Open main menu

Commons:Candidatas a imágenes destacadas

Shortcut: COM:CID 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 | +/−

Aquí están las candidatas a imágenes destacadas

Ten en cuenta que todo el proceso se realiza en inglés por lo que necesitarás conocimientos mínimos de éste para poder presentar una nueva nominación.

FormalidadesEdit

NominaciónEdit

Si crees que hay alguna foto en Commons lo suficientemente atractiva como para estar entre las imágenes destacadas, entonces por favor inclúyela en la lista de candidaturas editando este enlace. Si hay consenso general después de 10 días, la imagen se transferirá a imágenes destacadas.

Crear una nueva nominaciónEdit

Paso 1: copia el nombre de la imagen y pégalo en este cuadro (incluyendo el prefijo Image: ), cuando ya hayas pegado el nombre de la imagen, por ejemplo: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:EL-NOMBRE-DE-TU-IMAGEN.JPG. Haz clic en el botón crear nueva nominación.


Paso 2: Sigue las instrucciones que verás en la página para rellenar los campos de información de tu imagen.

Paso 3: Manualmente inserta un enlace a la página que has creado sobre tu imagen arriba del todo en Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Haz clic aquí, y añade la siguiente línea ARRIBA en la página de nominaciones:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EL-NOMBRE-DE-TU-IMAGEN.JPG}}

Para votarEdit

Para votar puedes usar las siguientes plantillas:

  • {{Support}} (  Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (  Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (  Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (  Comment),
  • {{Info}} (  Info),
  • {{Question}} (  Question).

Puedes indicar que una imagen no puede ser destacada con {{FPX|razón}}, donde en razón explicas los motivos claramente por los que no puede ser destacada.

Por favor explica brevemente porque estas a favor o en contra de la nominación de esa imagen, especialmente cuando votes en contra.

Puedes hacer comentarios en el idioma que quieras, aunque más vale tener en cuenta el hecho de que la mayor parte de los usuarios hablan inglés.

ReglasEdit

  • Hay 9 días de deliberaciones. Se decide el resultado al día 10 después de la nominación.
  • Los usuarios anónimos pueden proponer candidatas.
  • Los usuarios anónimos pueden participar en la discusión.
  • Los votos de usuarios anónimos no cuentan.
  • Una nominación no cuenta automáticamente como un voto. Debes expresar tu apoyo de forma explícita.

La candidata se convertirá en una imagen destacada a condición de:

  • estar bajo una licencia libre (por supuesto)
  • que haya un mínimo de cinco votos a favor
  • que la proporción de votos a favor / en contra sea al menos 2/1 (o sea, una mayoría de dos tercios o 67%)

Contents


Recarga para nuevas nominaciones: purge this page's cache

PropuestasEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Calathea warscewiczii - Wilhelma.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2019 at 04:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:To Infinity and Beyond!.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 21:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info all by -- Benh (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support That's noisy and all, and I don't have a better gear than this I'm afraid... But I love this shot. -- Benh (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry for overwhelming you with noms lately... But I'll give you a break soon enough, don't worry ;) - Benh (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Blatant self promotion! SCNR, just kidding ;-P Anyways, as soon as the nom is over (not during, to not mess up the coding) the name of the file needs to be changed to something more appropriate for Commons. This name is too ambiguous and doesn't describe the photo very well. --Cart (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes you are right. I will rename, whatever the outcome is (I think I have rename rights). Thanks. - Benh (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Perhaps better equipment needed for this type of shot... Charles (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well yes. But my gear is still the equivalent of a 18mm f/3.0 in full frame, which is still good option from a light gathering capability (which is what we should be aiming at when considering setup). Then there's sensor technology. The X-T2 is old, but not that much, and Fuji has good reputation for low noise because their sensors have more green photosites. But iso6400 in dark conditions is still iso6400 no matter what, and it was still a dark shot that needs some little +EV. I also choose to go light in NR. There are a lot of more advances techniques for shooting starry skies too. Some people do shoot foreground at low iso, and sky at high ISO, some do stitching (I could), when the sky is clear. But here I wanted me on the foreground, and I didn't have the clear sky anyways. Just to give some context. Remember that these aren't that easy conditions either... I'm constrained by the rotation of the stars (Earth actually, but all is relative), and I have a fixed element to consider. - Benh (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Exposure is at the limit of the 500 rule so no way to lower ISO. Thank-you for daring to upload and nominate it full-size. Quite an effort to stand still for 30s. -- Colin (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Or if you have a small-sensor camera where anything over ISO 1600 looks like crap and you get the milky way barely visible. I also found out that it's totally useless to downsize star photos, even if they are way noisy, since you lose too much of the stars in the NR and that the difference is visible even at small thumb. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Peyto Lake in winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 20:31:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mountain view in Robson valley.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 19:41:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

