Commons:Кандидати у вибрані зображення

Кандидати у вибрані зображення на інших мовах:

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | فارسی | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | հայերեն | +/−

Shortcut: COM:FPC Якщо ви вважаєте, що знайшли або створили зображення, гідне стати вибраним, - будь ласка, додайте його в нижченаведений розділ кандидати. Якщо протягом 15-ти днів ваша пропозиція буде прийнята спільнотою, то зображенню буде присвоєно звання вибраного. Будь ласка, зверніть увагу: вибрані зображення не мають прямого відношення до Зображень дня (проте вибір зображень дня проводиться переважно з «вибраних зображень»).


Для того, щоб проголосувати або додати нове зображення-кандидат, перейдіть за цим посиланням

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:New York and Jersey City Skyline Panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 14:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I agree that there's a bit too much water; what do you think of the possible crop I added in the image notes? Also, I have seen this view with my bare eyes, but only on a cloudy day.   —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have no problems with the crops, and it's great to see both the Jersey City and Lower Manhattan skylines together (plus Ellis Island, which should get a category and be mentioned in the description). However, a lot of the buildings feel washed out to me. I feel like this was a hazy late morning, not ideal for the shoot, but I wonder whether selectively increasing saturation could help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:WLM - 2020 - Schloss Schönbrunn - Kronprinzengarten - 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 13:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The Arcades, Christchurch, New Zealand 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Petite Venise depuis le pont de la rue de Turenne (Colmar) (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iglesia de San Juan de Mata y San Félix de Valois, Bratislava, Eslovaquia, 2020-02-01, DD 78.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 12:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question I really feel shrunk on both sides. Very tight crop. Possible more space around? -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the nom MB-one! I had to get close to the church to photograph it, taking a shot with 30 cables wasn't an option. Will upload a new version with a more "natural" look later today Poco a poco (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With this much distortion, this one should not be a QI. Even without the distortion, I fail to be amazed of the photo. Just a church facade. —kallerna (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavy distortion, shade divides the facade in two, very tight crop - this is not among the finest on Commons. --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment New version uploaded with more crop on both sides and adjustments of perspective and aspect ratio Poco a poco (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Knoblauch (Allium sativum)-20200621-RM-085344.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bergtocht van Guarda via Ardez en Ftan naar Scuol. 20-09-2019. (d.j.b) 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 05:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors/Switzerland
  •   Info A decorative and funny door knocker. With wear spots in the paint layer. The shadow effect gives the photo an added value for me. Guarda was awarded (the Wakker Prize) for the preservation of its architectural heritage in 1975.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support My father used to photograph door knockers in many countries, therefore I know many of them. This one would have been a showpiece for his collection ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversaturated, highlights/shadows adjusted too much, no wow. The light is also too harsh. —kallerna (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Main path lined with stone pillars to the ruined Khmer Hindu temple of Wat Phou, Champasak, Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 05:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:PK Thatta asv2020-02 img03 Shah Jahan Mosque.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2020 at 01:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Goodyera repens flowers in detail - Männiku.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 19:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
  •   Info Very tiny flowers of Creeping lady's-tresses, focus stacked of 46 images. The background is sky through the trees. All by Ivar (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful light, nice natural background. The DoF could have been more consistent, still enough crispy sharp areas to appreciate currently -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 01:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive, considering the size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely unsharp even on 12 MPx and some CA all across the plant (reflexion). But i like thia back color, much better than that light green. --Mile (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Unsharp if this was a photo of large flowers, but they are tiny Mile. Please have another look. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp I still think stack could be better, i have one in a similar size, manual shots before stack, the flower was on the hill (windy-moving). Unless pic was scaled-up !? APS-C might not be best for small macros. --Mile (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @PetarM: Nothing was upscaled. All my Nikon images tends to be a bit soft and usually additional sharpening is added. "Definitely unsharp" is imho very harsh assessment. --Ivar (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar Maybe i should say "sharp enough", but stack could be done more appropriate. --Mile (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I may be missing something here, but the description implies these flowers are 5 x 7mm, but yours are 30 x 30mm Mile. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charlesjsharp My whole flower was 30×30 mm, all that sqaured size. Means each white blossom was under 10mm. I suppose Ivar gave a blossom size, not the complete size of the flower we are looking at ? --Mile (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Mile: You are comparing quite flat inflorescence with the one that has hairy flowers. 