Commons:特色靚相候選

Shortcut: COM:FPC 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 | +/−

呢度係成為特色靚相嘅候選區。請留意呢度唔係同每日靚相一樣

要知道之前有乜提名,睇睇:Commons:等色靚相/紀錄

正式嘅事物Edit

提名Edit

如果您認為您已經創作或搵到一張可能有價值的圖片,請將佢加到「提名」部分嘅最頂部。用呢個連結加入。

喺您提名之前,請肯定已經喺相應的圖片加上適當嘅版權標籤

請喺投票嘅時候利用您嘅語言或者使用下面嘅模板

  • 支持 - Support, Yes, Sim, Ja, Oui, Sí, Kyllä, ...
  • 反對 - Oppose, No, Não, Nein, Non, Ei, ...

另外,您亦可以使用模板{{Oppose}}同{{Support}}

您亦可以表達使用{{I love}}代表您喜歡呢張圖片或您想利用{{Neutral}}嚟表達您嘅睇法。

特色靚相候選方針Edit

  • 14 日投票持間。結果將會喺提名後嘅第 15 日公佈決定。
  • 歡迎匿名貢獻者嘅提名
  • 歡迎匿名貢獻者嘅討論貢獻
  • 匿名貢獻者嘅投票不作計算
  • 提名者不會計作票數。必須另作解釋作出支持。
  • 記住,Wikimedia Commons 計劃嘅目標係提供一個中央式嘅檔案庫,以提供所有 Wikimedia 計劃(包括未來的計劃)裏使用。呢個唔只係於置 Wikipedia 嘅圖片,因此呢啲圖片唔係只針對嗰個計劃作出決定。

要成功登上特色靚相,必須合乎以下嘅條件。

  • 合理嘅牌照 (當然)
  • 最少 5 張支持票
  • 支持/反對嘅比例最少為 2:1 (三分二多數,即最少 67% 支持)

有關點樣處理舊嘅提名,睇睇Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#What to do after voting is finished

更新呢一頁:purge this page's cache

提名Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

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.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
  •   Info At the top of this picture is Hohenbeilstein Castle, built in 1080 and restored and rebuilt in the nineteenth century. At the bottom we have Unteres Schloss, a listed villa built from 1906 to 1908. I really like the warm evening light and the satisfying composition. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 22:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice, but the sky is noisy, somehow I don't understand why it had to be shot at ISO-400? --A.Savin 00:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Appealing light, interesting architecture -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:51, 24 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)

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)

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.

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)

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)
  •   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)

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)

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)

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

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 14:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I understand, I made changes without saturation, the photo is better? It's recoverable? Gzen92 [discuter] 07:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a nice scene, but the houses feel more luminous than the sky. I'm guessing this is the result of zonal tone remapping ("HDR" effect)? --Bobulous (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes HDR (without, it was not good). I made changes, the photo is better? It's recoverable? Gzen92 [discuter] 07:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The image isn't that bad, simply it isn't good enough for a FP. Overall a bit too dark and presence of noise in the sky, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunately per Bastoxerri, a nice composition but just a little bit dark and uninviting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination thank you for your clarification. Gzen92 [discuter] 11:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Bela di Supra (Upper Belica).jpgEdit

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)

File:Wetland - Weiherwald - Karlsruhe 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 06:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see why you nominate it but the image results too chaotic to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment That's nature! --Llez (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sure what I am supposed to be seeing here. It looks pretty commonplace for wetlands in similar climates. StellarHalo (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri and StellarHalo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Four dogs running at golden hour in the countryside of Don Det Laos.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2020 at 00:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Benedito Calixto de Jesus - Retrato do Padre José de Anchieta, Acervo do Museu Paulista da USP.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 23:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Portraits
  •   Info created and uploaded by Sturm - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Seems unsharp and noisy, but I haven't seen the painting in the flesh. Does it really look like this? Even if it does, it's not impressive enough to me for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek, not one of our best painting reproductions. Cmao20 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was thinking the same thing. It's not a bad idea to nominate it, but I think the current bar for painting FPs is higher than this.--Peulle (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. When I looked at it in closeup I thought it hadn't finished loading at first. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 22 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)