We had a "snowy discussion" before. Snow works like a mirror and it's natural to have bits of blown areas. Human's eye would perceive it that way anyway. I personally think it's OK. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent, I usually enjoy this user's work. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Nesting Waterbird (73435059).jpegEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 10:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Aubrey Holland - uploaded by Darwin - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting light but the picture is too small and there is a distracting ghost of a stem at the right in the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile. Good quality but I don't think the resolution or composition matches up to our best bird shots. Cmao20 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Two birch trunks in front of a cliff in Gullmarsskogens nature reserve.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 10:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info This is the original 'Swedish noir' so I don't know how it may work on an international site. It was scenes like this that inspired artist John Bauer to make his works of trolls and gnomes, based on Swedish folklore. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry Cart but I agree with Basile here. I can see what you were thinking, and it was definitely a sight worth capturing, but I don't see much more than a fairly interesting and good-quality QI. It just doesn't wow me, lame as that sounds. Cmao20 (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Crotalus atrox diamantklapperschlange kopf.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2019 at 10:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Desna river Vinn meadow 2019 G01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 22:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info Mist (visible atmospheric water) shortly before sunrise. Desena river, Ukraine
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It might have been a wonderful place and probably an exquisite moment, but like this one for me this picture is too dark, or contains too many obscur areas -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite all right but missing something.--Peulle (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support great atmosphere. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I didn't expect to go for this at first, but the composition has grown on me. It's better than your last foggy shot. Cmao20 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannesmann-Hochhaus Düsseldorf illuminated 2007.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 18:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Till.niermann - uploaded by Till.niermann - nominated by Till.niermann -- Till (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Till (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like this. It sort of makes me think of those video games where you see a map and one building turns into a giant beacon of light to say "this is where you must go." Clearly, this place is where one must go. :) It could use a perspective correction. Possible to correct without losing too much of the light? — Rhododendrites talk |  19:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Please point out where the perspective needs to be corrected. The verticals are exactly vertical, however the picture was taken standing on a bridge, therefore not perpendicularly in front of the building. So the river "retreats" to the left. --Till (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I wish it had more megapixels but it's an interesting subject with a descent wow factor for me. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support: given that the photo is 12 years old, smaller size can be overlooked. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp at pixel level, even with just 6.8 MP. -- King of ♠ 00:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of sharpness as per KoH, plus I don’t understand why the main motiv should be put so far out of center (more than 2:1, nearly 3:1). A symmetric motif like this asks for a centered composition IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 05:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Taken in 2007 and it might have been an FP then, but twelve years later it's not.--Peulle (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's nice but the quality just isn't there. Also a lot of green/purple chromatic aberration. --Cart (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, seems sharp enough to me and definitely has wow. Resolution is a little low but that's forgiveable. Cmao20 (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Moderate wow and weak quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2017O6032 - Кременець.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 18:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - This photo was taken 2 years ago. Then I wanted to achieve maximum sharpness in everything. Today I wouldn't do so, but have decided to leave everything on this photo as it was at the beginning. --Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, your choice, but then per my comment above I'll   Oppose this then. --Cart (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question: is the colour of the sky due to a polarizing filter? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Midday light is quite boring here -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the landscape, but it seems a little overprocessed to me, what with that extremely blue, dramatic sky (I can see why The Cosmonaut thought it was done with a polarising filter) contrasting against the saturated green grass. I think Cart is right that there is too much 'clarity' here, it doesn't look quite natural. Cmao20 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Monument Monseigneur-De Laval détail 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 13:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
  •   Info all by -- Cephas (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cephas (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is pretty cool. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but not extraordinary for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoei1--Ermell (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sufficiently interesting for FP for me, but then again I'm interested in this kind of thing. Cmao20 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:St.-Josefs-Kirche, Frankfurt-Höchst, Nave view 20190921 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 09:56:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
  •   Info c/u/n DXR -- DXR (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- DXR (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great detail. It is a bit grey, but I guess that's the building. -- Colin (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent quality, I love your church interiors. And, per Colin's point, the majority of German Lutheran churches tend to be a little more grey and unadorned (although the ceiling here is quite lovely). It's nice to see a less extravagantly decorated church given a strong FP treatment. Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark. Depressing in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what to make of this comment. It isn't a very bright place. Of course, it is possible to make it all bright and shiny, but imho, this would be a less faithful representation of reality. Against the white background, it look darkish, but in full screen, the lighting is appropriate. --DXR (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Austere interior. Real light is missing. It lacks wow for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent but slightly too dark IMO. Why is the metadata incomplete? It would also be interesting to know how the contrast range was handled. This is only possible with HDR technology. Found the description.--Ermell (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, PTGui kills most metadata, shot with D850 and Sigma 50mm 1.4. --DXR (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but should be a bit brighter --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Given the fairly clear feedback, I have decided to slightly brighten and rework the tonemapping a bit. I hope this does not change any opinions too much, but am pinging the users who have already voted. Martin Falbisoner, Colin, The Cosmonaut, Cmao20, Basile Morin, Ermell, Uoaei1,Cart --DXR (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Pavo cristatus - Maroparque 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 07:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! I think it's the first image of a peacock here where that special gleam in it's feather really comes through. And that strong compo... --Cart (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The shadow is indeed and issue but the compo and pose of the peacock is great Poco2 08:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great closeup. Cmao20 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this DoF doesn't work for me; only the front of the head is sharp, and that leaves a lot of background as well as the whole neck unsharp.