Open main menu

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:Oberbaumbrücke November 2013 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sterna fuscata.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Launching a sailboat 17 - Fitting the mast.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:16:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
  •   Info You can see the rest of the launching operation on the file page. All by me -- Cart (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I could live with the large shadows since they accentuate the sun, but having so little of the boat itself visible is more of a detriment as there is the strong interaction with the tractor. Also several distracting elements (tire, some attachment block) further obscure. I don't like the hunched over poses of the workers. Ultimately I think this image doesn't showcase a special enough lighting situation involving the sun as I would expect in this category, I would have placed it under Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other land vehicles instead, for the tractor. A different category would for sure change my review, but I can't guarantee support. – Lucas 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am certanly open to suggestions about the category. In this case it's really difficult. It's in a series about the boat, but there is so little "boat" in this photo. 'Other land vehicles' is another option, but then again there are better photos of this truck. So I went with the most dominating thing in the photo: the Sun and the shadows it creates (take a look at other photos in the 'Sun' category). Pehaps a category "Shadows" would be most appropriate, but it doesn't exist (should we create it or is Natural phenomena/Other enough?). This is one of the strange things about FPC, that an interesting photo can be dismissed because it doesn't fit perfectly into a FP category. Looking at the 'Natural phenomena' category, there are several photos that have ended up there for this reason. --Cart (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me, the sun is in the wrong place.--Peulle (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 125-127 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main altar of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Taken in 2015, but still holds up as an FP today. I'd reduce the highlights a bit, and there is something - some kind of light streak - down in the centre by the altar that could be looked at.--Peulle (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit too ornately baroque for my taste, but clearly FP and beautiful on its own terms. Cmao20 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support though this specific variant of baroque is a bit too much even for me - and I'm really into baroque generally --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Mary Mammoth September 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 02:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lake Benmore, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Driftwood on the beach north of Kaikoura, Canterbury, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Domaine de Maizerets park, Québec city, Canadá 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 17:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Was ready to oppose at first, but the detail at full resolution is excellent. I still think it's a bit low on wow, but overall worth a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow mainly due to the overcast day, the random people and big empty lawn in the foreground. The right crop is unsatisfying, the brown gravel field should have been included fully. – Lucas 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
  •   Info all by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit too bright and it could do with a slight restoration. Composition-wise, I don't think lamp shades as hats will ever be in fashion. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I like his happy, youthful appearance, though I agree with Cart, especially on the composition. But how historically important is this particular portrait? It seems to be the best one we've got on Commons, and he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure. We do have this reproduction of a painting, too, but it's below the normal minimum size for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I would say it is unique and unmatched in EV. Gagarin's face was scarred when he fell jumping off a balcony while escaping from his wife who had caught him cheating in September 1961. In case you are not aware, he became the first human in space in April 1961. So this is the only photo likely to be available of how he looked pre-incident and best representation of his appearance while he was on his historic first mission to space. It may also be the best/only clear portrait of him we have in general because he died in 1968. I do not know how to clean up the scratches around his chin. If any one is good at that I would welcome it. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm very much aware of Gagarin's pioneering voyage in space, which is why I wrote that "he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The italics was not intended for you. The dates are more important to answering your question. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart as the lamp shade and chin shadow are serious photographical flaws and Commons FP are centered around photographic excellence. IMHO this fits far better with the goal of Wikipedia FP. – Lucas 21:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucasbosch, as this particular image doesn't appear to be that significant (he was the subject of lots of pictures, and this one doesn't stand out), and it's got the problems mentioned above. And I agree on en:WP:FP: "unmatched in EV" doesn't matter here as much as there. We can promote images passing COM:SCOPE even if they're not currently in use anywhere, while great educational value can't salvage a not-so-good photo. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, but quite sure it is a Wikipedia FP. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:BNSF GE Dash-9 C44-9W Kennewick - Wishram WA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  I'm not an expert on trains, but train tracks do have some banking in curves (some more than others) and some trains are also able to mechanically lean to the side. This photo at least shows the track banking for sure. – Lucas 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Baikal ice on sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 16:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District
