Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi

Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi        Statuksen poistoehdotukset Statuksen poistoehdotukset

Alla on tämänhetkiset ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksi. Huomaa, että tämä ei ole sama asia kuin päivän kuva.

EhdottaminenEdit

Ohjeita ehdottajilleEdit

Lue läpi Commons:Image guidelines ennen kuvan ehdottamista.

Alla on yhteenveto siitä, mitä tulee tarkastella arvioidessa kuvan sopivuutta suositelluksi kuvaksi:

  • Resoluutio – Yleensä kuvat, joiden resoluutio on alle kaksi megapikseliä, on hylätty. Alle kahden megapikselin kuva voidaan hyväksyä vain poikkeustapauksessa. Huomaa, että kuvassa, jonka resoluutio on 1 600 × 1 200, on noin 1,92 megapikseliä, joten se on kelvoton.
Commonsissa sijaitsevia kuvia voidaan käyttää muuhunkin kuin tietokoneen näytöllä katselemiseen. Niitä voidaan tulostaa tai katsella suurella resoluutiolla olevilla monitoreilla. Emme voi ennustaa, millaisia laitteistot tulevat olemaan tulevaisuudessa, joten kuvan tulee olla niin suurella resoluutiolla kuin mahdollista.
  • Fokus – kuvan tärkeimpien kohteiden tulisi olla teräviä.
  • Edusta ja tausta – edustalla ja taustalla olevat asiat voivat olla häiritseviä. Tarkista, että edustalla olevat kohteet eivät peitä mitään kuvan kannalta tärkeää ja taustalla olevat kohteet eivät pilaa asetelmaa, esimerkiksi katuvalo ei näytä tulevan jonkun päästä.
  • Tekninen korkealaatuisuus – suositellun kuvan tulee olla teknisesti korkealaatuinen.
  • Digitaaliset manipulaatiot eivät saa vetää nenästä kuvan katsojaa. Kuvassa olevien kauneusvirheiden korjaaminen on sallittua, jos korjaus on tehty hyvin ja sen tarkoituksena ei ole vääristää kuvaa. Hyväksyttäjä manipulaatioita ovat rajaus, perspektiivin oikaisu, terävöittäminen, sumentaminen ja valotuksen sekä värien korjailu. Monimutkaisemmat manipulaatiot ovat sallittuja vain, jos mallinetta {{Retouched picture}} käytetään kuvaussivulla. Kuvauksettomat tai väärin kuvatut monimutkaiset manipulaatiot ovat kiellettyjä.
  • Arvo – päätavoitteenamme on erottaa arvokkaimmat kuvat muista. Suositellun kuvan tulee olla jotenkin erikoinen.
    • Auringonlaskuista otetut valokuvat ovat kaikki vähän samanlaisia (Valokuvia)(Suomessa otettuja valokuvia)
    • Yökuvat saattavat olla hienompia, mutta päiväkuvista ilmenee yleensä enemmän tietoa
    • Kaunis ei ole sama asia kuin arvokas

Teknisiä yksityiskohtia käsitellään kohdissa valotus, asetelma, liikkeenhallinta ja terävyysalue.

  • Valotus – valotuksella tarkoitetaan valokuvauksessa kameran filmiin tallentuvaa tai digitaalikamerassa valoherkän kennon tallentamaa valon määrää. Valotuksen tulisi olla sopiva. Laajat ylivalottuneet alueet ovat usein häiritseviä.
  • Asetelma – asetelmalla tarkoitetaan kuvan esineiden sijoittumista toisiinsa nähden. ”Kolmoissääntö” (esimerkkikuva) on hyvä nyrkkisääntö siitä, millainen on hyvä asetelma. Kolmoissäännön ideana on, että kuva jaetaan kahdella pystyviivalla ja kahdella vaakaviivalla yhdeksään osaan (3×3). Pääaiheen sijoittaminen tiukasti kuvan keskelle on yleensä huonompi vaihtoehto mielenkiintoisuuden kannalta kuin pääaiheen sijoittaminen johonkin neljästä viivojen muodostamasta risteyksestä. Horisonttia ei tulisi sijoittaa kuvan keskelle, vaan jommankumman viivan keskelle. Kolmoissäännön avulla saadaan luotua dynaaminen kuva.
  • Liikkeenhallinta – liikkeenhallinnalla tarkoitetaan sitä, miten liike näkyy kuvassa. Liike voi olla terävää tai epätarkkaa. Jompikumpi aina ei ole paras vaihtoehto, vaan tärkeintä on aikomus havainnollistaa jotain. Liike on suhteellista kuvan kohteisiin verrattuna. Esimerkiksi valokuva ralliautosta, joka näyttäisi olevan paikallaan taustaa vasten, on huonompi vaihtoehto kuin valokuva ralliautosta, joka näkyy terävästi, mutta jonka tausta on sumuista, koska tällöin liikkeen huomaa helposti. Tätä kutsutaan ”panoroinniksi”. Toisaalta valokuva hyppäävästä koripallon pelaajasta, joka näyttää olevan paikallaan taustaa vasten, on hyvä sen epäluonnollisuuden takia.
  • Terävyysalue – terävyysalueella tarkoitetaan kuvan kohteen terävyyttä ympäristöön verrattuna. Terävyysalue valitaan jokaisen kuvan kohdalla erikseen. Suuri tai pieni terävyysalue voi huonontaa tai parantaa kuvan laatua. Pientä terävyysaluetta voidaan käyttää erottamaan pääkohde muusta ympäristöstä. Näin katsojan huomio kiinnittyy haluttuun kohteeseen. Suurta terävyysaluetta voidaan taas käyttää tilan havainnollistamiseen. Lähtökohtaisesti syväterävyysalue muodostuu sitä lyhyemmäksi, mitä suurempaa aukkoarvoa valokuvaaja käyttää. Vastaavasti pientä aukkoarvoa käytettäessä syväterävyysalue voi ulottua kuvan etualalta äärettömään. Aukon arvon lisäksi syväterävyysalueeseen vaikuttaa kuitenkin myös objektiivin todellinen polttoväli ja toisaalta kohteen etäisyys kuvaajasta.