--Peulle (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Also the flashlight does not good --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle, sorry. --A.Savin 17:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I don't really like flashlights on animals, unless it's in the forest or in the middle of the night (but even then I'd hesitate to support). This is a great composition but perhaps could have been done during the day, outside, without the flash. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think we should expect more DoF with the eyes in focus, so perhpas F8 not ideal here. A less powerful fill-in flash might work here. Charles (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Teenage Mahout.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 03:45:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kritzolina (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good, dramatic photo but I'm not sure the quality is there at full size, there's a lot of 'blockiness' and lack of detail in some places. I think (I may be wrong) this is a smartphone shot, and such images unfortunately rarely make it at FP as the lenses simply arent' capable of capturing the shot at sufficient quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20 – you did your best, but technically, it looks oversharpened, oversaturated and over-contrasty. As for the shot itself, I don’t see much outstanding here. It’s a nice moment captured but nothing really special IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 23:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but the light is far from optimal -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Bay 2 mall parking, on a Sunday morning, Collégien, France - July 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 03:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#France
  •   Info created by Benh - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Fixed FP category. Please remember that 'Places' is a main category now and select one of the other (old and new) galleries. Putting the reminder here since it will probably take some time for all users to get the info. --Cart (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Well, thanks for the many late noms Paris_16. - Benh (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fascinating image, did you capture it from a nearby tall building? Cmao20 (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Cmao20, it's taken with a drone. The EXIF gives the model of the camera attached to it (I used a Mavic 2 pro if you are curious). - Benh (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks like a board game somehow... — Rhododendrites talk |  14:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I was thinking more along the lines of a circuit board. Guess it works like a Rorschach test. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is just great. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Overwowed. --Kreuzschnabel 23:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but nothing special to me. Drone photos with the camera inclined 90° downwards are not rare. To make me say wow, it has to be a nice and/or interesting motif, what a usual parking lot is not. However the quality, considering the possibilities of this camera, is quite good. --A.Savin 06:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Cosmos bipinnatus Germany.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2019 at 02:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
  •   Info created by and uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 02:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A pretty flower but not an exceptional photo. Relatively small size. Harsh sunlight is rarely suitable for strongly coloured flowers, with red channel typically blown. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think Colin has said it all. Pretty, but not exceptional given other flower photos, and the point about the red channel seems to be correct. Cmao20 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin too. Though flowers usually don’t run away, it’s really not at all trivial to take a really good photo of them. --Kreuzschnabel 23:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination My apologies to Fischer--Boothsift 04:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Spur-winged lapwing (Vanellus spinosus) in flight.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 21:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016-01-10 Mycena leaiana var. australis Dennis 598258.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 21:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  •   Info created by Steve Axford (steveaxford) - uploaded by Josef Papi - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: rather prominent blurry area; see note. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support True, but most of it is very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please don’t take me wrong. Very great idea and work, well worth a full support. It’s just the prominent blurry area pointed out by The Cosmonaut. Makes it virtually impossible to use this photo e.g. for a book cover. Too bad. As soon as this is fixed, I will be more than ready to switch to support (notification would be great so I don’t forget re-checking). --Kreuzschnabel 23:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing blur, per above -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with regrets per above --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's really a shame about that blurred area, but it's so beautifully composed and lit... - Benh (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Bengal monitor at Anawilundawa Bird Sanctuary - (A Mischievous Grin).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 17:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eldridge Street Synagogue (42773).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 16:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United States
  •   Info inspired by Basile's post to the FPC talk page that we have very few FPs of religious buildings other than Christian, here's the interior of the Eldridge Street Synagogue in New York City. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk |  16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  16:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done, I like this a lot. Basile is probably right, I'll try to find a non-Christian building the next time I am tempted to nominate yet another church interior :) Cmao20 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing   Something new! -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Portrett av Gina Krog (6276081582) - Restoration.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2019 at 12:33:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Harlech Castle Gatehouse Tower, Merionethshire, Wales - 25-07-2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 22:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Note - just after I started this nom I made a couple of corrections, including nudging the white balance towards the cooler side as I felt it was a little warm before. This is now accurate to how it looked on the day. Anyone who viewed the nom right after I made it might need to clear their cache to view the new version. Cmao20 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Congratulations, Cmao20, for submitting your own work (as it seems to be the first FPC "all by you" if I'm not wrong). Well, in my view this tower is clearly a QI, and the light is good. However I'm a bit mitigated on the wow factor (that's subjective of course) as I don't see here a tremendous composition, nor an incredibly original subject. I'm not sure whether or not this one will become FP (I'd bet for no), but I'm personally convinced it is not an obvious one. Other opinions may differ of course. You'll see... good luck! -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Basile. Yes, this is the first time I have submitted my own work at FPC, I will upload a few more of my images over the next few weeks although I'm not sure if I'll try them at FPC or at QIC. Your opinion is always appreciated, even if you don't support. Cmao20 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If you're not sure about QIC, be informed that a promotion there is much much easier than here -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hi Cmao, I'm with Basile basically. There's nothing wrong. It's properly taken and I guess it would pass QI assessment. But here is about "special" pictures, and I don't think that one is. Do you think it's a very special point of view? subject? Were the conditions special? If yes, then you did well to nominate. But to me it doesn't check any of these. And at an age when anyone can basically produce high quality picture, your picture has to stand out on other merits to get the stars here (well I guess, I'm not all the voters). Benh (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, in response I'd say I nominated it because I felt that the perspective conveyed the height and immensity of the tower, and I felt that the light conditions were good that day. It also shows several important features of castle architecture from that time, included the arrowslits and the places where rooms would once have been constructed, and it shows the colour of the decorative yellow sandstone more clearly than any other image on Commons. But maybe these latter few are arguments for why it should be featured on ENwiki, not here. Thanks for your review anyway, it's always appreciated. Cmao20 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. Your reason would probably be better received at enFPC. And yes here is also a lot of personal point of view, which can get really frustrating from time to time (when you think you took the shot of your life and no one seems to agree). - Benh (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong Harbour Night 2019 (48127957278).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 18:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info uploaded by Paris_16 - the rest by me -- Benh (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We have many FP of HK, my favorite being that one. It is taken from similar location as this one but improves on it (brighter, sharper, more dynamic range, larger framing and higher resolution). -- Benh (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I can see into people's living rooms. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't know the view. Do you have to crop the buildings at the bottom? Charles (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Charles. The hill's slopes, which can be seen on the sides, meet in the middle. The lines just go on straight outside the frame so they meet where you think they do (middle). Framing everything in would mean large dark areas in the picture and I personally don't like it. That's also a reason why I cropped out much of the sides. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support thanks, Charles (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The slightly cold color temp does great service to any picture in HK but none more than this one. Elevates "neon jungle" to a whole new level. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this beats out Diliff's version and Poco's version owing to the better resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support outstanding! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Strongly, I might add. Ahmadtalk 09:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment After KennyOMG's comment, I have realised the temperature is a bit too far on the cold side. I have attempted to fix. It's very subtle so I just uploaded on top, but you might want to alter your votes. - Benh (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I actually liked it a lot as it was but not going to change because of the warmer temp. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --SH6188 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Maison Carree in Nimes (16).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 09:58:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Maybe this one is better? All by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support: it is better! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral surprisingly unsharp (and noisy!) for such good conditions. But I got that you shot at f/20... that's very very narrow (and affects the sharpness) and unnecessary. But the framing and colors are very nice. - Benh (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view, but the quality doesn't satisfy me, sorry. --A.Savin 18:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the quality is good for a night shot, and the subject and colours are great. I supported your previous version (weakly) and this is better. Cmao20 (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cmao20 Poco2 09:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful and very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This angle and this composition are in my opinion much better than the previous nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice, but noise in the sky and not sharp enough. F/20 is too much, the sharpness would be better with an aperture like f/13. --XRay talk 12:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this one more than the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Edro III Shipwreck LE.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 09:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ping Nino Verde, please see my comment and a note above. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, i'll remove dust spots today. Sorry, missed your comment. -- Nino Verde (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Dust spots removed. Unfortunately correcting horizon will cause resolution change or total redo of photo. -- Nino Verde (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better than the last version. Cmao20 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's nice and I'll support it in advance, but please fix all the dust spots first. It's not only one spot, I found at least 4. --XRay talk 12:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Just like I said it could be ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC) 
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Eastern great egret head with open beak.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 01:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2018 -- 1417-21.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2019 at 00:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Groningen Universiteitsmuseum anatomy exhibition 8683.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 22:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  •   Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The skeleton of an adult and a toddler exhibited at the anatomy room of Groningen Universiteitsmuseum.   Support -- C messier (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I guess this is why the FPC guidelines says: "Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …". This is downright disturbing. However many child skeletons I might have seen at archeological digs or in museum collections, this "animated" scene gets to me even more. Good compo with the splash of color from the jars; they also put the whole scene in context. --Cart (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose it's the lighting, although I guess it was intended. Charles (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question What is an "abult"? I know the term "adult" for a full grown person, but I never heard of abults (and I found it in the dictionary neither). Could you please explain what "abult" means? --Llez (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Basilian monastery in Hoshiv, Ukraine 201706154.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 16:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Myroslav Vydrak - uploaded by Myroslav Vydrak - nominated by Мирослав Видрак -- Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Super b/w photo. --Steindy (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support lovely balance of light and shadow. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice shot, but leaning oppose at the moment because at full resolution it seems like a lot of detail has been lost in the shadows and highlights. I appreciate that this sort of contrast can make for a dramatic B&W photo, but I'm not quite sure it adds enough here to compensate as compared to a color version with more detail. — Rhododendrites talk |  05:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like it, but I agree with Rhododenrites, the detail in some of the shadows and highlights is not great. I'd like to see it in colour too. Cmao20 (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am not convinced by the composition or the lighting (big shadows on the church). Frankly, I also don't see why this picture should be b/w. --DXR (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per DXR Poco2 09:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Black and white treatment, harsh light, too contrasted -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I like the idea of doing this in monochrome, but it's just too busy a composition (it might have worked better with a tighter crop on the building). That tree cropped in half is also hard to unsee.