  •   Info Lake Baikal in winter. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Please don't pixel-peep this to death. At that latitude in January you need high ISO at sunset since the ice is probably moving a bit with the waves. The big size of the file makes up for it. I wouldn't mind an English description though. --Cart (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Cart for the explanation on the circumstances. Often reviewers don't know why or even if certain settings were chosen. – LucasT 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Rather noisy, but very spectacular --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree that this is a very spectacular photo and overall worth a feature, but it is (understandably, as Cart explains) quite noisy, and even downsized to 5000px across some noise is still visible. It's not terrible though, so I still support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noisy but still good enough for FP --Boothsift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's spectacular, but I don't understand why we are not asking for it to be de-noised before we support a feature. It's already problematic at 250% and slightly at 200% of my 13-inch laptop screen. And in this case, I don't think the size of the photo is an argument for a feature, because it looks bad at full size and we probably shouldn't be looking at it at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan, FYI, zoom levels above 100 % usually denote zooming in further than the 1:1 pixel level, so picture pixels would actually get upscaled on your monitor. I'm sure you meant the opposite, being zoomed in a moderate amount, still above pixel level, approx. 50 % zoom or less. – LucasT 07:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you didn't read my remark carefully. I'm talking about percentages of the size of my 13-inch laptop screen, not percentages of the huge size of the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan, when you get noise at high ISO levels, de-noising will often ruin the photo. The de-noising programs can only merge and extrapolate the "missing" information so far. The result is often a smooth and plastic-looking photo since you lose all sharp edges and in most places the "noise grains" will bunch together and form artifacts instead. A photo like this will lose some of its crispness. Even a slight noise reduction would make it look over-processed or like taken with a cheap mobile. --Cart (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a pity. Do you think there could have been a way to get a little more sharpness and less noise when the photo was taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You could probably have taken it with that time and a lower ISO and added the light in post-processing; that would have made it less noisy but instead you would have lost bright colors and details in the ice. Or you could have sacrificed the DOF and made only the nearest ice sharp; that way you could do a less noisy photo. In some cases, everything is a compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan and others, this is a version of the photo downsized to "normal"/acceptable size with a bit of noise reduction (you can do NR on a high ISO photo if you downsize it first). It is nicer to look at when opening at full size, BUT in the process a lot of information is now lost. It has gone from 19.05 MB to 4.08 MB. Isn't it better to have the full original version? --Cart (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The original is much nicer to look at, the world has plenty of mushy noise-reduced images already. – Lucas 12:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, I just wanted to show how it would look since not all voters are used to how post-processing works. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the demonstration. I agree that the original is superior to the edited version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs denoising. At least selective denoising. Great lighting and compo but the noise is just too much. Poco2 14:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks providing me with my new desktop background!
  •   Neutral Nice photo but somewhat overcooked. (1) Noise is not the issue here. Noise is the most overrated problem here on FPC ever. That said, I think at 38mm focal length an aperture of f/5.6 would have done it, too. Then it would have been possible to lower the ISO to 200 which would have reduced the noise significantly. However, it is always easy to critize such a photo sitting at home in front of your computer. On location you sometimes don't have the time to try different settings or you don't immediately see a flaw that can be seen on a computer screen. Additionally EXIF says that the exposure has been increased somewhat (+0.57) in postprocessing which may explain the amount of noise since the D800 IMO would normally not create so much noise at only ISO 800. (2) EXIF also says that the author increased clarity, vibrance and saturation which was for my taste somewhat too much, that's why I vote neutral here. --Code (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Bloemknoppen van Eryngium giganteum 'Miss Willmott's Ghost' 04-06-2019. (d.j.b). 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 15:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Petra Jordan BW 2009-11-10 12-33-49.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 12:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Jordan
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition, distracting tree covering up a large part of the subject, bad depth perception due to the light direction, distracting tourists. Low pixel detail and humongous CAs in the lower right. – LucasT 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good photo on the whole, but the tree is a bit distracting, and I agree about the CAs. I think we can probably do a bit better for such a commonly photographed monument. Cmao20 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition as Lucas notes, the tree is also fairly distracting IMO. --Boothsift 23:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - What other direction would be better for this motif than straight-on and centered? I'm confused by that criticism. I think that there are other factors at issue but not that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tree in front sort of spoils it for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not boring! I would not have expected trees in the dry area. It does not bother me at all to see this documented. The motive is worth seeing and the quality is very good. --Milseburg (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Riga Cathedral Nave, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quedlinburg CastleEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
