yet). --Kabelleger (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're problably right because my opinion is spoiled afer having seen these trains since I was a kid, and your opinion is surely more objective for this topic. Give me a shout if your plans to visit Spain get confirmed. Poco213:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 02:58:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Praia das Furnas. Porto do Son. 2013. Galiza-3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Praia das Furnas. Porto do Son. 2013. Galiza-3.jpg
Comment I think an alternate crop respecting the "rule of thirds" would work better in this setting. In particular the removal of some of the beach along the bottom. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You're right Saffron, sorry, withdrawn because I can't understand the problem with the light and I don't want to waste time--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll at least try to explain what I don't like about the light: It's the middle of the day at the coast of Spain in Summer, so the sun is shining almost straight down on the ground. First, that creates an extremely hard light since very little atmosphere is diffusing the light. Second, all objects facing the camera are in the shadow - the sun coming from the top only lights up surfaces facing up. Both for the people and the stones and other objects, that's not very favourable. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)20:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 01:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parella nas rochas da praia das Furnas. Porto do Son. Galiza-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parella nas rochas da praia das Furnas. Porto do Son. Galiza-2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 17:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wayuu Women in the Market.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wayuu Women in the Market.jpg
Comment Please dont compare a nomination with another with banal comments. This is not the same person or the same race. People should not be compared to each other, much less compare with another nomination. If this is the way to go, we end up comparing peoples or places selecting them only by color like facebook comments, rather than choose something deeper. I invite you to research the story behind each picture. In this case Wayuu people. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm; my comment may be very brief as I too a non native English speaker like you. But "interesting" is a common word which can be used to represent all the collective properties that make a subject/work "wow". "Interestingness" is the word Flickr use to call its secret algorithm that is used to fetch the explored pictures.
What make the other subject/picture more interesting to me? 1. Definitely her older age. Children and elders always catch our eyes than the middle-aged. 2. Spontaneous expression compared to the rather "posed" look here. I prefer to compromise on composition for "real" expressions, well-caught. 3. Composition. Here it looks you are too close to her with your 50mm. people feel upset when others approach too close to them; so little chance for a natural expression. That's why street/candid photographers always prefer longer lens.
"banal/facebook comments" and "invitation to research the story behind each picture" Sigh. It was my passion and I had spend a lot of time in collecting and researching on social documentary photography. Now I have not much time; not much active in such things.
Conflict in opinion: I see a CIO in many of your comments and acts. What is the difference in this picture and the picture by you? Both are portraits of people from different culture and geographically different part of the world. So both are useful for sociologists. One posted by the photographer himself; but whether it make any difference. How one become self promoting and other not? Why I can't document India; but you can do it for people of Venezuela? Jee07:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the shadow show a interesting look in this picture (talk)
I think this image could and should be salvaged. The detail is excellent and the expression charming. It is just the lighting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:17, 31
January 2014 (UTC)
I cant see any problem with this image. But if you see something than could be improved, you are welcome (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 11:26:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013-10-06 Stone Bridge, Prizren, Kosovo 8649.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013-10-06 Stone Bridge, Prizren, Kosovo 8649.jpg
The Old Stone Bridge (alb. Ura e gurit; serb. Камеңи мост/Kameni most; turk. Taş köprüsu) is an Ottoman bridge and one of the landmarks of Prizren, Kosovo. It crosses the Prizrenska Bistrica (alb. Lumëbardh) river and is suspected to be from the late fifteenth century, although there are only few historical sources. The photograph displays the bridge, with the Sinan Pasha Mosque clearly being visible in the background. On the left side of the photo, the outer wall of Kaljaja, Prizren's Fortress can be seen.
Oppose The view itself has FP potential for sure, but here I'm not convinced by the light (midday, cast shadows) and sharpness (rather soft); I'm sorry, not enough for an FP to me --A.Savin14:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 22:40:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:4ème manche du championnat suisse de Pony games 2013 - 25082013 - Laconnex 86.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:4ème manche du championnat suisse de Pony games 2013 - 25082013 - Laconnex 86.jpg
Oppose The resolution is pretty low, which is mainly a problem because it's not very sharp, and the background is very contrast-rich and distracting. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)17:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 22:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pitón de la India (Python molurus), Zoo de Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 08.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pitón de la India (Python molurus), Zoo de Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 08.JPG
Info Head of a specimen of a captive 3 meter long albino Indian python (Python molurus) in zoo of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. All by me, Poco222:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am very sorry if I am wrong, however, IMHO the eye appears to be a photographic retouching taken from another animal because that does not match the depth of field and focus of the rest of the head of the snake. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfredo, I have to say that I am offended and disappointed with your comment. I don't retouch or fake my pictures in the fashion you did with the bull in your FPC below. I have never done something like that and will never do without stating it clearly and for a good reason. Do you think I'd retouch all 12 pictures in this category?. If you actually oppose because you believe it is a fake, it would be fair to ask first and vote depending on my response. Poco208:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)~[reply]
Comment Hi Poco, my comment is not about you, about the category or about another fp nomination of mine. If you are my friend or not is irelevance in a FPC. I invite you to see my comment objectively, my comment was educate, I wrote I am very sorry if I am wrong and IMHO, then, please dont try to not deviate this nomination to irrelevant feelings that do not help to improve the picture. btw, in this moment the snake eyes look like is not part of the picture, maybe you make some overprocess in the eye area and now it look fake. I invite you to compare the snake eyes in this picture extrated from this category with your picture. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agree, my comment was not adequate. I appologize. I have uploaded a new version addressing some oversharpening issues, improving the bokeh and removing some spots. Please, let me know what you think. Poco212:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support No te preocupes. He estado viendo la primera version que subiste en la que no se ve el problema de oversharpening que genera un ruido no solo en el ojo sino tambien en otras zonas de la serpiente. Sin embargo, la ultima version tiene mucho mejor balance de blancos. Es algo que te he comentado con anterioridad, es un ruido particular que poseen algunas de tus fotos creado por el oversharpening luego de un denoising podria ser. Pienso que podria ser corregido si dejaras el ajuste de color que hiciste pA todas estas, por supuesto, es solo mi humilde opinion. Un abrazo --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add a note?. There were some issues that I addressed following Ivar's comment. Now, I don't see where else this problem is visible and it would be great to address the issues before the nomination is closed, mainly because they are correctible. Poco211:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 03:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stern mit Allianz Arena.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stern mit Allianz Arena.jpg
Comment I really like this image, but IMO it needs perspective correction. The parts on the left are leaning to to left.--XRaytalk07:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WeakOppose. I feel like the windmill is slightly awkward. Either have it completely sharp or blur it so a full circle appears. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 14:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 09:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barricades pres de Ministere de la Marine et l'Hötel Crillon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barricades pres de Ministere de la Marine et l'Hötel Crillon.jpg
Why ? The "sepia" color is original, and not due to the time. It was a choice of the photographer. This is not a "B&W" picture.--Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was usual to print images with a sepia tone at the time. But this fashion has not any more reason to exist. Such pictures should be in grayscale today. Anyway I think that it is more yellow than sepia, and the contrast could be improved (I did so for my alternative below.). Yann (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 09:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Trinité-sur-Mer 56 Front de mer 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Trinité-sur-Mer 56 Front de mer 2013.jpg
Comment I like the calm scene but there are some quality issues. I note a few stitch errors. The picture appears slightly rotated anticlockwise -- setting some vertical control points might help, assuming you can find true verticals in these buildings :-). It looks like the sky has been noise-reduced by blurring and this has overlapped onto the tree twigs and aerials on the roofs. Is it possible to get GIMP to save JPGs with a colourspace as JPGs aren't properly defined without them. Have you tried replacing Hugin's supplied blender with Smartblend? It does a much better job of hiding the joins and small parallax issues. -- Colin (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe stitching errors are fixed and the trees better. Still think it is rotated (verticals not true) but support anyway. -- Colin (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem concerning your faithfulness, Jee ! You're absolutely free to think the two pictures can be compared. Friendly. --JLPC (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice in QI and still nice here :) One improvement: it is slightly tilted to the left (houses are all leaning in that direction) Poco208:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 12:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puurmani mõisa tagant vaade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puurmani mõisa tagant vaade.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 10:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 20:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Panorama bei Kerá.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Panorama bei Kerá.jpg
Support kein Schlauchbild, natürliche Farben, einfach solide Arbeit, gut gemacht. Das Motiv ist nicht spektakulär aber es ist ein sehr schönes Bild. --Ralf Roleček23:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 18:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Navajo Generating Station from the south.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Navajo Generating Station from the south.JPG
Support There's an upload with comment "perspective" but appears to be identical to original? Was the intention to fix the sloping verticals? It would be good to fix them. As for the quality, this is a 36.15 MP image and I assume some of the blur at pixel-peeping levels is heat haze. At 50% size it is still 9MP and sharp. I like the contrast between the lovely sky and the huge chimneys. -- Colin (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Really nice composition, but lack of sharpness in the center and perspective distortion (easy to fix). --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photograph with much detail (obviously it's a bit blurry at 100%, it's 36MP). The perspective should be corrected, though --Tobias (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Ivar, great subject and composition but the sharpness of the station (below the chimneys) is not at FP level, sorry Wolfgang, Poco208:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 15:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rhiostoma smithi 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rhiostoma smithi 01.JPG
Info I use daylight as usual in shells down to ca. 5 mm, but I try to get the shells a bit brighter (and the longer I make photos of shells, the more experience I get). In shells with a size between 5 mm and 1 mm (like this one) I use artificial light. --Llez (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 20:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Savages-18.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Savages-18.jpg
Oppose I don't like the composition: Too tilted IMO. I dont like the DOF (F:2,8). Too much chromatic noise and noise. The spot of the left is disturbing IMO (see note)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 02:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 18:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 23.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 23.jpg/2
I supported the other image ! Answering your question : according to the rules, you must have only two active nominations. In my opinion (which seems shared enough), the other image of the same object is not an alternative, but another nomination. So you have to wait the end of the process of your first current nomination (étang de Thau), or withdraw one of them before nominating any other candidate. That is what I think. --Jebulon (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, make another fresh nom, withdraw, make another fresh nom, ...., ....., ...., till one get promoted or reviewers loss their patience (which comes first). 02:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Saffron Blaze, A.Savin, Jee, Jebulon. As I told it Jee, I consider good to lead the nomination of my first choice to its term and I will, I have make simply this to illustrate the fact that there is no rule in the guide. IMO the inscription of just this sentence : "Only an edited version of the original nomination can be considered as alternative." would be the simplest, the least ambiguous and the best way to put everybody all right. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:16, 01 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only an edited version of the original file nominated can be considered as alternative. could be good for me (even if I'm against the existence of "alternatives" since I'm here all around.)--Jebulon (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 22:26:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old Woman Laughing on the Market.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Woman Laughing on the Market.jpg
Comment I think a crop on the right and adding some space on the left would make it better (rule of the third). Nice expression. Yann (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice comment, however, IMHO To capture human expressions do not have time to implement any rule, just take the picture quickly as possible. If you or anyone has any different technique, is a good idea to know. thanks --The Photographer (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Yann gave you good advice. Crop isn't so lucky - middle position. Picture is 2 Mpx (barely "legal") on 12 Mpx camera. I am sure you have plenty of space around to improve crop. Let us see the beauty in full, why such downsizing ? Also some bad posterizing in black area. --Mile (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That picture was taken and exported from Lightroom long time ago. I think that this image had some sort of defect and I wanted to hide it downsizing. However, there is no way of knowing, since the computer where are raws and lightroom is being repaired at this time. On the other hand, I have noticed comments raise the picture resolution, if you have a 12 MP camera should always try upload pictures at the highest resolution possible, I am absolutely in favor of this point .. Many users have cameras with huge resolutions like D800, however, they prefer upload images in smaller sizes. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, that hand can be easily removed. But the removal of the "ball" very close to the face ruined the picture above. :( Jee05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 19:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cēsis medieval castle.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cēsis medieval castle.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 19:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flock of sheep.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flock of sheep.jpg
Oppose The version uploaded first strikes me as having better colours, DOF, and a much tidier crop than the right side of the nominated version. Neither is really an FP IMO though. The setting seems far too industrial, even with the distant mountains; there's no need to jam them against a fence, and the ear tags seem a bit oppressive. --Avenue (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 15:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mozart Sonate (manuscript).djvuCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mozart Sonate (manuscript).djvu
Info created by W. A. Mozart, uploaded by Gmaxwell, nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Exceptional document, the only complete manuscript of Mozart we have on Commons.
Support Oui, mais bon... Pas fair-play... là, tu me prends par les sentiments... Anyway, each page here is featurable, so I support--Jebulon (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 18:03:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak oppose I like the subject but there are a row of issues that make me oppose: some overexposed areas, perspective problems (horizontals at the bottom are horizontal, but the statue overall is leaning to the left), top left crop (the young guy should be cloned out or cropped out) Poco208:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the hints. Reworked from RAW the overexposed areas and cloned out the two youngsters. For the perspective I can't see any problem. --P e z i (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice your improvements before the nomination was closed, much better now, indeed, I'd have stroken through my oppose. Poco210:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 17:00:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Am I the only one who thinks there is too much black in this photo? I really like composition etc., but the photo seems very contrasty to me. --DXR (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 21:55:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Обледенелая береза.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Обледенелая береза.jpg/2
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 11:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I know for Kazakhstan FoP. However metro stations are obviously allowed (Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place - there is paragraph what means permanent) Like in all No FoP states. --Mile (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Obviously allowed" isn't correct. Several Moscow and St. Petersburg etc. metro stations have been already deleted on Commons, I'd really like to upload some good images of them on Commons but sadly I'm not allowed to do. --A.Savin14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just checked, there are Moscow metro station photos[1] like mine since 2008, from St. Peterburg since 2006[2] ? Could you show somehow what of metro wasn't allowed ? --Mile (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say it's forbidden, it's just in contrary with the Commons' copyright policy. Of course it's impossible to delete all previous uploads nor to prevent new ones. It's also a fact that in Russia a modification of the Civil Code is in preparation that will allow FoP for buildings (but still not for sculptures), so that we're rather reluctant with DR's for buildings in Russia for the time being; but this doesn't apply for Kazakhstan afaik. Also, I'd like to clarify that I'm not going to RfD your picture, which is btw a real good one; but I'd not nominate it as FPC, either; because 1) nominating pictures with unclear copyright status goes against the FPC guidelines, and 2) it will be really pity to see this photo get deleted when it's already an FP (and this especially for the author, I guess). --A.Savin16:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 22:15:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lilium in Santiago - Chile.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lilium in Santiago - Chile.JPG
Wow, you made me sweat... In the English Wikipedia there are 107 different species, since i'm not an expert in flowers, I searched and I believe it corresponds to a "Lilium Auratum var. Wittei"... that was really hard to find!
