Last modified on 17 April 2015, at 18:59

Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Prasat Suor Prat, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 03.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2015 at 18:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three of the series of twelve towers of Prasat Suor Prat in Angkor Thom, former Khmer empire, today Cambodia. The towers, of unknown function, and built in the late 12th century, are made from rugged laterite and sandstone and are located in front of Terrace of the Elephants and Terrace of the Leper King.
  • Appears to be only on borders against the sky, so maybe some selective curve adjustment that went to far? - Benh (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Various areas out of focus, distortion, the top is blurry--LivioAndronico talk 09:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are at least as much (if not more) distortion on your church interiors because you perspective adjust them. And there are more on Diliff's, which seems not to bother you. - Benh (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • But are you serious Benh??? I hate the distortions and I never voted for .... you can show me which photo of David so distorted I voted? Let's be serious, and is still blurry--LivioAndronico talk 09:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Livio, looks to me like a revenge vote after my comments and votes a few minutes ago in your 2 current nominations. I hope though that I am wrong. Poco2 09:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is not a revenge, I am by doing but since you say you do not vote instead oppose then I now I act like you. And 'blurred and distorted, I have also argued, let's see if the others will tell me I'm crazy or that I'm right!--LivioAndronico talk 09:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here. Same kind of distorsion. And whether you like it or not, your church interior have the same distortion. I don't mean it's necessarily bad, but please be consistent in your judgments. - Benh (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For me it is slightly distorted, less than this, and then a vote only against dozens of photos, also did not say that it is only distorted but also blurred--LivioAndronico talk 09:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • if the exif are right, the equivalent focal length in 35mm is 8mm so even taking the crop into account, the focal length on David's church is shorter, yielding more distortion. But it doesn't take that much digging into metadata to notice this. - Benh (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Or you do not want to understand (is more clear) .... depends on the subject, composition, quality, etc.--LivioAndronico talk 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say though, that I agree with Livio that the composition does make a difference. Although the amount of distortion is about the same as my interiors, there are usually more restrictions on the camera's position in an interior than an exterior and the fact that my interiors are symmetrical helps a bit (IMO). I don't know what the exact restrictions were in this image though, but I find that the tower's horizontal lines leaning is a bit off-putting. Diliff (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have uploaded a new version (brigther overall, reduction of highlights to get rid of the frindge betweeen sky and right tower, crop, aspect ratio). I would like to add that in the original RAW file the right tower is not that close to the right frame so that I would expect a big distortion, but after applying some perspective correction, and keeping in mind that my intention was that the stairs play a key role in the composition, I cropped it like that. No, there were no significant constraints about the angle I could use (and actually I have another version -not uploaded though- with a different angle where the stairs guide directly straight to the right tower, but I prefer this version with a diagonal approach), but there was a constraint about the distance, since behind me there was a pond. Please, let me know if the current version is better and whether you are interested in the other version of my hard disk. Poco2 11:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok now the sky on the right is also blown out --LivioAndronico talk 11:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Singapore Supertree-Grove-in-The-Gardens-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2015 at 18:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supertree Grove in Singapore
Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is just a part of the much bigger Supertree Grove in Singapore. The trees are standing in a circle and you will always have some of them cut when viewing from ground level. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Venice - City inner channe - 4176.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2015 at 17:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Wwii woman worker-edit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2015 at 13:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Woman aircraft worker, Vega Aircraft Corporation, Burbank, California, June 1942
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by David Bransby, uploaded by Liftarn, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Has something on hers nose and upper lip but the quality,the image size,the expression and freckles.... I really like--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support outstanding 70+ years old photo. And the freckles .... --Pugilist (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg strong oppose Do our quality standards mean nothing? Yes, it's a great photo but whoever edited it or created the JPG has trashed it. Have a look at File:Woman aircraft worker, Vega Aircraft Corporation, Burbank, Calif.1a34456u.tif, the original tiff, and examine the background. The JPG presented here has such obvious blocky artefacts you could play Tetris with them. This is an image worthy of careful restoration, by someone who knows what they are doing, and I'm sure someone at FP could be found to do that. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Colin: New version uploaded: rework from TIFF, less compression, and also correction of issues mentioned by Livio. Yann (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better now. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support 30 years later, I will remove the Weak ;) --Laitche (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Umm please don't misunderstand the above comment, I don't mean the World War II. It's a very good quality of 70+ years old photo but not a big event in the history, it's a working lady, so. --Laitche (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Capitol del Estado de Indiana, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 19:07:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Front view of the Indiana Statehouse, the state capitol building of the U.S. state of Indiana. The building, built in 1888, houses the Indiana General Assembly, the office of the Governor of Indiana, the Supreme Court of Indiana, and other state officials. The building it is located in Indianapolis, the state capital.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Front view of the Indiana Statehouse, the state capitol building of the U.S. state of Indiana. The building, built in 1888, houses the Indiana General Assembly, the office of the Governor of Indiana, the Supreme Court of Indiana, and other state officials. The building it is located in Indianapolis, the state capital. All by me, Poco2 19:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 19:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective is a few strange --LivioAndronico talk 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Seems pretty sharp actually considering it was taken at f/16. I would have expected a bit more diffraction softness. Diliff (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If Is good for David, probably that I wrong --LivioAndronico talk 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice symmetry but I would have moved forward to get the trees out of the way. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Daniel Case, have you really considered the effect of moving forward? A little further forward and there's a great big statue dominating your vision and obscuring the building, and the trees probably aren't completely out of the frame. Go in front of the statue and you'd struggle to fit the building in-frame or achieve a reasonable rectilinear image, and the two other trees would start to dominate. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I fully agree with Colin. I can offer other perspectives ([1], [2]), but believe me moving forward was not an option. Btw, I have uploaded a new version with an improvement of the perspective. Poco2 19:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually like those other two a little bit more, if you'd been able to get the treetops in. It's really a matter of taste. Sometimes the perfect angle you'd like is just impossible. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Very much so. Many buildings (particularly in London) don't give you the ability to step back and photograph from an ideal angle, you typically end up with light poles, street signs, awkward angles and lots of perspective distortion. It is a matter of taste but I don't think Poco's alternative images show the building better. This one seems to be the least obstructed view of the building. Diliff (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a colour noise on the bottom right window shade, isn't it. --Laitche (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Zaaddozen van Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 15:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seed pods of Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Location, Garden reservation Jonker Valley.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Seed pods of Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Location, Garden reservation Jonker Valley. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • WeakSymbol support vote.svg Support Centered would be better --LivioAndronico talk 19:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rules of thirds. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of botanical interest. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've liked to see more detail, which is partially hindered by the backlight. Why didn't you take the shot from the other side? Poco2 09:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see the intention of this composition but I don't think it works. --Laitche (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Christ Church Cathedral Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christ Church Cathedral Interior
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's actually a college chapel! "Cathedral" is its "second function" so to speak. :) I like the wheel window! Impressive. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I've probably cropped the (already cropped) banisters left and right Poco2 09:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Worcester College Chapel, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Worcester College Chapel
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the rays on the lights. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really amazing. Not much else to say... - Benh (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as always --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usual David's high standard, no issues with the crop here to me Poco2 09:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside Tr.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside, Asa Wright nature Centre, Trinidad
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lovely colors--LivioAndronico talk 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nicely captured, but I'm slightly concerned by the colours of the flower below it, it looks like it's oversaturated or colour channels are blown... But as long as the butterfly isn't suffering the same problem, it's not a big deal I suppose. Diliff (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nicely composed. I'd suggest cropping in a bit to get rid of that dead space on both sides. But on the other hand that helps diffuse attention from the issues with the flower that David brought up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't want to get opposing opinions to my opposing vote anymore but not detailed overall especially the edges of the wings are not sharp and bright parts are overexposed.(I know it was taken with 400mm lens.) --Laitche (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • All votes should be contestable though, and you should be able to defend your position - it's normal. Diliff (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks Diliff, I want to defend the FP quality more than my position, for now :) --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
        • You should think more to defend your position, trust me --LivioAndronico talk 19:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I know well what you want to say, but the FP is for the works not for the members, Thanks Livio. --Laitche (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
          • It seems like a real life, If people who behave very defensively then would get a success but also that's risky cause they might lose themselves. --Laitche (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful composition, but per Laitche. And I'd add it falls a bit short quality wise, despite the small size. Guessed it was cropped rather than downsampled (I'm not aware the lens used has this big a magnification). - Benh (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bokeh is nice, but quality is low despite not so big resolution. --Mile (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose The bar for butterfly images has moved very high during the last years and I fear this is slightly sub-FPC-standard in terms of sharpness. Very nice separation between bright subject and smooth dark background tough! --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of zoological interest. --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am not happy with the format - the crop is tight on bottom and wide at the sides. But sharpness is ok for me. Overall, I can support this image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many gray areas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, especially worried about overexposure and background posterization. — Julian H. 16:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I agree somehow with pros and contras...Poco2 09:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Leccinum versipelle LC0366.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 10:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leccinum versipelle

File:Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (Nepi).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 08:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (Nepi)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful subject, lighting, and a nice perspective. The image is slightly soft at 100%, even in the central, brighter areas, which I think may be caused by NR. For me, however, this doesn't unduly detract from the image. --Baresi F (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The light and colors make the difference. Good quality. Yann (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose for the future FP standard Overexposed the left window, looks like painted with white color. --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion Laitche, however, in the medieval Catholic churches is an effect due to have that within you see that served to illuminate the statue of the Madonna (being in the Middle Ages without electricity). However, the window is very small compared to the pictures and do not think it's so annoying, こんにちは.--LivioAndronico talk 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not so annoying, but it looks artificial compared with the right window. --Laitche (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not artificial Laitche, indeed, a lights from the east and the other from the west, to take advantage of the sunlight, as you see there aren't other windows,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it's artificial, I said it looks artificial. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • sunlight looks artificial...I don't understand --LivioAndronico talk 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Besides, Baresi F described this as soft cause by NR, but I can't believe that photos need NR which is taken with ISO 100, so I think it's unsharp compared with current church interior FPs. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Having the church different illuminations even at 100 ISO is created a bit of noise which must be reduced in PP. However before you oppose to one thing and then you come out the other, better let it go that is better, thanks anyway --LivioAndronico talk 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If you insist that, I can say nothing, and thanks for the following comment.(Sorry, this have lots of reasons to oppose so I didn't want to write all...) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There can be many reasons why it has NR at ISO 100. Livio may have increased the shadows brightness which would introduce noise even at ISO 100. It is a scene with a lot of dynamic range, and it is probably as good as it can be with a single exposure. Nothing could have saved the white window, cameras simply don't have enough dynamic range capabilities in their sensors to capture bright sunlight detail at the same time as a dark interior detail. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've considered the technical limit of single exposure by 24Mpx with APS-C, and I think this shot is insufficient luminous at this scene + this sensor for a FP bar. And after I read your comment of supporting vote, I think it's not good thing that an adjustment the FP standard by each individual, but it's OK for now. --Laitche (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't adjust the FP standard for each individual - that's an assumption you've made. I've opposed many of Livio's church interiors before. I simply wanted to point out that he has improved his photography (composition, processing, and overall image sharpness) and this image has reached the minimum standard for me to support it. Diliff (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I received your intention(means you've not adjust). --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It 'a thought, I tried to explain, then if you believe ... fun.I like the comparison if it is constructive.--LivioAndronico talk 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Besides, If you want to portray a mood of the Middle Ages without electricity, that yellow electric light is so annoying.(If only.) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Next time I enter and turn off at my liking, but please--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good imho --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice photo --Charles (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Not perfect, but one of the better interior photos by Livio, and I think it is a big improvement on his previous images. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Moderate support While I wonder if the white balance on the ambient light from outside could be better corrected, the central portion more than makes up for that (that crepuscular ray is just priceless). Like David says, not perfect but more than good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until you add back the color space. Very nice ray of light otherwise. A bit dark also, but a definite improvement over previous ones, which I wanted to point out. - Benh (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And how you would add to the color space? I honestly do not know what you mean Benh--LivioAndronico talk 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know... because I don't have much clue about what your workflow looks like. I've sorted out that Wladyslaw had an issue with his Gimp (probably his settings), but you don't seem to use it. If I had to bet on your case, it would be on Paint.net. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And when you don't know something, check Wikipedia (you know, that little encyclopedia we are all contributing to somehow ;-) ) Color space. There's even an Italian version. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • But I used Photoshop CC,boh...anyway,ok thanks --LivioAndronico talk 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be unsatisfied to leave this issue pending. Can you tell us more about your workflow? From the moment you take the picture to the moment you upload it to Wikipedia. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • after taking the photo I drive, dinner (I joke Face-grin.svg).... still nothing that, I adjusted the perspective, cut, added a bit of sharpness and a slight NR. Then a bit of contrast, raised a little brightness and added a few of color ... end--LivioAndronico talk 22:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I was more asking how you import the photo in your computer. How exactly do you open it? Photoshop? ACR? Lightroom? Something else? How is it saved at the end? Can you check ur exif at each stage of your workflow to find out the faulty link? - Benh (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I open the nef with camera raw and later with photoshop,and save in jpg...not very complicated --LivioAndronico talk 07:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This photo has been through "paint.net 4.0.5", it says so in the EXIF. I can't trust the colours. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
From exif : Software used Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)--LivioAndronico talk 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
See "Creator Tool" tag. This has definitely been touched by Paint.NET which imo shouldn't go near any FP photographs. Sure, Photoshop has also been used, but Photoshop CC does not remove colourspace tags. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Face-surprise.svg Ops....I really sorry,I had done something without remembering, the fact remains that I was wrong and I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you have to use Paint.net for when you have a Photoshop? Can't you just reprocess and skip Paint.net? I'm concerned that not so many look to care about colors accuracy... - Benh (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a nice view for sure, but it doesn't look real to me. The lighting is odd blue and white and yellow that I do not see in any other photo of this cathedral. The shaft of light looks painted-on. And close up the whole thing looks like a painting rather than a photo. I suspect this is a combination of aggressive NR, clarity and sharpening. And the lack of colourspace tag that Benh notes is also an issue. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice real view, nice light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You are getting my support (for the first time, I guess) here. The execution is not really at FP level: some areas are gone due to overexposure, the picture is overall too dark, I miss contrast, detail is not the best, the bottom crop can be improved, it doesn't look as real as it should (this is IMHO an issue in your processing) but the motif in this case and the effect of the lighting surpasses the mentioned problems. I suggest you to keep on working in your photographic skills, development and -if possible- equipment and go back to this place in one year, and then ask us to replace this FP by an even better one. If you don't do it, it could be me who shows up over there :) Poco2 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want your support here given that what you write is more negative than positive Poco2, I do not understand --LivioAndronico talk 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Besides, it is not polite to those who supported me--LivioAndronico talk 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I am owner of my votes. Please, don't do that again. Poco2 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You are right, forgot that. I will ask my doctor to get a stronger medication, thanks. Poco2 09:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 07:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"U.S. Army soldiers on Bougainville (one of the Solomon Islands) in World War II." This photo was taken in March 1944.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by U.S. Army - uploaded by Lupo - nominated by Pine -- Pine 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pine 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't like the pictures of war anyway the quality is not very good,but interesting --LivioAndronico talk 08:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks quite unreal somehow. --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it and wish I was talented enough to take something similar even with my probably much modern gear. - Benh (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a valued shoot, but a bad crop. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent lighting, but agree that composition could be better. Image quality is fine for the time. --King of ♠ 03:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Eurovision Song Contest 1962 - Ronnie Carroll-edit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 22:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ronny Caroll in Eurovision