    And lastly, it is very unsharp out at the corners. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Foggy day Thung Salaeng Luang.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 07:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Thailand
  •   Info created and uploaded by Jane3030 - nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Truly epic morning. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While impressive and (to borrow a word from above) epic, the reds are badly blown. Also looks somewhat washed out (too much NR?) but that's just a personal preference. Will support if the red issue is fixed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @KennyOMG: According to histogram, nothing is blown. Clouds are reflecting light of the rising sun. --Ivar (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Added notes. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A gorgeous landscape. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Disregarding any technical issues, I agree that the there are a lot of wow-y elements in the photo. But that's just the problem, there are so many conflicting elements in the photo, it's hard to get a grip on it and it ends up looking messy for me. The top is one photo while the bottom is another, so to speak. --Cart (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The mood was well captured. Good work. --Steindy (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Cart and looks over processed.Seven Pandas (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The view is really great. --SH6188 (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose per Cart. Another great-idea image that just seems to be trying to take in too much. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 12:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Maldivian dish - Kandu Kulkulhu 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2019 at 06:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •   Info all by -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support definitely a Wow for me, I love the colours --Kritzolina (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, while I think that the subject surely has FP potential, I don't think that this image was executed to FP standards. 1) Arrangement: the two dishes at the left and center bottom look like they're being pushed out of the frame by their covers. That's even more severe for the red one with the peppers, as it extends outside the rectangle made up by the mat. The covers build a visual barrier between the dishes at the top and the ones at the bottom. I think I would have preferred to have all the dished in the center and the covers arranges around them. 2) Despite the colorful tableware, the whole picture over-all looks unexpectedly pale and grey. Maybe raise the exposure a bit and process for a little bit more "pop". I don't know what the background is made of, but I've git a feeling that is should be much brighter. There seem to be a bunch of shadows at the sides that make it rather ugly-looking. --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great sharpness, as good as it gets without stacking.--Peulle (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle and the fact that I'd like to see lots more good food photography round here. El Grafo is right to critique the arrangement, but I think it's OK overall and the sharpness is very good. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too crowded. Charles (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a really good effort, and we do need more food photos, but the light is dark and dull and that shadow on the left side is bugging me as it makes the shot unbalanced. It's almost there, but not quite, sorry. --Cart (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, arrangement could be better, but it's really, truely sharp, and colors are really good. Besides, I think arrangement is fairly good (although it could be better). Ahmadtalk 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart Poco2 09:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart and Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:SAOCOM 1A Mission (44262166295).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 19:10:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Space_exploration#Space_launch_vehicles
  •   Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by BugWarp - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BugWarp (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Since there is so much land showing in the photo, it would be nice if the description also included where this was taken (launch pad, location, country, etc.). These launches are not common knowledge and people looking at the file page should not have to click back on WP links and categories to get such info. Please write a bit more. --Cart (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment added launch location to the description. --Msaynevirta (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressive. However, I can not test the authenticity of "photography". It seems too much like composition to me. Sorry! --Steindy (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  05:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment To me it's a clear FP and I'm a fan of these shots on the spaceX Flickr page. But I'm missing more detailed and useful caption, which should be an added value of having the shot here. Which trail is take off, which one is landing? When are stages separation? Engine cut off? ... - Benh (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose wow is there, but resolution too low for me. --Ivar (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small, too dark, too many unsharp areas -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Besides the technical objections, it's just a very random composition. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Φοινικόδασος Πρέβελης 4317.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 12:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
  •   Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A cretan date palm (endemic species of Crete) in Preveli palm forest, Crete, which lies inside a canyon   Support -- C messier (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This works for me. Some might say the composition is a little busy, but I think it works, it looks like some sort of prehistoric jungle enclave miles from civilisation. Cmao20 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support: agree with Cmao20 --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --GRDN711 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I doubt that this image is not outstanding in category Palm forest of Preveli --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. The light, subject and compo look like a rather ordinary vacation shot. --Cart (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment Cart, due to the orientation of the canyon, the palm forest at its bottom is sunlight only during midday (half hour later the palm you see was at the mountain shadow). That day it was a bit less harsh due to the clouds and I particularly liked how the light fell on the fallen leafs. --C messier (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I can totally relate to the way things feel special when you are down in a canyon with the light filtering down for only a short while, but also how hard it is to capture that in a photo. My own photos from a ravine, that I felt were almost magical, were not well received here either. --Cart (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Türkenmohn Blüte 2019-05-20 11-07-39 (C)-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 21:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Papaveraceae
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Oops, missed this when reviewing last night. Excellent quality and composition, of course, so pile-on support. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose visible stacking/cloning errors. --Ivar (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes they are, stacking errors very present. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can be sorted, but many stacking errors on the left hand side of the image (e.g. leaf standing up). Just needs a bit more time... Let me know when done Ermell. Charles (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support; I would like to see the errors Ermell noted fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Window on a barn in Färlev.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 06:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other windows
