Last modified on 2 September 2011, at 02:38

Commons:Candidates a imáxenes destacaes

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

Si creyes qu'hai dalguna semeya o imaxe na andecha abondo guapa como pa tar ente les imáxenes destacaes, entós pues amestala na llista de candidatures editando nesti enllaz. Si hay consensu xeneral depués de 10 díes, la imaxe tresferiráse a imáxenes destacaes.

PropuestesEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Nijubashi bridge Edo castle Tokyo Japan by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2015 at 05:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nijubashi bridge at Edo castle in Tokyo Japan is the main entrance to The Imperial Palace

File:Statue of Mars in the Canopo of Villa Adriana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 19:50:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of Mars in the Canopo of Villa Adriana
Why a crop Arion? Do you see the water? there's the reflection of the statue...thanks --LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe to centralize the statue, but with crop or without crop, this is still FP for me. ;) 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Last time another was declined also because the reflection was cut --LivioAndronico talk 20:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sorry for german: Im ersten Moment dachte ich auch, Beschneiden wäre besser. Aber das Bild lebt von der Wiedergabe der Statue im Wasser. --Ralf Roleček 20:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, the midday lighting is a bit too harsh. By the way, you might want to crop out the fraction of a column at the far left. --King of ♠ 04:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kodak BW 2015-02-18 20-07-15.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 15:00:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow goes inwards (bad positioned ligth ?), also camera could be tunred little bit to recth, to see front plane better. --Mile (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kodak of 1902.....good quality....for me is good. The shadow is not disturb for me --LivioAndronico talk 19:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the Shadow is ok. Maybe, right a bit crop? And a little bit more light? But its good for FP to me. --Ralf Roleček 21:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Cervo do Pantano Perfil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 14:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-up of a marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus) in Itirapina, São Paulo state, Brazil.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Close-up of a marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus) in Itirapina, São Paulo state, Brazil. This surprisingly shy and secretive deer is actually the largest native deer species in South America. Marsh deer have large, primarily ornamental antlers, which are usually impressively forked, growing to about 60 centimetres in length and weighing, on average, about two kilograms. They are shed irregularly and may be retained for up to two years. Marsh deer also have well-developed hindquarters, making them good at jumping, which is the fastest way to move in water. The marsh deer has a shaggy, reddish chestnut coloured coat, with paler undersides of the neck and belly. The muzzle and lips are black, as are the lower legs. The eye is surrounded by a faint white ring and the large ears are lined with white hair. Marsh deer have long, broad hooves that are particularly adapted to the marshy environment, as they are joined by a special membrane and can spread out, giving the hooves a greater surface area, to prevent the deer from sinking into swampy ground. Created and uploaded by Jonathan Wilkins - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this deer Airport keeper ? Is it in nature ? --Mile (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High-quality portrait, excellent. --King of ♠ 04:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Paneles solares en Cariñena, España, 2015-01-08, DD 09-12 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 14:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the photovoltaic power station of Cariñena, Zaragoza, Spain. The panels are mounted on dual axis trackers in order to maximise the intensity of incoming direct radiation. This solution enables the arrays to track the sun in its daily orbit.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of the photovoltaic power station of Cariñena, Zaragoza, Spain. The panels are mounted on dual axis trackers in order to maximise the intensity of incoming direct radiation. This solution enables the arrays to track the sun in its daily orbit. Poco2 14:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 14:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition. --Kadellar (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition, nice light, nice sky but bad news... stitching errors. --Laitche (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC) fixed. --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I suggest litle +contrast and move curve a bit down, its better. Now too brigth. This would be Sci-Fi photo without that tree. --Mile (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and as already mentioned very futuristic - looks more like artwork than a photovoltaic power station. I found a another stitching error (see note) but I am sure Diego will fix it soon. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ New version uploaded adressing all issues mentioned here (also yours Iifar) Poco2 17:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching errors are fixed but moiré appear instead... --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC) disappeared. --Laitche (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Moiré gone, thanks! Poco2 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I Love this original things,good quality too --LivioAndronico talk 19:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though a bit hazier than I would have liked. --King of ♠ 04:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:15-05-23-Berlin-Sachsendamm-Tesla-RalfR-N3S 7354.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 12:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tesla Roadster; Breakdown on the highway
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Ralf Roleček
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice impression. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add an other license. Only the "GFDL 1.2 only" license isn't enough. New FPC rule. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, a good idea and a good capture! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice. Ich frage mich, warum du dort mit dem Stativ warst haha. --Kadellar (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Ohne Stativ, Brückengeländer und 4 unscharfe Versuche --Ralf Roleček 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting shot and composition but it looks a bit loss details, maybe with f/22? --Laitche (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. But I ask—what is the message being sent by this picture? That you shouldn't buy a Tesla because it will break down and you'll be stuck on the side of the road while traffic zooms by? Face-smile.svg Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very intriguing shot. --King of ♠ 04:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Klensmedjan Horndal May 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 07:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horndal iron works.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The blacksmith shop ("klensmedja") of Horndals bruk, Avesta Municipality, Sweden. Tools used in the Lancashire forge of Horndals bruk or the foundry were probably repaired in this workshop. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems there is danger at the camera location. Your life is more important than FP! --Laitche (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is true but it is not a big house, it is possible to shoot from the doorpost.--ArildV (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Xian China Cultural-Performance-02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 05:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Xian, China: Cultural show
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Bojars (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WB is really off. --Mile (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I get the same impression. They must have used some really yellow stage lights. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Maire (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO it needs a WB correction. It's to me so yellowish, that it gets disturbing Poco2 12:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance is off. It should have been corrected before nomination in FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Jebulon, you forgot to sign Poco2 17:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, thank you. Done now.--Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon, I'm aware the lighting was probably colored and it helps to preserve a bit of it but this is still too much. --King of ♠ 20:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 21:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View on Hochwilde (3480m), a mountain of the Ötztal Alps photographed from a trail near Lazinser Alm inside the Texelgruppe Nature Park
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View on Hochwilde (3480m), a mountain of the Ötztal Alps photographed from a trail near Lazinser Alm inside the Texelgruppe Nature Park
    all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good composition, though lighting could be better. --King of ♠ 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What had been better light for you here, King of Hearts? The creek and mountain are in sunlight, the trees at the left are partly in shadow which is imho a good contrast to the bright and snowy mountain. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a bit flat, an unavoidable consequence of shooting at noon. Granted, it might be the best possible light for this scene (as sunrise/sunset could create unwanted shadows) which is why I still supported, but not particularly inspiring in an absolute sense. The composition and contrasting colors are what I like about this image. --King of ♠ 05:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As already mentioned, the flat lighting. Personally, the image doesn't bring any wow for me, it's a pretty common sight. Sorry, but I can't see this as FP in any way. --LB 08:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment LB, I tried to capture the beauty of that place. I like the place and think I've chosen I good composition to transport that beauty. For me it is far from being a "common sight". I cannot say if a different shooting time had been better but the valley is quite narrow thus I think you will have distracting shadows, as King of Hearts has mentioned. BTW: A comment "does not bringing any wow for me" is not really appreciating. You should keep in mind that most of us spend a lot of time to produce nice photos. IMHO it is better to stay factual rather emphasizing two times that you cannot imagine why this [bad photo] should be an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Tuxyso, what do you regard as a "factual" review? Dust spots and chroma noise pixel peeping? FP requires an emotional response to an image, "wow", and a failure to deliver that to a reviewer is just important a flaw as any other subjective opinion on composition or lighting. I think "I can't see this as FP in any way" is too strong/rude considering this is far from being FPX. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Colin, I can say what is imho no deliberative (better word) review: Writing two times that an photo is no FP in any manner as LC did. It is absolutely OK to write: The images has no wow for me. Assessing FPCs is always subjective and not fully factual. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Tuxyso: I apologise for saying that I can't see this as FP in any way, I didn't mean to sound rude and I agree that it was too much. I do, however, stand to the statement that the image doesn't appeal to me. I do appreciate your work. --LB 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks, LB for the clarification. Everything is fine - the statement (mentioned once) is completely OK. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}}} Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as I said during the QI process. For me not good enough with sharpness, therefore not FP-quality. --Hubertl (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hubertl - you've reviewed a different image :) For me the photo is sharp enough - a lot of details are visible on the trees, wood in the foreground and on the mountain itself. --10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right, I am really sorry for my mistake. This one is better, even when I am not absolutely convinced for FP. Sorry. So I go to neutral. --Hubertl (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive composition. --Laitche (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another picture I wish I could say I had taken. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mount Ida chain Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 15:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Ida chain and Messara plain from Phaistos
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Messara plain and the Mount Ida Chain, where Zeus was born, as seen from the archaeological site of Phaistos, Crete, Greece, february 2015.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support The kind of landscape I'm always hoping to be able to take and upload myself. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry very parts unsharps and don't understand what is the subject--LivioAndronico talk 09:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The subject is a landscape. Sharp enough for me.--Jebulon (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me the composition is unbalanced; some of the sky at the top can be cropped off. --King of ♠ 10:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice landscape and very nice clouds, a bit hazy but acceptable for me. --Laitche (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Leo Tolstoy 1897, black and white, 37767u.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 14:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leo Tolstoy, 1897
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by F. W. Taylor (?), restored, uploaded, and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The best picture we have of Leo Tolstoy, along with File:L.N.Tolstoy Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg, and probably one of the best which exists. -- Yann (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually, I don't know who should be credited as Author. The LoC says that F. W. Taylor claimed a copyright, but I doubt he is the photographer of this picture. Yann (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why black and white ? The original was deliberately sepia ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, not sepia, but rosy. And I don't think it was deliberate. Yann (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Historic and valued. --Mile (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can't oppose him --LivioAndronico talk 09:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job, D kuba (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Picunda, Sobór św. Andrzeja (03).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 13:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Andrew the Apostle Cathedral in Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia.