  •   Info Quedlinburg Castle and Collegiate Church at early evening and the same view at dusk after sunset ----- all by me, --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose These are lovely but for FP of such a set there should have been at least a good attempt made to align the two images to each other, right know too much is changing position most noticeable on the sides. Sadly the focal lengths and dimensions are not uniform and the camera position was shifted vertically between the shots by a significant distance. These last two points are of lesser importance though. – LucasT 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Overall, absolutely brilliant. Lucas is right that they could be aligned to each other a little bit better, but not enough to stop me supporting. Lovely, sharp, high-resolution photos of the castle from an excellent angle, and good to have a night and a day view. You could choose to denoise the sky a bit in the night photo, but again it's not a very serious issue for me. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the small difference. The human eye perceives things differently at day vs evening/night too. --Cart (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:עץ על אי מלח באמצע ים המלח.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 09:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Eranrez - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quite an unusual image, but I'd feel happier if the sky were de-noised. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Interesting image but there are question-marks over the quality, especially the sky as Ikan points out but more generally there's a bit of colour noise. It also looks to me like there's a bit of barrel distortion, with the horizon visibly curving up at one end and down at the other. Cmao20 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice composition but the quality is not enough for such a small photo. A GoPro camera is not ideal for FPs. And as the description says, it's a tourist destination so not that hard to get to for someone with a fairly good camera. (I've been there myself but that was pre the tree.) --Cart (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Moving to   Support now after I had a better look--Boothsift 04:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Cmao20 – LucasT 07:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I seldom see images as particular as this one here in FPC. Denoising would be good but the wow effect is compensating that. To be honest, I don't understand why this picture is not getting more support. Poco2 14:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Ok, I gave the file some TLC and removed some of the color noise and corrected the barrel distortion a bit, not all the way though since the shore curves slightly. Please revert this if you don't like it. 'Pinging' voters about the change: Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Boothsift, Lucasbosch and Poco. Myself I'm changing to   Neutral after this. I hope Eranrez and Tomer T are ok with this, otherwise I apologize. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cart: Now that we're in the process to improve the image, don't you think that we should reduce the vignetting on the top left? I can give it a try if you like. Poco2 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Poco, I already did some vignetting adjustment in my edit, I think the gradient is due to natural light since it stayed after the correction and it follows the way the shadow of the tree points. I see such phenomena a lot in my photos taken on clear days over water. Let's leave it as it is now, I think it is acceptable. We should be as respectful as possible to the author. The dark sky matches the darker water on that side well. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't know. I see the improvement, but the tree was sharper and bigger in the original, and the photo is still fairly noisy. I like the composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Like I said in the ice photo, you will always lose some sharpness with NR. That's the downside of it. --Cart (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, second and final edit from me. I reverted only the tree since it didn't go well with the NR as Ikan pointed out. Cart out. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you, Cart. I wish it were less noisy, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Célestin Nanteuil - Jules Massenet - Don César de Bazan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 00:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rhönschaf-Weidberg bei Kaltenwestheim HBP-2019-04-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 21:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

How do you do define the direction from where the light is coming, Ikan? I actually had the sun, for what was shining through some clouds, behind me. So I'd expect that the head is as lit as possible... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, the brightest thing in the picture is the sky, and the sheep's head is very dark indeed, and I don't mean just that it's black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good, well-composed QI but I think it doesn't have the extra something special for FP. The light is all a little bit dull. Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan --Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20 – LucasT 07:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support the head of the animal is black and we cant change it --Wilfredor (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Praporec (v zime) 001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 19:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Interesting composition, maybe a bit too much in shadow, but on balance I think it works. Cmao20 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many trees and branches in the foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - the foreground in shadow contrasts nicely with the direct light on the mountain, making for a dynamic scene. I have no problem with the composition, which manages the chaotic forest environment quite well – see for example how the group of evergreens on the right balances out the cluster of tall trees on the left. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Being a slightly cluttered composition and with too many distractions it doesn't work for me. – LucasT 07:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Paisaje en Sutton, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 98-106 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 17:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mary Magdalene church in Gramond 08.