  •   Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Typical Cart ability to find beauty in unusual places. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but for me nothing special. --A.Savin 19:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this kind of shots work better when it's looking perpendicularly at the plan (hope my english is correct). Here the converging lines just distract me and draw my eyes to the left where there's nothing. - Benh (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the shadows and more 3D effect you get from a slight angle. Straight on looks too flat for me. Chacun à son goût. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Then I'd play with the lighting instead (make it more coming from the side). Also, very importantly, it's "Chacun ses goûts" :) (and yes my oppose is very subjective) - Benh (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I will tell my old French teacher. :) --Cart (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Your photos have always been an inspiration for me. :-) --Cart (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: As yours are for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin Poco2 09:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม วัดพระแก้ว กรุงเทพมหานคร - Wat Phra Kaew, Temple of Emerald Buddha, Bangkok, Thailand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 22:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Absolutely. Actually the camera was on the tripod, and several pictures were necessary to clone out a few visitors. Otherwise I could have waited centuries before this place gets empty. And I arrived early morning, before the opening! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't ask how, but was curious yes. I actually use the same trick ;) - Benh (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree with Benh, but why only 12MP from your 30MP camera? -- Colin (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low resolution: downsized about 60% with no justification. I am happy to overlook downsizing when the image is >20MP or if there is a good reason why the shot was technically challenging or we are stuck with whatever some external photographer uploaded to Flickr and the shot is outstanding. But not a 30>12MP downsize from a Commons regular. Happy to remove the oppose if full resolution uploaded. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Colin, aren't you a bit extreme here? Although I more or less agree with you, this puts quite a pressure on a user IMO (and it's not like that user overwhelms us with his entire Lr catalog). Nothing obliges Basile to upload full size, and 12mpix of that quality seems very reasonable to me. At least, why not express your opinion through a neutral? Just my two cents. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Benh, back in March, Basile was very adamant in opposing a cormorant photo downsized from 50 to 20MP. The Commons:Image guidelines for FP do ask photographers not to downsize. Most reviewers allow some downsizing for reasons I gave, but may oppose otherwise. The issue has been discussed many times, without being able to come up with a rule we can all agree on. Anyway, I only get one vote so others are quite capable of supporting this if they wish. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • To be precise Colin, the downsize was from 26,6 to 20 MP. From 50 to 26,6 was a crop as the bird was pretty far as my longest tele is "only" 600m (or rather 300m x 2). Cropping for such a reason is, I believe, acceptable for wildlife shots. Furthermore I was on a boat (in movement) in the Chobe river and not standing in front of a building. Poco2 09:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info This monument is one of the most, if not the most important of Thailand. Type "main sites Thailand" or "main sites Bangkok" on Google, then you get results like this one or that one showing the Grand Palace in first positions. There was no decent picture on Wikipedia of this building before I upload the file. Check the Category:Wat Phra Kaew. The photograph was shot @11 mm focal length FF, so that I could get the whole buildings after perspective correction (and obviously slight size reduction, which is completely normal in architecture photography). This is not downsized. As said above, it's very difficult to find a good image of this temple on Google without tourist. Then I think the high educational value, with the relative rarity, and the correct light, should make it -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective correction often decreases resolution quite unavoidably, as in the case of this FP. Basile has never, as far as I know, been known for downsizing his images, and so we should take him at his word. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Cmao20 I appreciate that a strong vertical perspective correction in Lightroom will reduce resolution slightly. Some adjustment to the Y Offset often helps avoid having to reduce the scale too much to restore the height with the frame. I tried some fairly extreme "corrections" in lightroom and could not get anywhere close to 60% reduction. I suggest Basile experiments with the Y Offset and should then find that the perspective correction should have minimal impact on resolution. An 11mm lens on full frame is already an extreme ultra-wide, so if one is having to make strong corrections to that, then really we aren't seeing realistic proportions any longer. The state-of-the-art wrt architecture photos on Commons is a stitched photograph with resolution significantly in excess of what the camera produces -- we have loads of such high resolution images. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Colin, I mean, yes, such high-resolution stitched images (such as this by you) are truly wonderful, but they don't come around very often at FPC, the vast majority of images of buildings here are single frame. I didn't know we had, as you say, loads of these images, and if we do it'd be nice to see a lot more round at FPC! But for me I don't think we should apply such a high bar to architectural photographs, as a sharp 12.5 megapixel image like this one is really good enough for almost any purposes; it's easily big enough to illustrate the building for any obvious purpose I can think of. Basile's image is not perfect - there's a bit of distortion at the edges, probably because of the perspective correction - but looking at other images of the buildings on the internet, the proportions don't look totally out-of-joint to me, so it's still an accurate depiction of the building. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cmao20, for the comment and accurate research. Yes, this case is exactly the same than Podzemnik's before and after perspective correction + crop. This is not downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • See User:Colin/PixelPeeping. Yes 12MP is ok for many purposes. It is just a very little short of what is needed for a Nat Geo spread at 300dpi and shorter still than needed for a Vogue spread. One of the ideas I explored in that essay was the difference between a "bold subject" and a "detailed subject". Some images are a bit of both. I want to see the detail of the tiles on this temple, but there isn't the resolution. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Colin. A lot did go right in taking this picture. But all the same, I agree with him that downsizing this cost a lot of detail on the roof and spires. Present, it might have more than made up for the light. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: what do you mean by "downsizing"? I remember I fixed for you the perspectives of your building File:Pratt_Street_skyline_from_Convention_Center,_Baltimore,_MD.jpg nominated in QIC because the operation was too difficult from your side. And now you're still confused with these architectural transformations, and seem ignore how they affect an image. I've said it already two times, but I'll explain one more for you. Also feel free to request my original files, they will make my words even more explicit. This picture is taken with the ultra widest angle rectilinear lens existing in the world. It means the distance is very short in front of these stairs in reality. There's a wall behind my tripod. With a standard focal length, you'd see only the temple and not the two towers. So, you really can't see much larger than this, the camera set upwards as it was. I did a small crop, but if I had used the top of the top professional Canon EOS-1D X Mark II (20.2 Mpx), be sure that the image would have appeared even smaller, without that crop. Why do you see less pixels? Because the image is not UPSIZED (I did not cheat), and because the original file has been transformed (perspectives corrected). It is sharp now, and it makes 4'156 x 3'014 px = 12,5 Mpx, more than 4K, and large enough compared to many other similar pictures in the same category. Now please try to give a link of a better image from the