File:Lion d'Afrique.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Clément Bardot - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice portrait! --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree, very nice! --Halavar (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Clément Bardot: what kind of shot is it? zoo or wild animal? Poco2 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Why this question ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It is a nice portrait, quality is good and lighting is great. The crop is though pretty tight, that is why I was wondering whether it is a zoo shot where you have no problem to take 50 pictures (animals are used to people) and choose the best one or in a safari where it is sometimes tricky to get such a good picture? Poco2 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • And this may have an influence on your vote ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Does only the result count? I am also providing as much information of my pictures when I nominate here, I don't expect that from other but in cases like this I'd really appreciate to know whether this animal is captive and stands like this in front of the zoo visitors for hours or is a lucky strike in a safari. What is the problem with that?. Clément Bardot can you please, give a hint about this picture? thanks, Poco2 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But some information, where the photo was taken, would be useful --Llez (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support :—< 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Better description and location are needed and useful. --Kadellar (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Krause Glucke Sparassis crispa.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 10:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fungi Sparassis crispa, Family: Sparassidaceae, Location: Germany, Erbach

File:Going am Wilden Kaiser Panorama 2011-01-29.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 09:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wilden Kaiser Panorama
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created &- uploaded by Bernie Kohl - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support A bit overexposed but simply nice. --Laitche (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Beautiful landscape, but especially the summits are blurred. --Tremonist (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't see any overexposure. Beautiful, clear, pro --LC-de (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although the mountains are a bit soft --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Perfect scene.--LB 19:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good picture and I love this place. --Code (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Lovely snow. I don't like the rounded horizon, but I accept it as a result of the wideness of the panorama. --King of ♠ 10:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Moderate support per Laitche. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Lake Bondhus Norway 2862 plastic-foil-relief.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 08:52:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

plastic foil relief
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see the point of this plastic-foil-relief. Yann (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wonderful artwork. --Pölkkyposkisolisti (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don’t see any improvement compared to the original. And what’s the point of the central flashlight glare? --Kreuzschnabel 10:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe great artwork, but central flashlight glare disqualifies photo as FP, D kuba (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this your reply to Colin's blurred bluebells image? ;-) Diliff (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a nice piece of art, but there are reflections visible. --Tremonist (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Err, it is not a painting, the 'reflections' are not real. It is a photograph which has been digitally altered to look like this. Diliff (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What is the merit of the "plastic foil relief effect" for FP? For me it looks rather strange. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see the point of featuring two different edits of the same photo. --King of ♠ 21:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination. I recognize it, that's ridiculous. It is a "simple artwork" made by somy mouse clicks via photoshop. Such a thing can never be an FP-image for me. Thanks to Archaeodontosaurus for this comment too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So, you've basically admitted to being a troll with this nomination then. Congratulations. Mission accomplished. Diliff (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Mah...--LivioAndronico talk 20:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Viborg_Katedralskole_Symmetrical.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning panorama of the Eastern facade of Viborg Katedralskole, Viborg, Denmark
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Slaunger - uploaded by Slaunger - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent work, beautiful light. I like the silence of the photo - everything seems to be at the right place and rests in itself. -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The sky is too diffused. And what are the shadows in front? --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review, Tremonist. The shadows in the front are from recently pruned trees in the low hanging morning sun, similar to what you see in the background at the sides. The school is surrounded with such trees. Personally, I think they help guide the eye towards the main subject, but that is of course a matter of taste. I do not quite understand your comment about the diffuse sky, I am afraid. I think it is rather visually attractive. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comment and for the explanation. There are too many pixels visible in the clouds I think. --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for this nomination, Tuxyso! -- Slaunger (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the goemetry does it -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Both sides are leaning in Poco2 19:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Poco a poco: Well spotted! I also noticed some dust spots, which are best removed from the source images in Lightroom prior to export to PTGui. I think I will rework the whole thing, and add some vertical control lines. Hold on, processing... -- Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • ✓ Done. Poco a poco: Perspective corrected, dust spot removed. Tremonist: Look again: I have remorked the sky a bit. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 12:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Splendid --LivioAndronico talk 09:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. I spotted a little moire, that should be simple to remove with your brush. -- Colin (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Standardgraph stencils by LucasboschEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 21:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Standardgraph 1309 metric nut stencil.jpg

Standardgraph 1310 radius stencil.jpg
Standardgraph 2522 2.5 to 7mm lettering guides.jpg
Standardgraph 1316 circle stencil.jpg
Standardgraph 1186 isometric dimetric stencil.jpg

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created + uploaded by Lucasbosch, Group nomination by ArionEstar -- LB 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All these are already FP on persian Wikipedia-- LB 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More objects! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Lucasbosch: You want me to make a Set for you? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @ArionEstar: That would be great. Would you then also include this one and remove this nomination? Do whatever makes the best sense,. So there are four non-FP stencils left, including this one, see my User page. --LB 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • @Lucasbosch: ✓ Done. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I redirected Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Standardgraph 2522 2.5 to 7mm lettering guides.jpg because I think it would be better if the image is promoted here. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @ArionEstar: Thanks. I just tried to rename the page to "Standardgraph stencils by Lucasbosch" to make it more clear what they are (instead of just "Standardgraphs by...", but now I think I broke it, as the nomination doesn't show up on the FP candidates page. Also this page now is called "Standardgraphs by Lucasbosch" and the plural form isn't appropriate. Could you please see what went wrong? Thanks a lot for your efforts. --LB 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question ArionEstar: can you please explain in which of the 4 variant does this set nomination fall? if you mean it is variant 4 (A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object) then I wonder whether these capture depit all existing variants of its sort or only a few of them. Poco2 19:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco: It is only a group of all images with the same theme (standardgraph stencil), with the same quality and the same author. Whence that it is "by Lucasbosch". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, then let me Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The criteria to define this set is randomed to me. Yes, same author, good quality, no doubt about that, but just images with the same theme without any indication that the set is complete (I remind the expectation of a set: "a group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object"). Sorry, but we need to the more strict with sets and the criteria followed here is not convincing to me. Poco2 12:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Poco a poco: You think the images should be promoted separately then? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
          • You can do so, but to be honest, the originality plus of the first nomination would be gone and therefore I wouldn't be too optimistic in achieving further FP stamps (my particular opinion). Poco2 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
            • @Poco a poco: I'm biased here, of course, but my opinion is that my first nomination, the lettering guides, was itself already kind of a set nomination, because the image showed four stencils at once, instead of one image per distinct subject. So I don't see a problem in having this set nomination to complete it. The rule about sets showing all possible variations would simply not be achievable with these objects, so I'm trying to do as well as possible. Are you solely concerned about the set nomination rules or do you think the first nomination (lettering guides) has been much more FP-worthy than the rest of the stencil photographs? --LB 20:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very interesting, valuable and educational (and...encyclopedic !!), but strongly per Poco.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Buteogallus meridionalis Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 20:33:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Another crop (see history)? If so, please start from the original version to avoid JPG compression artifacts. --Leyo 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is better now. --Mile (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry. But not FP for me. It wasn´t even QI. No wow, it´s tilted to the left too. --Hubertl (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hubertl: More tilt correction (see history)? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Hubertl, imo not even QI. Very very soft, background not blurred enough. --Kadellar (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mausoleum of Galla Placidia ceiling mosaics.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 20:06:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Garden of Eden" mosaic in mausoleum of Galla Placidia. UNESCO World heritage site. Ravenna, Italy. 5th century A.D.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A mosiac from 5th century A.D called "Garden of Eden" in mausoleum of Galla Placidia. UNESCO World heritage site. Ravenna, Italy. You are looking at ceiling in shape of shell. All by --Mile (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unless this image's colours fall well outside sRGB, could you please save your RAW as sRGB for upload to the internet. Using AdobeRGB is highly likely to cause others to see the wrong colours and extremely likely to not notice any improvement anyway. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You are right Colin, i didnt notice, colors are more original now. Camera was set so by default, didnt check that since was new. Thanx. --Mile (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:14 05 2015 Gomphus pulchellus Keiljungfer 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 17:04:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dragon-fly Gomphus pulchellus
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I guess a bit overprocessing (and also maybe downsized too much but I'm not certain.) plus that brown lines(sprigs? stalks?) in background are a bit distracting, but in any case it's a nice photo. --Laitche (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One second exposure? Jee 16:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The dragonfly just molted from the nymph state and couldn't move much because the wings needed to dry. The perfect moment for a longer exposure with iso100. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info. Good observation too. Jee 10:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bzzzzzz… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Brilliant. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Rotring Technical Pens by LucasboschEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 16:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Disassembled Rotring Isograph and Rapidograph technical pens, vector drawing.