Alla käsitellään vielä grafiikkaa.

  • Terävyys – pääkohteiden ääriviivojen on oltava teräviä.
  • Kolmiulotteisuus – kolmiulotteisuuden on oltava laadukasta. Parhaiten tämä onnistuu siten, että valo tulee kohteen sivulta. Yleensä kuvaajasta päin tuleva valo ei onnistu luomaan kunnollista kolmiulotteista vaikutelmaa, vaan se johtaa litteään vaikutelmaan. Paras valo ulkona on aamulla tai illalla.
  • Värit – värit eivät saa olla liian kylläisiä.
  • Tekstuuri – kohteen pinnan on oltava kolmiulotteisen näköinen ja laadukas.
  • Perspektiivi – kuvan tulee olla kolmiulotteinen.
  • Tasapaino – kuvan kohteiden tulisi olla tasapainossa keskenään. Suurta määrää kohteita ei tulisi jommallakummalla puolella.
  • Mittasuhde – mittasuhteella tarkoitetaan kuvan kohteiden kokoa toisiinsa verrattuna. Yleensä meillä taipumus esittää pienet kohteet pieninä, mutta toisaalta pienen kohteen esittäminen suurena luonnossa suurta kohdetta vasten on myös hyvä tekniikka, esimerkiksi kukan esittäminen vuorta vasten.
  • Symbolinen tarkoitus – huono kuva vaikeasta aiheesta on parempi kuin hyvä kuva helposta aiheesta.
Valokuvaaja ja/tai sen katselija voivat tarkastella kuvan kohdetta puolueellisesti. Kuvan arvoa ei tulisi arvioida arvioijan kulttuurillisen taustan perusteella, vaan se tulisi arvioida kuvan kulttuurillisen taustan perusteella. Hyvä kuva ”puhuu” katsojalle herättäen sellaisia tunteita kuin ilo, sympatia, herkkyys, suru, inho, viha ja raivo. Hyvän kuvan herättämät tunteet eivät ole vain positiivisia.

Uuden ehdotuksen lisääminenEdit

Jos sinusta tuntuu siltä, että olet löytänyt kuvan, josta voisi tulla suositeltu kuva ja jonka kuvaussivulla on hyväksytty ja totuudenmukainen tekijänoikeusmalline, toimi seuraavasti:

Askel 1: Kopioi kuvan nimi alla olevaan laatikkoon ja paina nappia ”Luo äänestyssivu”.


Askel 2: Noudata avautuvalla sivulla olevia ohjeita.

Askel 3: Lisää ehdokaslistan alkuun seuraava koodi:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:KIRJOITA TIEDOSTON NIMI TÄHÄN}}

ÄänestäminenEdit

Käytä äänestäessäsi seuraavia mallineita:

  • {{Support}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol support vote.svg Support. Käytä mallinetta, jos kannatat kuvaa suositelluksi kuvaksi.
  • {{Oppose}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Käytä mallinetta, jos vastustat statusta.
  • {{Neutral}} luo lopputuloksen Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Käytä mallinetta, jos äänestät tyhjää.
  • {{Comment}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Käytä mallinetta, jos kommentoit jotakin.
  • {{Info}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram voting info.svg Info. Käytä mallinetta, jos informoit jostakin.
  • {{Question}} luo lopputuloksen Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question. Käytä mallinetta, jos kysyt jostakin.

Jos kuvan ei ole mahdollista päästä suositelluksi kuvaksi, lisää äänestyssivulle {{FPX|KIRJOITA TÄHÄN, MIKSI KUVA EI VOI OLLA SUOSITELTU KUVA}}.

Perustele aina mielipiteesi. Muista allekirjoittaa lisäyksesi. Allekirjoittaminen tapahtuu kirjoittamalla ~~~~ kommentin perään tai painamalla työkalurivin painiketta Button sig.png kursorin ollessa sopivalla kohdalla.

Statuksen poistoehdotuksen lisääminenEdit

Jos jokin suositeltu kuva on mielestäsi kelvoton suositelluksi kuvaksi, voit ehdottaa suositellun kuvan statuksen poistoa.

Sellaisissa äänestyksissä tulee käyttää mallinetta {{Keep}}, joka luo lopputuloksen Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, halutessasi statuksen säilyvän tai mallinetta {{Delist}}, joka luo lopputuloksen Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist , halutessasi statuksen poistoa.

Luodessasi uuden äänestyksen, toimi ohjeen mukaan:

Askel 1: Kopioi kuvan nimi alla olevaan laatikkoon ja paina nappia ”Luo äänestyssivu”.


Askel 2: Noudata avautuvalla sivulla olevia ohjeita.

Askel 3: Lisää ehdokaslistan alkuun seuraava koodi:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:KIRJOITA TIEDOSTON NIMI TÄHÄN}}

KäytäntöEdit

Yleiset säännötEdit

  1. Äänestys on auki tasan yhdeksän vuorokautta ehdotuksen tekemisen jälkeen.
  2. Käyttäjätunnuksettomat käyttäjät saavat ehdottaa ja keskustella, mutta eivät äänestää.
  3. Ehdotus ei ole ääni. Ääni on annettava erikseen.
  4. Ehdottaja voi vetää ehdotuksen pois lisäämällä {{withdraw|~~~~}} äänestyssivulle.
  5. Wikimedia Commons ei ole vain Wikipedian kuvavarasto, joten kuvia ei tule arvioida vain Wikipediaan soveltuvuuden perusteella.
  6. Jos kuva ei saa muita kannattavia ääniä kuin ehdottajan viiden vuorokauden kuluessa ehdotuksen tekemisestä, poistoäänestys tulee lopettaa.
  7. Mallineella {{FPX}} merkitty poistoäänestys tulee lopettaa 24 tunnin kuluttua mallineen lisäämisestä, jos muita kannatusääniä kuin ehdottajan ei ole.

Statuksen muutosEdit

Kuvasta tulee suositeltu kuva, jos se täyttää seuraavat vaatimukset:

  1. Kuvaussivulla on hyväksytty ja totuudenmukainen tekijänoikeusmalline
  2. Vähintään viisi kannatusääntä
  3. Vähintään kaksi kolmasosaa äänistä kannattavia
  4. Saman kuvan eri versiosta vain yksi saa olla suositeltu kuva. Siitä kuvasta, joka on kerännyt eniten kannattavia ääniä, tulee suositeltu kuva.