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 17:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Joshua Tree National Park (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 22.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joshua Tree National Park (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 22.jpg
Comment imo the nice tree is main subject and therefore species ID is needed. Also I don't understand the combination of f/3,5 and 1/3200 sec (dof could be much deeper). --Ivar (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the values may be not optimal, but the aim was that the background is slightly blurred. And even at f/3.5 it is still clearly visible. The focus therefore is sufficient in my opinion, even at f/3.5, f/4 or f/5.6 might have been a little better. In a smaller aperture like f/8 in my opinion would result in too much DoF. (BTW: ID has been set.)--XRaytalk16:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 07:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fanciulla sulla roccia a Sorrento.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fanciulla sulla roccia a Sorrento.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 06:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gletsjermeer van Arsine (2460 m.) Écrins National park, France.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gletsjermeer van Arsine (2460 m.) Écrins National park, France.JPG
Weak oppose I like it overall but the sharpness is just not there. I would have also crop it a bit differently, a bit more of sky and less of background. I also would like to see more on the left. Maybe a panorama would have worked here, I am not sure, I don't know the place. Poco209:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lack of sharpness (and overall CA) is a negative technically. The foreground looks a bit uninviting like a quarry rather than a landscape of beauty -- I appreciate there isn't much one can do about that. I agree a bit more sky would help. I'm sure it is a very useful image of the area but it isn't working for me as an image. Perhaps in a different light? -- Colin (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 00:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Põdravasikas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Põdravasikas.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 14:20:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 20:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 07:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SM Brzezinka kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP (19) ID 596368.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SM Brzezinka kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP (19) ID 596368.jpg
Comment Seems overprocessed to me, looks unnatural. I find the composition a bit strange. A square crop should be better in my opinion. Matter of taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it is a bit overprocessed, it managed to eliminate any possible blown highlights in the clouds or sun reflections, often a dealbreaker with pictures like this. I have no problems with the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the seldom cases where a centered composition works for such kind of motive. Nice light and dramatic sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 20:00:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 16:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Severe problems with masking. Large jpg-Artefacts and colour spots (reddish) around the whole figure, especially in the regions of the annotations. Please have a look in full resolution where it is well visible. Should be corrected. --Llez (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 07:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Altja paadikuurid.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altja paadikuurid.jpg
Oppose I fear that the lighting is not really good (not balanced) and the subject is not that outstanding either. Poco208:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I don't know what balanced lighting is but I uploaded another photo taken on a cloudy day. This is the most outstanding subject I have photographed for wiki. The real symbol of Estonia. It's not the Russian church at Toompea, it's not all the German manors.. it's the fishermen huts by the sea.
While you may have a great image for an article that doesn't mean it has any photographic wow. However, in this case I think the subject could be featurable if the lighting conditions were better. The cloudy day image shows the subject well but in a dull way. The bright sunny one has uneven lighting. The composition could be different too, perhaps a bit closer and taken from a lower angle (not that this is the only way too add some wow to the image). Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would support this version, I really like the overal (little depressing) mood it shows. The image is gray in all of its parts, gray sky, gray building, white (I count that with gray) snow, and then there is the red boat. Composition seems good as well. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 21:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Freeride World Tour 2014 Chamonix - Christine Hargin.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Freeride World Tour 2014 Chamonix - Christine Hargin.jpg
Support I took the photo of the skier during Freeride World Tour in Chamonix, France. Technically, it is good. I like the reflection of the mountains on the glasses. -- Ludo (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 17:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castel Sant'Angelo at dusk, Rome, Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castel Sant'Angelo at dusk, Rome, Italy.jpg
Comment When jumping to her dead from the Castle of Saint Angelo, Tosca's last words are addressed to the evil Scarpia (whom he had stabbed to death before): O Scarpia, avanti a Dio! (Oh Scarpia, before God!). I can't look at this building without recalling the powerful musical theme (Scarpia' theme) with which the opera ends! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject is spectacular, the detail is superfine, but I do not like the cut, and the flag of Italy is unreadable. I do not know what to vote :( --Pava (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The flag is moving due to the long exposure. It is not unreadable : you read it as the flag of Italy. My suggestion: Support..--Jebulon (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its to much into red-yellow. Auto WB wont solve night shots always. Lowering temperature will. I would also put contrast to normal instead of Hard. --Mile (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment White is white. I'm afraid it is almost so in real, sorry. And I corrected the camera setting with Lightroom5, as I do usualy. Please dont assess with metadata: they are false, at the end of the process...--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is white here ? Ligth bulbs are white in real, I suppose fort should have more white reflection. Common mistake of night-shots. The bulbs you see now, arent white but just overburnt as level chart show. --Mile (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As we completely disagree "in fact", I'm afraid there is nothing to be more discussed together. Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Martin. Of course the wb is correct but... You cannot support twice ! I hope other reviewers will support this picture...--Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is centered, and therefore misses some tension. Furthermore (not up to Jebulon) the lighting of the ensemble (castle, bridge, street) is not really appealing (unbalanced, some ares are too dark,...). I also wonder if there was a chance to include the reflexion of the castle in the river Poco208:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for interest, but thats an old military building, symetrical by essence. A centered composition is particularly appropriate for a documentary picture, a decentered should look artificial. The bridge is not the main subject, more bridge means less castle. You are very welcome at my QI and or FP gallery to enjoy special pictures, even detailed, of the Sant'Angelo bridge. Some others are to come, by the way...--Jebulon (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 17:11:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rome (Italy), Motorcycle (black and white) -- 2013 -- 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rome (Italy), Motorcycle (black and white) -- 2013 -- 6.jpg
Support the cut is not the best but the detail is impressive. But that motocycle is? do not see many around Rome of this--Pava (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 16:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Étang de Thau, Sète, Hérault 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Étang de Thau, Sète, Hérault 02.jpg
Thanks!, the half? no, here you have about 1/8, on the right you already have this one, on the left this one and after this other one (from an other point of view), this four picture are only 1/3 of the Étang de Thau. I have never tried to make panorama or images consisted of several, but I promises to try one day from this point of view. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry to repeat always the same old things, I know I can be annoying: the landscape depicted in this photograph do not send me anything. trees (down) are not taken into consideration, yet there are, it follows a nasty cut image. I do not want to be argumentative or disagreeable but sometimes it seems that you do not select the images that you propose. I'm sorry--Pava (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 16:45:54 (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 7 Feb 2014 at 16:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpg
Question Is it a distorted panorama ? Are the walls "horizontal", in real ? Very nice place and shot, but I find it disappointingly unsharp at full size.--Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The wall is actually turning about 40 degrees. Thee turn may be a bit smoother in real but there is always some kind of distortion in panorama. Even when the horizontals and verticals are strait. About the full size.. should I really resize it by 50%? Because then it will look sharp at full size. The thing is that bigger file allows you to have "closer look". Web browsers allow you to look the image at 100%, unfortunately there is no other option than "full size" and "fit to screen". By using image viewing or editing software you can zoom in more 200%, 300% etc.. so you can make every photo look unsharp. Now if I downsampled the image by 50% then basically the web browser would allow you to look the photo only at 50% size compared to the original photo. For sure it would look sharper. My question is, what't the point? Who am I kidding? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but of course all your arguments are very well known and already read here since years. I don't want you to downsample nor to upsample your pictures. If you upload this picture at the size you took it, ok, then you took it unsharp, sorry. And by the way, downsampling does not make any picture sharper, just an illusion of sharpness... Something else: I think there is something disturbing with the light. It comes from right, but does not light the right nor the central tower, but only the right parts of the left towers... It is a strange effect of the distortion, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, don't be sorry. If you express your opinion and do it with good intentions you don't have to apologize. Secondly, if you have heared all these arguments but still don't get the point, it means you haven't learned anything in all these years. Illusion of sharpness?? Is a screen size photo an illusion? Is the painting on the wall real only when your nose touches it? And does it become an illusion when you step move away few steps? Think again. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting view but, apart from the sharpness, the lighting is not really the best, and the right area is overexposed Poco222:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quess the "sharpness issue" should be solved now. While the tone of the wall is the same throughout the picture, I cannot agree that the right side is overexposed. If the sky is more bright at right it should look more bright on the picture. Of course you could argue that snow and sun are always overexposed.
This must be a joke. Is this picture also overexposed? And of course I already know that the picture under the guidelines, an example of normally exposed image, is also overexposed. Please don't make up your own rules and standards. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 13:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sistema de regadio circular.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sistema de regadio circular.JPG
Oppose Sorry, but I think that it is a large problem that the top of the machine is missing, also the composition is far from convincing to me. I really see not reason why this photo should have been taken at 55mm when you were using a wide-angle zoom. While the rainbow is nice, the overall image is not a FP to me.--DXR (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My main point of criticism has been addressed, therefore I'm changing my oppose to a neutral, however I think the resolution must be brought back to the level it had before, 2MPish is a bit too less. --DXR (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Siguiendo los comentarios he subido una foto actualizada para corregir la composición, y pueda verse completamente el equipo de regadío. Muy agradecido ante la sugerencia. Muchas gracias. --Ivan2010
Comment Composition is better, but now the size is quite small. You should also upload the new one separately since the first one was promoted as QI. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 03:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ein Bokek. Dead Sea. Israel. 05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ein Bokek. Dead Sea. Israel. 05.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 07:07:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Inlandsbanan Mora station Mars 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inlandsbanan Mora station Mars 2013.jpg
Weak oppose Good quality but I am not convinced that the composition is featurable, furthermore I think that the timing was not the best, since the side in the shadow is captured, sorry Arild, Poco208:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 17:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schlammvulkan Berca.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schlammvulkan Berca.JPG
Oppose The composition is cut off at the bottom and the main subject is not isolated in any meaningful way. The image lacks that certain "wow" that should be the hallmark of a FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 12:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Feather Close Up.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock Feather Close Up.JPG
Hi Satdeep gill. Please note that only two nominations are allowed to run parallely according to FP rules. Please decide which one you would like to have removed. I have put the FPD marker here, but of course that can easily be resolved if you withdraw either of the other two nominations. Just as a piece of advice: It might be better to first nominate images at our Quality Image candidates to get a first response regarding the quality of the images by regular contributors here. Best regards --DXR (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of opposition rationales above. This picture is far of FP minimum standards, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2014 (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 16 Feb 2014 at 12:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Niitvälja raba jaanuar 2014 HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niitvälja raba jaanuar 2014 HDR.jpg
Weak oppose I think that the centered composition doesn't work here, furthermore the lower part is too dark IMHO, I'd like some more luminosity there (longer exposure or taking the picture a few minutes later). The colors are good, though. Poco209:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 05:57:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nõmme Saksa Lunastaja koguduse palvela.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nõmme Saksa Lunastaja koguduse palvela.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 00:23:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hannes Kollist.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hannes Kollist.jpg
Has now. He is also rather likely to become a professor soon in Tartu Univerity, he is very successful in his field of study and is definitely notable enough for an article.
What makes it interesting for me, is that at some moment there is a situation where person has to be very well known and in some situation not at all. In what situation we should talk about notability? What it it's just an image of an old lady sitting on a street market or a young boy in beach?
Now, perhaps he's indeed an ambitious scientist; but looking at Commons:Featured pictures/People, we see that there are portraits of people who play in a much higher league wrt their relevance; surely there are also photos of common people, but that pictures typically have some artistic component, and/or an unusual composition, etc. which qualifies them to be among the "very best of Commons". This picture here, however, is neither of particularly high EV nor of much artistic value, so not enough for FP to me (my opinion; maybe just a matter of taste). --A.Savin19:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the framing and pose very much, looks natural. I don't see a justification for the strong green tint and quality is good but not exceptional. A little sharpening with a radius around 3-5 pixels would help a bit I think and removing the tint, then it would be great. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Burnt out area to the left,vignetting, bad lighting of the face, neither a portrait nor a documantation of scientific work, very small DOF (nothing really sharp). --P e z i (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 13:39:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 10:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Allie Mae Burroughs print.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allie Mae Burroughs print.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 03:51:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Componentes electronicos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Componentes electronicos.jpg
Weak oppose I like the idea, but agree with Kruusmägi regarding the lighting and I would have included more components to avoid that the bottom can be seen and so improve IMHO the composition. Poco209:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 22:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose. Primarily, I think the subject is relatively ordinary so the composition should be a little more special, at least leaving more space on the right than on the left. Additionally, I think it's oversharpened and at the lower end of the resolution I would expect for a static object in daylight. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)10:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 14:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tsarevets - Veliko Tarnovo - 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tsarevets - Veliko Tarnovo - 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 20:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:526452-Fort Pampus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:526452-Fort Pampus.jpg
Support -- I like the clear cut straightforward aerial shot of this characteristic fortress. Quality seems good to me as well. Basvb (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 13:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Birdy-2450.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Birdy-2450.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 09:19:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 20:47:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 19:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sleet damage at Postojna train station.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sleet damage at Postojna train station.jpg
Info Sleet-encased and damaged rail infrastructure at the Postojna train station after freezing rain that struck Slovenia in February 2014.