Rotring Isograph 0.35mm technical pen
Rotring Rapidograph 0.35mm technical pen
ISO line widths and color codes, illustrated with Rotring Rapidograph technical pens

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files. The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. All by LB -- LB 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LB 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Don't you have a version with more resolution? Poco2 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Poco It's a SVG, a vector graphic :) --Laitche (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC) should not open it as PNG. --Laitche (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Oops, you are right. Actually I thought that it was for real! you got my Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small for me --LivioAndronico talk 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment LivioAndronico just open it normaly and press CTRL + how much you want to...it wont lose resolution since vector graphic. --Mile (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • CTRL + how much you want to works with every image,anyway i delete my oppose,but i'm not very sure --LivioAndronico talk 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is, that with a vector graphic like this you can enlarge it infinitely without negative effects. The default display size really doesn't matter here. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Infinitely? isn't true.--LivioAndronico talk 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That infinitely means you can see the more details in larger images (loss details) but those are not smooth because you can see kinda path (like this) of vector graphics and Bézier curve in larger images, but it's actually infinite at times, that depends on the way of making. --Laitche (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, that looks extremely realistic to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand the composition. Is it a set ? a picture ? Why the series ? Why individuals ? It lacks of clarification to me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jebulon: It's a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files (your comment reads as if you think it's all one file). The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. I hope you will reconsider your vote. --LB 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pinging me. I know and understand what I see, my concern is about the "set" nomination. It is a very impressive work, by the way. --Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Jebulon: Set nominations are okay by the FP nomination rules, and this set can be seen as a "group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object." (see set nomination rules, category 4). The class of object is technical pens currently sold under the Rotring brand, all possible variations are both Rapidograph and Isograph pens and the extra images showing them disassembled and the color codes (and different nib sizes) are for illustrative purposes. --LB 21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This clear explanation makes sense, I strike my oppose, and I think that such a quality job deserves a support. btw, I'm the proud owner of two FP sets...Smile--Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Prospect Park New York May 2015 008.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 00:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Prospect Park Lake

File:Still Pond 2, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 17:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Still Pond, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Depicting the interplay of light and the shadow. Beautiful colors, nice composition and good quality. -- Laitche (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not bad, but the other one is better. Too dark for me. Yann (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's a bit dark yes but it's a shadowy scene, with only small patches of light reaching the pond. I think the brightness is suitable for the scene. And I think it's different enough to the other FPC that it can stand alone. The focus is mostly on the reflection of the pond, with the flowers and trees framing it. Diliff (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, what colors, reflection and light. And nice with a digression from church interiors;) It is good to come out! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Now this one I can Symbol support vote.svg Support. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very dreamy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the diagonals formed by the light. --King of ♠ 00:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course, no doubt, awesome --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This look like a paint --LivioAndronico talk 19:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Gombak Selangor Batu-Caves-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 13:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The statue of Lord Murugan at Batu Caves, Gombak, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The 'Lord Murugan Statue' in Batu Caves, Malaysia is the tallest statue of Hindu deity in Malaysia and second tallest statue of Hindu deity in the world.
    All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Great view of the statue! (What counts most.) But background blurred a little and readability of inscriptions below could be better. --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great everything!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now this is what we mean by "wow". Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great work and interesting. One perhaps improvable aspect: The cliffs in the background at the top have an almost plastic look. Maybe noise reduction should be applied less agressively there to better bring out the texture? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I doubt the signs would be more legible unless Uwe did a panoramic stitch so that they weren't right at the edge of the frame. Wow overcomes minor technical issues for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Might be slightly oversharpened, but very good anyways. --King of ♠ 00:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --DXR (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Slightly over-sharpened at full size for my taste. On the other hand, that makes the statue really pop at smaller sizes (e.g. 682 × 1,024). --El Grafo (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bottom crop is tricky and the left part doesn't look straight, but hell of a picture anyhow Poco2 18:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LC-de (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Too much contrast. Did you push on the Clarity knob too far? -- Colin (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Purekkari neeme rändrahn 2014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 13:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boulder in Cape Purekkari
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by MinuHiiumaa - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice lights, but a little too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice colors and light but some frame's focus are changed. If that problem is fixed, I would support. --Laitche (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support, OK, I overlook that focus change but if the creator can fix it, that would be better. --Laitche (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent lighting. Quality is fine IMO. --King of ♠ 00:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per King of Hearts. --Code (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light, place and quality, FP to me Poco2 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful --99of9 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Viljandi järv ja lossimäed.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 13:03:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Viljandi from castle hill
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by TauriV - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Many nice shades of green and blue. --Tremonist (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice compositional theme. --King of ♠ 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks oversaturated to me Poco2 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment per Poco. --Laitche (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching problem on the top left. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I think these are cropping errors not a stitching problem :) --Laitche (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree it looks oversaturated. But not convinced the composition is best or the vista worth the extreme wide-angle projection. -- Colin (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 Góry Złote z Borówkowej.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 10:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Mountains (Sudetes)