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 15:03:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hohenmirsberg P7171141-Pano.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info A panorama of Hohenmirsberg, a district of the town of Pottenstein in northern Bavaria. Created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks all right, but since many of the houses are obscured due to the angle and the light is a bit boring, I don't see the big wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, 对不起--Boothsift 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It nicely captures the village nestled into the surrounding countryside and the layers of fields, houses, forests and sky. -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The uninteresting yellow strip in the foreground ruins it. -- King of ♠ 01:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the yellow strip. It gives a stroger feeling of rural scene --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Paracanthurus-hepatus-paletten-doktorfisch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 06:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info created and uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 06:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the highest resolution, but all the resolution we have is sharp and crisp. Very good overall. Cmao20 (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very attractive.--Vulphere 11:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The crop is very close, can this be changed? --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support As the camera has 4.752 × 3.168 Pixel, a lesser close crop should be possible --Llez (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Great quality but tight crop, strong shadows and aquarium picture Poco2 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Tõus 83.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 16:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created & uploaded by Jaan Künnap - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info The photo was made in 1983 at Caucasus mountains near Elbrus. Wiki article of the photographer. Previously an image with a smaller size was nominated, but after a request made to photographer, he added this image. So I withdraw the previus nomination. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like this photo. I think it stands up well by current standards, maybe except for a blown part at the peak and some noise, which I think is probably inevitable in an analog picture of this type. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not blown, something you can easily verify in any image editing program; the "noise" is called "grain". -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, it looks blown to me, but as I pretty clearly indicated, it's a minor point. I won't be consulting photo editing programs for that kind of thing; I just use my eyes. And OK, grain. But do note that I supported, so I don't think either of those things are so important (and the grain was probably unavoidable). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Back then grain was indeed unavoidable and regarded more as bug than feature... nowadays lots of retro guys believe that grain defines "real" photography and go as far as to add artifical noise to their otherwise perfect pictures... lol --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think that thin black border should be removed though. The signature is ok since it is a scan of an old photo. --Cart (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      Done --Habitator terrae 🌍 17:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request please remove the black border. Also there are strange black lines on the lower left (see my note), as if someone drew them onto the photo to trace the ropes and other equipment. I'm very curious what this could be. – LucasT 18:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now, although I'm still curious about the black lines. – LucasT 20:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Still yes! -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This time due to the higher resolution--Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture. --Yann (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support by all means (but the black border should be removed) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that the border is gone. --Cart (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A marvelous piece of black and white photography. Perfectly composed. Do you eventually remember the film used? Just for curiosity. --Code (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Marmota monax UL 19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 16:55:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info All by -- Cephas (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cephas (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, but it needs an appropriate category to be added --СССР (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Provisional oppose to stop the bot from closing too early This nomination was created on June 9th but added to the visible FPC page on June 12th, so it was only visible to be voted on for 2 days now. – LucasT 22:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well done, Lucas Poco2 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, with a nice amount of time left for Canada Day. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Jharkot Village-Upper Mustang Trek-1281.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 09:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like it, but there are too many elements around the sides that are cut off in an unsatisfying way, see the notes. If more people agree you could try a slightly different crop to solve this. Technical quality is okay given what you had. Composition is nice. – LucasT 09:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks harmonious and well-composed to me. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Brown jagged shapes offset the blue smooth shapes very nicely. In most human habitations it is hard not to cut something and you will have to go with "the lesser of two evils", but please remove the red CA mostly at the bottom. --Cart (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please have a look at the red borders of the white flags (CAs and artefacts), especially at the house in the left lower corner and the unsharpness in the same region. --Llez (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me it's interesting, but not necessarily good. You have a lot of layers (brown, dark brown, blue, blue-brown) but they just don't come together as a whole and present a cohesive message to me. Sorry. -- King of ♠ 02:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Llez and King of Hearts. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Cart has the best support argument IMO but the opposers are also right; I'd like to see the red CA removed as well before I can make up my mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Baden Königshöhe 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 04:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower_Austria