Support Good quality and high EV. I would have appreciated a less tight crop, but still a good photo and documentation of the catastrophic storm that hit Slovenia.--ArildV (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition alone doesn't do it (yes, I recognize that nature doesn't exactly give you a lot of options there) but the EV and the colors—oh, the colors—more than offset that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2014 at 18:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vao mõisa aida tuulelipp1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vao mõisa aida tuulelipp1.jpg
weak Support Even if there is no big wow, for me there is not a list of featured subjects, quality is good, without being outstanding the composition and the image are not unpleasant, and the lack of wow is compensated by EV. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:04, 2 february 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 12:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Attica 06-13 Athens 50 View from Philopappos - Acropolis Hill.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Attica 06-13 Athens 50 View from Philopappos - Acropolis Hill.jpg/2
Support Excellent quality of relevant subject, only thing that slightly puts me off is the sky. Have you altered it? But support from me in every case--DXR (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the colour, yes, I applied a gradient filter. Altered? I don't know... but rather not. I like current colours more than in the original version and in the first edit by Norbert. --A.Savin20:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good improvements IMO but the light (not the colors) is a bit better on Norbert version, I think you need a little more of (white, highlights, clarity and clear tones) Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have increased the highlights a bit, but actually I'm happy with it as it is and wouldn't additionally modify the levels. --A.Savin10:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good ligthing, composition and sharpness (apart from left side, a bit blurry), but the crane before the building spoils it and skips the magic of the place Poco209:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 11:49:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blasieholmen February 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blasieholmen February 2013.jpg
I am not a theoretical expert on aerial photograph, but I guess it has to do DOF, height, angle and distortion. This image is not downsampled, only cropped. The reason I still nominated picture is that the entire main subject (peninsula) is sharp. But above all, I nominated it because it is imo a beautiful image of a very central part of a European capital and with a high EV (with several famous landmarks, including the National Museum and also illustrates a characteristic of Stockholm, the water! Stockholm is situated on fourteen islands). The fantastic winter weather with sun contributes also to a WOW imo.--ArildV (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pros: good lighting and aerial view; Cons: sharpness and composition (I miss something here that draws my attention, maybe some lines, the bottom left crop is also improvable IMO) Poco209:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 16:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Australian Open - Bernard Tomic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Australian Open - Bernard Tomic.jpg
Weak oppose Nice closeup, composition also works for me, but I miss more sharpness overall, too much motion blur, sorry Poco222:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 14:45:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Klara kyrka february 2013 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Klara kyrka february 2013 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 21:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puesta de Sol en las montañas.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puesta de Sol en las montañas.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 17:36:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/image:Friedrichshafen-40 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/image:Friedrichshafen-40 1.jpg
Oppose Given the subject is the sculpture I can't see how this presents it in a compelling way. The background is more interesting than the subject due to the lighting. I am also distracted a bit by the pole in the foreground. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 07:48:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cerkiew w Parcewie.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cerkiew w Parcewie.JPG
Oppose Sorry, several issues for me: Random bush dominates image, vignette not very appropriate for wiki purposes, poor detail quality (JPEG artifacts, branches look awkward) --DXR (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo is somehow interesting, the vignetting is imho not much disturbing. But the photo has massive quality / noise issues. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 11:18:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
There are many bird pictures on the internet. I assume you don't shoot birds or animals? Probably you appreciate/shoot other types of photography, I can't blame you. Let's respect all forms of photography. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 03:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, lot of works, excellent quality! It is enough to promote for FP? Sometimes I can't understand how to apply FPC rules :( Just a regular (high quality) bird shot. Except of preparation works there are another indulgences for close-up bird, butterfly and flower shots to promote and accept? In this shot I can't realize even how big is this creature - all background is not in focus. --Kikos (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to approach a live wild bird and we can't expect more DOF from 500mm. Moreover, the bird easily blend with the background for it's own protection (it only chooses such places for its stay) and we can't even see the subject, if everything is in focus. For other purposes, we have "animals in zoo", "dead specimens with scale", etc. I agree with you that behavioral shots like feeding, hunting, mating, etc. has more wow. But it seems JJH's contributions are more own static moments to describe Wikipedia articles. He prefer to capture subjects without any obstructions so that whole parts of the animal is visible. He has more FPs there (at English Wikipedia) too. Jee03:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo has an unnatural yellow cast, which needs to be corrected prior to featuring. Well visible as an overall yellow cast and also in the white areas of the plumage. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 23:50:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Krkonose Vysoke-Kolo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krkonose Vysoke-Kolo.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 17:25:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mausoleum to Husband-Benefactor in Pavlovsk Park 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mausoleum to Husband-Benefactor in Pavlovsk Park 01.jpg
Lighting - the best possible. This mausoleum is always in the shade, so it was intended. See map. This place is supposed to waft sad thoughts. --Kaganer (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 23:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pararge aegeria in cornwall.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pararge aegeria in cornwall.JPG
Neutral Difficult, the sharpness of the head and body is very good, but the lighting is not the best and there are overexposed areas Poco222:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNot sure whether it is really necessary to use "terrible, terrible, horrible" in a useful review. After all, the aim should be to help the photographer improve. The photo might not be good enough for FP, but it is not a completely unreasonable nomination. Also I'm not sure that "Strong oppose" really is necessary here, doesn't do much but drama IMO. --DXR (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 14:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carambola Starfruit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carambola Starfruit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 16:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Las Vegas (Nevada, USA), The Strip -- 2012 -- 19.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Las Vegas (Nevada, USA), The Strip -- 2012 -- 19.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 01:06:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:AcroDanceHandstand.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:AcroDanceHandstand.jpg
Oppose regretfully. The composition is great, but imho, there is too much noise in the pic and lighting is not good, and also the pixel count is below the standards. Sorry. Nikhil (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2014 (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: Insufficient quality (but the pixel count is OK). Please nominate images to COM:QI before doing it here (this one is not even QI). Yann (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2014 (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 2014 at 18:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kurtna Nõmmejärv.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kurtna Nõmmejärv.jpg
Oppose This is a nature scene and I don't like that anything was cloned out from the original. I might support a crop. The subject and colors are nice. --Pine✉08:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a crop of the original? It doesn't look like enough has been cropped from the top to remove the branches. --Pine✉08:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry but that is plain ridiculous. I seriously hope that you are able to distinguish between subject for which even lighting is desirable for EV and those where other lighting is creating value. That here is just creating trouble out of thin air and really irritating. Don't you think it would be better to withdraw that nomination here and just accept that opinions about what should be FP differ? --DXR (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Urmas, this is going way too far. In wiki language what you are doing here is called sabotage. You are trying to make a point abusing of the Commons policies and Commons resources. Please, stop this. Poco223:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me I was actually a big surprise that this image got FP status, but people seem to like it ;) A lot. But lets just cool down a bit and avoid overreacting. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my own photo, I nominated it and I don't think it is offensive, ridiculous, sabotage or abuse of policies if I initiate the delist. When I nominated this photo, I had no idea how a decent FP should look like. Now I know better. I have a better photo of that tree, that deserves FP nomination more that the present one. I don't understand your reaction because most of you didn't support the nomination. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I'm not sure what all the drama is about, but IMHO I feel this picture lacks sufficient technical quality. It is rather pixellated and the fact that the sun is shining so brightly in the middle of the tree is really irritating. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy closing to avoid external interference as POTY is running. You may make another delist request when the POTY is over but I suggest you to wait for one year, at least. Jee10:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 23:36:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aegithalos caudatus front-on.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aegithalos caudatus front-on.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 23:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hochofen 5 Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord Abend 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hochofen 5 Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord Abend 2013.jpg
17
9
2888
2150
3937
2580
Proposal for a crop
Info This photo shows one furnance of Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord located in the Ruhr district. The "park" is a huge former steel industry complex which is now accessible by the public and reminds the visitors of the coal and steel history of the region. At night the former furnaces are illuminated. The photo nominated here shows furnace No5 which has a visitors's plattform at the top of the tower. created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso, some retouch work by User:Kallex - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is only about ~10 kilometers from my home town thus I have some geo advantage :) But I can still encourage you to go there - a lot of motives are still waiting. If you plan to go there feel free to contact me, probably I can provide some information and give some tips. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad light balance: outshining flood light on the one side and a uninformative and lowly lightened bottom part with disturbing tree hangover. I admit: the colorful lights are appealing, but the image in in general is not featureable with the mentioned issues. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have got some bright spots on the building, you cannot change it because the spots are directed away from the building - imho it makes the photo more interesting. The darker areas are a nice contrast to the light on the building (structures are still visible) and I would like to take the steel balustrade at the left and right on the photo. I see not really a problem with trees - I was happy that it was winter because in spring / summer a lot of leafs hide important parts of the building. BTW: The darker area at the front is not accessible (fence). I searched very carfully for the best shooting position and think my solution was quite good with a nice perspective on the building. Nonetheless thx for your explanatory statement. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting subject and good quality but the lighting of it makes it difficult for me to support, there are too many dark areas (I added a not with a different crop proposal). Poco209:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about creating an alternative, but I am not really convinced of your proposal. I would like to preserve the lines from the front left and right. IMHO the compo is quite balanced as it is. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 02:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Merkava Mk III tank.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Merkava Mk III tank.jpg
Weak oppose The main problem I see here is the lighting, I'd have also let the tank "breath" with a more generous crop on the left. Poco209:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2014 at 23:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poecile montanus kleinschmidti.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poecile montanus kleinschmidti.jpg
Comment At first sight, looks to me more like Poecile palustris than Poecile montanus (am checking further, though) - MPF (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Yep, they are tricky to tell apart visually, but this is definitely montanus. They are quite common where I live (and palustris very rare), and have a distinctive call with which I am familiar.
Comment It sure is - we're very lucky to have them!
Comment Tail slightly cropped, which is unfortunate (as tail tip shape is a useful identification character). Is there an original with more field of view at the left? - MPF (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Unfortunately, that is the extent of the original to the left.
Info I've gone back and checked the original, and there was a little bit extra on the left, so hopefully that's the tip of the tail now touching the edge of the shot. I've also cropped slightly tighter, and it's now at original resolution. -this is probably a comment by by Baresi franco
this featured pic was cgi extended, doing yours would be trivial but honestly I can't see the need at all. The balance of the nodes on the branch, the lovely centering, the model does such good posing for bird-seed :) no but seriously this goes way beyond Featured Pic requirements as is. Is it in articles yet ? should be. Penyulap☏22:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not me - I would have loved to have got a shot that included more space to the left. Thought it was worth a punt as it's a fairly sharp, detailed shot of what is quite a rare bird in the UK these days. Appreciate the constructive comments.--Baresi franco (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 10:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pfarrkirche Sankt Vigil in Kolfuschg mit Sellagruppe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pfarrkirche Sankt Vigil in Kolfuschg mit Sellagruppe.jpg
Info If you mean color saturation it's enough imo. Btw it is a postprocessing procedure anyone can do like sharpening, downsampling etc. therefore I don't see any reason to do it myself. Thanks for the review anyhow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose weak Very nice motive, but the composition is not convincing for me (also the contrast could be improved). The structures of the mountains in the background imho imply to place the top of the church between the lowest parts of the mountains (further to the left). The crop at the left is too tight for my personal taste. As it is on the photo, church and background do not interplay very well. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like it overall, lighting is ok, sharpness is ok and composition works for me. It is actually leaning in cw direction and the left crop is indeed to tight Poco209:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for the support. I have worked a lot on the perspective and I don't think I can do better. Can you please show me where it is leaning but please allow for the fact that it is an old building --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 07:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tirdzniecības kanāla ziemeļu krasts, Liepāja.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tirdzniecības kanāla ziemeļu krasts, Liepāja.jpg
Oppose Nice at low resolution, light and composition are good IMO, but the left is leaning out, color noise in the sky and also some parts are a bit unsharp -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 13:40:04 (UTC)
View of the twilight sky and Martian horizon taken by NASA's Curiosity Mars rover includes Earth as the brightest point of light in the night sky. Original TIF-file.
JPG-version of original photo
Earth pointed out
Earth and moon enlarged and pointed out with English text
Earth and moon enlarged and pointed out with Spanish text
Earth and moon enlarged and pointed out with Swedish text
Oppose -- There is an intellectual wow here but no visual wow. This might get a better reception at en:FP where encyclopedic value takes primacy. Here we look for stunning pictures. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 15:24:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin - Funkturm4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin - Funkturm4.jpg
Oppose It is unusual but the angle/composition isn't grabbing me enough for FP. (Please save your JPG with a colourspace, otherwise the colours aren't defined). -- Colin (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 21:36:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kiek in de Kök2 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kiek in de Kök2 2013.jpg
Oppose Sorry Ivar (and Kruusamägi) but why FP? Composition decent but not exceptional (the tree is much more prominent than the building); lighting decent but not exceptional (dark shadows, most of the picture in the shadows); technical quality decent but not exceptional (Taken with a modern high resolution DSLR, but the sharpness or level of detail is not remarkably high. Actually, slightly less than expected in good conditions). A typical QI taken with a decent camera, but why FP? What do I missing here? --ArildV (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me the tree is not an issue. Composition is good, quality also but the light is maybe not the best for this place, between 06:00 and 08:00 in June you can have the sun from the opposite side on the building and the tree (if they are not hidden by a bigger building of course) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I just liked how the tower stands out in this image, but yeah, the image may not be that exceptional as it should be for FP. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2014 at 22:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Asiento de suegra (Echinocactus grusonii), Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asiento de suegra (Echinocactus grusonii), Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 02.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 02:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jequirity beads.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jequirity beads.JPG
Comment Please complete the nomination: you need to add who is the creator and the uploader, and add a short description above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 04:38:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Yangshupu Power Plant at sunset.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yangshupu Power Plant at sunset.JPG
Info A photograph depicting the layout of Yangshupu Power Plant during sunset which is a power station shut in 2010 for carbon dioxide reduction. The plant will have a transformation to an exhibition facility showing the native culture of Shanghai. Photo was taken on Ferry Line Jinqiao Rd. to Dinghai Rd., Shanghai, China. (translated by Eland Zhou) created by 我爱波音哈 - uploaded by 我爱波音哈 - nominated by 我爱波音哈 -- 我爱波音哈 (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support：The picture gathered the beautiful scenery of sunset and the lost factory together, inspires infinity imagination.--Pumpkin (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote, less than 50 edits --A.Savin15:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A.Savin, sunset silouettes are nice, but I see no reason why this should be FP, especially as it's very ordinary technically --DXR (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that my wording might have been ambiguous, I meant mediocre (or just call it insufficient, if you like). IMO the technical guidelines are clear enough, and this image has obvious denoise artifacts (look at the bridge, extremely soft, clear loss of details) and this is not good enough for a FP in my opinion.--DXR (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he'll just have to find a powerplant at sunset that's built in a completely pollution-free city next time (?!?!) but seriously, this cannot be anywhere BUT a city with bad air pollution, which invariably is going to appear the same as noise. I can't think of how else digital cameras can present smog to the viewer. Never mind, often I see people pick out the smallest grains of dust like they were specks of gold in a prospectors pan. Penyulap☏05:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 17:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:VST images the Lagoon Nebula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:VST images the Lagoon Nebula.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 13:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:4960 Northbound South of Willaha on Arizona's Kaibab Plateau.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:4960 Northbound South of Willaha on Arizona's Kaibab Plateau.jpg
Comment I think everybody here is well capable of making a decision without requiring a comparison with a completely unrelated image, which I find a bit inappropriate regardless of whether the nominated image should be a FP or not. Furthermore, there I see a lot of steam (or is it smoke) in evening light - not exactly a great train photo to me. --DXR (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, didn't want to say that it was poor at all, just found it a bit unusual to post another image in a nomination as the example for a FP-worthy train photo. Did you post the unsigned comment? (checked history in the meantime) --DXR (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Addition: However, as you were the uploader of the image, I must weaken my criticism a bit, obviously this makes the suggestion more logical, sorry. --DXR (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, sorry for no sig to further confuse things. I'm not a regular here, just an uploader of stuff ;-] I do like that tower of smoke! --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it tilted? I'd apply a cw tilt and some perspective correction to ensure that the poles on the left remain straight Poco209:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 07:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpg/2
Oppose You should mention that you are renominating the same picture 3 days after the other nomination finalised. I see the same problems like in the former nomination (sharpness is better now, though). The lighting is not balanced. 80% of the subject is in shadow and although the centered area is closed to the camera and drawing some attention it belongs to that are. Btw, the red halo around the last tower on the right is still visible, I added a note. Poco209:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rule about that? no, probably there is none. Do you really have the need to have everything in written because otherwise it is bullshit? Reminding (and linking) a former nomination would fall in a category that I'd call courtesy or fair play, or common sense. Everybody just does it, but fine, it is just up to you. And please, stop your ironic comments, I'm getting tired. Poco213:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Lighting unfortunate, gray sky at right not pleasant to me (BTW: I abstained from voting last time (like presumably many others) because I thought that the image was not a FP, while I would not have felt too bad if it had become one. Generally a lack of votes doesn't have to mean that nobody noticed the image and therefore I find it a bit too much to renominate it straightaway.)--DXR (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point but refuse to believe it. It is much featureable than so many other photos prompted (I'm talking about my own photos). This is unique view with good quality and valued image. The place is in unesco world heritage list and a cultural heritage monument of Estonia. I believe in this photo. I am sure it won't be successful but I get some feedback (for example from you)instead or abstain. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain that the subject is featurable, but isn't there any way to improve the lighting? Of course I do not know how hard it would be for you to shoot the place again, but personally I would even take "nice" clouds and even lighting over this (especially with the right part which looks recovered from burned out to me). Also, I think that one might improve the composition a bit, after all it appears to me that the city walls are quite vast and there might be a slightly better location on offer. Just my opinion, of course.--DXR (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is taken from west. In winter at our latitude the sunrise bearing is approximately 140 degrees and sunset bearing is approximately 220 degrees. So no back light is available in winter. But in winter the snow acts like a huge reflector lighting the wall. In summer the trees are in leaves that would cover the wall. In addition, green grass and trees in leaves absorb the light rather than reflect it. I don't want to change the sky, I like the gradient effect it is so much better than a uniform blue. I skimmed the categories before the nomination and I didn't find any better angle or view to capture the wall. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do understand you, sun position is bad enough here in Paris, and I appreciate your efforts. Perhaps you find the time to try again another time --DXR (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it's bad, I think its good. Again, according to guidelines: "Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not usually the best light as it flattens the subject. Side lighting often gives a better 'texture' to surfaces." --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it also throws massive shadows which are the reason why this image will probably not succeed. But each to their own. --DXR (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 12:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Utah State Route 24, Near Mile 92 view in Direction North-West 110814 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Utah State Route 24, Near Mile 92 view in Direction North-West 110814 2.jpg
Support Captures the feeling of driving around in the Mountain West—rugged and scenic but not to the point of being scenery porn, and not entirely undeveloped either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 19:27:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saline royale d'Arc-et-Senans la maison du directeur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saline royale d'Arc-et-Senans la maison du directeur.jpg
Oppose Agree also with Jebulon. The composition is indeed very nice, but maybe a bit less of the building on the left, Poco209:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 09:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moth Orchid cultivated.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moth Orchid cultivated.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 17:54:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rome (Italy), Via del Teatro di Marcello -- 2013 -- 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rome (Italy), Via del Teatro di Marcello -- 2013 -- 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 05:01:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support as nom. I've been cicada-spotting all summer, and this is my best photo of ecdysis. (It's deliberately a little dark because it's a night-time event) -- 99of9 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting and important subject. Lighting could be better though (did you use a diffuser? Was the flash pointed directly at the subject?), and I would use a less tight crop. Gidip (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2014 at 23:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis tenax and flowers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis tenax and flowers.jpg
Good Idea - the background was a bit rough. The noise was from me originally sharpening the whole frame (didn't really know what I was doing at the time). I've gone back to the original photo and selectively sharpened, re-cropped and uploaded again to get best quality. See what you think. --Baresi franco (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not revert legitimate comments just because you don't like or understand them. Your could have asked for clarification. Your assessment of this image uses the term pixellated when there is no evidence of such. Perhaps chroma noise is what you were after? I simply indicated this state of confuision could be descibed as being pixilated, a similar word, but quite a different meaning. 131.137.245.20919:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certain parts of the picture on or around the bee look rather pixellated. And yes, there's also the CA on the wings, although I did not mention it in my reason above. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 16:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 05:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palamuse kihelkonnakooli klassiruum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palamuse kihelkonnakooli klassiruum.jpg
Info I don't want to offend anyone again but I would like to refer to the guidelines here: "Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations".