File:George Sand by Nadar, 1864.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 22:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

George Sand by Nadar

File:Lenini mäetipp (J. Künnap).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 20:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lenin Peak (7134 m)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info First time when Estonian flag reached over 7000 m. Created by Jaan Künnap in 1989 - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject would also be interesting if the quality of the picture was not so terrible,sorry --LivioAndronico talk 21:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose Severely underexposed sky, Was the idea to get both blue and black into the picture to complement the white? Clever but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about cropped version of it? Like the first upload in file history. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This was taken at a very high altitude, where light conditions differ dramatically from what we are used to. Shadows are much harsher and skies are much more blue. The effect seems extreme in this picture, so I'd guess a polarizer was used to exaggerate it even more – which would make the very dark sky a creative choice of the photographer rather than an error. You are of course free to like that or not, but I'd like to encourage everyone to have a quick look at the section High-Altitude Blue of Michael Freeman's Capturing Light (Google Books link) before dismissing this as underexposed. --El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pity we do not often have the documents of this intensity. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support an image for this gallery : Commons:Featured pictures/Historical -- Christian Ferrer 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20150321171849-2 - Painel Tiradentes de Candido Portinari.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 14:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Painel Tiradentes of Candido Portinari. One of best works of Portinari.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Webysther (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality reproduction, interesting work of art. Yann (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good - but unsharp. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,very good idea but unsharp --LivioAndronico talk 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Seeing the resolution, I think it is unfair to say it is not sharp. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This picture is the best of this work of art had made in digital world. The best quality after this is provided by son of Portinari, look here for comparison. The project Portinari study to use this image for oficinal picture. Is possible make a better version (more sharper), but i need much, much time. :( -- Webysther (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand, but I look at the quality,sorry --LivioAndronico talk 14:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, good resolution, but blurried, strong noise imo to a FP. CAs (if you want, I can write notes) --Lmbuga (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Please Lmbuga. --Webysther (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In place of exposition is not possible use tripod, flash and have low light. O do no how fix this issues. To create this image i used another 20 joined. -- Webysther (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If you look at the image at 6000px, most of the image is pixel-sharp. There's a bit of unsharpness on the arm in the center-right, but it's not too bad. I am typically opposed to downsampling, but this is a case where the image at full resolution is so unsharp that virtually no information would be lost by reducing the size (by 50% linearly, may I suggest?). --King of ♠ 04:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For its unusual size it's wonderful! --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Adolf Mosengel Dorf in den Berner Alpen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 08:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oil painting "Dorf in den Berner Alpen" by Adolf Mosengel (1837-1885)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Adolf Mosengel - uploaded by FA2010 - nominated by Pine -- Pine 08:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pine 08:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are strange marks in the lower part. What are they? Yann (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I guess those are scratches. --Laitche (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Don't you think these should be cleaned? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @Yann: For the real one, I'm not a curator so have no idea, about a digital process if those are small parts, I think it's better to be fixed but this large parts, I don't think so, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and nice--Lmbuga (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Lmbuga. I'm "wowed"! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was about to say "wow, nice photo, looks like a painting" until I realized it was a painting. --King of ♠ 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Croatia Opatija Women with dove BW 2014-10-10 10-35-13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2015 at 14:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
✓ Done Thank you for that hint --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit too dark perhaps? --King of ♠ 02:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not even a QI perhaps? --Laitche (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is a bit dark but very nice,good composition --LivioAndronico talk 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Could be a little lighter, indeed. --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good backlight. Please, do not clarify it: Artistic light--Lmbuga (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral some Underexposed in right side, and could have a better WB --The Photographer (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a creative shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice mood and great composition. --Code (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Inspiring Poco2 09:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Kimanis Sabah SOGT-Kimanis-02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2015 at 05:51:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

File:Hans Holbein the Younger - The Ambassadors - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 21:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Ambassadors, by Hans Holbein.