Statuksen poistoehdotuksen kohdalla sovelletaan samoja sääntöjä. Jos statuksen poistoa kannattavia ääniä ei ole tullut ehdottajan äänen lisäksi viiden vuorokauden kuluessa ehdotuksen teosta, äänestys tulee sulkea.

Ohjeita äänestyksen lopettamisesta on sivulla Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished.

Arvostele hyvien tapojen mukaisestiEdit

Muista, että kuva jota kommentoit on jonkun tekemä. Älä käytä sellaista tyyliä kommenteissasi kuin ”Vihaan kuvaa”, ”Kuva on ihan ruma” tai ”Kamala kuva”.

Katso myösEdit

SisällysluetteloEdit

Contents

Ehdokkaat suositelluiksi kuviksiEdit

Jos uudet ehdotukset eivät näy tällä sivulla, purge this page's cache.

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:მამრი შვლის ნუკრი ლაგოდეხის დაცულ ტერიტორიებზე.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 21:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Olympic Roof Munich, July 2018 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 21:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I chose this composition to illustrate the organic character of the design. Maybe I exaggerated my approach...? —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 10-15 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 09:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ET Bahir Dar asv2018-02 img17 Tis Issat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 09:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cusheon Lake in the early morning, Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 05:15:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Canada
  •   Info all by me. Cusheon Lake is the third largest lake of Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada. The picture was taken from a pier on a public beach by Cusheon Lake Road in the early morning, about 2 hours after the sunrise -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great landscape and good sharpness at 10 Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good reflexxion --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the sharpest picture ever but very impressive view. Beautiful colours and composition. --Code (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Praying monks and nuns in the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple of Singapore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 04:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes perhaps the technical quality would have been improved with HDR process, but in the current situation time was really limited. Only a few seconds available to take this single picture before my camera was driven by the crowd and the guard to the exit. Interiors of Chinese temples are often wonderful, though rather rare here, maybe because frequently lit up that way File:Miaoli-County_Taiwan_Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg. And here non-static people in the room also increased the difficulty. Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Was it objectionable to them that you took a picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Nearly everybody on this side were taking selfies of them there, in front of these monks and nuns praying. Just we were very numerous, so not really allowed to stay long -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaining, and I   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blow lit areas in the central shrine and all along both sides. The crop/view focuses far too much on the rather boring ceiling, which the wide-angle view emphasises, and which correspondingly makes tiny the people and the shrine and other art works. I appreciate that some situations make HDR difficult but it can sometimes still be possible, or else expose lower and accept some noise, or else move to a Sony :-). I'll draw a suggested crop, though the resulting image is probably too small. -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes too small, but also much less interesting without these several rows of symmetrical tables facing to each others, plus the quantity of religious statuettes embedded in the wall, not to be missed. So, definitely this crop I will keep, and I love the perspective effect of this ceiling. Thanks for the suggestion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting interior --A.Savin 08:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The support is for the rarity and complexity involved in taking such a photo. Otherwise we always get exteriors or empty interiors. I don't mind the big ceiling, church photos always include a lot of ceiling too, just not this kind that we are not used to. The vast space makes the people look humble, with a closer crop it looks just like any conference. The weak is because of the noted blown areas. At least they are not dulled to gray blobs as in a previous photo. You might want to try the trick for "almost HDR" you can do with just one photo. Make another version of this in Lightroom with a much lower exposure, place both photos as layers in Photohop on top of the original photo (that way you get the correct Exif from the original), the "underexposed" version in "the middle". After that you can erase overly bright areas in the top layer and let the darker layer shine through. Merge into a single layer. You can of course do a similar trick with the correction brush in LR, but it is often easier to control the whole thing in PS using different settings on the eraser. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done If still not perfect, I find the result very much improved. Thanks a lot, Cart, for this interesting technique. Another advantage of using Photoshop here in this process is that we can selectively choose a color range from the menu Select, making the operation quite faster compared to Lightroom with the correction brush. I will keep this trick in mind for the future -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, much better. Artists always find it easier to do the finishing touches in PS since it's all about seeing the colors and the light as opposed to LR which is more about numbers. I'm more used to PS since I've used it for about 20 years now and LR for little more than one year. I hope to learn LR better and find all the little tricks in that one too. ;) Btw, I think your camera has the option to take 3 rapid photos with different preset +-EV? That is ideal for places like this. Press the button once and get 3 photos with different exposures. My camera does 3-7 different exposures and I love using it since you get instant options for blown areas. --Cart (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes we have this option with Canon too from 2 to 7 automatic different exposures. Agree it's useful in such situation. Thanks for these constructive hints and clever recommendation -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing the "dulled to gray blobs" effect that Cart mentioned. This is particularly apparent in the "white now grey" flowers on either side of the shrine and the "specular metal reflection now actually darker than the surrounds" on the gold shrine. The wooden round object on the table near left had a bright highlight that is now dulled and surrounded by darkened wood. The woman on the right who was reading a brightly lit paper book is now reading a book made of recycled cardboard. And the man behind her is disappointed that his white t-shirt has turned mid-grey in the wash :-). Sometimes, blown is blown. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course you can't get it perfect with just a single photo, you can only rescue the not-really-blown areas surrounding the blown areas, but I still think this photo is rare enough (city skylines are not and I demand perfection of such photos) to warrant an FP per "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Although that part of the FPC instructions also states that opinion wars can start here... Let's just agree to disagree instead of warring. --Cart (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting subject, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Forest road Slavne 2017 G9.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 12:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment My reason for this nomination: same day. same forest way, but different place. Possible, set nomination could be better, however, one photo is already promoted --George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco.--Peulle (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Haría - Lanzarote 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 10:33:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but I do not see reason for FP nomination. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much grass foreground and not enough interesting features. The landscape appears distorted, whether by the projection or reality, it just looks rather wrong. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment BTW: It is not distorted, please have a look on the verticals of the trees and houses. The street on the right comes down from the hill. --Llez (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Llez a cylindrical perspective (which is common for panoramas) will keep verticals vertical but cause serious horizontal curvature away from the midpoint. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes I know, but then the top of the house on the right side and also the top of the round building on the right border (See annotations) should be oblique, but they are stricly horizontal, there is no curvature. --Llez (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:ES5310064 - Avenc de Son Pou.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 07:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tallinn.- 26 Pikk House of the Brotherhood of Black Heads (1).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 21:04:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done Correction of the slight curvature of the door situated on Long Street (Tallinn) . Thank you for your advice.--Pierre André (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unbalanced composition with sides cropped at a weird place. -- King of ♠ 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Body of a Hansson 31 sailboat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 19:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Sailboats
  •   Info Not the way you usually depict sailboats. I like how it fills the frame, almost suspended in the blue by ropes and lines, and you can go explore all the details of the body. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Typical "QI not FP"-case in my eyes. I see nothing special here. Sorry. --Code (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I know you'd probably have to be a boat person to go wow at this, but I figured it is worth a shot. You never know. :) --Cart (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Oenothera stricta (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 18:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Onagraceae.
  •   Info Oenothera stricta biennial rare teunisbloem. Blooms in the night. The photo was taken in the early morning, just before the flower closed. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- GeXeS (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lighting patterns on the grass in the background suggest the camera was tilted by about 20° – sorry, but that looks very wrong to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. However, I do not know what you mean. The camera was about level horizontally.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Christ Church Cathedral, DublinEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 11:50:26 (UTC)