  •   Info Königshöhle (King's Cave) near Baden bei Wien, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 07:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's very well-composed and good quality, but it just doesn't inspire me somehow. But I won't oppose seeing everyone else seems to like it. Cmao20 (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as I share Cmao20's sentiment. The camera position is pretty ordinary and I'm missing more clear compositional clues so it looks like casual mid-day tourist shot to me. It's a pity the sunlight landing on the ground is obscured by that rock, another angle would have shown that better. – LucasT 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 17:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - Gaetano Donizetti - Carrefour de St Jean et Paul. Dans l'Opéra Marino Faliero.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 03:46:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It should probably be noted this predates proper chromolithography, hence the simple (but, I think, effective) colour scheme. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, that's an impressive drawing. --Yann (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very effective. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support "too dark"... ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very dramatic scene. Do you know the opera? I disagree with your decision to straighten text that was originally slanted, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It's because of a fundamental difference between printing and digital. On a page, a slight tilt like that is basically invisible. Digitally, where the screen locks it in a presumed "correct" orientation, slight tilts are very, very visible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Double-crested cormorant at Sutro Baths-6942.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2019 at 00:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tarian Gandrung sewu 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 21:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Another good one of these, but I can't shake the feeling that it would be a better picture if there wasn't that sign in the top-right corner (I know the sign is related to the event, but even so). Cmao20 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That sign is very problematic, it looks like a very blurry watermark. Otherwise, this image is good enough for FP. --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support nice image but per Cmao20 the sign in the top-right is distracting.--Vulphere 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift --Cart (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift sorry ---Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose but not just the sign, pretty much all the background elements are going haiwire in all directions so distract from the main subjects. One of them is visually growing out of the woman in front. The bottom crop on her and the one cut in half face further behind aren't very satisfying either. – LucasT 21:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Boothsift. --Gnosis (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ëures Resciesa Mont de dora Crist Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 17:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Another beautiful one, and with the immense resolution typical of your work. Cmao20 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically it's great, the weather is nice and the nature is wonderful. But I'm missing a clear subject or compositional idea. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The subject are the porphyr cliffs as written in the description --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo and I find the mid-day light too boring. Also the focus was set too far the far mountains are rendered much sharper than the slightly blurry foreground with the tourists. – LucasT 08:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment What you say, pardon me, does not make sense. How can the tourists, several hundred meters away, be out of focus and the background be in focus with an aperture of f/11? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, right, this shouldn't be the cause but still there is a clear difference in sharpness. My oppose doesn't hinge on that, the other points are more important to me. – LucasT 18:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think Lucas is imagining this, I can see it too. I think you have a heat haze area hanging over the nearer sunlit rocks on the left. It will do very strange things with your photos. Take a look at how distorted/blurry the houses on the right side in this photo are, while this photo taken from the same point of a location over four times as far away, but over the cooler sea, is not very affected. That day, the photos taken towards the sea were acceptable but I had to throw away all the photos taken inland of the town. I had gone there to make a panorama of the old town in Lysekil (to the right of the houses in the first photo and further inland), but they turned out beyond bad. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, no, I was commenting on this photo (providing link for clarity). Perhaps you somehow misunderstood what I wrote. Lucas mentioned a "slightly blurry foreground with the tourists" and I provided a possible explanation for it using my own photos/experience as examples. Nature can play tricks on us even if we have extraordinary cameras. Anyway, I will not be offended by you striking my comment since it is your nomination. --Cart (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Área Recreativa de Arenas Negras 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2019 at 10:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other_objects_in_landscapes