File:Contrasts of Rio de Janeiro - Rocinha, Ipanema, and Mountains at Sunrise.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 21:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sea caves Cape Greco 9.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2020 at 14:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Blaue Federlibelle.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 21:41:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • He gets up early in the morning, when there is little wind and the insects are too cold to move. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, there is another FP here of the species which is good too, but this one is higher resolution and sharper - plus this one is a female and the other one is a male, so it adds something new. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment it has some stacking issues, notes added. --Ivar (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, I've added another. Amazing detail, but needs to be reworked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose current version, too many stacking issues. --Ivar (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Honestly I think Charles and Ivar have a point. Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:20, 23 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)
  •   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)

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:Vista de Horta desde Monte da Guia, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 07-18 HDR PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 16:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File: Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida collapse (May 2018) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 14:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cmao20 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Aythya novaeseelandiae, Christchurch Botanic Gardends, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 07:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Epipactis palustris - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2020 at 05:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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)

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)

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)

File:SL Bundala NP asv2020-01 img08.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2020 at 12:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Monumento a Johann Strauss, Stadtpark, Viena, Austria, 2020-01-31, DD 102-104 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 18:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
  •   Info Blue hour shot of the monument to Johann Strauss, inaugurated in 1921 and located in the Stadtpark, Vienna, Austria. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Red channel appears to be slightly blown. -- King of ♥ 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Are you suggesting that I reduce the saturation of the red channel or rather a WB ajustment? Poco a poco (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    Just a simple highlight reduction. -- King of ♥ 14:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      Done, but according to Lr there was no overexposure Poco a poco (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
      Support, sometimes it's more about the visual effect. For landscapes I like to push the highlights as far as I can without blowing them out, to really make use of the full dynamic range available, but I've found that for structures being too close to 255 reduces the apparent detail even if nothing is actually blown out. -- King of ♥ 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful light and a very sharp, detailed photo. Cmao20 (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Surroundings are dead and dull, and the most of the photo is of surroundings. Light on the statue is nice. —kallerna (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, the monument stands out well in these light conditions. The trees are creating quite mysterious atmosphere and work as good balanced elements. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Even if the light is nice, I find the surroundings and the overall atmosphere a bit creepy. --StellarHalo (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @StellarHalo Isn't it a good thing? Good photo should wake some feelings in us and they don't have to always be bubbly and happy. I'd be proud to make a photo with creepy atmosphere :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but dark and gloomy feelings are not something I would associate with a monument of a composer. StellarHalo (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support in agreement with Podzemnik and Cmao20 --GRDN711 (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful music lights up a dark, bleak world. Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Amilcare Ponchielli (before 1886) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO000794 - Restoration.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 18:26:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Ikan Kekek I'm sorry, it is 255x178 millimeters, not centimeters. Please forgive my mistake. --LutiV (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Of course! I thought so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Swamp Sylhet.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 14:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bangladesh
  •   Info created & uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment A bit tilted, and the blurred background has been inadvertently sharpened leading to noise. -- King of ♥ 20:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing composition outweighs quality issues. Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question downsized? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose assuming downsized Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd like to see some work done on this photo per KoH and Charles. Also, minor point, but it's undercategorized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, per others and my comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful composition --Augustgeyler (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition is very good but the technical quality is not.--Peulle (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Salses-le-Château - Forteresse 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 12:09:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful, colourful panorama with a nice sweep to it. Cmao20 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive. Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same picture as everyone else. This photo seems to be neither colorful nor impressive. Could someone from the "support" camp maybe explain what I'm supposed to be seeing here? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I really like this image. But IMO there are too much JPEG artifacts. --XRay talk 07:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose large panorama of which maybe 20 % of the area is interesting. —kallerna (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't think so, for the guardhouse at the left belongs to the fort, there is the entrance. You can see the access leading fom the guardhose to the fort as a hollow-way and it is therefore an essential element of the whole complex, an elementary part of the defence. Therefore I think the whole area is interesting with all his fortifications, and not only the central building. --Llez (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
      •   Comment doesn’t change the fact that majority on the photo consists of something else than the buildings, mostly dry grass and dull midday sky. 11:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
        •   Comment I don't think that a Glacis (you call it "something else"), an important part of a fortification, is only "dry grass", and also that 9:17 a.m. (see metadata!) is "dull midday sky". --Llez (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
          •   Comment Then 09:17 was too late, dry grass is what I see. —kallerna (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Percival --StellarHalo (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per XRay.--Peulle (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; we have had a lot of panoramas to choose from and the bar is higher than this can cross. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Too much JPEG artifacts? No. All in all, this pano gives a complete view of the structure. --Mosbatho (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Calidris alba group edit.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 08:38:26
 