  • Yes it is. You can see that in the file name when you click on 'edit'. You will see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin as the nomination name. Another tipoff that it's a set nom, is that the nom page name in the FPC list hasn't got a "File:" or "Image:" in the name. If you just open a set nom in 'edit' and cancel, you will come to the nomination page. --Cart (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question What is the reason why the walls don't seem vertical in the picture on the right ? Under the arch, they are leaning towards outside, as if the perspective correction had gone too far -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason is simple: they are indeed leaning outwards due to the static pressure of the arches. The hanging candelabras however are perfectly vertical. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent documents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support There are quite a few stitching errors in the 360 picture but the quality of the pictures is amazing (colors, number of megapixels etc.). It kind of makes up for the errors for me :) --Podzemnik (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Glaciar Margerie, Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 33.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Corvus splendens insolens @ Kuala Lumpur (2) alternate crop.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 12:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Close-up photograph of an Iguana iguana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 06:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The lighthouse on the promontory of Nyholmen by Bodø harbor.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 17:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely a QI, and well-done, but sandwiching the putative subject between two layers of land does not help focus on it. Basically, there's too much going on in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Horizon is bright, while the main parts are quiet dark and it does not draw my attention --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed and Composition --The Photographer 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, for all the reasons others oppose, I like the brightness that gives me a melancholic feel. However, a lower angle and a composition with a larger lighthouse would be better. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The view and the light amid the darkness strike me, so I think that's sufficient for me to vote to support. The highlights are a little blown, but I believe this view actually looked as depicted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed and slate horizont, --Fischer.H (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Chipmunk (71669).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 16:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose A bit small for the "new" FP standart not official, arbust distracting on foreground (note added) and composition problem (too hight angle shoot) --The Photographer 23:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm surprised to hear the opinion that a ~5 megapixel image of a small subject is too small. Nothing I can do about that (or the angle) now I suppose. I'd be happy to try cropping a bit if that's what this discussion yields, though. Maybe a bit less than the note says (such that the grass still kind of frames the subject, to the left/right and behind). Curious to get other thoughts. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Comparing your picture with images in the same FP subject, the smaller photos are at least 10 years older than this, of all the things that I told you that It's the only thing measurable, the rest is only a personal opinion humbly --The Photographer 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I also find the size a bit small (or just limit), especially considering the composition could be cut at the bottom and on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support small but convincingly nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mostly per The Photographer. The small size (and small subject within the frame) isn't an absolute fail for wildlife, but mainly that it gets no points for detail, resolution, when we're trying to work out what is exceptional here. If this was some rare species and the lens was already 400mm then I'd be more forgiving, but this is in a city garden. I don't think subject size is really a factor, just the appropriate choice of lens. Subject distance is generally more of a limitation, and our best wildlife photography often shows a good deal of effort to get close to the subject (and hours and hours of missed chances). The green shoots are also a bit distracting. And agree that getting down at the same height as the subject is often superior. -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - Very good photo and worth nominating, but I ultimately oppose per others, mainly because of the size, but also for the other reasons cited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Tree swallow at Stroud Preserve.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 09:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Peulle, GerifalteDelSabana, Daniel Case: No, it's not an artificial background, just grass that's way out of focus because of the 600mm focal length. Here is the uncropped version which shows some of the variation in background, and here are some other unprocessed shots from the same day with similar backgrounds. --Iiii I I I (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  Support--Peulle (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Extremely regretful oppose because of that background. Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Gladly supported Well that's some noisy grass, but I really like the bird. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending resolution of questions about background. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  Weak support I figured it was blurred grass. But I wonder if maybe you cropped in a bit too much. But ... it's your image and your call. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise and satured colors. --The Photographer 23:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer, plus the unattractive light makes it look almost 2-dimensional compared to this. --Cart (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer and Cart. Quality is too low for FP -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Coleus (71543).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 03:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:North view in Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II from rotunda.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 20:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Peulle: I checked again and it's not. What may be giving you that impression is that I wasn't exactly on the center axis as I took the photo. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
That might be it, yes. I'm checking the horizontals and that's when I see that things on the left aren't lining up with the right. I don't see any problems with the verticals, though.--Peulle (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful photo, especially the glass roof. Unfortunately three people in the front are disturbing the composition too much (especially the boy in the left corner) --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Michielverbeek: Usually I roll my eyes at "Ewww! People" opposes to things like this but I admit with this one you may have a point. I will see if Peulle's right about the tilt (I don't think so, but you never know) and probably crop the people mostly out so all you see is tops of heads. Would that work better? Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) I don't think the people problem is repairable. I guess it would have been better if you would take this photo some seconds before or after --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - A mall with people. It's fine, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The composition brings to mind The School of Athens. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are many similar pictures from the gallery. I don't think this is outstanding.--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cut feet and distracting head seen from behind in the foreground. Also I agree with Peulle there's a small tilt (fixable) visible on the left side with this part of the building being not perfectly vertical. The roof is wonderful, but unfortunately we can't cut the image over the crowd, so we really have to compose with these people walking. In this kind of situation, I usually use a tripod and wait quite long, until an interesting configuration occurs, neutral or special (extra value if someone creates something). But that's not easy, and subject to luck. Here I'm bothered by the crowded bottom. Not enough free space on the floor visually to breath and feel an elegant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have fixed the tilt (I think). Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head mutilation in people is too distracting --The Photographer 23:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Glaciar Davidson, Haines, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 55.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 08:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this image because of the very special lighting. -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree, a nice one! :) Thank you Smial for the nom! --Poco2 11:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For once, an image with grey sky and dirty subject adds to the value.--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 13:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree, great lighting. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would be great if brightened 2/3 stop or so but right now it's too dark for me. -- King of ♠ 01:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    KoH I just checked it and 2/3 stop would be definitely too much, the atmosphere of the images would be essentially different. If Smial wants I can offer a alternative version. Poco2 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      Comment Simple brightening wouldn't work. Perhaps slight S-curving? I don't think it's really necessary, but I've tried a minor rework. --Smial (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree then. In my opinion scenes sometimes do need to be brightened from what the eye sees; for example, I've found that the optimal time to photograph during the blue hour comes 5-10 minutes after the optimal time for viewing the scene with the naked eye, using a significantly longer exposure of course. -- King of ♠ 03:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good as it is--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support We not should change the natural light of this scene --The Photographer 23:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Red Army monument in Mikolin (Nikoline) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very well-taken photo, but partially obscured by shrubbery, not an outstanding composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ... and for the reasons people oppose! It speaks of the times... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not much obscured to me. So foliage around is quite natural. Jee 03:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weaky supporty per Tomas, but a closer angle wouold be much better :) ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per Jkadavoor, although I'd prefer a closer angle --Llez (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Silesia Star, Katowice (Kattowitz).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:12:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Your opinion is noted, but I asked you why it's so relatively small. So why is that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Because this size is ok for me --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That's just as unresponsive as "Because I said so". I will give this nomination moderate   Support, but I really don't appreciate your non-answers and don't think they will help you convince anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a pretty good image, but the combination of the bridge and building doesn't quite work for me. If the bridge had been the subject I might have been convinced with that nice yellow steel construction on the left, but right now the buildings in the background are disturbing that impression. So the buildings and the bridge are disturbing each other. Perhaps a different angle might have worked.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support eye-catching Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in the evening.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 18:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Silent dialogue.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 11:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)
  •   Info Deer (Cervus laphus L.) in Mizhrichynskyi Regional Landscape Park, the biggest regional landscape park in Ukraine. The large wild area provides a habitat to many animals. Created by Wildlife Ukraine - uploaded by Wildlife Ukraine - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry it doesn't compare well with our existing FP's of deer (see updated FP category above), wrt composition, exposure or sharpness. The filename and categories could do with some changes. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin; it looks great as a thumbnail but when looking at it, the quality and crispness just isn't there. As far as the categories go, this is not an elk, it's a deer, so that needs tidying up.--Peulle (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The head and the body of the deer are not sharp. I think f/4 at 420mm here is not enough, and also 1/15s too long to avoid motion blur. Concerning the light, there are blown highlights. The composition may be interesting but the quality is not there -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I didn't even get to looking at the deer; the center of the picture looks like someone dropped an ice cube on it an hour before ... I mean, even Monet would have included more detail. The unsharp area is distracting even at thumbnail; at full size it is grotesque. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Llez (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cypripedium acaule - Henvey Inlet3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 04:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
  •   Info - all by -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is sharp, but the composition much less interesting than the previous one. The light has nothing special and the background is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Basile. The other photo had graceful curves (though one can see why it is also called the scrotum flower) and this one a worse angle and distracting background. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Cool: Looks like a nose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File :Pseudosphinx tetrio (Sphingidae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 02:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • A further oppose based on what everyone has added. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think, this is not the original background. The motif was cut out (visible at the borders) and placed on an even blue background. --Llez (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--西安兵马俑 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Llez, and even if it had the original background I find the composition awkward and cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, Llez is right. This is not the original background. We can see that using a software indicating the hexadecimal code of the color at various points. In this case, the color is always #7085C8. Whereas in a real blue sky (like this one for example), visually evenly spread, the subtle color and its associated hexadecimal code will always vary -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cochem, Cond, Moselufer -- 2018 -- 0118.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •   Info created by and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Backlit dandelions are always irresistible, but in this case it competes too much with the identifiable background. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also would try shooting this more wide open. Really try to soften that background. At 2.8 or faster I doubt you could tell that was a building. You don't need a large DoF with these. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the choice of DoF is a feature here. I very much like this contre-jour photograph. --Code (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Code. Cool photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster, Graffiti im Hafen -- 2015 -- 5852.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pelicans Kerkini 20111227 IMG 5165.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 17:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great composition, great light, I really like the pose of the pelican in focus. I now it is a bit soft but I hope the rest can mitigate this.