I would really like to see this picture prompted because of its cultural background. The description of the photo does not tell much but it is the place they filmed the cult movie Kevade. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an additional info I may tell that this image depicts a 19th century classroom, now a part of a museum. This 320-old school was closed down in 1975 and opened as a museum in 1987. It bears the name of writer Oskar Luts, who studied there and wrote the book Kevade about his schooldays. It remains his best know work and the mentioned film is regarded as the best Estonian film in 20th century. So I would say that the place is rather notable. Also, Estonians have had one the highest literacy rates in the world for far over 100 years and therefor we regard schools rather important. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Linda iluminacion por las ventanas--Ivan2010 20:00, 13February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose With regrets. Nice colors, emotional, encyclopedical value, no doubt. But the crop is bad, IMO. Composition should be better with less ceiling, and a bit more space at right. The cropping of the tables ruins the picture, and that makes me oppose inspite of great qualities, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 12:30:21 (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 14 Feb 2014 at 11:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sistema de regadio circular en toda su magnitud.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sistema de regadio circular en toda su magnitud.jpg
Oppose The color of the ground in the foreground is very very oversaturated IMO. Green is oversaturated IMO. Blown out sky--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 09:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thalasseus bergii - Marion Bay.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thalasseus bergii - Marion Bay.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 10:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke8.jpg
No, this is how this bridge was constructed. Look at the other images of the bridge or at the images of the architect [4], especially image no. 2 and 3. There you can see that the handrails are different in pitch. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For sure they do, it is a wideangle view. The question is, is a far away object in the background significant for the image quality/ impression? I don`t think so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have chosen a differnt composition (with the end of the bridge more on the right to meet the 2/3 rule), but FP overall to me Poco209:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 19:05:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Rainbow over Washfold.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2013 Rainbow over Washfold.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 14:31:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Espinasse père - Fonds Trutat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Espinasse père - Fonds Trutat.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2014 at 17:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Warehouse 5 in Kronstadt.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Warehouse 5 in Kronstadt.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 05:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Río Saigón, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 22.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Río Saigón, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 22.JPG
Support ...of course :) Thanks a lot for the nomination Paris 16, it was actually a funny situation when I took this picture. I am delighted that you like it. Poco221:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 00:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Typical girl of Margarita Island, Pampatar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Typical girl of Margarita Island, Pampatar.jpg
Comment A nice portrait and a good composition, but the light is a bit harsh here. You should nominate your images for QI before adding them here. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but I think you should put staight the sea (the horizon is a bit tilted on right) and you should crop a bit the left (see note) because this part is a bit disturbing IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not convinced of the composition, the girl standing almost entirely left of the middle. While I support Christian Ferrer’s crop suggestion, that still would move the main subject even further to the left. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 19:56:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Onni Yyterissä 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Onni Yyterissä 3.jpg
Oppose very good composition, however, the shadows are too strong (the back of the horse, for example, is almost black). Additionally need a white balance. Regarding the composition have a few comments for improvements, it would have been interesting to see the sun at sunset and the sea shore. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, ArionEstar, but it is pretty much impossible to brighten an image without losing quality if you don't have the raw file. Here, the horse's back is now very noisy, certainly too noisy to become FP. Probably, the only possibility would be to contact the uploader if he/she might consider reworking their photo. --DXR (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Maybe another nomination in the future. 14:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 08:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Declaration independence.jpg/2Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Declaration independence.jpg/2
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 09:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Taeniura lymma near Giannis D.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taeniura lymma near Giannis D.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 20:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chełmoński Partridges in the snow (detail).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chełmoński Partridges in the snow (detail).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 17:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dallos-Nyers Boglárka 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dallos-Nyers Boglárka 2013.jpg
Oppose Nice, good advertising for eyeliners at a bus station, but I find the light too harsh (no relief, too "clean"). Not a "Commons" FP to me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure your description of the lighting is accurate, but perhaps language is the problem here. This is High-key lighting. It is very soft and bright. It might not be to your taste, but it is absolutely standard for such model portraiture and technically executed well here. -- Colin (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Colin. Yes, my English is not very good, but I think I expressed exactly what I meant... You know what ? I've already seen such pictures ! You are right, it is not my taste.--Jebulon (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I recounted the photographer's words: in a broad sense of the concept of 'High-key lighting', is it, yes. Strictly defined is it not. Technical to see it's a "border area". For sure, it's a light-toned portrait on verge of burnout - because it is trendy nowadays. This photo was taken as a single-cd cover image.
The singer knows that I uploaded this image to Wikipedia. If it is absolutely necessary, then I ask her to do give a written warrant... but isn't I do not want to disturb her during the preparation for the semifinal of the national Eurovision.
The permission Ticket Number is 20140203.... - You can see that the license had been sent on 3 February, only the "stamp" was not even there when I nominated the picture. Fauvirt (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Blaze, I'm puzzled that consent should be in doubt here. The photo is clearly taken at the same time/setup as the pop video and is on the cover of her single. Do you think all portraits on Commons require evidence of consent to be sent to WMF/OTRS? I'm concerned that the nominator is being asked to jump though hoops that go well above what is required by Commons guidelines. I'm sure our guidelines and ethics could be improved but this doesn't seem to be the image to make a point about. -- Colin (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Colin, I am of the opinion that when we offer an image that is supposed to be free that it should be free in the fullest sense of the word. This person has personality rights that have nothing to do with licensing. To use her image commercially, as what is implied by the license, invokes her publicity rights. I am not convinced just because the photographer gives us a free license she is simultaneously giving away those publicity rights. At a minimum this should have both a consent template with the appropriate parameter included as well as a personality rights template. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But are you in doubt about consent and if so, on what evidence/basis? The statement you make about a photographer's licence not giving away the subject's rights is absolutely true but I don't see how the subject's consent is in doubt here. I'm uncomfortable about making {{Consent}} a requirement as it isn't such in any guideline and looking at the parameter options, it seems that template is ill-thought out. The discussion page shows nobody seems to think much of the parameter options, and I'll add my 2p there shortly. If by "free in the fullest sense of the word" you mean "has a model release" then I can't see that being acceptable for Commons at all. Most of Commons content would be publishable (commercially or otherwise) under editorial usage, which does not require a model release. This fits with our mission. Some of our content could be used for advertising and publicity, but not any images involving identifiable people unless the publisher can obtain a model release or specific consent for that usage. The publisher would need to deal directly with the photographer in order to get one. Commons is not an agent and wouldn't get involved in such negotiations. Unlike a stock photo site, it isn't our mission to supply images for adverts and promotional literature, and being serious about that would require a chain of evidence, signatures, contracts and money. Something that isn't going to happen with anonymous volunteers. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt is not at issue. This image is held up as free for commercial use yet what is actually means is free for non-commercial uses and editorial uses. The personality rights template should make that clear. It doesn't. As to consent, no, I don't think we will ever get to the point where we require signed MRs being submitted through OTRS or the like. However, I think every image with an identifiable person should have a statement initiated by the uploader that clearly states what consent was granted or why they think consent is not required. This will help re-users understand the risks associated with re-use. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since you have no doubt that consent is given, would you strike your oppose. I see from the discussions on those template talk pages that you confuse "commercial use" with "promotional use" and "advertising". Discussions about what templates should say and what templates we should have and use belong elsewhere than the FP page. I note that File:Barack Obama with artistic gymnastic McKayla Maroney.jpg, which you supported, does not have a statement of consent. Nor probably do nearly all of our Featured Pictures of identifiable people. -- Colin (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. I am not confused. Your argument because I haven't taken a stand on this before should stop me from taking one at some point is a rather onerous standard. My oppose is based on a principle that images like this should be templated properly not unlike it should be licensed properly (GFDL anyone?). Just so it is clear I am campaigning elsewhere. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my argument at all. I'm pointing out the flaw in your "free in the fullest sense of the word" stance. It isn't a requirement, wrt personality rights. If it was then we'd have to delete all our pictures of identifiable people as the number of such images we host that have model releases is negligible. What is blatant here, is that you see a pretty girl and think we need a model release. Whereas for Obama you see a president and are happy with editorial use. Double standards. -- Colin (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colin I don't know what I did to piss you off but that shot is rather cheap. Anybody that tries to use that whitehouse image for anything other than editorial is likely to find out about consent the hard way. I am not saying this needs an MR to be on Commons, but re-users should be made aware of the risks associated with using content like this in a commercial context. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Colin here: there is a difference between commercial use, and advertising. The latter includes commercial use, but also endorsement of a product, which is a whole different matter. We have consent for the former, not for the latter. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, commercial use and editorial use are well defined in case law. Any commercial use where the motive is clearly to gain benefit to the re-user, to include advertising, promotional, endorsement, etc all require a model release to avoid the potential of civil litigation. Only in the case of editorial use would consent not be required. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, I think in various venues I have provided you with enough information to show that your position is wrong. What Commons holds up a free for commercial use wrt identifiable people, i.e. consent, would subject re-users to risk of civil litigation. This risk is not well highlighted. In fact your position is often in conflict with official commentary from the WMF as Jee has been pointing out. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I asked the Hungarian forum to give an advice whether what the requirements of such a letter which ensure the personality rights are.
Comment Now I understand where and how this discussion/conflict of opinion started. I see some merits in both sides. In fact Commons says it only accepts free contents, that "The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above." On the other side, Commons says: "The use may however be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures."
It is clearly defined in our general disclaimer: "Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the Wikimedia Commons are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikimedia Commons media under the specified licensing scheme. Unless otherwise stated Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikimedia Commons can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk."
The problem is that the general disclaimer is well hidden at the footer of the page and the license template and consent template proclaims "I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under a free license, including commercial use." which is misleading and contradicting to our well defined policy which is very inline with CC's suggestion on marking third party contents.