  •   Info Quite small. Half the birds are not sharp. It's just a group of birds. No wow factor. Distracting seaweeds. Two birds and a seaweed got cropped and then badly cloned out. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist Not one of the best images on here --StellarHalo (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist poor composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist I like the original version better. This doesn't suck and was probably a good photo in 2009, but I agree that it's not an FP now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above, it's not terrible but there is nothing special about it. I might have voted to keep if more of the birds were looking at the camera. Cmao20 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree.--Peulle (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Claude Monet - Haystacks.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2020 at 08:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Important info: This version actually has a thin bottom part cropped out (most likely the fault of Sotheby's). I also uploaded another smaller version that has that part but crops out the right side instead. I am nominating this version because it is larger and the crop is less destructive.

  •   Support --StellarHalo (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    It still does not explain why this but not any of the other thirty versions (many of those have a good quality too). Have you thought about a set? --Andrei (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    Well, out of the handful that qualify for FP on technical basis alone, I believe this version's lighting best conveys the spirit of the series. Would cherrypicking the best ones for nomination qualify as a set? StellarHalo (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not, there needs to be a coherent message, and preferable for paintings the reproductions should be done by one person/company because we expect a set to be consistent in quality. But cherry-picking a few to nominate individually is fine. -- King of ♥ 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♥ 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per KoH, unfortunately for the set it would have to be all-or-nothing, but this painting is great and really conveys a lot about the overall style. Cmao20 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think it's really right to award a star to an incomplete reproduction. I think that's below the standard of excellence we should demand for reproductions of flat artworks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    This view is entirely fair. Though keep in mind that the few available reproductions of this Haystack version each has a small part cropped out, most likely due to the fact that it has always been in private hands. StellarHalo (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Understood. Regardless of the outcome of this nomination, if this is the best available reproduction, it should be nominated at COM:VIC. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Jekleni most pri Radečah (Iron bridge on Sava river at Radeče; IG. GRIDL fabrik, 1894).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 16:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment True, on left side. I will remove when on PC. If any other place mark. --Mile (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Ikan Kekek check now. --Mile (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I see some in the middle, some on the right side. I'll try to mark some spots, but in general, this is an issue in the foreground and arguably near middleground. The further away the wood is, the less visible the problem is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I see, i was editing trees (forest), will try to solve that today.--Mile (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek i try to solve some. I think its not CA, i saw other shots, its on the edge where fisheye lose resolution and result of moire came out. --Mile (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK. But my feeling is that this is a very good composition and yet I find whatever is happening to the wood quite distracting. I'll look at the photo again tomorrow and see if I change my mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Vliegenzwam (Amanita muscaria). Locatie De Famberhorst. 27-09-2020 (d.j.b.).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2020 at 15:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks for your response. I don't see any halos. Please post a note.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've marked three places where there are a small focus-stacking errors which look like halos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. Looks more like the faded colors of the leaves in the background.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Did you check the individual photo with the edge of the mushroom in focus. Was the 'halo' there? I suspect notǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others including Charles' delisting suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan Kekek Poco a poco (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support But get rid of the halos, which go all around the perimeter of the mushroom. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Temporary oppose. Unfortunately Famberhorst, you've reduced the halo effect, but there are now visible dark circles from the cloning tool. Just meeds 20 minutes of boring rework! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
*   Done. Minor fixes. Been busy for almost an hour.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. I expected this nomination, since i saw this picture as a QI candidate -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Amanitaceae