File:Petriny (10).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 19:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

File:NSB BM 69 Vieren - Ørneberget.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 19:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 23:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very nice. —Bruce1eetalk 04:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love trains --LivioAndronico talk 07:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "Water reflections of trains" ... not something we have a category for yet, nor would (ahem) it have been intuitive to have had one, but after this we have no excuse. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 17:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A little bit the camera was shaking by mirror action perhaps? --Laitche (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Poco2 08:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 5012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 16:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bearings for transport in the tool shed of the Quarzwerke in Sythen, Haltern, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 16:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 16:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting shot by 13 sec exposure. --Laitche (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support clear composition. --Hubertl (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A clear compositional idea with good colors and overall image quality. A very interesting way to represent the subject of 'bearings'. Speaking of bearings, could the existing categorization to Bearings be made more specific? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support A pleasing abstraction from a common industrial object. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Baresi F (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is better, if all those bearings would parallel would have been though a nicer rythm picture Poco2 08:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 5003-7.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 16:44:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pulleys in the tool shed of the Quarzwerke in Sythen, Haltern, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 16:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think it is a very good idea, but for me the composition gets a little too cluttered with too many different kinds of objects to relate to in the same photo. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically good, but i don't like a composition like this one. D kuba (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above; plus, i don't like the worn-out yellows because they make the image that much more dull. --Fotoriety (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per D kuba. Good quality but to my eyes cluttered composition without anything that really draws the attention of my eye Poco2 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Joukowsky-Pressure-Shock-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 04:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Float gauge, destroyed by a Joukowsky Pressure Shock
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A float gauge of a separation vessel, destroyed by a Joukowsky Pressure Shock from an interconnected fluid pipeline. The pressure shock squeezed the symetric float gauge until it burst. It is a rare example for a material failure of a rotation-symmetric hollowware as consequence of external overpressure.
    All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice with something new. An otherwise boring object presented as well and interesting as possible. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral There is a shadow in front of the object and that makes an imbalanced composition, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm opposing, but really I'd be fine to see this FP, because it has wow. It's more so that my message has more impact :) Just that I agree with Laitche: noticed the shadow in front is recurring in your last studio shots. I have no doubt you carefully chose the lighting scheme but I think you should get rid of it somehow. An additional light source just on the shadow, perhaps? - Benh (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I could crop out the object from the background, but I fear, the object will lose depth without the shadow. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you shouldn't remove the shadow. As you say, they help give sense of volume of the subject. This is a reason I like proper studio shots like yours and Alchemist-hp's, and not all those with the background removed. Instead I would try to adjust your lighting setting so that the shadow doesn't come so close. Easy to say and it's just my two cents. - Benh (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info The object is back in the damage evidence archive and I don't have a hand on it now. However, if it seems helpful, I can reprocess the image and brighten the shadow area. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes maybe brightening the shadow with a gradient mask... I would try. - Benh (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I applied brightening of foreground shadows --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely an improvement. I'm in : Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thanks for taking my suggestions into account - Benh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very good quality and high EV but not enough for me for the FP bar. I wonder why the shadow is in front of the object and would expect better lighting in the center of it since that should be the interesting area. Furthermore the subject is not really an eye-catcher. Poco2 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Steinen-Hofen - Evangelische Kirche(2015)5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2015 at 04:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Protestant Church of Steinen-Hofen and rolling country of the Black Forrest
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful. But I would like the church a bit more right. Otherwise than we would lose the trees at the right. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice landscape, but unfavorable composition - empty space in the middle, too tight crop ... --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It seems a bit oversaturated to me. --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The proportions of the church spire does not look right. It looks vertically compressed and somewhat skew. The proportions in e.g. this photo gives the impression of a more pointed geometry. Otherwise a very idyllic scene, although it appears a tad oversaturated. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would support, but you need to provide image without issue for FP. Despite many requests, and not only from me, none of them has a color space. - Benh (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As I already mentioned in many of this cases: I don't understand your point. I never cut of the color space of the images. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It misses the "scale reference" for color. If you don't mind sharing details of your workflow, I'd be happy to help checking. - Benh (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated and, as mentioned, the composition isn't ideal. — Julian H. 17:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-12-18 Fortuna, Johannes Benk at Neue Burg, Vienna -hu- 6224.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 22:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fortuna, Johannes Benk at Neue Burg, Vienna
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Hubertl, Fortuna, a figure by Johannes Benk at the roof of the Neue Burg, Hofburg, Vienna-- Hubertl (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hubertl (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good weather, nice composition, high quality and it has educational value. --Code (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "Equipped" the girl Face-grin.svg --LivioAndronico talk 07:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the light. --Ximonic (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality(detail, sharpness) is just a QI but not a FP and other elements are not special, means no wow. Sorry. --Laitche (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obvious QI, and interesting light, but no wow. It looks like a shot anyone could come up with, although I can see that at 800mm, not anyone would get this point of view. Am very envious of your gear ;-) - Benh (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. --Fotoriety (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with the comments above. A good shot, but I'd expect more for FP. The lighting is not optimal either resulting in some disturbing shadows. The centered composition could work for me but the piece of building in the background is distracting. Poco2 08:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Wall April 2015-2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 15:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Minimalism: detail of wall and window in the Belém Cultural Centre, Lisboa, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see a little bit of barrel distortion. --King of ♠ 21:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure about the centered composition.--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, that is a real possibility and it may deserve an alternative version. But what if the !votes split between the two?... What the hell, tht's go for it! Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like these minimalistic compositions a lot! It could benefit from a geocode. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here it is: the exact object location, so you can go there and do a better job! By the way, I appreciate your deferred (and displaced) comments! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral but prefer this one. --Laitche (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I am struggling with the notion of minimalism in FPC. I don't mean this as an attack on anybody, but I personally feel that this is a kind of get-out-of-jail concept that makes an image untouchable to a set of expectations we would otherwise have, such as having a lot of EV, being an appealing and accurate representation of the motive, having nice light etc. When I look at the image, I feel that it is a good supporting photo for an article, giving people a better understanding of the facade details, but this is not something that gives me a wow effect or makes me think that the image is outstanding. Such photos might appeal to many, but I am not sure whether this is just because they are unusual and obviously different from boring standard images many creators now think should be FP. I am not denying that my oppose might be based on personal preference (I usually feel that images of entire works of architecture are superior), but at the end of the day, such preferences make our votes. BTW: The WB also looks too cold to me. --DXR (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for bringing this issue to the discussion, DXR. It is a matter of fact that the so-called "artsy images" were never concensually regarded as truly useful for the project (except the reproductions of notable artists) and have usually a hard time in FPC. However we should keep in mind that Commons repository is intended to much more than just illustrating Wikipedia articles. While WP:FPC is focused on the encyclopaedic use and value of the pictures in Wikipedia, that is not the case with Commons, as our FP are used to many purposes outside Wikimedia. I always said, and that is written in my profile of Meet our Photographers (here), that I consider Photography as a means to interpret reality and to transmit such interpretation to others. That is precisely what I'm doing here with the photos of the Centro Cultural de Belém, to which a minimalistic view seems to apply perfectly. Are these images useful, besides being beautiful (for me)? I believe so. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Alvesgaspar for your measured response. I think that the point I was trying to make is slightly different, though. I do not want to challenge the value of images like this one, in fact I do think it has EV. I just think that it is quite difficult to assess whether it is outstanding or "the best of commons", because there is little material to measure it against here. In this way, the vote becomes more of a "like vs. don't like" than I personally would like to see in this forum. I agree that WP:FP is more EV-driven, but at the same time COM:FP still is very much biased in the direction of EV on a spectrum between pure documentation and abstract art, at least if we look at what is presented here most of the time. --DXR (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Wall April 2015-2a.jpgEdit