File:Misvormde nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) 02.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 04:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Barker Dam Joshua Tree December 2013 004.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 01:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rocks along Barker Dam Trail
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful colours, nice vista, great place overall. --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Pleasant view. Though, I think these shadows are a bit too dark as they almost completely hides some parts. Furthermore, the top of the mountain on the right is missing for me. Probably QP, not FP, but I'll leave it as neutral because I really like the illumination and the atmosphere in it. Still it looks quite ordinary. -- Pofka (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I'm not really a fan of the composition actually. It's feels unbalanced and with a lack of compositional focus. What is it trying to show? The afternoon light is nice, but that's about all I can really appreciate about it. Diliff (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pofka: I filled in the shadows a bit; better? --King of ♠ 00:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral nice image and very nice light however, the composition lack of something, maybe too much of rock on the right. Pictogram voting question.svg Question what is the thing at bottom left, a sculpted rock? -- Christian Ferrer 11:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit random, and the near bush seems to dominate in an unattractive way. -- Colin (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 22:40:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bluebells at Ashridge Estate
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The bluebells with beech trees at Ashridge Estate. The image is the result of intentional camera movement (ICM), which creates an impressionistic effect. All by Colin.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's 16:9 so fill you screen. Or zoom to 100% to appreciate the slightly grainy streaks of colour. Educational imagery is more than sharp lenses and megapixel panoramas. Sometimes conveying the impression of a bluebell woodland is more important than a straight capture with all the distractions such a photograph may contain. -- Colin (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No explanation needed.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no FP, no wow to me. --Ralf Roleček 22:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't undestant this kind of images....I wait for give my vote --LivioAndronico talk 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Abstract, very nice. --King of ♠ 01:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support simply great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice fine art, but not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Great colours. Has both artistic and educational value. --Code (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice demonstration of a classic photographic technique – and pleasing to the eye as well. --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, I like it. In this case I don´t miss sharpness at all. ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressionism revisited. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice and useful image and remarkable but not outstanding. I like this challenging shot. --Laitche (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no possible usage for such pictures. -- Pofka (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I supported this File:Allébron September 2014.jpg and will also support this. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I knew this image would be controversial. We are geared towards considering images on Commons as source material for the direct illustrations of a concrete article subject in Wikipedia. But only a fraction of our vocabulary concerns nouns, and only a fraction of educational material deals with such concrete subjects one can see or touch. Outside of such direct and obvious illustrations, Commons is a weak repository of images. How does one illustrate educational material on emotions such as "peace", "stress", "calm", "depression", "joy"? Or how about more abstract health issues such as "pain" or "migraine" or "cancer"? Or general topics like "nature" or "urban" where one wants a general impression of the subject without the distractions of specific examples. If you look on Wikipedia, if the articles are illustrated well at all, then it is with free historical work of art. Many of WP's articles are not illustrated, or illustrated with naive and crude image choices. But in a commercial world, were a picture editor can pay for or commission suitable material, then the choice is much wider.
Pick up a New Scientist magazine and there's a good chance the front cover is (or some of the articles contain) an artistic illustration or a surreal photograph. For example, their article on migraine. You can't take a photograph of a migraine. An educational picture editor will choose an image that helps the reader engage with the material, process and store the information they are reading. Sometimes the image helps that process, rather than being the information itself.
If you are British, then bluebell woodland represents Spring, the local natural environment, protected wildflowers, family walks, natures bold colours. And the above image can illustrate those without being an image of the specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate in Hertfordshire, 10 May 2015. Without going too "contemporary art bollocks", what you get out of an image like this, is partly what you bring to it yourself. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wish this could go into category Physics. Since its about Optics. cat "Places" isnt so good chosen, you show us technique, place is of other importance. We have 3 "space" cats, and none of Physics. Well, till then... --Mile (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • While I feel this is a good example of intentional camera movement (ICM) (and currently illustrates the Wikipedia article on the subject), I hope it can be appreciated more than just as an example of a photographic technique. If Commons is to embrace its mission of being a comprehensive repository of educational media, then it needs to contain more than just perfectly exposed, sharply rendered photographers of some object. There are so many missing "featured" categories, it is hard to know where to begin. Go to iStockPhoto and click on a category like Nature or Lifestyle. You won't find a picture of a specific woodland or a picture of a specific person. You find images (mainly of people) that deliver an emotion. And most of our featured images deliver very little in the way of emotion. Take the images young woman standing in a field or bike at the summer meadow. These aren't photographed to illustrate "lens flare", or to illustrate an article on young women or on bikes. But there's an educational use for them for sure. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Tomascastelazo's image File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg - is classified under "Natural phenomena", but is all you see just heavy rain? How does it make you feel? I want more of this on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let´s look at this from several perspectives. We feature pictures of different types of architecture, and there is no one right way to architecture. We feature paintings from different schools, abstract, classical, impressionism, etc., and there is no one correct way to painting... The medium to represent those and many other themes is through the camera, through photography. But it turns out that photography, besides being a medium, is also a legitimate art form, just as painting, as music, as architecture. So why not feature photography not just as a representation medium of other art forms but for the art of photography itself? Photography has its own language, capable of not just registering "reality" but also capable of having its own discourse. My support of this image springs from there, from the recognition of the art of photography. If we deny the art of photography, we may as well deny all art. Not that everyone has to like it, just as not everyone appreciates architecture, or types of architecture, but we cannot ignore its place in the world of art. Like it or not, know it or not, should or should not, it has its little corner there. Have a look #REDIRECT[[1]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is right on the Monet Face-wink.svg. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Category Places is not useful. This doesn't show a place, but a technique. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't show a photographic technique any more than Diliff's cathedral photographs show an HDR stitched megapixel technique. It may be an example of a technique, but that's a very secondary aspect, and not why I took the picture. But worrying about what classification to put it in, is really tomorrows problem, and quite irrelevant to whether or not this is a fine image. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • My HDR technique helps to see the cathedral more clearly and with more detail though, and is fairly invisible to the viewer. Your blur technique helps to show the scene less clearly and is fairly dominant in the photo... Your photo illustrates the location poorly, but the effect of the technique well. They're both 'techniques' but they have opposite effects on understanding the place you're viewing. Not saying that's a bad thing. I quite like the effect, and obviously you chose the 'place' to suit the effect but I think Yann is right that the image is more about the technique and the effect than about the place. It's just a category, but I think it has implications for how we view the image too. Out of interest, what are the orange streaks in the grass? Diliff (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
        • It isn't "my blur technique" and isn't even an original subject for the technique. The straight photo is here, which explains the colours. Saying the "photo illustrates the location poorly" is missing the point. The purpose isn't to illustrate the specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate in Hertfordshire on 10 May 2015. Nor, I believe, is its only education function to illustrate a photographic technique. That's like looking at The Scream and thinking only of a painting using oil, tempera, pastel and crayon on cardboard, or complaining it is a poor likeness of a person compared to a studio photograph taken with the latest Canon L portrait lens. There is far more to educational imagery than this conservative approach. -- Colin (talk)
          • @Colin you have a nice fantasy :-) and sorry, but you are not Edvard Munch too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I wasn't saying 'your' technique in the sense that you invented it. It's simply yours because you're using it. Also, I agree with you that the purpose of the photo isn't to illustrate "specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate etc", but we were discussing it in the context of what the suitable category is, and if it doesn't illustrate the place well, why is the category 'places'? That's the point I was making. Perhaps we need a new category: "artistic expression". I don't think it's a fair comparison though to think about it like The Scream. That is an established artistic work, and would be categorised as such. We don't need to break that work down to a technique in order to find an educational use for it because it is already notable and as such educational for that reason - it illustrates the work of a notable artist. I don't agree with Alchemist-HP's comments above at all though. I don't think it matters that you're not Edvard Munch. Anyone can create art, and your works don't become art only when others start respecting you as an 'artist'. But I'm not sure that Commons is intended to be a repository for non-notable art. It would have to serve an educational purpose beyond being merely art. I think this image does that though, by being a fairly clear example of the technique. Not all art could necessarily do that. Diliff (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I agree that media on Commons has to have some educational purpose, whether direct photography, artistic photography, drawing, painting, or video. We already have featured pictures that take a non-direct non-documentary approach to photography. For example:
Now I don't want to compare directly with any specific examples above, but just talk generally. We have images where the subject is contrived or the lighting hides detail, where colours are removed or altered, where the subject is obscured through movement or rain. The effect is artistic at the expense of a straight documentary photograph of a regular unaltered subject. But something else is gained, we hope, and educational qualities are altered but not eliminated. Some of us like to (only) take straight photographs that maximize their encyclopaedic value in their opinion. That's fine but not the only way to create educational media. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support you are really crazy --The Photographer (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry per Laitche --LivioAndronico talk 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Pofka, D kuba (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Diliff (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I also supported File:Allébron September 2014.jpg, but this one is just too much. On the other side the colors look fine and I cannot say how it would look if I had shot it, therefore my vote is neutral Poco2 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alchemist --LC-de (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gildir (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Encyclopedic interest, very limited. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Archaeodontosaurus, there's no requirement for any image on Commons, nor any featured image on Commons, to have "Encyclopedic interest". That's not the definition of "educational" that we use here. And it is wrong anyway, since the image is in use on Wikipedia, which is more than can be said for many Featured Pictures. To be "educational", the image doesn't have to be a source of information itself, but may help one think about a subject while reading about it. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note I did not say she was no sense in what I said was little. I warned the community about promoting this kind of image can be produced in two clicks. We could have quickly large amounts of image such that it will judge in various competitions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I find your reply very difficult to understand, but I'd like to say that I don't think it matters whether it was difficult to produce or not. What matters is whether it's a useful or educational and of good technical quality. Some great FPs are trivially easy to photograph, some are extremely difficult technical accomplishments. Also, as Colin said, when it comes to usefulness, whether you think it's interesting isn't really the point. I think we (as reviewers) need to think beyond our personal interests and consider whether it could be useful or interesting to others too. Of course our personal interests will factor into how we judge images and it is impossible to completely separate that, but the more objective we can be, the better reviewers we will be. Diliff (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Archaeodontosaurus, we don't care if "no" or "little" "Encyclopaedic interest". It is irrelevant to the question of FP on Commons, and that's not just my opinion, it's our whole ethos at Commons FP which you should know. Encyclopaedic matters on Wikipedia FP only. Some people take "specimen" photos, as you do, and they are valuable and encyclopaedic, but many many other featured pictures on Commons are never destined to appear on Wikipedia nor any other encyclopaedia. Please do not confuse "Encyclopaedic" with "Educational", and for the latter, Commons has an extremely broad interpretation, which includes exploding light bulbs, hazy bridges obscured by rain drops, and lovers caught in a storm.
I find your "two clicks" comment insulting and ignorant. This image was not the result of going out one morning and getting lucky when I dropped my camera; perhaps fortune smiles on you that way. This is the third Spring where I've experimented with ICM in bluebell woods, which are at their best for only about one or two weeks a year. It's a particularly low-success-rate endeavour, and one that requires tweaking the exposure, focal length and focus to get the best results, and trying a variety of locations, angles and lighting conditions. I've taken many dozens of photographs before reaching one I'm happy with. And I spent quality time post-processing this as I do for all my images on Commons. So on one measure, this photo has taken me three years, not "two clicks". Go ahead and mock that if you like; it seems others want to. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sad to be misspoke. I know your work I really admire. All what you told me, consernant your image, I believe without a doubt. My only message is to draw attention to the risk of seeing our contests invaded by images in two clicks. For cons, I continue to argue that we are primarily in the service of various encyclopedias --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I state that all my FP are used in various items of wikipedia and 90% my QI also. But I think your phrase was very unhappy. As said Oscar Wilde :"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."--LivioAndronico talk 09:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Crocodylus acutus camouflage.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 21:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • If it is this you want to show, you are of course right. But I still find the reflections too disturbing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support A lot of reflections. Interesting. --XRay talk 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Inevitable reflections. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not a typical image that makes you say "wow," with anything distinctive in it - but that's precisely how the camouflage manages to work so well. --King of ♠ 06:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but noise and I don't like the composition --LivioAndronico talk 11:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Of course it is a very tough task to depict an example of camouflage as you might want to show the subject and how it merges with the background - two contradictory requirements. But frankly, the picture here is not an example of a camouflaged animal. The reason why you don't see the croc clearly is just a combination of disturbing reflections with a somewhat unhappy composition. --LC-de (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the camouflaged reflections and the fact he is approaching the viewer. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I generally try not to “explain” my photographs, but I think it is appropriate in this case. First of all, mangroves offer difficult light conditions. Most pictures of mangroves are taken from the outside looking in, but the view stops at the edge of the mangroves, and seldom ventures in. This is due to the thick foilage that makes it difficult to see far into it. Once inside the mangrove, depending on the day, light seeps in and gives a very spoty look inside, with patches of light next to patches of shadows with a great differential in exposure values, basically photographing small sunlit areas next to shadow areas, and thus making overal light conditions terrible. As just as light seeps in, the reflections of the canopy make a very confusing scene, visually speaking. Reflections everywhere, sunlight coming in small ray like patterns, etc. See here #REDIRECT[[2]] and here #REDIRECT[[3]] and here #REDIRECT[[4]]. When the water is still, it acts as a mirror to a very complex scene, and it is hard to distinguish the real thing from the reflection.
Now to the crocs… When taken in lazy mode, that is, the crocs sunbathing, it is very easy to distinguish them in their environment, and this type of picture give una a good idea of the physiognomy, but not necesarily of their adaptive characteristics or their ability to blend into a scene. See here #REDIRECT[[5]] and here #REDIRECT[[6]].
Now, if we take a close look at the “design” of the crock skin, we see a camouflage pattern on the Surface, and further out, the texture of the skin give the crocs a different type of taxture base camoflage. Se here #REDIRECT[[7]] and here #REDIRECT[[8]]
So between the skin pattern and the texture pattern added to the reflections and to the choppy waters, the crocs blend in beautifully giving them a survival advantage or a hunting advantage. See here #REDIRECT[[9]], and here #REDIRECT[[10]]
Interistingly, when waters are still, the crocs laying still, just beneath the water, resemble logs floating around. See here #REDIRECT[[11]] and here #REDIRECT[[12]]
So, with all that, this picture is not a picture of a croc only, it is a picture of an environment that shows the blending in of a croc in that environment.
--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Navy Sea King helicopter comes to the aid of French fishing vessel 'Alf' in the Irish Sea (8675799486).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 13:40:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Sea King rescue helicopter of the UK Royal Navy assists French fishing vessel 'Alf' in the Irish Sea.
@LivioAndronico Double vote! --Laitche (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support per Pofka and I can accept the quality in this conditions. --Laitche (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just a comment about the suggested lack of quality: the scenery shows the irish sea during a storm in late winter not the calm sunlit mediterranian sea in the summer. --Dirtsc (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gildir (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. 1/200 f/13 ? --· Favalli ⟡ 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Three women tiredly look at Antoin Sevruguin as he photographs them in the late 19th century..jpegEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three women tiredly look at Antoin Sevruguin as he photographs them in the late 19th century
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Per others. The quality probably nowhere is near the QP standards, not even talking about the FP. Check the middle woman nose. The quality is so poor that it is pixeled. -- Pofka (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It appears that this image was up-sampled, which introduced strong pixelization. I've uploaded what appears to be the original from the given source → @Yann, Tremonist, Pofka: please have another look. --El Grafo (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Quality still is problematic. Pixels spots everywhere, especially on cheeks, but visible everywhere else as well. By featuring this we would put the lath way too low. -- Pofka (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Quality is better, but still not good enough. There is quite a lot of noise, and it needs restoration anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment per Pofka and Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:MK33871 Limburger Dom.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Limburg Cathedral
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Limburg Cathedral, created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Photomaster2015 -- Photomaster2015 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Photomaster2015 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obstruction by the foreground buildings. Yann (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too cloudy. --Tremonist (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree to Yann, but disagree to Tremonist. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann. Everything looks way too messy in this composition. Some of these buildings looks quite nice (especially the one at the left down corner) and could even improve the whole composition if captured somehow differently. Though, there also are not appealing spots: that damaged wall looks so poor, middle building covers the church way too much and the "dead" trees adds even more sadness to the already full of grey picture. Although, I actually like the sky as it looks quite dramatic. Pity, but the whole composition doesn't work for me. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. No good composition for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of the problems noted above Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC) It does fall within the guidelines (Anyone can revert my edit.). --Laitche (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am repeating myself, but this image should not be FPXed. FPX is not meant to be the last nail in the coffin, but a simple process for images that have zero chance because of nonnegotiable flaws. A few people say that they don't think that the image is good enough (and that is absolutely fine), but that does not mean that the image is "not falling within the guidelines" (yes, you can construct the case that this is bad composition, but Limburg is a very tight-packed place and I myself failed to get any reasonable shot of the cathedral from this direction, so that image is pretty good given the circumstances and the photographer is not at fault). FPX is for bad images and while this perhaps is no FP, it is not a bad image. I think that I (and at least Poco and Colin in other cases) made myself clear that using FPX for such cases is rude to the photographer and nominator and beyond that serves nearly no use (an image without support has only five days anyway). --DXR (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hi everybody. Thanks for commenting on this picture, I'ld never have nominated here myself. This photo was just a kind of test shot taken from the roof top of a parking garage why waiting for the next train in the train station near by. I wasn't realy satisfied with the perspectiv since there where some realy ugly buildungs framing this shot at the right and bottom, so there was not realy a chance to take a different crop. I uploaded this photos and some detail shoots (MK33873 Limburger Dom.jpg MK33874 Limburger Dom.jpg) because I realy liked the lighting and the sky, but I am definitly not done with this cathedral ;)
    @Pofka: These trees are not dead, they are just a bit late for early spring ;) // Martin K. (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Martin K. ??? You mean that fall in my comment? That is "fall within", it's a set. Not dead... --Laitche (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC) OK, I understood :) --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Laitche: Ups, sorry: That comment was targeted on Pofka's post. // Martin K. (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, the colours of the sky is remarkable. --Laitche (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ana Ivanović - Masters de Madrid 2015 - 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:10:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ana Ivanović at the Madrid Open 2015, Madrid, Spain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ana Ivanović at the Madrid Open 2015, Madrid, Spain. The crop is not tighter to see the net and have better context and depth. Created, uploaded, nominated -- Kadellar (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think my primitive brain made me vote. --The Photographer (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to quality problems. --Tremonist (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you please be more specific? --Kadellar (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That grey thing was quite difficult to figure out what it is due to the poor quality of it. Tennis ball seems quite blurred as well. There also are a lot of visible pixels all over the player, especially seen on her face, arms and legs. This is the major issue. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pofka (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its sport shot, Ana is well in focus, ball at some 100 km/h made some distance in that milisecond. Sun would solve it, but also spoil it since i like there is no clear shadow of player on clay which often disturbs so much. Maybe i would crop the net so you concentrate solely on Ana ;) (yes, we dont have female voters here). Gray thing Pofka mentioned is microphone, sure is out of focus - no relevance. At 263 mm this is very well executed.--Mile (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but not outstanding for me --LivioAndronico talk 23:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Not quite FP for me either, the action you've captured is good (better if the ball is closer to her racquet though), but the composition not so good. I'd prefer to see her take up much more of the frame, but I don't think you have enough detail to crop it that much. Diliff (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually I prefer the angle and moment to the other one you nominated some days ago. I'd probably get rid of the net, though. Poco2 18:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Rohrbach 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:08:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rohrbach, Ettenstatt, Ortsansicht