9 stacked images versus 46, they are not quite comparable. --Ivar (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar We won't get far here. But you gave me a mission, I will try to find this flower in soon future. I will try to reaffirm my objectives here. Maybe I will fail too, but let's have a try. --Mile (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Mile:   You need to wait at least for the next summer to find this rare species in Slovenia. Good luck with that! Anyway, the asessment "Definitely unsharp" is imo not competent. --Ivar (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mile, this kind of shots have limited wow to me, therefore I really expect crispy sharpness, which unfortunately isn't the case here Poco a poco (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tallinna Tööstushariduskeskus 005-omblusklass pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 16:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tallinna Teeninduskool 009-kokalabor pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 16:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 15:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of St Sebastian, Ponta DelgadaEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 09:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Church of St Sebastian, Ponta Delgada, São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal. The church, built between 1531 and 1547, is one of the landmarks of the capital of the island. I propose these images as a set because I believe that each of them deserves the FP star alone and because the set depicts this beautiful church from different viewpoints giving a comprehensive view of it (3rd criteria "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints"). Note that there is already a closer look of the high altar that became FP and could have been added to this set. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interested to see how this set is interpreted. For me, the images, high quality as they are, do not depict 'the same subject from different viewpoints'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    The subject is the church and I offer different view of parts of it Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment In the exterior image there is a car that is distracting and the "General view of the interior." there is a problem of distortion of the verticals, the upper part is stretched towards the sides (check the verticality of the columns) --Wilfredor (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wilfredor: I reworked the image of the exterior view: the van is gone, I also improved the verticals. I've also made some adjusments of the interior view and added one additional image of the interior looking from the altar back to the entrance. Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Almost everything is fine but "General view of the nave back from the altar." has the same problem now fixed in "General view of the interior.", please, fix it too and I will support it. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wilfredor: I had already anticipated this feedback and rework the second interior image before I added it to the set, but I made now some additional adjustments. --Poco a poco (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Sigo observando el problema de las columnas en "General view of the nave back from the altar.", la parte superior de las columnas esta inclinada hacia afuera, esto es fácilmente corregible usando las guías en Photoshop. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Wilfredor: ¿¿cómo lo ves ahora?? si sigo sin atinar, ¿podrías añadir una nota? Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Distortion quite strong on the first image, looks like the tower is falling down. --Ivar (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivar: I readjusted the perspective of the tower Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Imho it's not fixable, because shooting point was too close to the church. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was Ivar, indeed as far as I could and I also took the side further from the tower. The church is in the middle of the city and there are usually tons of people walking around specially visiting bars or restaurants nearby. I could manage this shot without people thank you patience and COVID-19. Poco a poco (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Amazing images, on the whole. I really like all three interior views and I think they should definitely be FP. The exterior isn't so clear for me, the van is distracting and I agree with Ivar that the tower looks like it's falling backwards. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Cmao20: as mentioned above I addressed the mentioned issues of the external image Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, I mean honestly it's an amazing set and I'm not going to quibble any further. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The last two photos are unreservedly FPs to me. I'm not as sure about the rest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like all the photos and IMHO at least the first (now) and the two last really deserve the star, but I am not sure about the set idea. --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tropidolaemus wagleri, Wagler's palm pit viper - Takua Pa District, Phang-nga Province (48238132136).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 08:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Une tartiflette sortie du four.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 08:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info nominated by Benoît Prieur -- --Benoît (d) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --Benoît (d) 08:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp and appetizing-looking photo of the tartiflette. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No reason to have assymetic and 'tilted' tile pattern. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Ikan but I also take Charles' points. Cmao20 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Looks very yummy and certainly good photographic quality, but per Charlesjsharp and Kruusamägi. --MB-one (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Tūranga (library), Christchurch City, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 07:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
  •   Info All by me. It's Tūranga, a new public library in Christchurch, New Zealand. The old one was destroyed during the earthquakes. It's usually quite busy around so I'm quite pleased that I managed to take this shot without cars and people. -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I may be a lone dissenter, but the front of the building feels too in-your-face to me. The right side has a decent rhythm and I like the design on the bottom right of the front, but I just find the building in general upsetting to view and not part of a great composition, although I'm of course happy that a new public library was constructed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The more I look at it the more that cropped tree on the left bothers me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Plagiodontes daedaleus f. minor 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 07:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Odontostomidae