same angle, with a higher definition, if you find on the web. Good luck. Maybe possible in theory, but not in practice. Why is it not a stitched panorama? Due to the number of visitors in this place, technically it is almost impossible. Stitched panos are easy under favorable conditions, like fixed light and empty places. Visit that temple, and you'll understand. You want to see more details? Yeah me too, when I look at the Moon with normal eyes I expect to see the craters, the texture, and every single dust on the surface, this is my dream   -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Extreme downsizing, and this in a picture from a user who pixelpeeks this issue in other noms with much moderate downsizing under tricky conditions (26,6 > 20 MP of wildlife shot from a moving boat). I seldom agree with Colin, but I definitely do here. Poco2 09:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   "Extreme" downsizing, now. Wow! There's only one image uploaded, then I hardly see how it could be downsized from no previous version, lol. This is downsized, yes (check the history), and this too, and this one also. My opinion is you can crop as much as you want at home. Everybody do that. Because when you shoot camera upwards, you never see exactly what you'll get after perspective correction, then you necessarily need more space around as security. But the guidelines say "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality" (understood after upload of course). I just follow the guidelines. And disagree with you. No problem -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Basile, you have no problem selecting wow-y subjects and you have shown that you are very good at using advanced post-processing techniques such as stacking and animating. Have you ever considered using panorama technique? It would have been ideal for a place like this where you can't get far from the subject and you would normally need some special lens to get it all in frame. Pano technique is not just for mountain tops, it works very well in confined spaces or when you are standing in front of a too large subject. The functions for doing it are in the editing programs you already have. In this photo, I had water behind me and could not back enough to get all of the subject in frame and with this large flat petroglyph, I would have needed a drone or crane to get high enough from the cliff. Panos sorted things out. This indoors photo is an extreme example of how much you can do by stitching photos together while being close to the subject. You write that you took several photos of this building to be able to clone out the tourists, while you were doing that, you could have made something like six photos of this scene from your tripod and merged them into one fantastic (and large) image. You should give it a try, I think it would add to your photos to have yet another "tool" to make great photos. This image is not bad, you just have not used the best available technique to capture it. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Totally agree with Cart that stitching can also be used to get rid of people (and to increase resolution). But also agree that this picture is maybe getting little unfair treatment. - Benh (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Benh. Sometimes I make stitched panoramas (using Photoshop or Hugin), but it's rare. The first reason is because they very often generate errors, boring to correct (recent example nominated here), by yourself or by others. The second reason is because they generate huge files, boring to manipulate (too long, too slow on a machine, even with enough RAM). The third reason is because these details are rarely useful in 90% of their applications. You really need to print a poster to look at all these, and in practice we almost never print posters. Here I remember I spent a very long time with my tripod waiting that some visitors move in various places. In my originals, I have for example a guy sitting on the stairs, waiting for his girlfriend takes a picture of him. Also a group of Chinese people discussing. Well, you can't tell these visitors "hey, guys, please go out! I'm waiting for you to leave now, my picture is more important please" :-) Thus, if I had to handle that work also for every small part used in a stitched panorama, the time it would have taken would have been impossibly excessive. Probably the light from the sun would have changed from a corner to another one, or maybe a guard would have come to me because one hour at the same place in the middle of a crowd is unacceptable behavior. The problem is that people here seem not to catch the challenge (except you Benh, and perhaps Cmao20 and The Cosmonaut). Of course if all the reviewers in FPC are only familiar with the empty churches and cathedrals, they might not understand what is a popular and ultra crowded site like this temple, gathering a lot of Chinese groups, and other visitors from all countries. Just read the Lonely planet: Wat Phra Kaew is "today Bangkok’s biggest tourist attraction and a pilgrimage destination for devout Buddhists and nationalists". In the light of the guidelines A bad picture of a very difficult subject is better than a good picture of an ordinary subject. I don't think it's so bad, and I'm sure it's difficult -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I second Cart's suggestion. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping this is an image where we would love to see the detail on the temple. We don't need to print out a poster to see that, we can all use the zoom viewer or download full size and explore on our screens. The stitching errors you mention are because you need a panoramic tripod head to get the best results. But even before I had one of those, I could take indoor panoramas with hundreds of people moving about the frame: this and this and this and this were taken hand-held leaning on the handrail, with cheap lens and entry-level DSLR. People like to explore the detail in these photos and they go wow, which is FPC requirement. And the Albert Hall photo Cart links has such resolution and sharpness you can see tiny details in the distance and yet was taken with a £75 plastic 50mm lens. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • So many pictures with people that are not cloned out. Different goal, different approach, different technique. When I started photography, that was not even with a DSLR but with a compact camera I didn't even pay (borrowed). Big joy. I also made FPs like this one with cheap lens and cheap body. Possible. Equipment is not all of course and you can possess a Ferrari without being a Formula 1 race champion. Or ride 75 km on a mountain bike instead of a race bike. Perhaps better for your muscles. But plastic lenses break easily and take water. I've also got the cheap EFS 10-18 and the sharpness is far far inferior, incredible comparison. But it also depends on what kind of pictures you make. If you don't care the people, then opt for more pixels. But if you like to see a desert site focusing on the building only, then my technique is better -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Also Basile, I do a lot of perspective corrections myself and I'm not quite sure how this gets you from 30mp to 12. I do get the borders would be stretch to lots of extent, but the center should still retain its details. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, the building and the towers are not at the same distance, then unless you focus stack, it seems normal to me to get a very slight difference of sharpness due to the depth of field -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Chandelier captured in Madhapur, Hyderabad (1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 14:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
  •   Info All by IM3847. Chandelier captured from the bottom -- IM3847 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IM3847 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me too. Half abstract half figurative -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't quite work for me. The black areas in the background especially are disturbing, with several areas being smudged with a reddish colour.--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can not see what it is in this picture --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Well executed and a bit of a novelty, but the visual wow escapes me. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Cart. Just too chaotic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I've sat on this one for a while but I agree with Cart and Daniel. The wow is not there for me, although the image is interesting to see. Cmao20 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Graureiher.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 12:19:52
 