Inviting more people to policy level discussions; we are very short of qualified opinions there, so struggling to meet the industry standards, other competitive projects offering. Jee09:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2014 at 21:53:06 (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 15 Feb 2014 at 17:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 25.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 25.jpg
Oppose No wow. A slightly unusual rock placed on a rules-of-thirds line does not a make a Featured composition. The lighting isn't pleasant. The foreground random. -- Colin (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think good judgment to say whether she's pretty or not, but wov? ("wov" depends on the civilization and culture primarily and judges should participate in a global project as commons)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty and good IMO (beauty is universal. The surprise depends on the culture). Sorry, This image is wov to an eskimo--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Miguel, do you realise that "wow" is the only criteria that distinguishes FP from QI. If you think "wow" is a stupid criteria then stick to judging QI. We have too many QI images being nominated at FPC. There has to be more than just "Focus? Check. Exposure? Check. Level? Check. Decent equipment? Check." All these things can be done by well the camera. Yes "wow" is subjective, that's why FP needs a collection of views and a minimum threshold -- unlike QI which has more objective criteria. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry, but is this the perfectly ideal world? The rules can be interpreted and understood, until, at least, are suitables--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 02:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the idea, but this subject is not transmitting anything, the composition loses much effect. beautiful colors. badly cut right--Pava (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Just in time, thank you for all the supports and saddened to have a change of mind once again but it is not the best version in my opinion, I revert thus on my favorite version. And don't be afraid I will not nominate it any more. All this for that! :-) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 18:23:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mourèze, Hérault 03.jpg
Support I like the landscape very much, the cliffs and the trees, the buildings, scenic view. The only reason I opposed was the harsh light and shadows. Now improved but could be better. I would shift the white balance bit towards yellow and add some vibrancy. Then if some color becomes too vibrant, you can reduce saturation of this particular color separately. Don't want to tell you what to do, just to share my experience. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I shoot Raw of course, I said to A.Savin that I will return to this place to take better photos with better light and I will, but I like this picture, the light, the contrast, the colors, the composition and the sharpness (for me it give a little wow), I will not change anything, and Kikos, I understood your point of view. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC) But have you ever tried to recover the shadow areas? If you shoot raw then it is possible to lighten up the shadows significantly without any loss in contrast and sharpness. With RAW the colors and details are there, even in this lighting. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light isn't flattering with harsh shaddows. The smoke in the centre of the picture causes a grey patch (I can tell it is smoke only because an earlier nomination shows the house with a chimney). The central building isn't attractive. The church on the left faces out of the picture. The landscape is "nice" but not anywhere near "wow". This is now the third nomination from the same shoot with, not surprisingly, the same poor light. Are we to expect File:Mourèze, Hérault 04.jpg soon? -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice landscape but the increase of luminosity in the darker areas resulted IMO in an artificial touch, with lack of contrast Poco221:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for support, but now I'm not sure I want to see it promoted -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:53, 15 february 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 06:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 23:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Francisco, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 02.JPG
Info Night view of the temple of St. Franciscus is a catholic church, whose construction began in 1535, what make it the first temple in the city of Puebla (Mexico). All by me, Poco223:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Urmas, over 50% of the image is just dark sky and also imo shooting point was too close to the church (it looks distorted). --Ivar (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination A pity, the building was really amazing, but obviously I couldn't capture in a way that you were amazed, as well Poco214:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 02:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2022 at 11:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puesto de frutos en el Zoco -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puesto de frutos en el Zoco -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpg
Comment I was going to comment on the size, but looking in the file history I see it was downsized. The larger version looks like it's probably salvageable, though? Might need a slight horizontal correction, too. — Rhododendritestalk | 13:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." Only 2,100 × 1,391 pixels: too small. The original is larger but "blurry", as written by the uploader. See file history -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spaso-Kamenny Monastery 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spaso-Kamenny Monastery 2013.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 07:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose This needs perspective correction and a slightly wider crop so that at least all parts of the building are in the frame. The contrast also seems to be very high. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)09:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 16:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sri Lankan crow.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sri Lankan crow.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Shutter speed to long for focal length leading to blur. Chroma noise too. Needs more room on top/left. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2014 (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 16 Feb 2014 at 12:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wyspa św. Jerzego w Peraście 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wyspa św. Jerzego w Peraście 02.jpg
Oppose I'm sorry; nice compo (although rule of thirds would be better); but the light is a bit too harsh, sharpness and detail so-so. --A.Savin20:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Indeed, the sharpness is not the best, but the composition is very good to me and the subject interesting and original, FP Poco209:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 10:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Комплекс Мирского замка.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Комплекс Мирского замка.JPG
Weak support Good quality but the foliage in the foreground is a bit distracting and the right side needs a bit of perspective correction (it is leaning in), still FP overall to me. Poco209:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Poco2, Kreuzschnabel, I already did some perspective corrections on this image before suggesting it as QI. Afaics, the lower right tower is not straight vertical and is getting narrower the closer to the top. Anyway, I couldn't straighten the perspective better than it currently is. (Nonetheless, I'm not sure if the composition here is wow enough for an FP.) --A.Savin22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 21:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rodgers Theatre, 204-224 N. Broadway Street, Poplar Bluff, Mo, USA.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rodgers Theatre, 204-224 N. Broadway Street, Poplar Bluff, Mo, USA.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2014 at 19:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:At Lyngen fjord, Spåkenes in 2012 June.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:At Lyngen fjord, Spåkenes in 2012 June.jpg
Neutral, tending to oppose. Technicaly very nice, but almost the half of the picture is just grass with yellow flowers, the rest is few lost houses, and mountains in background. I've difficulties with "wow effect" here, and I don't think a pano is necessary. The picture looks empty, for me.--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weak support. The lower half is a little "empty", but I like the colors and the scenery. I think a somewhat tighter crop would be better. --Nikopol (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 03:23:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Batticaloa Lagoon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Batticaloa Lagoon.jpg
weak Oppose A nice image; + positives : composition, colors and details - negatives : harsh light and shadows, the house (important in the composition) is cut on the left --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2014 at 19:13:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shed with green roof at Lyngen fjord, 2012 June.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shed with green roof at Lyngen fjord, 2012 June.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2014 at 18:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toompea loss 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toompea loss 2014.jpg
Weak oppose I have seen the castle in the morning, afternoon and late afternoon and I think this timing is not the best. The shadow of the elment jutting out of the wall is too predominant IMO Poco209:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have a better photo of the castle? According to guidelines: "Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not usually the best light as it flattens the subject. Side lighting often gives a better 'texture' to surfaces." The shadow doesn't "hide" any details but it adds a diagonal line with opposite tilt in relation to other "horizontal" lines. Maybe it is a bit perceptual and academic explanation, but the effect of converging lines emphasize the structures. You have not been there in winter. The snow is a huge natural reflector and the trees are bare. Timing is the best. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant whether someone has a better photo. The question is whether your photo the kind of image we feature. Your argument for flat lighting is probably true for portraiture but in the case of buildings the presence of large shadows doesn't add it detracts. If you were look at other featured images of buildings you would note the types of lighting that people prefer and consider best. It will be clear that your opinion is not shared by many reviewers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shadows on your pictures are a bit different than shadows in my pictures. Shadows in your pictures are "black holes", that is what you achieve with auto exposure mode. Not even close to how it is perceived by human eye. Oh, and people do like my photos here, unless you haven't noticed. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 06:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Southern chain gang c1903-restore.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Southern chain gang c1903-restore.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 12:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak Support There is a bit of noise due to the ISO value, moreover, the space in the middle is a bit empty, I think. Nevertheless, the mood is fantastic, so it is a FP for me --EveryPicture (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The eye is led to a blank space in the middle, which troubles me. The light is nice but I think it needs to go with a subject. -- Colin (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concur with Colin. Oppose for what is missing, not for what is there. Just imagine how spectacular that image would have been with a horse, or a couple, coming out of that wonderful light. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me the image is stronger for the lack of an object in the center. The crepuscular rays brilliantly veil ... a mystery. What is beyond the bright spot at the focal point? The image draws us in to attempt to find out. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 09:12:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Meenikunno maastikukaiteala.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meenikunno maastikukaiteala.jpg
Support Very nice. Please, add some more information about the place. The category is not existing and there is no geolocation to help to allocate it somewhere in Estonia. Furthermore, I'd recommend to increase the luminosity of the hightlights, since the brigther areas in the background are a bit grey and I believe that if it's a bit brigther will look more natural without distracting considerably. Poco210:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At POTY election there is a genre called " Nature views". This gene has more pictures than any other genre. For me, it shows that many of us consider different nature and landscape views featureable. The fact that it is an Landscape reserve shows it's not a random landscape but worth protecting, hence somehow special. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the trees are the same species and the same age (from the look of it). This isn't nature, this is a production forest, AFAICT. Kleuske (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The landstape reserve belongs to to Natura 2000 ecological network. It is well known network of production forest and cultivated land. Where does this ignorance come from?? You have never been in this place but you know exactly how thing are. The place in the picture is recreation site in the landscape reserve and the forest is probably trimmed but definitely not planted. Planted forest looks like this. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am rather sure the trees are not planted when I look their positions and their age. There is at least 10-year age difference among some of the trees in the image. There also also some old stumps, but not everywhere (in a planted forest you would not see that). Not that Estonia has lot of planted forests -- if you leave a place empty, then there's soon a lot of trees emerging without any need to plant something. But in this soil, that you see in the image, P. sylvestris is by far most suitable tree to grow and that is the reason you see almost only that tree (it seems to be lot higher sandy place where are very few nutrients and hard to get access to water). So if you haven't seen a lot of forests, then you should really visit Estonia. We have a huge variety of different forest types and more than half of the territory is covered with forests. So next time you'll know more about the topic. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a decent image, but not FP to me, per Kleuske. Which species of tree is shown? Please, create the red category if necessary. A geotag would be appreciated. --Cayambe (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Comment It's a pine tree, the most common one, Pinus sylvestris I guess.[reply]
Support If the point of all these photos of wildlands in Estonia has been to make people want to go hiking there, it has worked. I shall have to make the time at some point to walk around these swamps and birchy woods. This image is no exception ... I really love the way that, on first inspection, we think the orange on the trees is from a setting sun behind the camera. But once you blow the image up you see it's just the bark. Does some animal do that? Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :) When the bark is younger, then it is thinner and soft. When it grows older, then it starts to get thicker fast. Animals may also eat the young bark, but thous trees don't seem to have any damaged areas on them. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Sorry its a good photo but I'm not really convinced (maybe because I'm not so impressed by the forest since I grew up in Northern Europe and the Taiga is the world's largest terrestrial biome). It is obvious no Ancient woodland or Old-growth_forest, but a planted forest with young trees (all trees have about the samesize and therefore the same age). Full-grown pine trees are larger and thicker. It's very easy to find a more interesting coniferous forest and without a manmade trail with railing. It is part of a nature reserve, but I guess the reserve protects primarily the bog and lakes.--ArildV (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A forest doesn't have to be old-growth to be impressive. I've found some that are regenerating within years of a fire to be visually interesting as well (and there is EV in such an image too, as that state of a reforestation doesn't last more than a decade or so). Visually, I like all the parallel thin lines this creates. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This place is actually a camping site in the middle of the landscape reserve. Actually there is plenty of ancient woodland in this area. It is not the typical landscape of this area. In this picture some trees are cut to open the view to the bog and "kame field". I don't think the trees are planted. I just like the trail, the hut, actually the whole place and especially the idea of making the wildest nature accessible to the people. --Rutake (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but the composition is unpleasing for me (horizon, handrail meeting the frame to the left, tree on the right).--Nikopol (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 11:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Museo de Arte Sacro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 48.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Museo de Arte Sacro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 48.JPG
Info Unusual view of the glass roof and the upper cloister from the courtyard of the Episcopal Palace of Teruel, a building of end of the 16th century where is located the Religious Art Museum of the Diocese of Teruel and Albarracín, Teruel, Spain. All by me, Poco211:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but I am slightly irritated by the fact that the "cross" is not exactly lining up. Was that deliberate? Or is it just inevitable result of UWA? --DXR (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 100% sure what you meant but I made some improvements of the perspective and hopefully address your irritation. Otherwise, could you please add a note? Poco213:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because straight lines are an illusion :-). It is a shame the grid doesn't line up perfectly but I appreciate it is nearly impossible to get this right in practice without some kind of surveying equipment and/or a lot of fiddling with Lightroom's adjustments. I also like File:Museo de Arte Sacro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 42.JPG with the lens at circular fisheye. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron, this isn't the same image. It was taken at 10mm rather than 11mm and has a different exposure. But I don't have an issue with "alternatives" needing to be from exactly the same negative. -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I kind of shot myself in the foot there :-) I still believe what I said, but will make an exception in this case as the differences were sufficiently small to fool me on first inspection. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry again, the deformation does not work to me. As I thought first that this ceiling was so in real, I find this image deceptive to the viewer. I find this image very beautiful however.--Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 09:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sõrve tuletorn 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sõrve tuletorn 2013.jpg
weak Oppose sorry but I'm not convinced. Lighthouses are a popular and rewarding motif for photography but I do not think this picture stands out especially. The light is not excellent (dark shadows on the tower), slightly unbalanced composition (I agree with Poco_a_poco). Clearly QI, but not FP imo.--ArildV (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It certainly is improved. I might have chosen a different crop but I will chalk that up to artistic license. Saffron Blaze (talk)
Comment There's a problem here that the image crop has changed radically yet not offered as an alternative and those who voted on the earlier version have not been informed their vote needs updating. None of the votes prior to 17:43, 8 February 2014 are valid imo. It should have been done as an Alt. But since it hasn't, then at the least we need those who voted earlier to reconfirm/change their votes. -- Colin (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better indeed. (Soovitan alati nii teha, et algul esitad mittetäiusliku pildi, et siis "autoriteedid" saaksid sulle öelda, mida vaja muuta. Kui järgid nende näpunäiteid, siis nad tunnevad ennast tähtsatena ja toetavad. Aegajalt esita mõni jama pilt, et see maha hääletatakse. Siis on headel piltidel rohkem šansse.) --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 15:58:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Valley View Yosemite August 2013 002.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valley View Yosemite August 2013 002.jpg
Neutral Probably not I’m afraid. Was it very hot that day? That would explain the selective blur on the sun-heated rocks per air turbulence. Surprisingly, the far background as well as the foreground trees are perfectly sharp. Though it’s certainly a very good picture it’s not really outstanding for me in this state, still it’s not bad enough to decline. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 08:49:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info It would benefit this image a great deal if it were taken in a way where the lines, such as this roadway, crossed through the center of the image. this can be accomplished through cropping or by being more aware of this when taking the image. Right now the eye is drawn to the bottom center by the road and is led away from the center and off to the right. by having the road go from the lower left hand corner through the middle of the photo the picture will be more aesthetically pleasing. -- (Sunfishtommy (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 12:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Siegstrecke Blankenberg.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Siegstrecke Blankenberg.JPG