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Not really colorful like many of the shells you've photographed, but very nice details and very impressive, considering its size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Not so colourful, but have a look at the teeth! --Llez (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, boring colours, but amazing internal detail. What is the purpose of the 'teeth'? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I suppose that it is an protection against predators, when the animal is retracted in the shell. In contrary to many sea and freshwater snails, most of he land snails lack an operculum, which has amongst others the same function. At any rate these teeth are very useful for taxonomists, for their arrangement (different in every species) helps to identify the species ;-). --Llez (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Gynaephora selenitica caterpillar - Keila.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 05:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)
  •   Info Focus stacked of 9 images. All by Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ivar, this isn't a FP to me, most of the water drops are sharp but the caterpillar 1) isn't sharp and 2) is hardly visible, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not quite at Sven's dragonfly level yet! A much higher quality of stack, but not the depth of field. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The bar for focus stacks is getting quite high and I'm not sure this one is quite there for the reasons Poco mentions. Nice photo though overall Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Jeanette Scissum at Marshall Space Flight Center.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2020 at 00:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  •   Info created by NASA/MSFC - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice photo of someone I wish I had already known about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cmao20 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Not an FP. Moon dominates and the file cabinet on the right is highly distracting. Face is not well lit. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Seven Pandas. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Seven Pandas, Daniel Case: I'm confused about the month-old face comment. She is African-American, and the photo was shot a little overexposed to try and get more detail in her face with the filmstock of the time, so I think it's as all-out as it could have been. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden:Her face doesn't bother me; I know we're asserting the main value of the image is historic. But ... I think SP had a point about how, if she's the basis for nominating the image for FP, it really works as one if she's only a quarter of the total image and not the most prominent thing in it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Maya skull fronp1p1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 22:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like to support, but is there any way you can make the photo really sharp? I doubt it and therefore will probably have to oppose, but please try. This is certainly a useful photo even if it doesn't pass FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvmontuy (talk • contribs)

File:Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Alemania, 2019-06-21, DD 90.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 21:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
  •   Info Steuerhaus, Memmingen, Germany. The building dates from 1494/1495 and was created for the administration of the finances of the city. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have the feeling that some people at the left are distorted (stretched horizontally), caused by the wide angle objective, also the arch at the right. --Llez (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    Llez I applied an aspect ratio adjustment, looks better now, thanks, Poco a poco (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, and the forward-and-back motion is helped by the wicker chairs. Side point: It's funny that there are no flags in the flagpoles. In the U.S., there would be, but I understand the different historical consciousness of Germany. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Complicated! Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan, a really nice colourful photo. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. It's also faintly nostalgic to see people sitting in groups at tables right next to other people in groups sitting at tables ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I've looked at this a few times now, and I don't understand what's so special about it that it should warrant FP status.--Peulle (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle. —kallerna (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. --MB-one (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and right crop doesn't work for me. --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Georgios Ntaviotis & Daniel Souček, U21 CZE-GRE 2019-10-10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2020 at 19:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Association football (soccer)
  •   Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The scene doesn't speak for itself (why does the guy in the white shirt appear to be shouting at his hand, and why is the other guy not interested in the ball?). Also, the motion blur, on the hand and the ball, detracts from the image rather than adding to it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but once you read Bobulous's !vote you can't take the picture seriously (In any event, regardless of the outcome of this, I think the image would benefit greatly from being cropped in from the left as that part of it adds nothing). Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Beilstein - Burg Hohenbeilstein und Unteres Schloss - Ansicht vom Birkenweg mit Abendsonne.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment It was not easily possible to use a tripod (I took this photo standing on a parking place, people and cars cruising around me ;–), I wanted f/10 to get enough DoF at 94mm, and so I selected ISO 400 to get 1/125 s in order to avoid camera shake. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • IMO it would be nothing wrong about using, for example, f/7.3 and 1/50 sec exposure. Tripod? For god's sake, a Sony A7Rx user hardly ever needs a tripod ;-) --A.Savin 13:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will provide a version with noise reduction in the sky as soon as possible (hopefully tomorrow or at Monday), but at the moment I am working hard as a member of the jury for WLM 2020/DE and can’t do any photo editing ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Info New version with less noise uploaded. @Aristeas: Please revert, if it's not meeting Your expectations. --Ivar (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Iifar: Thank you very mich for helping out! (Maybe I will take the freedom to upload my own de-noised version created from the RAW file next week, but your version is definitely a good improvement, I will take it as a measure for my own attempt.) --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Appealing light, interesting architecture. Assuming no tripod was taken, the settings seem consistent to me (minor noise in the sky, honestly not a deal-breaker in my view). High resolution and appropriate DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for nominating and all of you for your comments and support. --Aristeas (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This one, FF, paid some 2000, but ISO 400 migth be problem. A.Savin !? --Mile (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support In Ivar's version well fixed, thanks. --A.Savin 13:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose None of the three buildings is large enough in the scene to keep the attention, so it feels like the three buildings together define the composition, and the way they're laid out doesn't feel balanced. Also, the way the trees suddenly burst in to obscure the building at the bottom-left makes it feel even less balanced. Lighting and detail are excellent, but the arrangement just doesn't fit together for me. --Bobulous (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd like more space at the bottom --Llez (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I understand your wish very well, but the problem is that at the bottom there are some very ugly modern buildings which would spoil the image … Next week I will have a look at the RAW file if I can rescue some more pixels at the bottom, but we cannot do much, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support. I see Bobulous's point but overall the image still works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Petit Champlain at night, Quebec city.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 19:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment On balance, I think I agree. Very similar composition, same motif, but this is a larger file, brighter and has IMO a nicer composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment +1. I agree with Cmao20 too -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
IMHO It is a different composition, the previous one has more of an upper part than this, there are also people and another different decoration of lights --Wilfredor (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Although the new image is of higher quality, I prefer the composition of the old one. I just don't think a square crop works as well as a vertical aspect ratio. -- King of ♥ 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per resolution of whether we should delist the old one or not. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral exactly like Daniel. I like both photos very much, but I fear we cannot feature both of them. --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Friedhof ohlsdorf november 2019 30.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 16:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc -- Dirtsc (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, a really arty composition with beautiful light. Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. Really good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very beautiful indeed, but the bright part looks unnatural. It is totally OK for the sun to be blown out. We shouldn't resort to fake highlight recovery to artificially suppress the brightness of the sky when the color information just isn't there. -- King of ♥ 22:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support KoH is right, but I still love the composition and light. ;–) Sidenote: It’s a pity and I do not understand why this photo did not pass the pre-jury for WLM 2020 :–(. But the pre-jury is always somewhat tricky … and always kills a few of the best submissions. --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Aristeas: Thanks for the sidenote! Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I love the scene, but why is the metalwork so much softer and lighter in the areas where the sky is seen? --Bobulous (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mosbatho (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like King of ♥, I like everything about the image except for the unnatural glow and sudden decrease in sharpness in the upper right corner of the gate. --MB-one (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:FCCA GE C30-7 Chinchan - Ticlio.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
  •   Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Typically good from Kabelleger. Cmao20 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 22:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile, and also a nice colour/saturation contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I love this scene, and it's almost perfect except for the bizarre texture seen in the water closest to the front of the train. Is that some sort of noise reduction artefact? Can it be fixed? (Also, is the train driver giving you a thumbs up?) --Bobulous (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Must be some moiré effect, interference between the water's structure and the sensor pixels. I've uploaded a new version in which I didn't sharpen the water, I think it's much better that way. As usual SHIFT+reload may be necessary to see the changes. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Rose-ringed parakeet (Psittacula krameri borealis) male Jaipur 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 13:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Laila Peak.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 12:56:01

  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist Nice view, but far below today's FP and QI standards. --A.Savin 12:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist --StellarHalo (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Pretty, but tiny. Give me twice this resolution and I'd vote to keep. Cmao20 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep. I feel like we should keep really good or striking small pictures from the early digital photography age as historical. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Below 2 MP. A landscape would have to be in the 2-4 MP range for me to say "I wouldn't vote for this now, but I wouldn't delist it either." -- King of ♥ 22:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Slightly underexposed (sky), and the WB seems too warm, but the main issue is definitely the size. In years 2000-2001 I remember I was among the first to own a digital camera, working with floppy disks (almost this model). Maximum resolution 0.35 Mpx 🔬😭 Nice gadget at these old times to avoid developing the photos on paper before inserting them in university reports, however I really don't think any of these documents would have ever made a great image. Even at this period it was very clear the quality was disappointingly low compared to the standards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Per Ikan Kekek. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Regretful delist If there were some way we could at least recognize the independently commendable elements (the composition and lighting), I wish we could. In those areas it could certainly serve as an example to emulate.Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist I am not swayed by Ikan's arguments; there is no such category as far as I'm aware, and this image doesn't meet the current FP bar, imo.--Peulle (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment If historical digital photos can't be grandfathered in, why vote? Someone should create a bot that will automatically remove FP status from all photos below 2MP and run it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Points well taken, but why not do this kind of delisting with a bot? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess I do think that there should be some kind of acknowledgement of good pioneering use of the new digital technology, but if we want to revoke the FP status of everything under 2MP, a bot should be created and run. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As for me, the photo is also a bit short on wow side, although it of course may have been considered unusual at the timepoint of promotion. But meanwhile we have lots of impressive mountain views, and I'm also not quite sure if the upright format is the best one for this scenery. That said, I still think what should be delisted is not to be decised via bot, but needs consensus instead. --A.Savin 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ancien hôtel des Postes de Charleroi (DSC 0278).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2020 at 07:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Belgium
  •   Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like a good QI, but I'm not really wowed by the light or the motif, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agreed with Peulle at first but looking at it some more the soft light and the beautiful clouds have won me over. Support is only weak because I feel it is a little bit oversharpened and there is a little colour noise. Cmao20 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done more denoising, less sharpening. Thank you ! --Trougnouf (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The clouds radiating from the center really enhance the composition. -- King of ♥ 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this. The lighting is subtle but the main building still has a luminosity which makes it stand out against its surroundings. The composition works for me: just the right amount of sky above the tower, and just about as much empty pavement showing below as is viable, and a clear view of the main building without obstruction or distraction. Detail is sharp at full screen (34" 4K) and sufficient at 100%. --Bobulous (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sphinx moth (Eumorpha anchemolus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 09:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Chute Montmorency3.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2020 at 00:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Green karst peaks seen from the top of Mount Nam Xay a sunny morning during the monsoon Vang Vieng Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 23:56:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Have another look, Basile, it does not look crispy sharp to me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Charles J Sharp, sharp like your honeycomb I think. If not "crispy" then normally sharp. But look, you have two nominations currently, this honeycomb measuring 3,415 × 3,415 pixels, and a moth sized 4,422 × 2,948 pixels. Your buzzard archived yesterday measured 2,600 x 4,000 pixels, and your chameleon last week 3,785 × 2,523 pixels. Now this is how detailed this landscape appears when downsized or cropped to 4'422 px large, like the biggest of your 4 last candidatures. The autofocus was set, certainly the limit of the camera was reached. More sharpness would mean over-sharpened in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I was reacting to your dismissing the oppose vote with the 'crispy' adjective. I wouldn't dream of comparing the absolute sharpness of my hand-held photos using a enthusiast-level crop-frame body and a hand-held 400mm lens in average light conditions with your professional-level full-frame body and tripod with the option of testing out various settings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Very beautiful landscape and the sharpness looks fine to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Majestic. -- King of ♥ 22:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice scenery, sharpness clearly OK. --A.Savin 13:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition and exposure, and a nice sense of depth delivered by the low angle of the sun. Detail is sharp at full screen (34" 4K) and sufficient at 100%. The clouds and the colours and the rugged terrain make for a striking scene. --Bobulous (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Brick Lane Jamme Masjid (parallel verticals version).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 19:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#United_Kingdom
  •   Info all by Bobulous -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bobulous (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Those clouds are looking weird... —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This looks a bit weird to me ... maybe it's the perspective correction, making it look squeezed in on the sides.--Peulle (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Peulle: The "perspective correction" tool in darktable was used to transform verticals which were very far from parallel in the original version. I've found that this darktable tool does a good job of maintaining the aspect ratio so long as the "specific" lens mode is used. So even though I didn't have a tilt-shift lens when this photograph was captured, I believe this adjusted image does look like what I'd get if a tilt-shift lens had been used. Bear in mind that this was a 16mm lens, so the corners would be subject to the usual ultra-wide-angle rectilinear stretch. But the feedback is welcome, so if anything else excludes this from FP status, I'd like to hear it. --Bobulous (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a really great effort but unfortunately for me it doesn't reach FP. I think it illustrates the massive challenge of getting great photos of urban motifs where you have limited space from which to take the photo. You probably couldn't stand any further back than you did, which means you got a photo with converging verticals, but the perspective correction has introduced its own problems, making the picture look stretched at the top (the stretched cloud looks quite unnatural) and leading to a distinct loss of sharpness in the upper third of the frame. For me it just looks too obviously and aggressively perspective-corrected. I think the crop on the left is also quite tight, though this isn't the reason for my oppose. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Very well said, that's what I was thinking as well. --Peulle (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cmao20: Yeah, I was jamming myself into a doorway on the otherside of the road to fit the minaret into the frame, and even then I had to move about to avoid capturing the doorway in the shot. A 17mm tilt-shift lens would have helped, but would still have resulted in the rectilinear stretching. However, you're right that using software to mimic this has used up a lot of pixels towards the top of the image, making it softer. I'd argue that this isn't noticeable until you're viewing pixel-for-pixel, though. --Bobulous (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is certainly an interesting photo, and I'm glad it's a VI (and a QI). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Bela di Supra (Upper Belica).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 10:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements
  •   Info created by Liridon - uploaded by Liridon - nominated by Liridon -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Liridon (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry, for me it's not sharp enough. --XRay talk 11:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary IMO. --Peulle (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I'm unconvinced it should be a QI, but for the purposes of FPC, it's not one of the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see what you were trying to do with the composition, but unfortunately the light is not so good. Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sugarloaf Mountain with the cloud on top.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Brazil
  •   Info created and uploaded Donatas Dabravolskas - nominated by -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support The quality is not perfect but this is a really amazing sight. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice, but wb seems to slightly off. —kallerna (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support A very striking scene, especially with the lines of cables partially disappearing within the cloud. The peak does appear starkly darker and more saturated than the rest of the rock, but I'm guessing this might be because it's above cloud level and less affected by moisture haze. The composition is good, the exposure fitting, and the warm colour seems right to me given how low the sun must be to cast shadows like that. --Bobulous (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not impressed by composition or quality. Should not be any need to crop (or it may be downsized). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not sure about the WB, especially given this picture taken by the same photographer at the same time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
      Comment Duplicate picture (see metadata of both, e.g. unique ID). The other version was uploaded 5 Sep 2019 as part of WLM, the now nominated version -- on 16 Jul 2020 as part of WLE. Interesting strategy... --A.Savin 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
    A.Savin: Good point, but in the case this image had made it to the final of WLE 2020 in Brazil it would have been disqualified as we expect images that had not been uploaded before (that includes of course derivative works!). FYI Donatas Dabravolskas. Otherwise I agree with Charles and I find the original WB more realistic, therefore   Oppose Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Walkway and hut in paddy fields with water reflection of colorful clouds at sunset in Vang Vieng Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
  •   Info Another Laotian landscape from Basile Morin. As with so many of these I think it has really special and unusual light. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't find this one among the best of Basile's landscapes. The sky is nice, but the foreground is too much about the mud puddles on the left. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily, except that I feel like I'm supposed to be looking at the structure in the background and the field to the right (where the light is less appealing). — Rhododendrites talk |  23:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Impossible not to support these beautiful lines. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Absolutely, per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but not exceptional enough for FP. —kallerna (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks a lot, Cmao20, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast between the sublimity of the background and the prosaic mud in the foreground reflecting it, mud that someone has to walk around so that they and their family can eat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • And feed others, very often, too :-) I tried to target the orange clouds through the reflection. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • weak   Oppose solid image but unfortunate light IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Galerie de la Reine, Brussels (DSCF7218).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 17:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Belgium
  •   Info by -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality is OK, good timing. But way too much of the floor, instead I'd wish to see more of the arches (like on this photo). IMO it would have been nothing wrong about heading the camera slightly upwards and then doing perspective correction. Light is a bit weak, too. --A.Savin 18:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Works great for me, I like having the vanishing point near the center. -- King of ♥ 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it, but tend to agree with A.Savin about too much floor. I'd be inclined to support with a crop, but some might not like that for resolution reasons. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per King. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much floor. —kallerna (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin --StellarHalo (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Kallerna. Nice picture but it does look slightly unbalanced, the trouble is there is nothing much to look at in the floor. I think landscape not portrait would have been a better choice here. Cmao20 (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I think that cropping away the floor up to at least above the cracked tile would stop the empty space drawing attention away from the more interesting shopfronts and covered ceiling. Also, I hate to say it, but the red-and-white safety barrier/tape in the mid-distance is a little distracting once you spot it. --Bobulous (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per King. I think cropping the floor out would only have been justified if, like this onetime FP nom of mine, the camera had been able to take in the end point of the glass roof. Also, I think (per the way some !voters said they'd support that image if there hadn't been all those people at the bottom), it emphasizes the emptiness of a usually crowded public space due to the pandemic. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Humanité René Philastre and Charles-Antoine Cambon - Set design for the second part of Victor Hugo's Les Burgraves, première production.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 09:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