  •   Info created by RoubinakiM - uploaded by RoubinakiM - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I very much like it but ... it suffers in sharpness from being so small. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Per Daniel. Great thumbnail, nice light and pattern, but not excellent quality at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel, and as a bird photographer myself, a shot from a lower angle would be much better, if permitted. :) -- Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good composition, IMO. I really like the rhythm, the way my eyes move around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Over-denoise filter applied, the animals pen look like a smooth plastic surface --The Photographer 23:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cityscape of Blois 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 16:03:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A QI for sure but it just doesn't stand out enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I personally like it, but it seems a bit tilted visually, and is slightly overexposed at the lamps in the background, but it still looks good so... ;) I'd love it if the tilt could be fixed. -- Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. At 10 MP the level of detail isn't quite there, and some noise and overexposure as well. But it's a great scene. -- King of ♠ 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Statuksen poistoehdotuksetEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:მამრი შვლის ნუკრი ლაგოდეხის დაცულ ტერიტორიებზე.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 21:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Olympic Roof Munich, July 2018 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 21:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I chose this composition to illustrate the organic character of the design. Maybe I exaggerated my approach...? —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 10-15 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 09:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ET Bahir Dar asv2018-02 img17 Tis Issat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 09:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cusheon Lake in the early morning, Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2018 at 05:15:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Canada
  •   Info all by me. Cusheon Lake is the third largest lake of Saltspring Island, British Columbia, Canada. The picture was taken from a pier on a public beach by Cusheon Lake Road in the early morning, about 2 hours after the sunrise -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great landscape and good sharpness at 10 Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good reflexxion --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the sharpest picture ever but very impressive view. Beautiful colours and composition. --Code (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Praying monks and nuns in the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple of Singapore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 04:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes perhaps the technical quality would have been improved with HDR process, but in the current situation time was really limited. Only a few seconds available to take this single picture before my camera was driven by the crowd and the guard to the exit. Interiors of Chinese temples are often wonderful, though rather rare here, maybe because frequently lit up that way File:Miaoli-County_Taiwan_Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg. And here non-static people in the room also increased the difficulty. Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Was it objectionable to them that you took a picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. Nearly everybody on this side were taking selfies of them there, in front of these monks and nuns praying. Just we were very numerous, so not really allowed to stay long -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaining, and I   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blow lit areas in the central shrine and all along both sides. The crop/view focuses far too much on the rather boring ceiling, which the wide-angle view emphasises, and which correspondingly makes tiny the people and the shrine and other art works. I appreciate that some situations make HDR difficult but it can sometimes still be possible, or else expose lower and accept some noise, or else move to a Sony :-). I'll draw a suggested crop, though the resulting image is probably too small. -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes too small, but also much less interesting without these several rows of symmetrical tables facing to each others, plus the quantity of religious statuettes embedded in the wall, not to be missed. So, definitely this crop I will keep, and I love the perspective effect of this ceiling. Thanks for the suggestion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting interior --A.Savin 08:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The support is for the rarity and complexity involved in taking such a photo. Otherwise we always get exteriors or empty interiors. I don't mind the big ceiling, church photos always include a lot of ceiling too, just not this kind that we are not used to. The vast space makes the people look humble, with a closer crop it looks just like any conference. The weak is because of the noted blown areas. At least they are not dulled to gray blobs as in a previous photo. You might want to try the trick for "almost HDR" you can do with just one photo. Make another version of this in Lightroom with a much lower exposure, place both photos as layers in Photohop on top of the original photo (that way you get the correct Exif from the original), the "underexposed" version in "the middle". After that you can erase overly bright areas in the top layer and let the darker layer shine through. Merge into a single layer. You can of course do a similar trick with the correction brush in LR, but it is often easier to control the whole thing in PS using different settings on the eraser. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done If still not perfect, I find the result very much improved. Thanks a lot, Cart, for this interesting technique. Another advantage of using Photoshop here in this process is that we can selectively choose a color range from the menu Select, making the operation quite faster compared to Lightroom with the correction brush. I will keep this trick in mind for the future -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, much better. Artists always find it easier to do the finishing touches in PS since it's all about seeing the colors and the light as opposed to LR which is more about numbers. I'm more used to PS since I've used it for about 20 years now and LR for little more than one year. I hope to learn LR better and find all the little tricks in that one too. ;) Btw, I think your camera has the option to take 3 rapid photos with different preset +-EV? That is ideal for places like this. Press the button once and get 3 photos with different exposures. My camera does 3-7 different exposures and I love using it since you get instant options for blown areas. --Cart (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes we have this option with Canon too from 2 to 7 automatic different exposures. Agree it's useful in such situation. Thanks for these constructive hints and clever recommendation -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing the "dulled to gray blobs" effect that Cart mentioned. This is particularly apparent in the "white now grey" flowers on either side of the shrine and the "specular metal reflection now actually darker than the surrounds" on the gold shrine. The wooden round object on the table near left had a bright highlight that is now dulled and surrounded by darkened wood. The woman on the right who was reading a brightly lit paper book is now reading a book made of recycled cardboard. And the man behind her is disappointed that his white t-shirt has turned mid-grey in the wash :-). Sometimes, blown is blown. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course you can't get it perfect with just a single photo, you can only rescue the not-really-blown areas surrounding the blown areas, but I still think this photo is rare enough (city skylines are not and I demand perfection of such photos) to warrant an FP per "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Although that part of the FPC instructions also states that opinion wars can start here... Let's just agree to disagree instead of warring. --Cart (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting subject, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Forest road Slavne 2017 G9.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 12:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment My reason for this nomination: same day. same forest way, but different place. Possible, set nomination could be better, however, one photo is already promoted --George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco.--Peulle (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Haría - Lanzarote 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 10:33:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but I do not see reason for FP nomination. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much grass foreground and not enough interesting features. The landscape appears distorted, whether by the projection or reality, it just looks rather wrong. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment BTW: It is not distorted, please have a look on the verticals of the trees and houses. The street on the right comes down from the hill. --Llez (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Llez a cylindrical perspective (which is common for panoramas) will keep verticals vertical but cause serious horizontal curvature away from the midpoint. -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes I know, but then the top of the house on the right side and also the top of the round building on the right border (See annotations) should be oblique, but they are stricly horizontal, there is no curvature. --Llez (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:ES5310064 - Avenc de Son Pou.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 07:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tallinn.- 26 Pikk House of the Brotherhood of Black Heads (1).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 21:04:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done Correction of the slight curvature of the door situated on Long Street (Tallinn) . Thank you for your advice.--Pierre André (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unbalanced composition with sides cropped at a weird place. -- King of ♠ 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Body of a Hansson 31 sailboat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 19:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Sailboats
  •   Info Not the way you usually depict sailboats. I like how it fills the frame, almost suspended in the blue by ropes and lines, and you can go explore all the details of the body. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Typical "QI not FP"-case in my eyes. I see nothing special here. Sorry. --Code (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I know you'd probably have to be a boat person to go wow at this, but I figured it is worth a shot. You never know. :) --Cart (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Oenothera stricta (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 18:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Onagraceae.
  •   Info Oenothera stricta biennial rare teunisbloem. Blooms in the night. The photo was taken in the early morning, just before the flower closed. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- GeXeS (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lighting patterns on the grass in the background suggest the camera was tilted by about 20° – sorry, but that looks very wrong to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. However, I do not know what you mean. The camera was about level horizontally.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Christ Church Cathedral, DublinEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 11:50:26 (UTC)