Comment There is a wonderful picture in there but you'd need to crop most of this away to get it. Isolating the train over the bending river would have been really nice. This photo is rather generic and perhaps a bit oversaturated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Saffron Blaze, it is a nice scenery, but a tighter shot would probably make it more interesting, it is also a bit unfortunate that the S-Bahn is not very sharp. --DXR (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK for QI, but for FP I miss something here, more crispness and probably some more contrast would have been good, the sky isn't quite clear (misty?); anyway this view deserves an FP, try again later. --A.Savin22:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 15:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moraine Lake Alberta Canada.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moraine Lake Alberta Canada.jpg
Oppose Firstly, the image has several technical issues: Clear underexposure, uncorrected chromatic abberations, vignetted top left corner. All that might be fixable and after that, the image might well become a Quality Image. If not, the image is very unlikely to have a chance here, sorry. However, I mainly oppose because I do not think this image is outstanding enough to be a FP, especially caused by the somewhat random trees in the foreground. --DXR (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2014 (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: Flaws mentioned above, most notably strong underexposure --DXR (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2014 (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 2014 at 18:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:FrozenTallinn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:FrozenTallinn.jpg
Comment Just as a comment I'd like to say that this is the single best photo of Tallinn silhouette (also named as "kilukarbi motiiv" 'sprat can motif' known from this iconic product from soviet times) that I have ever seen. And I like the lack of colors, but only Urmas can tell how close are thous colors on this image to the reality at the time of the shoot. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is taken from so far that there can't be more colors to see and the ice doesn't have a color anyway. To be more exact, the photo is taken from 'Merivälja muul' that is maybe ca 7km away. And it is a wintertime. Original file from Urmas. As it is titled a "Silhouette of Tallinn", then I would argue that there are too much colors and not a lack of them. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 19:02:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grabdetail Loewe Zentralfriedhof.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grabdetail Loewe Zentralfriedhof.jpg
Support Background is a bit disturbing however I like the details and I like very much the light -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:37, 11February 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2014 at 21:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Interior Árbol de Navidad -- 2013 -- Puerta del Sol, Madrid, España.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Interior Árbol de Navidad -- 2013 -- Puerta del Sol, Madrid, España.jpg
Comment I like it very much, but the lack of symmetry is a bit annoying. Is there a way to rotate the picture abut 35 degrees in ccw direction (without loosing half of the image)? If not, do you have another version with better symmetry? Poco214:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I took the picture, I fix my attention on the four cut simmetrical balls and on the vertical radius. I see symmetrical the image. I think that it's a matter of perspective. However, if more people want I rotate it, I will do, but with loosing a part of the image.--Alurín (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and please do not rotate. I think the image would lose some tension if you aligned the main axes to the image borders or diagonals, so please don't. Lupo17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually like symmetry and I don't like comments but I agree with Lupo : an effort to improve symmetry would suppress all the "movement" of the picture imo. --JLPC (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 09:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Laguna Colorada MC.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laguna Colorada MC.jpg
Neutral While the image location is certainly wonderful, I would like to know the reason for the very tight crop at the top. I understand that the laguna is the focus here, but I would personally appreciate it if the right mountain wasn't that close to the border. --DXR (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 23:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto e o Carreiro de Aguiño coa súa ponte. Ribeira. Galiza R32.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto e o Carreiro de Aguiño coa súa ponte. Ribeira. Galiza R32.jpg
Done Reds a little desaturated. When boats are just painted, the color is very vivid (normally red are very intense for boats be more visibles at sea). I can desaturate more the reds.--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 14:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 10:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Two winged Victories at the Vittoriano, Rome, Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two winged Victories at the Vittoriano, Rome, Italy.jpg
Support Let's try something a little different: a minimalist composition of two winged Victories, detail of the "Vittoriano" monument in Rome, Italy.-- Jebulon (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither light (remarkable parts are in shadow) nor composition and perspective (front of the sculpture is not visible, bottom crop is unfortunate) are convincing for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 18:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose A very unimpressive view of this potentially impressive ship, next to an ugly block of flats. Do a Google Image search for this ship to see what a "wow" photograph looks like. This isn't it. -- Colin (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 16:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blick auf das Kraftwerk Zolling bei München aus der Vogelperspektive.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blick auf das Kraftwerk Zolling bei München aus der Vogelperspektive.jpg
Comment This picture has been taken from an airplane, shortly after takeoff from Munich airport last week. What I personally like about this image is the spectacular view. So, this is a contribution to the current discussion about "wow" in featured picture candidates ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand your excitement about the scenery but being a pilot myself, I have taken hundreds of pics like this. While they are nice I dont find them breathtakingly spectacular, and this one doesn’t make a difference. The view – which is, according to your explanation, the main subject of the image – is by no means outstanding, there are many days offering clearer view. The power plant referred to in the file name is so far away (and partly in the haze) that hardly any details can be seen, and it standing exactly in the center is a drawback in composition. Contrast is harsh, the shadows too dark IMHO (not an easy lighting to handle, admittedly). No whow for me, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 04:56:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Joshua Tree National Park (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 23.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Joshua Tree National Park (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 23.jpg
Oppose Why f/3.5 at 1/3200 sec? Only the foreground is sharp, background (large rocks which are the main motive here) is unsharp. Probably I am a bit biased, but imho the composition and motive is not spectacular and clear enough if you compare it with a similiar shots e.g. this or this one. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 09:06:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Houseboat Canal du Midi Poilhes-DSC 0082.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Houseboat Canal du Midi Poilhes-DSC 0082.jpg
Thanks for feedback. I planned to crop the left part. Considering that not only the boat is the subject, but also the Canal I think the course is better visible in this crop. --P e z i (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am not really convinced about the left crop with tha little piece of shore. The shadow in the boat is also a bit distraction. The composition is good, though. Poco221:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 10:42:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:North American AT-6G Texan N6593D OTT 2013 14.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:North American AT-6G Texan N6593D OTT 2013 14.jpg
Abstain as author. Reason for nominating: I like the good detail in the riveting and canopy construction and I think composition works well and the light is decent (giving some nice reflections). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)10:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 13:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rome (Italy), Piazza della Rotonda, Hub of a Coach -- 2013 -- 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rome (Italy), Piazza della Rotonda, Hub of a Coach -- 2013 -- 10.jpg
Support Very good quality, definitely eye-catching - you managed the red tones very well (that is challenging at least for Nikon DX sensors). The other wheel in the background is imho slightly distracting because the spokes from the front wheel do cross the spokes from the background wheel in different angles. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 11:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stalactite drop.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stalactite drop.jpg
Support Resolution is not the highest, sharpness is borderline - but the EV to really see, how a stalactite is developping makes it FP for me. --P e z i (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 20:39:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Egretta garzetta oman.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egretta garzetta oman.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 20:21:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gierymski Fishing boats at the shore.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gierymski Fishing boats at the shore.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 16:03:27 (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 2014 at 16:18:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Max Dupain - Adelaide - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Max Dupain - Adelaide - Google Art Project.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2014 at 21:06:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Lactarius quieticolor.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lactarius quieticolor.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 08:46:59 (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 2014 at 21:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thanks Wilfredo - appreciate the constructive comments. Definitely understand the need for space for the subject to exist in, it's just that in this case the bird completely filled the frame and there was no opportunity to recompose. Was pretty much at minimum focal distance and maximum zoom, so CA always a risk with this lens - I'm pretty much a dichromat, so CA tends to be less of an issue for me :).this comment was of Baresi franco --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice - I'll see what I can do. I always find it tricky to judge colours in photos, e.g. I get my wife to set white balance in PP for me, otherwise I end up with some very weird shots...
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 23:15:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hellamaa panoraam.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hellamaa panoraam.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 08:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ash in Yogyakarta during the 2014 eruption of Kelud 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ash in Yogyakarta during the 2014 eruption of Kelud 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 14:55:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
I would think it could be improved. Certainly the castle could be made to stand correctly with a perspective correction or even a rotate. The noisy sky might improve with some selective colour noise reduction. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Would support at once of the camera was turned a few degrees to the right. Now its too tight on the right side for a balanced composition, and a bit too much space on the left, IMHO. Maybe fixable. Very nice shot though, dont want to oppose. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 14:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel de Engolasters, Engolasters, Andorra, 2013-12-30, DD 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Miguel de Engolasters, Engolasters, Andorra, 2013-12-30, DD 02.JPG
Info The St Michael church of Engolasters, located in Engolasters, Andorra, is a romanic church from end of 11th or beginning of the 12th century. The church, one of the most popular in Andorra is part of its Cultural Heritage and is characterized by a disproportionally high bell tower. All by me, Poco214:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As said on QI: Excellent light, very high quality. The street parts are slightly distracting but I guess there is no other way to photograph the building without the street. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sharpening halos (most clearly visible on the left side of the tower) are clearly visible even in small size. Probably possible to fix?--ArildV (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 11:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Description: Horae ad usum romanum, Book of Hours of Marguerite d'Orléans (1406-1466, wife of Richard of Brittany), folio 135r., miniature of Pilate washing his hands of the fate of Jesus. Around, peasants collecting letters of alphabet. CoA of Brittany and Orleans in the initial letter "D". Circa 1430. I worked hard and nominated this picture because of the subject (Pilate washing his hands, and Jesus, rare enough), and for the funny and surrealistic idea of the illustrator. If somebody here can explain the meaning of the "peasants collecting letters", it should be interesting. I find the vegetal decoration nice too, (especially the strawberries), and the nice blue color, in accordance to the gold. A very nice image, with a great resolution, from the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Many details were revealed by restoration. Original available in the file description page.-- Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I've just noticed a white stripe on the top-left egde of the image and other three imperfections on the right edge (see annotations). Can you please fix them? — TintoMeches, 15:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 21:19:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flaine overview.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flaine overview.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 10:44:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 21:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Niagara Falls - ON - Niagarafälle2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niagara Falls - ON - Niagarafälle2.jpg
Oppose No whow to me, only parts of the falls visible, cut-off mast in background, seems tilted CCW, blurry/hazy background, whitewater partly blown. Not outstanding IMHO, sorry --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find this detail (the tear-off edge of the falls) interesting, but for sure this is not amazing for everybody. Picture of the whole falls I have of course too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was named after the position I have made this shot and this was Niagra Falls, Ontario, Canada. It's my personal freedom to name my image file in any logic I want to. But this is not relevant for this candidature I guess. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the composition not outstanding. The relation of cliff/platform to river/waterfall in not harmonic in my opinion. --Rutake (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 20:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
This club uses radio-controlled aircrafts and other flying machines to take thous photos and they are just started to test what if they upload something to Wikipedia. So they haven't used the full size images. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The problems I see: clipping, too small size (just over 2 MP) and too "tight" crop at the bottom. A bit more of forest at the bottom would have helped. Poco222:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 16:18:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Las Vegas (Nevada, USA), The Venetian -- 2012 -- 22.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Las Vegas (Nevada, USA), The Venetian -- 2012 -- 22.jpg
Comment Like the overall scene, but issues for me include: Massive purple fringing (especially top right corner), lamp post not really great, weird light source outside of frame at left side, a bit dark overall. People (and especially prostitution-promoters) in foreground are also a bit awkward (but admittedly hard to avoid there) --DXR (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you! You confirm my concerns that I had after the nomination. So it's better to withdraw the image.--XRaytalk17:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well that obviously wasn't my aim, just thought that it should undergo some further processing to have a better chance. But of course the decision is up to you... --DXR (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 01:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Victor Hugo by Étienne Carjat 1876 - full.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Victor Hugo by Étienne Carjat 1876 - full.jpg
Neutral For the moment. Nice repro of this very well known and famous portrait, but IMO restoration could be better (many little white spots to be eliminated, ok it's hard, boring and it takes time...)--Jebulon (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck Adam! I'm definitely a hobbyist and not a professional, and would love to see more improvement. It's a fantastic image. In my humble opinion, it's already FPC. --Scewing (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 10:53:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Знаменская церковь в Дубровицах 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Знаменская церковь в Дубровицах 01.jpg
Comment Is it possible to get this same photo without the construction work? Magnificent structure and the lighting is very nice. Even the centered composition works here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scaffolding, the people, the decrease of quality on the top are issues, but overall a FP to me, very nice subject, lighting and the sky works, as well, Poco222:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 16:56:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cereus fricii top view.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cereus fricii top view.jpg
weak Oppose Very good quality but bottom crop is too tight, spoiling the composition. If it was rotated 10 degrees clockwise it would be perfect. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2014 at 14:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:S.M. Küstenpanzerschiff Odin im Salut - restoration.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:S.M. Küstenpanzerschiff Odin im Salut - restoration.jpg
Info Well, this was a pretty interesting restoration. Most of it was pretty straight forwards, but there was a lot of damage on the lower edge that had to be fixed, and some interesting staining to deal with. (An easy way to see some of the cleanup is to flip between this image and File:S.M._Küstenpanzerschiff_Odin_im_Salut.jpg - they're slightly different crops, but near enough that the eye can easily follow, and a lot of the damage is very easily visible even at 800 px wide. This, by the way, is generally an excellent way to judge a restoration. Expect to see a few more of these; at the very least a Siegfried-class ship. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming scan because of resolution. There aren't many 105 megapixel cameras, after all. Also - although much, much moreso in the Ägir picture I did before this one - there was some slight blurriness on parts of the border (easily mitigated) which is typical of a high-resolution scan where the paper isn't perfectly flat. Scanners at high-resolution have a very narrow depth of field. In short, almost certainly a scan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 22:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Seekatz St. Philip baptising the servant.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Seekatz St. Philip baptising the servant.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 04:21:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sakura Tokyo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sakura Tokyo.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.Jee06:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 04:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sky Tree.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sky Tree.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.Jee06:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 22:01:58 (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 27 Feb 2014 at 13:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ichthyaetus hemprichii juveniles.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ichthyaetus hemprichii juveniles.jpg
Weak oppose The blurry foreground is really distracting, and the crop on the right pretty tight, still sharpness of the closer guy is quite good Poco222:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 13:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rouen Cathedral as seen from Gros Horloge 140215 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rouen Cathedral as seen from Gros Horloge 140215 4.jpg
Support In my opinion the best possible view on the front of the cathedral, showcasing the three very different towers. Furthermore, the building was the tallest in the world from 1876 to 1880.-- DXR (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! I have been thinking a lot about the ideal choice and I really think that this is the most realistic look. I do not want to overdramatize the image as it is also used for articles. --DXR (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 16:03:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hammerfest from ridge of Salen, 2012 June.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hammerfest from ridge of Salen, 2012 June.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 17:51:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Agree that the spider's web is a distraction rather than a point of interest. Poor use of depth of field. Not of a sufficient level to become a featured image. --DAJF (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 14:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pilgrim Flask.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pilgrim Flask.jpg