File:Jatra Posters and a Tram.JPG Edit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 11:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jatra Posters and a Tram
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Previously nominated image, no deletion requests from anyone due to alleged FOP issue, hence re-nomination. c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as I just said --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I never understood such pictures, but previously some of them actually passed, so maybe that's just me? But for me it simply looks like: "The more you blur, the better it looks" ? By going this way soon we will nominate a few random color pixels for the Featured Pictures. It is barely possible to see anything in this picture, excluding that strange poster which is not extraordinary. I absolutely have no clue where it would be possible to use such image. It has no encyclopedia value. It even hurts my eyes by simply looking at it and I want to scroll down as soon as possible. This reminds me of some "randomly thrown tables and chairs" art. Never understood it and never will. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a whole range of potentially suitable articles for pictures like this one: 1, 2, 3... but besides: encyclopedic value in a narrow sense is (luckily!) no requirement for FP stars on Commons. You have - of course! - every right to dislike a picture though. Happens to all of us. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
A picture of Commons must not be useful for an encyclopedia and also needs no educational mission. Commons is a free pool of media and not the photo database of Wikipedia. And this picture can be used very good in Wikipedia. --Ralf Roleček 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Blurring isn't a problem for me. Some images looks quite impressive with blurred parts, but in this one I can barely see anything. I cannot like something which I cannot see. It's like tasting ice cream without taste receptors. -- Pofka (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is a bit high, and I find it compositionally lacking compared to the other "blurred train" pictures we've seen here. --King of ♠ 00:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Mile (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As before: Good capture: makes you want to investigate the image. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hasht BeheshtEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 11:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It is a Set nomination.--Monfie (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Is a "set nomination" in accordance with rules? --Tremonist (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
To read rules, press Ctrl+F, type "Set nomination".Monfie (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Left image: Ceiling too dark, upper part of the dome blurred. Right image: Painting seems ok too me. --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @مانفی: I {{Support}} only the painting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mexican fast street food.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 04:22:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea but poor quality, sorry, and the look on the background peoples’ faces ruins it. Strong CA, sides leaning, white objects blown, the reddish apron seems channel-blown too (blueish look on the bright parts). A tighter framing would have done better (just the one lady doing her work). --Kreuzschnabel 07:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @ Kreuzschnabel, thanks for the suggestion, but the idea of the image is everything, food, people, environment... I used a 10mm lens to get as much in as possible... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You perfectly described how to take cluttered, overbusy pictures. Squeezing as much as possible into the frame is not a way to take breathtaking images. Less is more. --Kreuzschnabel 09:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you eliminate CA, it's fine for me. Can you add coordinates, please? --Kadellar (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @ Kadellar, removed CA, added location in image description. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --Kadellar (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to quality problems. --Tremonist (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality could be better but something different at least. --Mile (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The women at the left look a bit distorted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria in Trastevere - Cappella Altemps.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 08:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Santa Maria in Trastevere - Cappella Altemps
  • see the crop carefully, pixels are short of a four-step. --Laitche (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg In my opinion: I think when the category is Non-photographic media, the creator is a painter in this case. If the category is interiors or something, the photographer is a creator. --Laitche (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Umm... maybe it is on a case-by-case but this way might be better, imo. --Laitche (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Miners shower, Rammelsberg Mining Museum, Harz, Germany, 2015-05-18-.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 20:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miners' shower in Rammelsberg Mining Museum
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Rammelsberg mining museum in Lower Saxony, Germany is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Here is shown the miners' shower room. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As beautiful and well-done in its own way as David's churches. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ordinary can be beautiful. --King of ♠ 04:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King once again --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yet an other symmetrical image but with a different motive than the churches, the ceilings and the trainstations! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Villy Fink Isaksen: I placed windows on one side and port openings on the other just to make you less symmetrically bored.Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Well done but sides still leaning out IMHO, should be easily fixable --Kreuzschnabel 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kreuzschnabel:: Thanks for your observation. You are correct. I have now uploaded a corrected version. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but no wow. Sorry. Yann (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That is OK. I appreciate every review. Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I partly agree with Yann, it's not the most exciting interior, but the picture is as good as it gets. --Kadellar (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another example of "So ugly, but catches your view for some unknown reason". -- Pofka (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 18:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Professional-quality photography of an important aspect of history. -- Colin (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent (and different). --Pugilist (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mood. I am not certain but that may be posterization. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your observation, Laitche. Again I am impressed by your careful review and scrutiny. I believe you are correct that there is a little posterization in that dark corner. The photo is an HDR tone-mapped photo from three exposures 2 EV apart. That corner was very dark and I guess that despite the HDR and due to the limited dynamic range of my sensor, the posterization there has appeared due to a quite dramatic lift of shadows in Lightroom. I have tried to spend 20 mins again now fiddling around with a radial filter over that patch in Lightroom to try and make it better. It has not been a success, so I am not uploading a new version. I am afraid there is just not much that I can do about it. If I do not lift the shadows as much I feel it compromises the overall impression of the photo too much. In my opinion this small area of sub-optimal quality has negligable impact on the image when seen in its entirety. It is a question of making a reasonable tradeoff. My camera only allows three bracketed exposures and they cannot be separated more than 2 EV apart. I guess that I could have been even more careful and taken two sets of bracketed exposures to get six exposures 2 EV apart and get a larger dynamic range (Diliff normally uses five exposures in his church interiors, which is natively supported with his camera). But even then, my longest exposure was 13 s here and my camera allows only up to 30 s, so there is not much more I could have done to get the light out of that corner unless I had opened the aperture up from f/11, but then I would have lost DOF. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comment again! It seems I have to be honest, I am guessing overall this HDR image is just a little bit poterized. Please look at the windows very carefully, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • If your longest exposure was 13 seconds then you could have easily doubled the luminosity of the shadows.... Or simply bumped up your ISO a bit. The thing that many people forget (or don't understand) is that you can actually use higher ISOs with HDR tone mapping, as long as your darkest exposures in the bracket are exposed properly for the shadows. ISO 500-800 on most cameras will actually look okay as long as there are no dark areas in the image (the detail in the brightest 1/3 of the histogram will have very little noise at all). So you could have easily gone to ISO 400 without too many problems with noise IMO. ISO 100 is great for single exposures but unnecessary for HDR work. Diliff (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Laitche and Diliff for your further observations. You are correct, Diliff about the posterization on the red soap tray as well. You are also correct, that I could have done better and used the equipment at hand more optimally by taking a 30 s exposure as well to get as much as possible out of the shadows. My technique is still good, I think, but improvable. Regarding the ISO, I should try that, although I do not share you optimism about how high I can go. I may go to ISO 200, but I really think my sensor is so noisy that I should not go higher. Yesterday, I worked on this HDR panorama where the scenary has less dynamic range to capture than in this interior. Here, I did not have to boost the shadows and dampen the highligts nearly as much in Lightroom, but still, I had to yank up the luminosity NR quite a bit to avoid too much noise in the sky at ISO 100 even after masking out sharpening in the sky. Well, but I should test this systematically. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Test my theory out then. :-) Take a photo that is overexposed at ISO 640 or ISO 800. Expose it so that the deep shadows of the scene are very bright, too bright to appear 'normal' but not too bright that they are actually blown. Then look at how much noise there is there. Then adjust the exposure in Lightroom so that the shadows look like normal shadows again. That's how much noise you'll have when you combine it into an HDR tone mapped image. Then compare it to a 'normal' image at ISO 100 with pushed shadows. The overexposed high ISO image will probably 'win' the noise competition against ISO 100. Normally this wouldn't be a useful method because exposing 'to the right' (of the histogram) would normally result in far too many blown details elsewhere in the scene, but it doesn't happen in an HDR image because you have other bracketed images to rescue the highlights from instead. The ISO level is almost arbitrary. What matters more is that you've 'exposed to the right' so that the details you want to capture in each bracket (highlights, mid tones and shadows) are in the upper end of the histogram. Diliff (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not outstanding to me, the perspective is nice but I miss a special touch here Poco2 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Møns Klint beech trees in gorge 2015-04-01-4864.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 19:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common beech in a gorge leading to the ocean
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info If you think the 'sky' looks weird: It is not sky, see the file page :-) Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOHOW! Clin 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You better fix remove the CAs (some are look like halos) around the trees if you can. --Laitche (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality is not the best, however, I dont care, I want to see more! --The Photographer (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mysterious. --King of ♠ 04:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Creepy. A pity that the quality isn't better. --Code (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 05:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — as others. Yann (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Yes, this color of the ocean is bewitching, enchanting, fascinating and if this color is only this moment like blue hour or dusk or something, it's amazing but seems always this color and if without the color, the composition is ordinary and the quality is not good as others say so I don't think this shot is outstanding. Or am I wrong? only this moment? --Laitche (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: I am not negative for this photo, I want something special at least one plus the color. --Laitche (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's some really horrific stuff. The picture definitely has emotion and perceives it perfectly. -- Pofka (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Laitche, The Photographer, Code and others. Thanks for your reviews! I agree with the comments that if you zoom in on the photo to inspect the pixel quality it is not something that blows your mind. There was a very big contrast in the scene, and to get a wide enough field of view I had to use my crappiest lens, which is the Canon EF-S 18-55 mm kit lens. Thanks to Lightroom it was possible for me to make it into something useful, the default jpg generated by the camera looked less than promising. I have corrected for CA already in LR, but I do agree with Laitche that there are some halos left. It is not something I have skill to further repair, I am afraid. Also, regarding the composition, which Laitche points out: I have several shots from the place and have experimented with many different crops. I have tried to find ones, where there are not so many trees at inclined angles intersecting the sides, but impossible due to the nature of the gorge and the half-tilted trees. The greatest asset is the mood and unusual backgroound light and the photo is best seen in its entirety I think, where I do think the composition is rather appealing. Laitche questions if the view is unusual. I would say it is not particularly unusual at this site, which is one of the most astonishing natural spots in my small home country. I think that at most times of the year it will be possible to find spots with an unusual atmosphere and light. Perhaps not exactly like this, but featurable in some sense if you have a little patience and seek it. This aerial photo of the area gives a good impression of how the milky sea water looks like on a sunny day. For these photos I was just lucky to pass by when the light was good over the sea with shade over the gorge and notice a possible good framing with a 'fake' magic sky by looking down steeply. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wonder if a 2:1 crop (removing the bottom) would be stronger. -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like a still from a Tim Burton movie :-) Impressive photo, high quality, lots of wow.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Top, that's a nice atmosphere captured here! Poco2 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Aguarales de Valpalmas, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-06, DD 26.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 18:11:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Los Aguarales de Valpalmas, is a rare, fragile and dynamic geological phenomena located near Valpalmas, Zaragoza, Spain. The landscape is the result of water flows over fragile material in a process known as piping.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Los Aguarales de Valpalmas, is a rare, fragile and dynamic geological phenomena located near Valpalmas, Zaragoza, Spain. The landscape is the result of water flows over fragile material in a process known as piping. All by me, Poco2 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is for me a very interesting geological formation. I have never seen anything like it. It took me a long time to get any idea of scale until I noticed the twig and other plant debris there. On the one hand it makes you curious to try and figure what is going on (and I did read a machine-translated version of the article on Spanish Wikipedia, where the photo is used to better understand); on the other hand the lack of an evident sense of scale is also confusing for the observer. I have a problem with the chosen focal distance which is in the immediate foreground, leading to a large fraction of the image being out of focus. This can be a good effect if you want to highlight a special interesting part of the formation and attract the eye to it, but it does not work very convincing for me in this case. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    To be honest, the picture looks pretty much the way I wanted it to look like, I could have tried a higher f number but then would have good sharpness issues overall and I couldn't get further to increase the focal length with a similar frame because the perspective would have been completely different (the angle of view would have had to be higher, different picture indeed). And yes, I deliberately introduced a factor of "confusion" due to a missing scale. Is it a high mountain range or small heaps? That actually makes the picture the more interesting to me. Poco2 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is special. --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting! --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reminds Lithuanian cake Šakotis. Simply cannot say no to something which looks like a sea of these delicious things. -- Pofka (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea and interesting photo but overall, it is lacking variation for me. I want some kind of tension or decoration which means something making the photo more attractive, like a golden hours light or fogs or condensation or like that. --Laitche (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strange, very attractive, never seen for me. Many questions in this picture, nice sharpness, good light and shadows... Wonderful Nature ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Иультинский район.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 16:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Иультинский район,Iultinsky area
  • I still oppose, sorry, also per KoH. --Kadellar (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is worth to save. So nice scenery from Russia. Border removed, watermark also, jpeg as before. Let give photo a try. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe is tilted !? --Mile (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support I am probably neutral on the picture alone as it has a technical quality a bit below the high FP landscape bar. But for me, the location is a mitigating factor. I do not think we have much other pictures from this very remote and thinly populated area of Russia. So value put it just above the FP threshold for me. Maybe I am also touched on a soft spot; it reminds me of a small settlement in Northwest Greenland I once visited. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't find the composition very interesting; in particular, I think the lower crop cuts off the water in an awkward place. Perhaps a lower framing to include more foreground and less sky would be better. --King of ♠ 00:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Croped to rule of thirds.--Mile (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Stirling railway station - 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 16:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stirling railway station
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Stirling railway station. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Small tilt and blue channel satured (WB) Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done, much better --The Photographer (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I largely agree with The Photographer, although I think the tilt is more a slight perspective issue in the left part of the image. WB too cold, I think (check WB on white paint on pillar). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Photographer, Slaunger: I have uploaded a new version correcting the slight tilt and the WB (according to LR, 250 K warmer, which is not much). --Kadellar (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the edit. I think it is an FP now. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this a bit different (and refreshing) compared to the recent spurt of train station FPCs we've seen. --King of ♠ 00:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. Very nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When blurred item actually improves image. -- Pofka (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the perspective and ghostly train. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Basilique Saint-Remi de Reims Exterior 1, Reims, France - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 15:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Diliff (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm. Of course there is Diliff-execution and therefore great quality, but honestly I am not a fan of the angle (I understand that you (Diliff) didn't nominate it). I stood there a year ago, and I felt that the straight-on angle works better. Of course your image is much better technically (and much colder, fwiw), but having just a bit of the right surface of the right tower looks a bit odd to me, especially given that we have much more of the left tower. It is good to see that your version included the transept, which is a major plus. I realize you also have a version that looks very similar to mine, but imo is improvable w.r.t. PC (e.g. the rose is clearly not a perfect circle). Imho that second version, better processed and perhaps with a less squary crop could be a good FP. --DXR (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • From memory, I applied a small amount of vertical compression to it to avoid too much distortion in the towers (I could be wrong, but it would explain the slightly squashed rose). I think both views have different strengths and weaknesses but overall, showing the transept is useful for an understanding of the shape of it. I enjoy the symmetry of a straight on view, but you lose a sense of what the building really is. A full frontal view a church is often nothing more than a study of its face, so I try to get a diagonal view of the church when it is practical to do so (often there are too many obstructions for a good view). But yes, you're right. I didn't nominate it, so I suppose it's Paris16's choice. I could support either, and I'd be happy to restitch without vertical compression if you think it's necessary (I didn't notice the rose until you mentioned it - it's only very slightly squashed). Diliff (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I quite like your face analogy, and fair enough. Of course I don't intend to oppose or do anything like that and like with portraits, it might indeed just be personal preference. I personally find that tall towers make diagonals prone to strange effects, especially with full PC (and so I get your reasoning for slight squishing of the height). Perhaps I simply have a mind that works best in 45° increments ;-) --DXR (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs a vertical perspective correction IMO. The right side is leaning in. Otherwise great quality and composition is ok. Poco2 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yes slightly.. It looks like Paris 16 has introduced that problem when he did some perspective correction on it. I compared it to the previous version and while mine wasn't perfect (seems to be leaning outwards on both sides a tiny bit), he seems to have made it worse. Oh well, I'll see if I can fix it. Diliff (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Keble College Chapel Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 13:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The choir and sanctuary of Keble College Chapel, facing east in Oxford, England.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by mirrys 13:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mirrys (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just my opinion, this is an alternative of that nomination, or not? --Laitche (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I must admit, it is very similar but it's not of exactly the same thing. This is of the choir and sanctuary, the other one is of the nave which also shows the choir and sanctuary in the background. The focus is on different parts of the chapel but the views do overlap a bit. Diliff (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to think the geometric distortions at the top of the pillars at the sides are simply too large to not distract the viewer. I do not find this nomination as good as the pther FP from the same college. Moreover, there is something which appear unbalanced to me in the foreground to the left, see annotation. It may be it is such in the college - often things are not quite symmetrical, it just distrcats my eye a bit. Otherwise very good. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • My interior panoramas are quite methodical so I would be surprised if there was a major problem with the symmetry of the panorama, if it's something very asymmetrical in the scene, it's probably because the reality is like that. Yes, the horizontal line near the bottom does seem to tilt a little bit. It's usually the result of not quite centring the panorama perfectly. When the centre point is set slightly to the left or right of the centre (really just a couple of pixels off-centre), it has the effect of shifting the perspective slightly, and horizontal lines will lean a tiny bit. That's what's happened here I think. It wouldn't be so significant that it would completely upset the balance of the scene though and I don't think the slight lean of it is really noticeable unless you line it up against the bottom of the screen or something, but I'm happy to correct it as it's a fairly simple fix. Diliff (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • If it is a simple fix, please correct it, thanks. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support what light! -- Christian Ferrer 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same place and same composition as other nomination, but different point of view and main subject, so different picture. --Kadellar (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this nomination (as other nomination), both we can promoted? If so, it's OK for me. --Laitche (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 20:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Still Pond 3, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 08:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Isabella Plantation Still Pond
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is an attempt to correct the criticisms of my previous FPC of this scene, which seemed to be mainly regarding the composition, the flat light and the blown sky. This image improves on each of these faults IMO, although the bright dappled sunlight through the trees does bring its own problems, as the contrast is very extreme. -- Diliff (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better! --Code (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 09:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better colors on sunny day. --Mile (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not a few overexposed parts on the leaves like this one. I added some notes. --Laitche (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What you're seeing in this image and the one you linked to is actually not overexposure, it's artefacts caused by the slight movement of the leaves blowing in the wind which cannot be merged together properly when the HDR image is processed (and as discussed at length in my previous nomination, it is not possible to capture a scene like this without HDR). I can try to remove the problems by cloning them out, but it's not really possible to avoid completely, and no HDR processing software that I am aware of can remove these ghosts completely and successfully. But I think our obsession with finding problems with small details does sometimes overshadow the bigger picture: does the image deliver the scene to the viewer in an aesthetic and accurate way? I would argue that small amounts of ghosted leaves in the trees doesn't diminish that. You only see it as an artefact when you pixel peep. I could probably hide them completely by downsampling the image. Consider that it's a sharp 50 megapixel image. I could reduce the image to the point where these little details in the problem could be obscured, but Commons would suffer from not having such a detailed image. Diliff (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I understood, it's unavoidable problem with HDR (Sorry, I haven't read the discussion of your previous nomination.) and I can not see them in [downsampled image] as you said. Maybe I was too picky, I deleted the notes. Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose hmm, way too saturated, imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    • It's so difficult to please everyone. What specifically do you think is too saturated? In my previous nomination, people complained that the colours/lighting was too flat. I haven't increased the saturation of this image at all though. The flowers are actually very bright and saturated and I don't think they are misrepresented. The leaves in the tree are saturated because they are illuminated by the sunlight, not because the saturation has been enhanced digitally. Here's two screen captures from Lightroom of the original RAW files of the flowers and the leaves, showing no additional processing at all. Spring is just a very saturated time of year for colours. Diliff (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually the sky's the dealbreaker for me. Just doesn't look natural here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The saturation of the sky hasn't been altered either. Diliff (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded a few version with a lightened sky (which has the effect of making the sky look desaturated). Can you comment on that version? Diliff (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Much (!) better. Symbol support vote.svg Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think (and I know) this reason is not so good for voting but "This cramped and busy composition (including the aspect ratio of the image) does not meet with my tastes..." Other elements are splendid. --Laitche (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I tried a less cramped and less busy composition last time, and it was opposed, so I followed the suggestions and ended with this image. You know what they say "you can't please everybody, all of the time". :-) Maybe you would prefer this composition. I didn't think it would be as successful as a FP though. Diliff (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That picture is simply wonderful (ok, maybe you should lighten the sky a tad... ;-))! What makes you believe it couldn't stand a chance as FPC? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't think it would stand no chance, I just thought it was a composition that was slightly more artistic (with the focus being on the reflection) which is often not rewarded on Commons. It's also not as high resolution. I considered both images for nomination but thought this one would have a better chance. Maybe I was wrong! Diliff (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, commons (or commoners) could truly benefit from a somewhat bolder approach towards artistic compositions at times --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Martin. --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think that's maybe bad decision, both of images for alternative would better, I prefer that one... --Laitche (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Diliff: May I nominate that one as other nomination? --Laitche (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You would be more than welcome to. I do also wonder if people would find it too similar, but we can find out. I think they have different focuses, personally (even if they show the same pond), so it would be fine for me. Diliff (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The HDR look is a bit too strong. It looks weird when the sky is such a dark shade of blue relative to the foreground which is in shade. In my opinion it should be a faint blue, just barely enough to not blow out. --King of ♠ 00:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Wrt sky colour, we are not seeing the sky close to the horizon (where it is light) but relatively high (where it is deeper). The deep blue of the sky varies with the weather and pollution. Today, on my journey to work, I saw solid blue sky through very light green leaves. But other areas of the sky were pale blue and others verging on turquoise. I don't think expecting the sky to be "faint blue, just barely enough to not blow out" is valid if the sky wasn't actually that light a shade of blue. The issues of the sky being very bright compared to a shady area aren't represented by making the sky go pale, which is an artificial result of a sensor blowing on all channels: if you turn up the brightness of a blue (or red, or green) bulb, it doesn't go white. It just goes a more intense and bright blue. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, in addition to what Colin said, I would just add that the point of HDR is to help replicate what the eye sees, not to replicate the limitations of digital camera sensors. I know that traditionally with photography, we would expect to see the sky being brighter than the shaded foliage but I can tell you that when I was there, I could clearly see deep blue sky through the trees. The sky was a paler blue closer to the horizon (and that is reflected in the image where it starts to verge on white) due to the effect of haze and clouds, but up high in the sky as Colin mentioned was a deep blue. I know nothing I can say will necessarily convince your eyes that it looks 'right' as that is subjective, but for me, it looks very close to what I saw when I photographed it. Sometimes HDR can 'overdo' the contrast of the scene but I usually try quite hard to replicate what was seen and not push the contrast and saturation just for dramatic effect. Diliff (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
        • We are limited by the relatively low dynamic range of JPG and computer monitors. The next ultra high definition movie format is supposed to be higher DR and we are promised a higher DR in our TV and monitors to go with it. But even then, it won't match reality because then you'd have a TV that, if it showed a picture of the sun, could burn your retina and fade your furniture fabric :-). Just be grateful we're not pre-1900 where film wasn't even panchromatic and all blue skys were burnt out pure white. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
          • We are limited by the LDR of computer monitors, but we can attempt to replicate the tones that the eye sees, even if we can't replicate the intensity of them. I don't think HDR TVs and monitors that replicate the real luminosity of a scene is really the answer anyway. Yes, we can increase the maximum luminosity but it still has to factor in comfortable ranges suitable to the room that you're watching in. If you're in a dark room watching a film, you don't want an intense beam of sunlight in your face, you want something merely bright relative to the dark room you're watching in to give the illusion of sunlight. In any case, you'd also need a TV screen that covered your entire field of view to replicate how the eye sees. Having highlights that are as bright as the sun but concentrated in a 60" box of pixels would be much harder on the eyes than reality ever could be, because in the real world we actually have to shade the sun away from our eyes if we want to have any hope of seeing something in the shadows, lest it be washed out by the effect of the sunlight reflecting around inside our eyeballs! It would be very difficult to do that with a narrow angle of view that we typically watch a TV with. Diliff (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with King of Hearts. --Halavar (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Archbasilica of St. John Lateran HD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2015 at 13:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Archbasilica of St. John Lateran
because on the right there was a great advertisement and on the left a stage ... is the union of 10 photos .... for the top honestly I have not noticed. Thank you.--LivioAndronico talk 21:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support. The image quality still has quite a lot of issues (look at the bottom of the image, the grass is hardly even recognisable as grass, it is soft and looks like a watercolour painting (too much noise reduction?). Thankfully, because it is high resolution and stitched, it can be downsampled to a reasonable resolution to look sharper and to minimise the image quality problems. As for the crop, I can understand why you needed to crop it so close on the sides, but it does make the composition feel a bit cramped. Diliff (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry, but it needs more space, too tight crop everywhere except at the bottom. --Kadellar (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but par Kadellar. Yann (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- exactly the same comments as Diliff. Too much NR. The bottom part is just a mush with no details and unattractive light. I can at least downsize to get the sharpness. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching errors, added the notes. --Laitche (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A little bit carelessly but OK :) --Laitche (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm learning Face-smile.svg thanks --LivioAndronico talk 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand the reasons for the tight crop; honestly the picture is so well done that this is not a real problem. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majestic --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Rainbow-spiral lollipop.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2015 at 10:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rainbow spiral lollipop
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by AntanO
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AntanO 10:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting which supplements the object well. Could use a bit tighter cropping though. --LB 15:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessing, postarized. --Laitche (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you specify? --AntanO 16:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm not 100% sure but added a few notes. --Laitche (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not posterization, but "nature" of the candy. --AntanO 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's not, I don't mind to remove the notes at all :) --Laitche (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I agree with you, it almost definitely is posterization, but it's not too significant. Diliff (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, not too significant, IMO posterization mostly means overprocessing. --Laitche (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it is an indication, but not always. I think we should judge the nomination by what we see though, not by the mistakes we think have been made. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, but your opinion on what could or should be done differently should be independent of your opinion of the image itself. Just my thoughts on judging anyway. Diliff (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Diliff: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --Laitche (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its not bad, i like the colors, but background not so much. At least could be croped some (see note). Done. --Mile (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Object isn't in the centre of image. So it was your target? D kuba (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good colours. --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I know, isn't the best for quality but I love original images --LivioAndronico talk 18:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Livioandronico2013 Poco2 19:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 22:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fireworks over Houston, Texas
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is some noise, but seeing the resolution, I hope you will accept it... -- Yann (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. For a scan that's not sharp at full res, I accept that it was scanned perhaps too precisely and try to look at it at a reasonable size, 3000px in this case. It's pretty much sharp except for the building on the right. Nice fireworks but I can't have such an important element of the composition be visibly unsharp at 7 MP. --King of ♠ 23:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Photo from 1980. Its good to see some of it. --Mile (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is bad also for 1980 --LivioAndronico talk 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Mile. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 09:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good scene, and acceptable sharpness if downsized. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The resolution (7475px) is not remarkable since this is an analog photography, Simply the quality is not good and spectators are a bit distracting, imho. --Laitche (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Laitche Poco2 19:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Gorna Leshnica Shara.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 21:40:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View on Bozovska Reka valley at the,.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gadjowsky - uploaded by Gadjowsky - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent composition and colors. There is some minor posterization in the sky and chromatic aberration in the mountains. --King of ♠ 22:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view and light but not so details (unsharp) and oversaturation plus CAs, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Heartwrenching oppose Such a great shot.. Such a great angle. Such great light. Such great colors ... until you see that patch of just not-quite-right blue in the sky on the right. And then all the unsharpness and CA, and you want to cry. "Where did it go wrong?" you find yourself asking. Well, shooting it at anything below f/11 was a start. And with ISO 200, to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Daniel. "f/11 ISO 200"! Bollocks. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case, I'm afraid. Though I'm not sure whether f/8 and ISO 200 are really to blame here. What a pity! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Excellent composition and colors but not very good quality --LivioAndronico talk 09:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Gadjowsky, Kiril Simeonovski Something went wrong with equipement i suppose. This is second serie of great photos ruined by something. I see its made with D5100 series, nothing wrong with EXIF. D5100 has affected series with sensor position, find it on forum and check serial Number of camera. Some made it on their own, hex key solved it. I would try with some other lens first too see if it repeats and its not the lens. --Mile (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Some of the problem is processing, not just softness/CA. Were the frames taken at the same exposure or was too much post-processing applied? Polarising lens? -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per others. --Tremonist (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Ostrawa, Kościół Niepokalanego Poczęcia NMP 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 10:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of the Immaculate Conception in Ostrava. Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Halavar - nominated by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Halavar (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice church! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality isn't outstanding but the composition is very good --LivioAndronico talk 11:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks a bit hazy. Raise the contrast maybe? --King of ♠ 16:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Version with more contrast uploaded. Hope it's better now:) --Halavar (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should have been more emphatic - it could still use more contrast. --King of ♠ 22:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not eye-catching enough for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support One of these pictures when you doubt that it is FP, but in the same way you find it quite good. Probably minimum standards are passed. -- Pofka (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good QI of this church. -- Colin (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Nice composition and good perspective control but the colours and the quality are not reaching the FP standards, imho. --Laitche (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Yes, I think this is more of a QI than FP. There's nothing wrong with a simple composition like this but it needs something extra (nice light, lots of detail, etc) for it to reach FP for me. Diliff (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Diliff Poco2 19:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2013 02 Foz do Iguacu 248.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 10:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iguazu Falls, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil

File:Wrocław Główny (Breslau Hauptbahnhof) by night.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2015 at 14:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wrocław Główny (Breslau Hauptbahnhof) by night
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fascinating angle on a lovely old train shed. A bit distorted and unsharp near the left edge, and the signals are a little posterized, but as I so often say I don't think that's enough to ruin this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quality is OK for me and I like this empty and antique-looking mood. --Laitche (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I was "You cannot see the wood for the trees.". It is an unbalanced composition as DXR mentioned so I've changed my vote to neutral. --Laitche (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Ambiance overcomes technical shortcomings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice use of line and perspective. I think the composition would be even better if the point of convergence were a bit further to the right. --King of ♠ 06:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Objection I can overlook the modern train at the right side but if the vanishing point were further to the right, that train would appear much more (means they can't crop out the train in this composition) and ruins this mood, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but imo the right side crop is not good. The building either needs some space or should be cut, but this creates an unbalanced composition for me. --DXR (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are hundreds of train station photos on Commons. This one is a QI but not more. Why downsized 2/3? The right hand side isn't very interesting and no people to add interest to make up for this. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per DXR. — Julian H. 13:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Tarassac hamlet, Hérault.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2015 at 11:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tarassac hamlet, Hérault, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 11:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mountain range with all shades of green and blue. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Surely nice! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view, but neither the lighting nor the composition work for me. The river is there but doesn't stand out to help the composition. Furthermore the big trees in the foreground are too predominating, sorry, Poco2 20:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the colors are a bit too muted for me. --King of ♠ 06:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --King of ♠ 22:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my defense, it is the last hour of the sun and the colors of spring were as spectacular in reality. Vibrance aside, the file is edited very little and very close to the RAW file. The spectacular colors of the last sun hour in this beautifull valley are of course the main subject here, not at all any river. The particular light of that time in that location has made this a magical place during some moments. I am particularly happy and lucky to have seen this show, to have had the possibility to take the photo and to share it to you. This work a lot for me. -- Christian Ferrer 08:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is very beautiful,good light,composition isn't good like others but ever good. I love your panoramas --LivioAndronico talk 11:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but per Poco and King. --Laitche (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg New version @King of Hearts:, @Poco a poco:, @Laitche:, thanks for your rewiews, the first time I decreased too much the luminosity, I have now uploaded a version with more light. -- Christian Ferrer 12:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think my favorite is still the very first version uploaded. I actually like the hazy feeling, it's just that on the second version I feel saturation was turned down way too much. I think the contrast boost in the third and fourth versions was unnecessary. --King of ♠ 14:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    The main topic I see here is the composition rather that then curves, and that wasn't addressed in the new version. Poco2 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @King of Hearts: I uploaded a version very close to the first version but just with a little more light. -- Christian Ferrer 15:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: OK, I withdraw my vote. --Laitche (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, content, lights/shadows. --Kikos (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice landscape --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support New version looks better:) --Halavar (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Cherz y Pas Ciaulong.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 May 2015 at 21:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Ciaulong pass on the Sella Ronda in the Dolomites
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting just isn't doing wonders for me; a bit hazy. --King of ♠ 23:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 19:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH, sure a nice view but there is nothing eye-catching here to grant it a FP stamp, sorry. Poco2 19:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me in FP isn't important the quality (like in QI) but the result and the effect and this effect is very good for me.--LivioAndronico talk 21:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white is a bit grayish, I think the background is nice but the foreground ruins the whole composition. --Laitche (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When the snow looks white on a picture it is mostly overexposed. Thanks for the review--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I don't think this is underexposed because the brightest parts are just white. --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I like your works very much. I think this composition is one of the finest in the FPs and this snow is very nice :) --Laitche (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light and atmosphere, foreground could be sharper. --Code (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strange. I'm sure it was there... --Code (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)