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative version special to @Jebulon: (and also for myself) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's so funny, I've nerver seen the special alternative for an individual :) --Laitche (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one too. It is an improvement that the lower grey 'bar' is not included in this crop. I think it improves the composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's great too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes !--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but for me the off-center composition distracts from the minimalism. --King of ♠ 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me a perfect composition, everything centered might be wrong.--Hubertl (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. I also think that the original composition is better. --DXR (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's really a subjective issue, but I fail to get how moving the square to a rule of third point makes it more interesting on such an abstract picture. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not inspiring to me, sorry Poco2 08:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Image:Junglefowl on tree.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 09:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A male junglefowl sitting on a tree and carking
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Philip Pikart -- Xenon 77 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Xenon 77 (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Excellent shot with good timing, light, pose and color. Good composition too, but I think it can be improved furher by cropping a bit off to the right to off-center the junglefowl (see annotation) and give the impression it has even more space to the left to emit its sound in. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for remark, image edited! --Xenon 77 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice photo but the head is out of focus because of too shallow DOF(f/4), A pity and sorry. (IMO) --Laitche (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me blurry is something different than hitting the great feathers of the bird instead of the eyes which is only visible at 24MP of resolution. Lesson learned: The next time I'll upload lower resolution.--Xenon 77 (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Xenon 77:: I understand your frustration with this argument, but please do not downsample in the future just because of this review. @Laitche:: I think your review is a little unfair. The image resolution is very large. If you look at it at, e.g., approximately 6 Mpx resolution (three times the minimum requirement), I think it has very good pixel quality. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I knew it. I mean the DOF(f/4) issue exactly, but this was taken ISO640, if use around f/11, probably motion blur would happen I assume so I used the word "blurry". But I should have written it more politely and carefully, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better with the crop. Yann (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pity about the head but per Slaunger. --King of ♠ 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And 7 --LivioAndronico talk 07:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slightly blurred/unsharp right leg of the creature. But excellent composition and colours. --Pugilist (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Baresi F (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not that sharp in the head. Can you add binomial name. --Charles (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Butomus umbellatus - harilik luigelill Keilas.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 02:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Butomus umbellatus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good technical quality and excellent light. I do not think the composition is quite there. See suggested crop in annotation. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Tremonist (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Sharpness of the flower is good but the bokeh is not convincing, too loaded Poco2 08:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Intern of St. George in Locorotondo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 10:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Intern of St. George in Locorotondo
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good Face-smile.svg --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly better than your other church shots, but still little wow overall. Not tack sharp, and some lack of details. And again, the bar is pretty high on the subject. There's a "stitching" error on the upper corner you might want to fix. - Benh (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for info. I don't think in this way,but accept your opinion. --LivioAndronico talk 23:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Is this a single exposure? If so, well done. Light and colours and overall quality is good. Exposure control could be better, and it is noticeable that there is a slight deviation from symmetry in the vantage point (follow the suspension chain of the chandelier). Neutral because church interior bar is very high. Still, definitely a shot to be proud of. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Benh, a good photo of a interesting church, but not an outstanding one. --DXR (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Benh, and I have to say that if I have vote in some of your former nominations I'd have opposed. Your other current FPC offers, on the other side, thanks to the lighting the special ingredient we expect in Commons for our finest pictures. This one doesn't. Poco2 08:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Even I could do it Poco2, but I have been so 'polite enough not to say, do not like to be theatrical, but many here like to be. So today I will behave the same way.--LivioAndronico talk 09:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Incluso yo podía hacer tan Poco2, pero estaba lo suficientemente cortés no quiere decir, que no me gusta ser teatral, pero muchos aquí gustaría ser. Así que hoy me comporto igual modo.--LivioAndronico talk 09:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't get your point, you can try it in Italian, if you like Poco2 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, you mean that sometimes you believe that if you would have to vote all nominations many of them you would oppose, but you just opt not to participate. And from now on you will refrain from abstaining and always vote if you think it is not a FP, as you just did in one of my nominations. I have no problem with that as long as you are consistent and don't focus on certain people. In regards to me, I rarely have time to vote over all open FPCs but I did it today (as you can see in my contributions), at least for those where I believe to have enough competence to judge whether it is a FP or not (illustrations or paintings are not the case). Poco2 10:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No te preocupes, yo también tengo la experiencia--LivioAndronico talk 10:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Fra et romersk osteria.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 07:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Clanculus pharaonius 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 07:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Five views of a Strawberry Top Shell
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Baresi F (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing patterns of nature. Very beautiful. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! I am fascinated with this picture! Maybe I will be trivial, but Llez's images are really valuable for the Wiki project and authentic pieces of art! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with Jacopo Werther. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // Martin K. (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Lmbuga (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've given up the idea to oppose your shell pictures. But at least you should provide something without obvious issue : the top middle shell is blurred. On repeatable shots we shouldn't let that pass. - Benh (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks, I agree with your comment, at least with the second part. The top middle specimen is replaced --Llez (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes fortunately we share different opinions for some points :) Unfortunately, now the WB isn't on par with the other views, it looks a bit more blueish. For some reason, it looks to have affected the upper rightmost shell. Arguably a minor issue, but which ruins the consistency it had before. Also, the NR treatment isn't the same, there's more noise on the new view. But I still see this as an improvement. - Benh (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
        • You look to have fixed the issues I mentioned. So I remove my oppose. - Benh (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Many thanks, yes I made some improvements an some new shots --Llez (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Thank you. You did the fix even though you needn't to have the picture promoted. - Benh (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 08:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-Barn-in-Arkengarthdale.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2015 at 07:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