  • Yes it is. You can see that in the file name when you click on 'edit'. You will see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin as the nomination name. Another tipoff that it's a set nom, is that the nom page name in the FPC list hasn't got a "File:" or "Image:" in the name. If you just open a set nom in 'edit' and cancel, you will come to the nomination page. --Cart (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question What is the reason why the walls don't seem vertical in the picture on the right ? Under the arch, they are leaning towards outside, as if the perspective correction had gone too far -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason is simple: they are indeed leaning outwards due to the static pressure of the arches. The hanging candelabras however are perfectly vertical. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 08:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent documents. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support There are quite a few stitching errors in the 360 picture but the quality of the pictures is amazing (colors, number of megapixels etc.). It kind of makes up for the errors for me :) --Podzemnik (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Glaciar Margerie, Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 33.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Corvus splendens insolens @ Kuala Lumpur (2) alternate crop.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 12:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Close-up photograph of an Iguana iguana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 06:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The lighthouse on the promontory of Nyholmen by Bodø harbor.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 17:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely a QI, and well-done, but sandwiching the putative subject between two layers of land does not help focus on it. Basically, there's too much going on in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Horizon is bright, while the main parts are quiet dark and it does not draw my attention --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed and Composition --The Photographer 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, for all the reasons others oppose, I like the brightness that gives me a melancholic feel. However, a lower angle and a composition with a larger lighthouse would be better. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The view and the light amid the darkness strike me, so I think that's sufficient for me to vote to support. The highlights are a little blown, but I believe this view actually looked as depicted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed and slate horizont, --Fischer.H (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Chipmunk (71669).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 16:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose A bit small for the "new" FP standart not official, arbust distracting on foreground (note added) and composition problem (too hight angle shoot) --The Photographer 23:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm surprised to hear the opinion that a ~5 megapixel image of a small subject is too small. Nothing I can do about that (or the angle) now I suppose. I'd be happy to try cropping a bit if that's what this discussion yields, though. Maybe a bit less than the note says (such that the grass still kind of frames the subject, to the left/right and behind). Curious to get other thoughts. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Comparing your picture with images in the same FP subject, the smaller photos are at least 10 years older than this, of all the things that I told you that It's the only thing measurable, the rest is only a personal opinion humbly --The Photographer 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I also find the size a bit small (or just limit), especially considering the composition could be cut at the bottom and on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support small but convincingly nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mostly per The Photographer. The small size (and small subject within the frame) isn't an absolute fail for wildlife, but mainly that it gets no points for detail, resolution, when we're trying to work out what is exceptional here. If this was some rare species and the lens was already 400mm then I'd be more forgiving, but this is in a city garden. I don't think subject size is really a factor, just the appropriate choice of lens. Subject distance is generally more of a limitation, and our best wildlife photography often shows a good deal of effort to get close to the subject (and hours and hours of missed chances). The green shoots are also a bit distracting. And agree that getting down at the same height as the subject is often superior. -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - Very good photo and worth nominating, but I ultimately oppose per others, mainly because of the size, but also for the other reasons cited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Tree swallow at Stroud Preserve.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 09:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Peulle, GerifalteDelSabana, Daniel Case: No, it's not an artificial background, just grass that's way out of focus because of the 600mm focal length. Here is the uncropped version which shows some of the variation in background, and here are some other unprocessed shots from the same day with similar backgrounds. --Iiii I I I (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  Support--Peulle (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Extremely regretful oppose because of that background. Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Gladly supported Well that's some noisy grass, but I really like the bird. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending resolution of questions about background. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  Weak support I figured it was blurred grass. But I wonder if maybe you cropped in a bit too much. But ... it's your image and your call. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise and satured colors. --The Photographer 23:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer, plus the unattractive light makes it look almost 2-dimensional compared to this. --Cart (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer and Cart. Quality is too low for FP -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Coleus (71543).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 03:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:North view in Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II from rotunda.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 20:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Peulle: I checked again and it's not. What may be giving you that impression is that I wasn't exactly on the center axis as I took the photo. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
That might be it, yes. I'm checking the horizontals and that's when I see that things on the left aren't lining up with the right. I don't see any problems with the verticals, though.--Peulle (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful photo, especially the glass roof. Unfortunately three people in the front are disturbing the composition too much (especially the boy in the left corner) --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Michielverbeek: Usually I roll my eyes at "Ewww! People" opposes to things like this but I admit with this one you may have a point. I will see if Peulle's right about the tilt (I don't think so, but you never know) and probably crop the people mostly out so all you see is tops of heads. Would that work better? Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) I don't think the people problem is repairable. I guess it would have been better if you would take this photo some seconds before or after --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - A mall with people. It's fine, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The composition brings to mind The School of Athens. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are many similar pictures from the gallery. I don't think this is outstanding.