These set designs were meant to e turned into physical objects, the artistry is kind of a bonus. So, yes, but I'm not quite sure whether they were an artist guide or a construction guide. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Got it. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Château Frontenac at night, Quebec Ville, Canada.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 02:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

IMHO the colors of the trees are due to autumn. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts It was difficult to find a landmark, but I used the road asphalt as a landmark due to its neutral color, what do you think? --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the leaves look grey, suggesting that there is ghosting from the HDR. I personally never use a sampled WB directly; I might use it as a starting point, but I always adjust it afterwards to make it look right to my eyes. -- King of ♥ 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I always try to take reference elements so that the photo is closer to the real colors, I will follow your recommendation to involve more my human factor and the appreciation of what I think the real colors were. On the other hand, with respect to the moved leaves, this is an area where the wind is common and except for specific conditions, the leaves will generally be moved, do you recommend any solution to this problem? One solution I see is to go there when the trees no longer have leaves. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some blur in the leaves is fine; it's when you add HDR that it becomes problematic. You should choose only one frame to use, and then mask out all the others. As for which frame to use, it's a balancing act: the brighter the frame, the greater the blur, but the darker the frame, the more noise there is. -- King of ♥ 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean with "mask out all the others" ? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some HDR programs allow you to tell it to ignore some of your exposures in some parts of the image that you choose. -- King of ♥ 17:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Has magic for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: tilted. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite some flaws, this is a super photo for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like it in general but some areas look too bright to me and therefore the result doesn't look so realistic, not sure how to vote here, to be honest, therefore   Neutral Poco a poco (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Poco a poco, King of Hearts: I rebuilt from the raw again to fix the too bright areas. Please, let me know what do you think. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, thanks,   Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Big improvement, but I think it's significant enough that people who voted to support should also be pinged. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very striking, but there's something unnatural feeling about certain parts that I can't explain. Firstly, the stars look like they've been added in artificially (their positions have moved when compared to your original version), and they have an odd mix of coma and what looks like JPEG artefacts. Secondly, parts of the sky have a blotchy/wavy appearance that doesn't look like anything I've seen in digital photos before. Thirdly, the tones have a feel similar to most recent estate agent photographs, where all areas have the same narrow range of luminance. Would I be right to guess that some sort of "HDR" or "AI" enhancement software has been used? It is a great scene, but this version doesn't feel believable to me. --Bobulous (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Bobulous I did not add any saturation or any kind of artificial fading or filters. The colors are actually naturals (you will find the RAW images here: 1, 2 and 3). I use Aurora HDR to assembling the images and Topaz Denoise to noise reduction and IMHO some lighting changes in the sky could be result of light pollution?. Finally I also apply a lens distortion correction (possibly the movement you mention)--Wilfredor (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Sunday Creek Bog2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 00:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Ontario
  •   Info: Sunday Creek Bog seen from the Spruce Bog Boardwalk, Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. All by -- -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, highlights adjusted too much, dull light. —kallerna (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I quite like it. The mix of autumn colors, reflection of the sky, the curve of the lake and width of frame make for a really pleasant, quiet scene. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Rhododendrites --StellarHalo (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per kallerna; it looks like the shadows and highlights were pushed too far for the sky. (File:Sunday Creek Bog.jpg looks a bit more believable) --Trougnouf (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It looks more natural with the new edit. The scene doesn't wow me but I have nothing against it (though if it came down to replacing the other shot with this wider one I would be in favor. I didn't initially realize that it was featured). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I noticed that you had to restitch it to perform modifications, that's a lot of work. What I usually do when I have to work with a separate editor is an initial processing in darktable with the same exposure, white balance, denoising, and nothing else, then export with the Linear rec2020 RGB color profile (which is the same as darktable's working profile) as 16-bit tiff (hugin doesn't seem to work well with 32-bit tiff but the difference should be insignificant), that way virtually no information is lost and you can do the stitching in hugin or whatever else, then finally reimport it and do all of the editing in darktable as if you were working on the raw file (minus wb, demosaic, denoising). This way further edits can always be done (and it's less prone to overprocessing by doing multiple passes of the same module). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the workflow tips! It can get very tedious to redo the whole thing indeed. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Super resolution but the colours are very similar to the other FP linked by Trougnouf, and I agree about the sky, the whole effect looks a bit like overdone HDR (I know it's not HDR, but that's how it looks). Cmao20 (talk) 06:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done: reprocessed Kallerna, Trougnouf, Cmao20 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support due to the technical issues, but otherwise ... this is what autumn in the north looks like more often than not. We don't always need sun and a clear azure sky to make it beautiful. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Wroclaw- Most Zwierzyniecki.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 22:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Poland
  •   Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but with the left cut off the nice line created by the tracks just doesn't lead anywhere. -- King of ♥ 03:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It leads across the bridge. Strong sense of motion to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice view, but would expect a little bit of the left arch of the bridge. --XRay talk 08:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King --StellarHalo (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Kekek, the leading lines are actually really good. Too much NR for me, but still deserves the star. Cmao20 (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition not working for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. A QI yes, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The composition with regard to the bridge works well. The starburst from the lanterns is a little distracting, but doesn't really clash with the curves of the bridge, so I think it's acceptable. The motion blur of the vehicle (bus) in the far distance is not ideal, but very small in the scene. And the advert which says "BAR" is not ideal, but somewhat mitigated by the fact its bleached by specular light. Overall, though, the sweeping curves of the bridge side and top save the scene, and the exposure and colours are just right for drawing attention to them. --Bobulous (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Port de Sète - Octobre 2020.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 18:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, wb off (?). —kallerna (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. Beautiful complementarity of the breakwaters on the left and right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I kind of agree with Kallerna, this is a good quality photo but the composition doesn't appeal to me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The complementarity of the breakwaters is nice but it's hard to notice with everything else going on in the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

File:2017 Pociąg do nieba we Wrocławiu.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 15:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fernsicht von der Hasenmatt.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 11:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Solothurn
  •   Info Far view from the Hasenmatt to the Swiss Alps in a distance of 150 - 170 km. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wide panorama of exactly what? Grass and hazy valley? —kallerna (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A shot that could have been great, but with those hazy conditions we don't really get to see the view.--Peulle (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support For me the haziness is the whole point. I really like the silvery/blue colours. Cmao20 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With this sort of view, the trick is to compress the perspective with a telephoto lens, not exaggerate the perspective with a ultra-wide-angle-panorama so that the photogenic hills are tiny. Most of the image is grass. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao; I like that the distant mountains look as far off as the description says they are, sort of dreamlike. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao--Tesla - 💬 21:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. -- King of ♥ 22:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I feel like I am standing on there myself, looking out at the beautiful view! —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Borkum, Hauptstrand -- 2020 -- 2691 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2020 at 06:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Of course there's more information in the photo with colours. Remembering the scope of the project, I always prefer non-edited pictures, artistic filters may be used elsewhere. —kallerna (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-edited isn't easy. I always take photographs in RAW. So you need the development. ;-) (And BTW: What do think is a "non-edited" image? Only taken with automatic features of your camera?) And black-and-white itself isn't artistic. Why should I remember the scope? --XRay talk 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • B&W is definitely a filter, a stylistic device. I think you know what I mean with non-edited images, especially nowadays when the social media influences using of filters etc. in images. —kallerna (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we have different perceptions of what goes on in black and white. You think more of modern with social media, my memory hangs on the legendary Ilford Pan F Plus 50 and another way of developing a photograph. But so be it. --XRay talk 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Simple, very good composition, and I like it much better in black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support B&W is about textures and contrasts and here it work very well. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I just don't feel any wow from this. I can appreciate the artistic effort, and if I were judging a competition with that as the criteria, it would certainly rank high. But not at FPC. Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry these beach chairs are a common photo motif and this scene isn't special enough. Background too busy. The B&W treatment would work if there was a texture contrast between the chairs and the smooth sand/sea, but the sand/sea isn't smooth. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --StellarHalo (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)