File:Comestible rose in the Laquenexy orchard garden, Moselle, France (01).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2015 at 17:02:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Comestible rose in the Laquenexy orchard garden, Moselle, France. - possibly Rosa 'Abraham Darby'.

Restart the nomination due to a bug. Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by M0tty -- M0tty (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- M0tty (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would suggest another crop with one/two thirds.--XRay talk 09:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, even the water drops are clearly visible, so: good resolution! --Tremonist (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should be positive species id for FP? --Charles (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unknown species/cultivar... Kenraiz (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice water drops on leaves and good colors on main subject. I do not like the centered composition and dark and somewhat cluttered background. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The dark background (leaves are not clutter) makes the rose stand out. Sharp where it needs to be. Kleuske (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Slaunger. --Laitche (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Centered composition works for me here Poco2 08:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Female African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) with juvenile, Daures, Erongo, Namibia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 15:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) with juvenile, Namibia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Greg Willis - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is the second nomination, the first being here. —Bruce1eetalk 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 15:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support maximum elephant on "one" image. A dream shoot in the true wildlife for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - too tight crop for me. D kuba (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a little blurry on the bottom left, but still good overall. --Pine 07:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like this but the crop is too tight. --Laitche (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Laitche Poco2 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Regent Street 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 18:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Regent street, in Westminster city, London
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Before you assess, the road actually goes slightly downward from left to right, and I've checked this with this site. The London folks will probably confirm. It's also actually curved, though the projection amplifies the phenomenon. -- Benh (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nicely executed. To cover such a huge field of view you have to introduce some extra geometrical distortions to capture it reasonably in a 2D projection. I think you have utilized very elegantly that the road curves already for this purpose. The projection amplifies the curvature of the road, but it gives you the benefit that locally in the image the proportions look farly OK everywhere. I am impressed by the DOF. The pavement close to you is sharp, which is tough to achieve without parallax errors and I suppose you have used a quite small aperture, like f/13 or so? Unfortunately, this interesting technical information, like exposure, ISO and number of images is not available from the EXIF or the file page. I would recommend filling in the {{Photo Information}} template as done, e.g., here to make this informtion available for the curious reader. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Slaunger, I try to focus on the hyperfocal point (hope it's the right name) to get as much sharp parts as possible. My exposure blending soft, enfuse strip away my EXIF data. I forgot to put them back with exiftool but as a compensation, I filled the data you asked for. Now you can tell I shot at f/8.0, which is the sweet spot for this lens but I probably could have stopped down a bit more. I had to downsample to keep the (extremely) stretched edges reasonably sharp, and as a side benefit, everything from the front sidewalk to the building is sharp. - Benh (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, I was five stops off in my guess, but then again I had not noticed you had downsampled Shade.png. Thanks for adding the information I asked for. It is very instructive. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No good picture for me. It is unrealistic and so distorted that I can hardly imagine how the buildings are in reality. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great job. -- -donald- (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. A disorienting projection, but I like it. The most astounding thing is that Regent Street is so empty! Not sure that your HDR was completely successful though, as the shadow detail is a bit darker than would be ideal and the colour balance seems a bit yellowish to me, although this could be due to the sunrise, I guess. Diliff (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review. I too like the empty street here. Was hard to achieve ; I didn't expect London to be this crowded (it's a league ahead of Paris for sure) so I had to be very patient, even at 7:30am. I certainly will check back the WB, you know the place more than I do, so it's good to have this kind of feedback. For the HDR issue, you are right. I only used two exposures, as the bright one was mostly white and I was afraid it affects the other area in an unpleasant way. I'll try to blend the three exposures also, just to check. - Benh (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps contrast boosted a little too much. -- Colin (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Diliff: and @Colin:, I tried a quick (miss time) reprocessing to fix the issues you raise: here. This time, I used the three exposures, so I was able to pull out more detail from the shadow parts, without noise tradeoff (which I think would have been OK without the bright exposure anyways). I also tried to address the WB issue, which was more a saturation/vibrance one I think. Colin, for some reason (probably that my +3EV exposure is mainly white here), the output from my exposures blending is very washed out. It's a reason I have to go heavy on the contrast. Personally not very satisfied, but waiting for your feedbacks before tweaking it again and possibly uploading a new version. I can also go back at my 2 exposures version and tweak that one instead. @Slaunger:, this time, I added the EXIF back with exiftool. - Benh (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • If I understand from previous conversations with you, you don't use Lightroom? I think you'd have much better results from processing a 32bit HDR file in Lightroom than through exposure blending. Also, if your outputted blended image is lacking contrast, perhaps you need to adjust the tone curves rather than just bump the contrast in a linear manner. That way, you have more control over contrast adjustments and you don't darken the shadows too much in the process. I prefer the processing of the dropbox version. I think the highlights are slightly overexposed though, but shadow detail is much better. It could still probably be improved further with processing in Lightroom but if this isn't an option, I'd be happy to support the updated image. Diliff (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer the version you have here. I can warmly recommend the proposal by Diliff to make a 32 bit HDR file in stitching SW (such as PTGui) and then use lightroom for the tone mapping. It gives you many more options for controlling the exposure and colours accurately. It is like working with a "superraw". -- Slaunger (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Diliff and Slaunger Have tried. But 1. it's ressource demanding and I need to upgrade my memory or HD, and 2. the result doesn't please me. I like the fact enfuse gives you the choice with which parameter has more weight in the blending process. But it's also probably that I don't know how to use Photoshop's Fusion HDR Pro. - Benh (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
        • OK great thing I shall have done years ago : reading the manual. Will try to use enfuse with 32 bits depth tonight. BTW, if anyone has a HDR workflow recommendation, I'm curious to compare. - Benh (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Lightroom gives you so much more control though. You treat the 32 bit file exactly like you would process a RAW file, except that instead of a standard RAW file's 12 stops of dynamic range (roughly), you get a theoretically unlimited number of stops to work with. From that file high dynamic range file, you can apply gradient filters, adjustment brushes, tone mapping (with a lot more control than enfuse). You can essentially treat different parts of the image completely differently, 'painting' tone mapping across an image as required. The only limiting factor from my experience is that the overall tone mapping 'tonality' is a bit too micro-contrasty, as I've mentioned before. Apart from that one disadvantage, which you can minimise by decreasing the clarity slider, it's by far the most powerful HDR workflow tool. I thought I'd explained the workflow before. I'm happy to explain in more detail but if you haven't got Lightroom or a PC capable of running it properly, it's all academic I suppose. Diliff (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Balles2601 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A different but nice projection! It has WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. My brain does not accept this kind of projection (nothing new...). The light is not excellent. Be happy: this pic will stay visible here a little more !--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "We are making us the world as it pleases us". Too distorted for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As you do too with your focus stacked images, dear Alchemist-hp. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon and Alchemist-hp. Certainly has its own aesthetic value but a featured picture shouldn't be that distorted IMO. --Code (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I knew the nom would get such opposes, but it's good to take risks sometimes. If you're familiar with FPC, you may have noticed I tried a lot of very wide angle non conventional view, without getting it right. But I disagree with the fact a FP shouldn't be that distorted. We have many FP with more distortion, only that we don't necessarily notice it because of the nature of the subjects, or people did it better than I did. I planned the shot and got that bending on purpose, the result looks harmonious in my view. I'm fine with the fact you don't like the result but I hope you separate this from a non desired distortion. And again, the street is already curved. The projection only did exaggerate that. - Benh (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "exaggerate". You wrote it ! 😉--Jebulon (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure I get ur point (sivouplé, donné moi explications) but yes "exaggerate", like in "the street is already curved, hence the bending", and not as in "the street was straight, and the projection bended it dramatically". - Benh (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • J'aime pô les fish-eyes et autres traficotages, ça me file mal à la tronche.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, per Jebulon and Alchemist-hp, but nice.--Lmbuga (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as others.--Hubertl (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fish-eye or wide angle views are legitimately used in photography. I have definitely no problem with distortion or a special view. But this (technical perfect) image is just overwhelming me. Maybe the buildings on the left and right side account for this impression. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've carefully chosen this view (best compromise imo). But given that it's on a non promotion trend, I may consider tweaking the projection and a tighter framing (because I actually thought like you too at first about the sides). Will think about it. - Benh (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Naqsh-e Jahan Square by Pascal Coste 1 edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 16:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