Support High quality picture, high EV. Notice that the CoA are belonging to the "Dauphin (dolphin) de France". The "Dauphin" was the eldest son of the King, until the end of the Bourbon monarchy in France. The first was the future Charles V, in the middle ages (1349). The last was the duke of Angoulême, until 1830--Jebulon (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2014 at 21:22:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I invite you to leave the annotations I put so other people can give their opinion as well and know what we are talking about. If the idea is to have featured pictures for no reason, forget my comment. If your idea is to take the opinions of others to improve your quality as photographer, leave the annotations, it's just a humble recommendation. It is also a polite way to assess the comments. Thank you. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those notices are a temporarily identification. You have made clear which parts you find disturbing the image. I have seen them and erase them. Here is nothing unpolity. Please do not dream. Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 06:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Morning view to Trolltindan and Trollfjorden from Hinnøya, 2012 October.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morning view to Trolltindan and Trollfjorden from Hinnøya, 2012 October.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 09:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support{{neutral}} -- The title notwithstanding ("alloy" is missing) i like the image. A lot. It's very illustrative for the period. It is, however, in desperate need of some TLC, since it's quite dusty. Cleaning it up would add a lot. Kleuske (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 13:06:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support (weak) I guess you've downscaled due to NR?! Some tiny parts look slightly burnt, but imho this is inevitable with such heavy contrast ratio. Nonetheless the motive and the way it is photographed is interesting enough for support. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 15:36:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hôtel Ville Paris burnt Commune 1871.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hôtel Ville Paris burnt Commune 1871.jpg
Support A 1872 photograph of the Paris Town Hall, taken by the famous parisian photographer Charles Marville, a few months after the great fire of 1871, due to the Revolution of the Commune. Very good size and resolution, a lot of details to be seen (statues, charriot, posters etc...). Notice that the picture is straight, however the perspective is not corrected, it is natural. The ruins are interesting to be compared with the following restoration (beginning in 1873) who gave us the current neo-Renaissance Town Hall.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and useful work. I'd be interested in more technical details: size of original photo, how the repro was taken, what and how it was restored, is the grain noise or original grain etc. Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wolfgang, thanks for support and interest. Most of your questions have an answer in the file description page, others are provided by following the links (in french, I'm afraid). It is a positive print after an albumen collodium negative, but I'm not sure I can translate these technical matters in a good english. I don't know the size of the picture, it is part of an album of 18 photographs by Marville. You can watch all the pictures of the book with the link "BNF". The restorations have their description in the "retouched" part. As I usualy do for old pictures, you can see the original files as first upload, and can compare. --Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! And for the perspective: There's nothing magic - you only have to keep the axis of vision horizontal and you don't have any perspective problems :-) --P e z i (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 17:10:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Toolse linnuse varemed 2013.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toolse linnuse varemed 2013.jpg
Bit better now, but I'd still prefer an image that is taken for further away, so that it would also include some sea. Light is very good in my opinion. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure if you could talk about centered composition if the frame is filled. Color and light is absolutely not dull. Since the ruins are on top of the hill, it's impossible to include the sea. In other words, I don't agree with the previous votes. --Rutake (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain how you achieve an image that seems both bright and dull at the same time? That is what I mean be "off". I suspect it is a result of over-processing. Regardless, the image has no wow. There is no indication of scale. There is nothing to reference it against. We get nothing of the context of its surroundings. The composition is a bit boring, being centered, yet the subject has no symmetry to warrant such a composition. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The light is soft, the colors look natural. I don't understand what so you mean by dull. Not saturated? And what to you mean by bright? The photo is just well exposed. Usually this light occurs in the afternoon with scattered clouds, not too thick and not too thin. The clouds act as a "soft box". Of course it takes a lot of time to wait for the right moment and it may last only a minute or even less. I spent several hours there and I have photos in bright sunlight and I have also dull photos. With the "I came, I saw, I conquered" kind of attitude you might not capture the right moment. Waiting for the right moment is the biggest processing done here. Yes, in that meaning the picture is over-processed. Secondly, in my understanding this is not a centered composition. The main object fills the picture from side to side, so it is not centered but filled. It would be centered if the main object was smaller with "empty" space equally on both sides. Boring and no wow, maybe you are right, maybe not. The vote will show. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2014 at 22:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plan du jardin et chateau de la Reine.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plan du jardin et chateau de la Reine.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 22:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marktplatz Heißen Kirche 2014.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marktplatz Heißen Kirche 2014.jpg
Info High resolution two-row panoramic view (about 180°) of market place in Mülheim-Heißen with church "Gnadenkirche" and former office of mayor (yellow building) all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer, the motive is the square with its surrounding buildings. Currently the photo is included into the de-WP article Heißen. Heißen is a town district of the city of Mülheim. The market place with its objects and buildings (underground station, shops, church, yellow mayor office and white villa) and the fountain characterizes the district very well and is the central (and most important) spot of Heißen. Due to panorama technique I could include the complete square. Besides the weekly farmer's market the square is also a place for events. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is top but neither the different elements on the picture nor the composition of all them together are featurable IMHO Poco222:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly good quality and deservedly a Quality Image, but it's let down by the composition. It's not immediately obvious that it's a town square, and I find my eyes darting back and forth between the left side and right side separated by the tree in the middle. Sorry. --DAJF (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I have never flipped a picture and cannot understand what that good for is (apart from deceiving the viewer). If you have the unflipped picture why not rather do a "replace and delist" instead of "delist" and "nominate"? Poco214:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean flipped horizontally? I can't see how that makes much difference in this particular case and see no harm in it if it makes the composition better. But it should be mentioned in with a "retouched" template. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flipped? Where can we see this? And what's the problem with that? I think it's a great picture to show "natural" pathlines of a flowing medium. One could use it for articles about flow analysis (finite element method) for instance. 95.115.168.11516:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flipped or not -- unless it is a vertical flip, it doesn't matter a bit with that kind of image. And flip it back then! This image was selected a FP and putting it up for delist for THIS THING is ridiculous. Same for other images: just flip them back. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.Jee02:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 14:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Louis-Emile Durandelle, The Eiffel Tower - State of the Construction, 1888.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Louis-Emile Durandelle, The Eiffel Tower - State of the Construction, 1888.jpg
IMO the quality it's pretty good (to be a picture taken in 1888). Secondly, Yann, you made the same comment also here, but I really don't get the point. If the original picture was printed in sepia tone, why should we change it? — TintoMeches, 18:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was a fashion to print images in sepia. There is no reason today to do so. At the very least, contrast should be improved. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a today's picture; it's easy to criticize a 19th century picture with a 21st century technology and different aesthetic canons. In my mind we should judge old pictures from a historical point of view. — TintoMeches, 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think I've ever commented on a FPC before so please correct me if I don't follow protocol. I was scanning through the listings and have to strongly support the promotion of this image and also counter the suggestion that it be modified to fit today's standards. This is a WONDERFUL image of high quality, both artistic and historic. As an image from 1888, we should present it as it would have looked new and pristine. The image was never designed to be displayed in grayscale and changing it would be a disingenuous modification and an overzealous restoration. Themfromspace (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 13:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NGC6960.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NGC6960.jpg
Definitely needs more information to the description. This picture is very interesting but does not look like a regular kind of visible light photograph. So here it should be described how the nebula is presented to us. --Ximonic (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research. The picture might be quite close to the natural colors but such a view can sometimes be obtained by layering the different ionized elements separately and i'm not sure if some kind of channel filters have been used here. Anyway, this is how it usually goes: red = hydrogen + sulfur, green = oxygen and blue = oxygen + hydrogen. Correct me if i'm wrong... --Ximonic (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, and comparing it to other imagery of this object, these are the natural colors, or at least close to it. There are filters involved, but no false colors. Kleuske (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 15:04:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Okinawa Aquarium.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Okinawa Aquarium.jpg
9
209
90
73
1920
1281
I corrected the perspective but it can't be a perfect rectangle. I don't think the Aquarium window was "perfect" to start with :)
Resolution in now better, so I removed 'oppose'. But, I'd still prefer a version where there would not be that much of room for dark edges. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I corrected the perspective and tilt and also uploaded the photo in a much better resolution. I cannot do anything about the dark edges, I think it is the way it should look (plus it is 2/3). It really reflects the atmosphere of the place this way. If it is cropped then it is just about the aquarium - this is about the ambiance as well. --Jordy Meow (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 03:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Itsukushima Gate.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Itsukushima Gate.jpg
The comments from "support" reviews that disregard this concern are doing the FPC project a real disservice. The sky and water are compltely unrealistic and the red literally glows on the screen it is so overdone. 131.137.245.20617:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is unrealistic about the sky? Is it unrealistic because it is cyan? Believe it or not, sometimes sky really is cyan. I suggest you to spend more time observing nature. All the colors are there, even the most "unrealistic". Even the glowing red in direct sunlight. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1. Not taken in an ideal lighting. The red colour is too strong in shadows. 2. I prefer a low tide view which will give more idea about the subject. 3. Even on high tide, I see some better possibilities. 4. Bare minimum resolution. Even though I respect photographer's right to save the high resolution files and still fighting for it, I don't recommend featuring such versions.Jee03:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. I suspect the red channel was is blown due to the strong midday winter sun on the paint. The saturation/vibrance has been boosted in Lightroom, according to the EXIF, which seems unnecessary. BTW, IP 131.137.245.206, if you are seeing glowing red rather than orange then it is very likely you are viewing this on a wide colour gamut monitor set to e.g., AdobeRGB. Unless viewed in a properly colour-managed app like Lightroom/Photoshop then reds can glow too much. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 23:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích v noci.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích v noci.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 18:42:29 (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 25 Feb 2014 at 20:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mergelstetten Evangelische Kirche.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mergelstetten Evangelische Kirche.jpg
Comment Beautifully shot and I like the somber mood offered by the light. There is an issue with the symmetry that is noticeable even in the thumb. It is complex because a simple rotation to correct the horizontal will take the verticals off perpendicular. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Got your point, the horizontals are climbing very slightly towards the left. Tried to straighten that out, new version uploaded. However, I am not sure whether the structure itself is perfectly straight, so, though it might look nicer, it may not be "better" from an encyclopedical point of view. Now the backrests of the benches are descending towards the left. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the removed lamps could be the more severe problem for encyclopedical point of view than the "corrected" horizontal lines ... --P e z i (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those lamps protruded down the top framing by far less than 1/10 of the entire image height. Maybe 1/20. Just enough for cropping them out would frame the arch too tight, so I decided to remove those disturbing lower rims of them. If the lamps had been installed 0.5 m higher, this wouldn’t have been necessary. So I think the encyclopedical damage done by this information loss is really marginal. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 21:38:38 (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 1 Mar 2014 at 13:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Xerophytic forest in Margarita island.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xerophytic forest in Margarita island.jpg
Support Possibly no wow but a truly romantic picture. I like the composition: The shape of these "exotic" (for a Central European) plants in the foreground, the sunset, and the gray-blue, partially cloudy sky with gradients to gold towards the sun. @The Photographer: You want to add something to voy:Margarita Island? -- Rillke(q?)09:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information to Article in wikivoyage. I dont know if is posible add me like a contact there :P. Venezuela right now is not a good place to visit, but Margarita Island will be ever a nice place, a paradise different to rest of Venezuela. You are Welcome --The Photographer (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 06:22:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Park Heremastate. Herfstsfeer.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Park Heremastate. Herfstsfeer.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 18:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Turbaraba.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turbaraba.jpg
Oppose Good quality image, but not outstanding enough to become a featured image. Certainly recommend nominating at QIC, though. --DAJF (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 18:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aarhus Hovedbanegård aften.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aarhus Hovedbanegård aften.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 17:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pennefeltet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pennefeltet.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 10:32:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orchis 04.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orchis 04.JPG
Comment Quality and DoF is fine. I would personally crop a bit tighter at the top. Unfortunately the crossing blade of grass in the background massively distracts the composition - what a pity! --Tuxyso (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Comment The plant itself looks great, but the background/bokeh is a bit too busy for my taste (compare it with e.g. this one). Given the overall quality, this is not distracting enough to really justify a "contra", but I don't feel comfortable giving a pro either. --El Grafo (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 16:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 16:10:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Long Ship's Lighthouse, Land's End, by Turner, Getty Museum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Long Ship's Lighthouse, Land's End, by Turner, Getty Museum.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 21:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Airplane approaching to Palma de Mallorca airport.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Airplane approaching to Palma de Mallorca airport.jpg
Support Light not coming from front - must oppose. No seriously, liked it when I reviewed it for QI and think the silhouette look also works for FP --DXR (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Understanding a photo can be puzzling sometimes. I take it as a compliment. I don't want to reveal the airline because it is not important here. I think this photo could be valuable the demonstrate what slotted trailing edge flaps are. And their location. Flaps are inboard but they often confused with ailerons that are located outboard of the trailing edge. Just recently skimmed a British English monolingual dictionary, found a picture of an airplane with the parts named. Ailerons were mistakenly named flaps. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what is overdone? Oh, you mean noise reduction. It is applied selectively to sky. Clouds are background here and out of focus anyway. I'm looking at the camera raw just now and I wouldn't say anything is lost. Didn't expect much from you. ----Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can’t see anything special in this pic, just an unidentifyable aeroplane in very harsh contrast, and the off-centered composition does not work for me since all the "weight" is in the left half of the image. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 21:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vincent van Gogh - Sunflowers - VGM F458.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vincent van Gogh - Sunflowers - VGM F458.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2014 at 17:32:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pont du Tivoli, Sète, Hérault 19.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pont du Tivoli, Sète, Hérault 19.jpg
Comment Really good lighting and colors. But for the framing, I feel a crop on the left would be good, and more space at the top would also be ideal (if necessary, make some fake sky in Photoshop). --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought too to crop on the left but I cropped already a big part on the right because of a very disturbing lamppost, and I don't want to reduce again the size, and for the sky, I don't know how to do a thing like that and I'm not sure I want. Except for a dustspot if there is, I do not think of editing it anymore. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:18, 15 february 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Potentially interesting subject but poor composition. What does the building on the right add to the photo? The colours have been oversaturated. The vertical perspective has been altered in an unnatural way such that the segments making the bridge get much larger towards the top of the picture, and the angle changes (more so than one would expect from normal perspective). In the boat on the river, everyone is looking the other way. Too flawed. -- Colin (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The right side is well in shadow and the left is brightly sunlit. It is distracting, makes the composition unbalanced and does not showcase the bridge well. Moreover, this image is heavily saturated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2014 at 22:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black Mountain in Utah 2012.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black Mountain in Utah 2012.JPG
In my opinion, some leeway should be given to D800 pictures. If it is downsampled to 24 MP, it would be just as sharp or more sharp than a picture from a D600, 5D MkII/MkIII, etc. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple, people here don't appreciate big file size. I have never witnessed this phenomenon before and it is quite strange. I have tried to explain why bigger files are more blur and unsharp at full size than smaller but so far without success. If I ever wanted to capture something with the intention to nominate it here, I would use my d80 instead of d800 or use d800 with DX crop. Life is full of contradictions. Support Nice image by the way --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think that there is too much sky, but the sharpness is to me the main issue, it is not really crispy anywhere and on the left there is drop of quality, sorry. Poco222:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop isn't doing anything for me. A 2.5:1 panorama crop would be more impressive imo. There are some blurred patches on the left, which is odd. However, I strongly disapprove of pixel peeping 30+MP images. For review purposes I suggest resample 66% with a little sharpening and the image is very sharp overall (with the blurred patches not so obvious) and still high MP. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 11:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wernerite - Fluorescence.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wernerite - Fluorescence.gif