--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cut feet and distracting head seen from behind in the foreground. Also I agree with Peulle there's a small tilt (fixable) visible on the left side with this part of the building being not perfectly vertical. The roof is wonderful, but unfortunately we can't cut the image over the crowd, so we really have to compose with these people walking. In this kind of situation, I usually use a tripod and wait quite long, until an interesting configuration occurs, neutral or special (extra value if someone creates something). But that's not easy, and subject to luck. Here I'm bothered by the crowded bottom. Not enough free space on the floor visually to breath and feel an elegant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have fixed the tilt (I think). Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head mutilation in people is too distracting --The Photographer 23:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Glaciar Davidson, Haines, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 55.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 08:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this image because of the very special lighting. -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree, a nice one! :) Thank you Smial for the nom! --Poco2 11:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For once, an image with grey sky and dirty subject adds to the value.--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 13:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree, great lighting. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would be great if brightened 2/3 stop or so but right now it's too dark for me. -- King of ♠ 01:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    KoH I just checked it and 2/3 stop would be definitely too much, the atmosphere of the images would be essentially different. If Smial wants I can offer a alternative version. Poco2 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      Comment Simple brightening wouldn't work. Perhaps slight S-curving? I don't think it's really necessary, but I've tried a minor rework. --Smial (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree then. In my opinion scenes sometimes do need to be brightened from what the eye sees; for example, I've found that the optimal time to photograph during the blue hour comes 5-10 minutes after the optimal time for viewing the scene with the naked eye, using a significantly longer exposure of course. -- King of ♠ 03:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good as it is--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support We not should change the natural light of this scene --The Photographer 23:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Red Army monument in Mikolin (Nikoline) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very well-taken photo, but partially obscured by shrubbery, not an outstanding composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ... and for the reasons people oppose! It speaks of the times... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not much obscured to me. So foliage around is quite natural. Jee 03:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weaky supporty per Tomas, but a closer angle wouold be much better :) ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per Jkadavoor, although I'd prefer a closer angle --Llez (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Silesia Star, Katowice (Kattowitz).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:12:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Your opinion is noted, but I asked you why it's so relatively small. So why is that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Because this size is ok for me --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That's just as unresponsive as "Because I said so". I will give this nomination moderate   Support, but I really don't appreciate your non-answers and don't think they will help you convince anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a pretty good image, but the combination of the bridge and building doesn't quite work for me. If the bridge had been the subject I might have been convinced with that nice yellow steel construction on the left, but right now the buildings in the background are disturbing that impression. So the buildings and the bridge are disturbing each other. Perhaps a different angle might have worked.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support eye-catching Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in the evening.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 18:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Silent dialogue.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 11:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)
  •   Info Deer (Cervus laphus L.) in Mizhrichynskyi Regional Landscape Park, the biggest regional landscape park in Ukraine. The large wild area provides a habitat to many animals. Created by Wildlife Ukraine - uploaded by Wildlife Ukraine - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry it doesn't compare well with our existing FP's of deer (see updated FP category above), wrt composition, exposure or sharpness. The filename and categories could do with some changes. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin; it looks great as a thumbnail but when looking at it, the quality and crispness just isn't there. As far as the categories go, this is not an elk, it's a deer, so that needs tidying up.--Peulle (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The head and the body of the deer are not sharp. I think f/4 at 420mm here is not enough, and also 1/15s too long to avoid motion blur. Concerning the light, there are blown highlights. The composition may be interesting but the quality is not there -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I didn't even get to looking at the deer; the center of the picture looks like someone dropped an ice cube on it an hour before ... I mean, even Monet would have included more detail. The unsharp area is distracting even at thumbnail; at full size it is grotesque. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Llez (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cypripedium acaule - Henvey Inlet3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 04:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
  •   Info - all by -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is sharp, but the composition much less interesting than the previous one. The light has nothing special and the background is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Basile. The other photo had graceful curves (though one can see why it is also called the scrotum flower) and this one a worse angle and distracting background. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Cool: Looks like a nose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File :Pseudosphinx tetrio (Sphingidae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 02:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • A further oppose based on what everyone has added. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think, this is not the original background. The motif was cut out (visible at the borders) and placed on an even blue background. --Llez (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--西安兵马俑 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Llez, and even if it had the original background I find the composition awkward and cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, Llez is right. This is not the original background. We can see that using a software indicating the hexadecimal code of the color at various points. In this case, the color is always #7085C8. Whereas in a real blue sky (like this one for example), visually evenly spread, the subtle color and its associated hexadecimal code will always vary -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cochem, Cond, Moselufer -- 2018 -- 0118.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •   Info created by and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Backlit dandelions are always irresistible, but in this case it competes too much with the identifiable background. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also would try shooting this more wide open. Really try to soften that background. At 2.8 or faster I doubt you could tell that was a building. You don't need a large DoF with these. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the choice of DoF is a feature here. I very much like this contre-jour photograph. --Code (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Code. Cool photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster, Graffiti im Hafen -- 2015 -- 5852.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pelicans Kerkini 20111227 IMG 5165.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 17:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great composition, great light, I really like the pose of the pelican in focus. I now it is a bit soft but I hope the rest can mitigate this.