File:Roskilde Station 2015-03-30-4761.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 12:45:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roskilde Station
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Roskilde station is the oldest railway station in Denmark for the first railway connection in Denmark between Roskilde and Copenhagen. The station was opened on June 26, 1847, while construction of the main building was still ongoing. In 1848 it was finished as well. In 1998 the railway station was resturated such that today the colors on the facade are identical to original building. The architectural elements are believed to have references to Villa Borghèse in Rome. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Partially overexposed, partially blurred (slight DOF-problems). But an very interesting perspective, well resolved and a friendly overall view. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @BlackIceNRW:: Thanks for your review. Regarding your assessment that it is 'partially overexposed', would you care to elaborate what you mean by that? If I look at the historgram of both the original raw, and the uploaded version, where shadows have been lifted, I see a histogram in Lightroom which is in fact very far from having any kind of clipping in the histogram. The histogram has a smooth tail going to zero at maximum brightness. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hello Slaunger, the mentioned program is a good tool, but I am relying at least on my eyes (as you surely too). The photo was taken on March 30th at 17:32 at sunset. The light comes from the top right. Some small areas that are illuminated with this "hard" light, are displayed in a blinding light, that I find slightly overexposed. For example, the side door of the rather dark car on the right hand side or the woman with the bag in the front. Her face and hair seem to merge themselves. But I judge here at the border of Perfectionism, possibly even of the Grotesque. Overall, the picture looks realy good for me, but under the bottom line it is not perfect for me. The selected time of day and the associated lighting conditions could be better. The same picture at a different time of day ... and the picture will get my voice. Nevertheless: For these lighting conditions really a good picture! --BlackIceNRW (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @BlackIceNRW: Thank you for taking your time to elaborate. Yes, I do understand the point about a perceived-by-eye overexposure not seen in a histogram, and I understand the lightening details you mention with the woman and the car. I just wanted to check it was not an issue with your viewing equipment. One thing I do not quite understand though is your mentioning of hard light at 17:32 at sunset (it is actually 17:12 as is evident on the clock, but that is a detail, my camera clock is apparently not entirely correctly set). I think that this time of day at this time of year is very good for photography at this latitude. The light is getting soft and pleasant, but not yet 'reddish', and the shadows are still so short that neighbouring tall obstructions do not cast shadows on the main subject. But still, there are a lot of shadows on the building, and I have had to lift the shadows quite a bit to soften up the dynamic range. Maybe it is these shadows, that you refer to as being the root cause of the 'hard lightening'? (I have no objection to your vote, just curious to understand your observations). -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
          • @Slaunger: The issue with the shadow is undoubtedly significant. As an example, the above mentioned woman: Here, I believe that through the interplay of blur in the shadow area (caused by the movement of the woman and the glaring light) and "hard" light from the right side, the result does not look perfect. Maybe also the exposure time with 1/320 sec was a little too long to make a better capture of the woman. But I do not want to lose in detail here. Looking at the whole picture, the exposure time is certainly well chosen. Ultimately, I still believe that the light conditions and slight problems with the depth of field (largely regardless of lighting) are the main reasons for my inner skepticism in the detailed view. But I'm sure, with a view of the whole picture you can argue about it and other friends of photography see this different anyway. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The framing is tight, and there's some softness issue on the borders (strange?). Some chroma noise, probably as a result of strong shadows recovery, and strange haloing around the bench on the left... but I like the lighting a lot, and enough to support it. - Benh (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Benh: Thanks for your (always) useful review. I have uploaded a new version, which tries to address some of the issues you raise. You are correct shadows have been lifted quite dramatically, and this has introduced some chroma noise. I have increase chroma NR from 25 to 33 in Lightroom, as I found it did no noticeable harm to the detail level. I have also worked on the weird bench halo you mention, and finally I have decreased exposure by 0,11 EV, as there were a few burned spots. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • As far as I know and as of 2015, Canon DSLRs suck (sorry) with dynamic range. Recovering dark areas is often not a good idea. But Lightroom seems to be a bit clever. The amount of NR looks to be related to how much an area was brightened up. If anyone can confirm or not... So yes, in my opinion, you did well to increase chroma NR in this case. - Benh (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree, I am not at all happy about the dynamic range of the sensor in my Canon EOS 600D. I should have gone for Nikon or Sony. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but after scrutinizing, I barely see any difference, excepted the decrease of exposure. Do I miss something ? - Benh (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @Benh:: That's OKFace-smile.svg. The 0.1 EV change is subtle, but visible. You have to look carefully to see any difference due to the increased chroma NR, and the repair on the bench halo is not a removal of the halo, but it is less prominent now. But the new verions is actualy different (promise). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct remarks for DoF by BlackIceNRW but good enough. --Mile (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice image, some minor technical problems though. --Tremonist (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Always Clin--Lmbuga (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I do not think that the image stands out from normal photos of comparable buildings. The light is okay, but not special. The field curvature issues have already been mentioned and are quite significant. You probably couldn't do much about the plants, but the lamppost that almost leaves the image is a bit distracting to me. Overall a nice QI, but no FP for me. --DXR (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with DXR and in addition I have to say that the lack of sharpness on the left is also an issue Poco2 08:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo March 2015-2.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Catedral de Salisbury, Salisbury, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 49.JPG, featuredEdit