  •   Info As there are quite a lot of herons in the FP gallery, the bar for such a listing is high. Over time, some images may be delisted as they are no longer considered among the very best, since new images of higher standards are added. I would like the Community to consider this image from 2007 for delisting, as it has what we in 2019 consider to be a fairly low resolution, in addition to having quite a lot of space around the main subject. Also, the bird itself is not entirely sharp, and there are chromatic aberrations present. (Original nomination). Created and uploaded by Chmehl.
  •   Delist -- Peulle (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist poor lighting. Charles (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Probably a strong image when it was featured, but per nom we have lots of images of herons, and this one lacks detail on the bird and is not very well-lit. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Also the bird is looking away -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per others--Boothsift 23:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Cmao ... Shows how far Commons has come that there's no serious debate about delisting a former PotY. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Poco2 09:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


File:Gran kudús (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 27.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 19:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
  •   Info Fighting of Greater kudus (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poco2 19:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Dramatic moment, the kind of shot you can't plan on getting. A little bit noisy but all within acceptable limits. Cmao20 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Action is good, but neither composition nor resolution doesn't impress me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment These are juvenile males, so I imagine it was a sort of practice fight. Charles (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chaotic composition, the color of image object (deers) is very similar to the color of background. -- Karelj (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Karelj. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cmao20. --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Persicaria maculosa.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 18:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) with dragonflies.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 17:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)
  •   Info This nomination does not have the technical quality in close up like most successful animal FPCs. BUT, all three bee-eaters are showing off their dragonfly lunch. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wow - Benh (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, so you caught three of these birds, mounted them on a stick, gathered some dragonflies and carefully positioned one in each beak. I mean that is the only way this could be done. ;-) Seriously, as have been said on this forum: wow factor may occasionally take precedence over technical quality. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support That's fantastic, whatever technical limitations it might have. Cmao20 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit soft, perhaps, but seeing this just reminds me of the hummingbirds in Clown of the Jungle. :D --Peulle (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Wow is there, but nothing is really sharp. --Ivar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really hard to judge, the wow factor left not much room for improvement but the technical quality is indeed clearly below the FP threshold. Given that this is a wildlife shot eventually tips the scale for a supporting vote Poco2 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes thanks; I see this as ideal for a magazine or newspaper article - not for printing out A3 size. And I would trade a dozen of my FPs for this one! Charles (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too blurry and far below the level of this existing FP--Ermell (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question: is this level of technical quality typical of a modern lens at 500 mm? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly not. Look at any of my FPs. The technical quality is not good here as I say in the introduction. With a once-in-a-lifetime wildlife action shot, you don't have time to set everything up. I was in a car (not a bad hide) and had to twist and shoot hand-held using a 400mm lens fitted with 1.4 extender. I'll take it. Charles (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for describing the circumstances. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The wow outweighs the technical flaws. Just enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support: per Daniel Case --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Obviously the quality is poor but the subject itself is so unique that I can't vote otherwise. Congrats for such a shot Charles! --Podzemnik (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I should have mentioned that this was the Gold Medal performance by the Hungarian National Team in the World Synchronized Perching Championships (Open Class). Charles (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Nice motive, but I don't understand the Pros for such blurring --Neptuul (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • To explain Neptuul, the FP guidelines say: "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Each voter must make his own mind up as to whether the uniqueness of the shot and the composition outweigh the technical shortcomings. Charles (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support: per Daniel Case --GRDN711 (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak weak support That was a clear no-go at first sight due to the terrible quality (even after reading the introduction). Then I noticed it was over 2Mpx, and thus the downsized version to the last limit brings the sharpness to a just acceptable level. And since the wow is huge, I finally think why not. The framing is large but by chance the background is nice, like painting. Overall it can make a nice postcard -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Pont du Gard (30).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 06:06:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#France
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like the lines heading to the bridge. The fact that one of them cuts into the reflection is quite adventurous and makes it interesting. Though it's quite a pity that you downsize your images. Also, it feels like your photos are missing blacks and whites. Maybe increasing them + a bit more contrast would make your photos less flat. I still like the compo too much not support right away. Podzemnik (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting composition, beautiful bridge, worth a photo.—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a02:a03f:3d7a:2100:c800:30d1:478c:e558 (talk) 15 September 2019‎ (UTC10:06)
  • Invalid vote. Sorry, unregistered IPs cannot vote here. If you are a registered user who forgot to log in, you might want to have an admin delete this edit to keep your IP hidden. --Cart (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik; the use of leading lines is excellent, and this is a really good composition. Dramatic weather too, and nice reflection. But I do agree that your photos are sometimes a little flat and that a tiny bit more contrast would help. Still, this is a solid FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This photo has got a lot: reflection, dark clouds, special foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --SH6188 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe you applied gradual darkening of the sky and it's a little too obvious. It also lacks a bit of saturation in my opinion, but I agree that it's a very nice composition with the very nice reflection. - Benh (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 20:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Buzzkill oppose The trees at left look really weird. Almost like what you'd find on stage sets. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In my opinion light is to dull for an FP. Sky looks artificiel to me. --Milseburg (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good reflections. --SH6188 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Argiope aurantia - ventral veiw.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 04:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • still dark Charles (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Better, but the photo is not getting to me so just move to neutral. --Cart (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Understandable, the subject does not have a universal aesthetic appeal :-) --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Still not FP, needed a different background and better DoF. Charles (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The spider is great, but the background is too busy. --Cart (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment just out of curiosity - why did you choose this rather obsolete license? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the license I started using 11 years ago, and I haven't thought much about changing it. Is there a disadvantage to still be using it now? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the CC system evolved over the years. Its latest versions are much clearer and more easily applicable in different jurisdictions, see here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like 2.5 is still the latest CC version for Canada. I should look at the international one, I suppose. The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart (Typo in filename should be corrected in any event, also). Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Given that the typo will be fixed later Poco2 20:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 15:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Order_:_Araneae_(Spiders)