  •   Info created by RoubinakiM - uploaded by RoubinakiM - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I very much like it but ... it suffers in sharpness from being so small. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Per Daniel. Great thumbnail, nice light and pattern, but not excellent quality at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel, and as a bird photographer myself, a shot from a lower angle would be much better, if permitted. :) -- Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good composition, IMO. I really like the rhythm, the way my eyes move around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Over-denoise filter applied, the animals pen look like a smooth plastic surface --The Photographer 23:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cityscape of Blois 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 16:03:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A QI for sure but it just doesn't stand out enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I personally like it, but it seems a bit tilted visually, and is slightly overexposed at the lamps in the background, but it still looks good so... ;) I'd love it if the tilt could be fixed. -- Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. At 10 MP the level of detail isn't quite there, and some noise and overexposure as well. But it's a great scene. -- King of ♠ 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Aikataulu viidentenä päivänä ehdotuksen lisäämisen jälkeenEdit

Mon 16 Jul → Sat 21 Jul
Tue 17 Jul → Sun 22 Jul
Wed 18 Jul → Mon 23 Jul
Thu 19 Jul → Tue 24 Jul
Fri 20 Jul → Wed 25 Jul
Sat 21 Jul → Thu 26 Jul

Aikataulu yhdeksäntenä päivänä ehdotuksen lisäämisen jälkeenEdit

Thu 12 Jul → Sat 21 Jul
Fri 13 Jul → Sun 22 Jul
Sat 14 Jul → Mon 23 Jul
Sun 15 Jul → Tue 24 Jul
Mon 16 Jul → Wed 25 Jul
Tue 17 Jul → Thu 26 Jul
Wed 18 Jul → Fri 27 Jul
Thu 19 Jul → Sat 28 Jul
Fri 20 Jul → Sun 29 Jul
Sat 21 Jul → Mon 30 Jul