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

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

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

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 18:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unusual perspective - that totally works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Nikhil (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i love this kind of perspective --LivioAndronico talk 12:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check for dust spots carefully, I have marked two of them. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    You're right, thanks, will fix them tomorrow evening Poco2 10:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Dust spots removed sorry for the delay Poco2 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good idea with the framing. Very nice composition. You have a lot of color noise in the shadows, I guess from raising the shadows. Could you try to address that? Alternatively, instead of lifting the shadows, what would happen by leaving them dark? Would it emphasize the framing? -- Slaunger (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Love the composition, but the edges of the building look overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    I reworked the fringe between sky and the shadows a bit to reduce the oversharpening effect Poco2 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sharpening (or desaturation of the blue?) fringe is very visible. The spire at least should be vertical. Thoughts about ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    I have applied a slight tilt and reduced sharpening in the areas with high contrast Poco2 20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Grand Canal panorama.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Bohinjsko jezero panorama.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

Bohinj lake panorama
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Solid quality, nice lighting and beautiful landscape but not sure whether it is one of our finest. I think that there is too much water and shore, maybe a lower position would have helped. I would have probably concentrated also on the tower and bridge and chosen a different crop, not sure, though. Poco2 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At first it looks like an ordinary picture as per Poco, but the shallowness and clarity of the water make for a unique effect. --King of ♠ 06:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be cut a little here or there, but is fine overall. --Tremonist (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's well done technically, but the light isn't really special (especially on the right) and most importantly, I can't really find something satisfying to focus on. The church is more or less hidden and lost among clouds of the same colour, for the vegetation to look good, it's not really the right season. I agree that the water is somewhat interesting, but I'm not quite convinced it's enough. — Julian H. 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Diego, it is not bad but I don't think the composition deserve a fp promotion -- Christian Ferrer 18:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Philadelphia Street Map, 1802.jpg, featuredEdit

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

Philadelphia Street Map, 1802.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Wells Cathedral Organ from Inverted Arches, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

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

Wells Cathedral Organ
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous. There's what appears to be a tiny bit of lens flare (noted) but I really don't mind either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice to see more from you. I love how we can read the sign asking that persons "forbear" walking or talking in the nave during services. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks like you just cropped half a meter of the door at the bottom instead of showing the whole wall. What was the reason for that? Poco2 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Nikhil (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and the seventh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Poco. Yann (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dome of Church of St. george in Locorotondo.jpg, featuredEdit

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

Dome of Church of St. george in Locorotondo
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's symmetric and impressive, even though its cut a bit above and below. --Tremonist (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some +EV maybe in shadows. --Mile (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please, apply a cw tilt. Is there a way to see the whole circle (it is partially cropped at top and bottom)? Poco2 17:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Poco2,what you see slightly cut is not the dome but the outer circle, though not, with my objective I managed to pick up one, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Better, indeed. If you apply a further tilt in cw direction (see that the windows are not yet perfectly parallel), then you have my support Poco2 09:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was asking for less that that :) You almost have it, don't desperate, in the current version you applied to much tilt, I added a note. Poco2 11:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
✓ Re-re-done Poco2 is becoming a birth Face-grin.svg --LivioAndronico talk 12:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is close enough in this version, you got my support Poco2 12:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
… because of the cut below. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
mmmm....ok thanks --LivioAndronico talk 22:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)