Info No, and the sharpness in the two originals was better. But for animating I had to lap them and edit them as animated gif which unfortunately lead to some loss of quality in respect to the originals. --Llez (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think animated GIFs can be featured. Just too primitive. They don't print. And any decent website could have a mouse-over or button-click JavaScript animation to achieve the UV comparison that would be much less annoying. -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 21:59:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Capra aegagrus hircus in isla Margarita.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Capra aegagrus hircus in isla Margarita.jpg
Oppose, sorry. Background too blurry; also highly visible cloning artifacts on the ground next to the animal's left hind leg and left of the animal at those shrubs. Lupo22:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Background is blurry have a specific reason, it is important that the background does not distract from the main subject, in this case the goat. I just regenerated from the raw without cloning anything on the ground --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good framing except the posture of the goat; I prefer a side view just turned to look on the camera (for the sake of better EV). Further, for a domesticated animal, I expect more details to compensate the wow. Jee02:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not easy to photograph an animal in heat. I also show quice xeric landscape where this type of animal is observed. The picture you show was taken with 155 mm, mine with a 42 mm (Which indicates I should get closer to the animal, causing the animal to flee). Thank you very much for your recommendation. BTW, Could be nice if someone share theoretical material in this section --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 14:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau de Beauvoir Saint-Pourcain-sur-Besbre 2013 n05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau de Beauvoir Saint-Pourcain-sur-Besbre 2013 n05.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 14:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Men triple jump French Athletics Championships 2013 t160700.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Men triple jump French Athletics Championships 2013 t160700.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 19:29:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pterophyllum scalare adult.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pterophyllum scalare adult.jpg
Oppose for different reasons: I am not really convinced about the composition especially with the guy cropped in the bottom right, the size is also pretty small and therefore lacks detail and there are some traces of reflections of the fish bowl (see notes) Poco210:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 19:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunshades on the beach of Baška, Croatia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunshades on the beach of Baška, Croatia.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 18:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment The unintentional "non-centered" composition, and the subsequent unfortunate crop at left are a "no-go" for me. The whole picture is a bit too much softened (denoising ?), and therefore, the ceiling is not detailed/sharp enough. But I wont oppose because wow.--Jebulon (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2014 at 19:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Island of Prvić (Krk).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Island of Prvić (Krk).jpg
Your petulant commentary is getting tiresome. If you think this harassment will change how I vote or the commentary I make you are sadly mistaken. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's not possible to change how you vote because mostly you don't vote, just comment. And mostly your comments are incompetent, not that I think you really are incompetent. For some reason you just can't be neutral. This is just one example. In one picture the lighting is dull and flat, in another picture the same lighting it is good. There is always a way to talk down a picture. You can always put down composition, lighting, colours etc. Sometimes the centred composition works, sometimes it doesn't, balanced lighting and other crap. It is not harassment, I just noticed what you do here and I want others also to see that. Many of us are not good enough in English to argue with you and and it may leave false impression that we actually silently agree with you. Feel free to oppose any picture but tell us what is it that you really don't like. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interrupt but I agree, the light really is lovely here. I don't know what you compare it to but it creates a warm-cold-contrast and is soft, what more can you ask for in this scene? Nevertheless, a different subject may ask for a different light. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Urmas Haljaste, while you think the light in the two images is the same it is not. This image is pleasing to the eye. The island is softly spot lit and yet one can still see the contours of the hills because there is enough contrast in the light. In your image the light is bland, there is little to no contrast and as others pointed out the whole image is dull (despite the brightly lit grass). You need to stop this crying about one comment on one of your images as it is childish. You may not like my comments but they are not incompetent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know the light because I was there with Ruta. Yes, it is excellent. And it is quite the same in my photo but I don't care about my photo. As I told before, I just want others to see you don't really analyse photos but you are being emotional like many others. It is OK to vote based on emotions but don't try to make it analytical by adding all kinds of crap in your comments. You try desperately to be an opinion leader but we don't need one here. It is you who is being childish by trying to be the lord of the flies. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Urmas, you seem to be mad someone has higher standards than you. Strage position to take for a project that is supposed to be about the best of the best. There is no fault in the commentary I can see and in most instances the comments have led to corrections and eventual broad support. I see even you changed the crop in your image after the commentary your image was too centered. It does look better, but I agree with others the light is still dull and off. Saying something is off may not be technical jargon but it is not an emotional statement either. It simply means that something doesn't look right but it is hard to say what is the actual cause. In this case I think the lighting in your image is too flat and dull on the main subject. It creates a very 2-d representation of a 3-d object. It lacks depth. Fix it or forget it. 131.137.245.20713:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not mad and I'm not talking about my pictures. I'm talking about someone having no standards at all. Of course these comments will lead to "corrections" because the comments have huge effect on the vote. It is very unfortunate that some great pictures do not get the support because of a "specialist" being a first one to comment the nomination with some kind of bullshit made-up reasons. Once again, I'm not talking about my own photos. There are clear standards in the guidelines and of course there is the so called "wow" effect. It is mostly the matter of taste whether you support or not and I respect the personal taste very much. But I think it's not in the interest of this project when you try to incline others vote by writing about some made-up reasons, accusing in over-processing, hiding something etc. I'm not so much worried about the single nominations but the tendency of manipulating comments. Haven't seen any 3d photos here. They all are 2d. Haven't seen a photo with zero contrast either. When you see something that you couldn't reproduce yourself you start talking down the photo. This is what it is all about here, not my nomination. Why are you using a Canadian IP address instead of your signature?? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. Some people don't have a signature or use an account. Not everyone that participates here bothers with one. At least you made your concerns clear. You think saffron is voting against your images because he is a lousy photgrapher. BTW, it was also funny to see you originally posted your comment as an IP as well. 131.137.245.20914:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bits of this are lovely: the lighting, the island, the reflection in the calm sea. But there is too much grey sky and the right quarter of the image is significantly blurred. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2014 at 12:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A Korean woman with hand fan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Korean woman with hand fan.jpg
Oppose You nailed the focus on the eye; however, the fan is somewhat out of focus. The lady is almost fully hidden by the fan. As such this works neither as a portrait of the woman nor a showcase of the fan. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Echoing Saffron Blaze's comments above, it's not really clear what the photographer was trying to achieve here, as the face is almost completely obscured, and the fan is not being shown off at its best either. Sorry. --DAJF (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 14:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 30.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 30.jpg
Info A part of the village of Mourèze, Hérault, France. After these failed attempts (1, 2, 3), I tried to take into account comments and yesterday I got up at 5 am in the morning to try my luck, I hope that it is better. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:03, 18 february 2014 (UTC)
Oppose 4th time. Better than previous nominations but large shadow in foreground and shadowed hills in background ruins this image. --Kikos (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Golden light on the buildings is nice but at the expense of large shadows. But the issues with subject and composition remain per previous noms. This just isn't wow for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 20:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stipiturus malachurus - Southwest National Park.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stipiturus malachurus - Southwest National Park.jpg
Support Excellent, nice composition and subject, excellent. For me this picture is Amazing (some distracting no importan problem like branch in wrong DoF. Could be nice in full size for a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a 500mm lens with 2x converter on a 1.3x crop camera. So 1300mm lens. I think that might explain the size. Our only other pictures of this bird are hundred-year-old drawings. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Does a 2x cut the resolution also to half? I did some search (when the same question came a few weeks ago); but didn't find an answer. I think ISO 1,600 is another reason for the down-sampling. Jee03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert. It won't reduce the sensor resolution but you can't double the focal length without some loss of sharpness (as it will magnify any defects in the lens plus add some of its own). The EXIF says "35 mm equivalent: 1108.1 mm" which isn't as much as I thought with that crop camera. Still, it is a huge focal length. I would like to know more from @JJ Harrison: about this shot and we don't know how much it was cropped (which reduces the MP by a square-law). What we know about this image it that it has no competition for this species on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2014 at 18:28:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm City Hall February 2014 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stockholm City Hall February 2014 02.jpg
Comment As mentioned in the file description, it is a exposure fusion from 2 exposure (30 and 1 sec). The star trails are are normal for a 30 sec exposure. The one second exposure was needed only to show details on the tower (and the left side tower) where there was strong lights.--ArildV (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it is not a HDR but a exposure fusion. And yes, both are allowed and almost a requirement here for certain types of images (interiors and night scenes) to avoid heavily over- or underexposed areas.--ArildV (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanx for info. I was almost sure HDR were not to pass not a long ago. But you still have problem with EXIF info, I suggest you to put manual one, since this isn't correct. So you can avoid it in description. --Mile (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) I have two main problems with the photo: The light and the composition. Light: Due to the late time there was no remaining light from the day (blue hour). The main motive (building) looks too dark to me, it does not sufficiently stand out. Composition: Golden ratio was used, OK, but golden ratio implies with this motive that there is something interesting on the right. That is not the case with this motive. The way you've photographed the building might be better for a centered crop. If you would like to keep the left/right crop as it is, I would suggest to crop tighter at the bottom and slightly tighter at the top because the reflections of the water are not very remarkable or interesting (see note). Another note on the light: The light on the left side of the builing looks rather red compared to the right side of the builing. Is that correct? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks for your comment. I dont want to to crop more water, the relationship between the building and the water is part of the architecture (you can read more here w:Stockholm_City_Hall#Architecture and style). I normally choose blue hour rather when night, but a clear night with bright moonlight is an interesting alternative. It's just an image so if the light appears redder on the right side it does not depend on the camera (but there is more light from the right side, to the right is Stockholm Central Station and the city center). You can compare with another crop of the same image
I dont think the building is too dark, and I think the contrast between the sky and the illuminated building is realistic and beautiful.--ArildV (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 06:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Houses of Sørneset and mountains of Kågen, 2012 June.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Houses of Sørneset and mountains of Kågen, 2012 June.jpg
Weak support Agree with Tuxyso, the improvement I see is getting rid of the centered composition, probably cropping out the mountain on the left Poco221:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 06:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vassdalsvatnet and the east side of Lilandstinden-Bukkskinntinden ridge, 2010 September.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vassdalsvatnet and the east side of Lilandstinden-Bukkskinntinden ridge, 2010 September.jpg
It is like this for real. It looks tilted because of the perspective in the lake. The opposite coast is not a straight line and is further away on the right than on the left + this picture has been taken from a small hill. As you can see the coast also curves a little downwards on the right. Of course, all this can be ”fixed” at the cost of truth. --Ximonic (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment 
Abstain -- Alex Florstein (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Done Dust spot or bird removed. --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I am really sorry, but I don't think this view is special enough for an FP. Not the best detail and compo, sharpening haloes on the people. You may compare to this one. --A.Savin 12:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
_-_by_Pudelek_2.JPG)
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Neutral Nice shot overall, especially when viewed from the outside. But it's rather noisy, which becomes obvious when I zoom. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
,_Zoo_de_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_08.JPG)
.jpg)
Question Yann gave you good advice. Crop isn't so lucky - middle position. Picture is 2 Mpx (barely "legal") on 12 Mpx camera. I am sure you have plenty of space around to improve crop. Let us see the beauty in full, why such downsizing ? Also some bad posterizing in black area. --Mile (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
_--_2012_--_5688.jpg)
_%C3%89crins_National_park,_France.JPG)
_ID_596368.jpg)
.--Jebulon (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC),_Motorcycle_(black_and_white)_--_2013_--_3560_(bw).jpg)
.JPG)
_damage_at_Postojna_train_station.jpg)
,_The_Strip_--_2012_--_6232.jpg)
Keep I'm sorry but that is plain ridiculous. I seriously hope that you are able to distinguish between subject for which even lighting is desirable for EV and those where other lighting is creating value. That here is just creating trouble out of thin air and really irritating. Don't you think it would be better to withdraw that nomination here and just accept that opinions about what should be FP differ? --DXR (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Request No location given - please add! - MPF (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
View of the twilight sky and Martian horizon taken by NASA's Curiosity Mars rover includes Earth as the brightest point of light in the night sky. Original TIF-file.
JPG-version of original photo
Earth pointed out
Earth and moon enlarged and pointed out with English text
Earth and moon enlarged and pointed out with Spanish text
Earth and moon enlarged and pointed out with Swedish text
,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-09-08,_DD_02.JPG)
Weak support -- Nice photo, but what's special about it? Compared to, forex,
,_Via_del_Teatro_di_Marcello_--_2013_--_3468.jpg)
Fixed CA and perspective correction. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC).JPG)
,_by_John_Trumbull.jpg)
.jpg)
_06.JPG)
.jpg)
,_S%C3%A8te,_H%C3%A9rault_04.jpg)
_--_2012_--_5689.jpg)
,_Piazza_della_Rotonda,_Hub_of_a_Coach_--_2013_--_10.jpg)
Boats in Aguiño, Ribeira, Galicia (Spain)
Boats in Aguiño, Ribeira, Galicia (Spain)
_-_by_Pudelek_2.JPG){kind=link}
,_Zoo_de_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_08.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_22.jpg){kind=link}
_Écrins_National_park,_France.JPG){kind=link}
_ID_596368.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Motorcycle_(black_and_white)_--_2013_--_6.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
,_The_Strip_--_2012_--_19.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Jardín_Botánico,_Múnich,_Alemania,_2013-09-08,_DD_02.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
,_Via_del_Teatro_di_Marcello_--_2013_--_2.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_06.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Sète,_Hérault_04.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_23.jpg){kind=link}
,_Piazza_della_Rotonda,_Hub_of_a_Coach_--_2013_--_10.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_The_Venetian_--_2012_--_22.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_by_Pudelek_2.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Zoo_de_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_08.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Zoo_de_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_08.JPG){kind=link}
,_Zoo_de_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_02.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ST_Petersburg_Metro_Kirovsky_Zvod.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_22.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_22.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_22.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_22.jpg){kind=link}
_%C3%89crins_National_park,_France.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_%C3%89crins_National_park,_France.JPG){kind=link}
_Écrins_National_park,_France.JPG){kind=link}
_ID_596368.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_ID_596368.jpg){kind=link}
_ID_596368.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_ID_596368.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Motorcycle_(black_and_white)_--_2013_--_6.jpg){kind=link}
,_Motorcycle_(black_and_white)_--_2013_--_6.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Motorcycle_(black_and_white)_--_2013_--_6.jpg){kind=link}
,_Motorcycle_(black_and_white)_--_2013_--_6.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Motorcycle_(black_and_white)_--_2013_--_6.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
_damage_at_Postojna_train_station.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_The_Strip_--_2012_--_19.jpg){kind=link}
,_The_Strip_--_2012_--_19.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_The_Strip_--_2012_--_19.jpg){kind=link}
,_The_Strip_--_2012_--_19.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_The_Strip_--_2012_--_19.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-09-08,_DD_02.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Jard%C3%ADn_Bot%C3%A1nico,_M%C3%BAnich,_Alemania,_2013-09-08,_DD_02.JPG){kind=link}
,_Via_del_Teatro_di_Marcello_--_2013_--_2.jpg){kind=link}
,_Via_del_Teatro_di_Marcello_--_2013_--_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Via_del_Teatro_di_Marcello_--_2013_--_2.jpg){kind=link}
,_Via_del_Teatro_di_Marcello_--_2013_--_2.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}
_06.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_06.JPG){kind=link}
_06.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te,_H%C3%A9rault_04.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_S%C3%A8te,_H%C3%A9rault_04.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sète,_Hérault_04.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_23.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_23.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_23.jpg){kind=link}
_--_2012_--_23.jpg){kind=link}
,_Piazza_della_Rotonda,_Hub_of_a_Coach_--_2013_--_10.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Piazza_della_Rotonda,_Hub_of_a_Coach_--_2013_--_10.jpg){kind=link}
,_Piazza_della_Rotonda,_Hub_of_a_Coach_--_2013_--_10.jpg,_featu){kind=link}
,_Piazza_della_Rotonda,_Hub_of_a_Coach_--_2013_--_10.jpg,_featu){kind=link}
,_The_Venetian_--_2012_--_22.jpg){kind=link}
,_The_Venetian_--_2012_--_22.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_The_Venetian_--_2012_--_22.jpg){kind=link}
,_The_Venetian_--_2012_--_6339.jpg)
,_The_Venetian_--_2012_--_22.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}
_Borsos_%26_So%C3%B3_(1961).jpg){kind=link}
-2014-02-15T21:09:00.000Z-File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Sunflowers_-_VGM_F458.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_-Little_Tokyo-_--_2012_--_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