  •   Info all by me -- El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support – LucasT 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I love seeing such an ordinary object depicted as if it was an ancient monument. --Cart (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This is a case in which I demur on the basis that I don't see much there. I mean, yeah, I get that there's somewhat of an idea there, but it's not a very interesting subject to me, and there are large dark areas that do very little for the composition. The areas of light make it something, but not something great to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Mostly per Cart. If it wasn't for the fact that we know what it really is (and also the small bit of tree trunk in the background to provide some degree of context), this could be some sort of giant, ancient Stonehenge-type monolith. Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support works astonishingly well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice light for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Tournasol7 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The mundane made transcendent, per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Beijing New Airport.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2019 at 05:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: It is processed by original author in order to give highlight to the subject (airport terminal building) itself. The photo was taken in real color, and then processed into grey-scale in most area except the terminal building. David290 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. I get the point but find it quite odd and will think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are blue borders, dots and areas which are caused by processing, especially in the part I marked by a note, but also elsewhere --Llez (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obvious signs of the processing per Llez, also the orange was not masked properly at a lot of places. The file page needs the Template:Retouched_picture that explains in detail the manipulations made to it. – LucasT 08:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's very dramatic, but I am not personally a fan of this kind of heavy manipulation. Cmao20 (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It's a really cool image, looks like it's influenced by some dystopian online game. I don't mind a few photos with selective color IF the processing is well done. That is not the case here per Llez, plus the BW part is rendered way too uniformly dark. --Cart (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per other opponets. -- Karelj (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per others. But I like the idea. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others above--Boothsift 23:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --SH6188 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart - too dark and dystopic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20 and Cart. It looks to me like the w:Cingular fleet is attacking. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Fishing hut, jetties and boats in Loddebo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 12:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary shot to me and the wires going off frame on the left are unsatisfying. – LucasT 13:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support––Eatcha (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Karelj (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Works for me. Very peaceful, and IMO a really good composition. The ropes lead my eyes back to the rocks. There are 4 different horizontal planes - the rocks and nearest boat, the house and the other boat, the far bank and the hill in the far right corner, and then the clouds. And then there is the strong deep curve of the lake and the bit of land on the right that enables the eyes to come back into the foreground. It's really stronger and more interesting than most of the compositions we vote to feature here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Not the thing I usually nominate here, but I was surprised at how much I liked it once I got it out of the camera so I thought I'd give it a try. Btw, this is in the north part of Brofjorden, so a fjord not a lake. (The cliff up right is already featured.;-) ) --Cart (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan, I like it very much. Cmao20 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough wow for me.--Peulle (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Peaceful. Clouds cooperate very well. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - too ordinary. Maybe at sunrise this looks better. -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is peaceful.--Vulphere 06:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per George Poco2 08:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite busy, but the boats, clouds, dock and landscape reinforce each others' horizontality. The overall effect is a nice late summer afternoon mood ... I have a fan working next to me right now, but even if I didn't I could still feel the breeze. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI, but not FP. Nothing extraordinary for me. Also looks like background is overprocessed. --Rbrechko (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info The processing (very little was needed) is done the same way all over the photo. The look of the background is the unfortunate result of having a camera with a rather small sensor. Sorry, we can't all afford Hasselblads. ;-) --Cart (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think the lighting and sky conditions nicely complement this scene. As much as I love those fleeting moments of directional, golden sunrise light, sometimes it's nice for FPs to show the world as most people actually experience it. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The thing is also that this is in a fjord with huge cliffs in the east and west (think Death Star trench), so the sun only shines on this little place when the sunlight can enter the fjord from the south. At sunrise and sunset, plus a few hours around them, everything is in shadow. --Cart (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the context! Looking at Street View for this spot, I see what you mean... and also wish I were there right now. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll save you a spot for your vacation. :-) --Cart (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Pieris brassicae (caterpillar).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2019 at 05:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info Haven't seen a caterpillar featured picture promoted in a very long time, so I present to you all this image. Created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 05:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support As nominator -- Boothsift 05:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty good. Cmao20 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like the colors and the composition is good, although the left crop is too tight. Sadly, the overal quality leaves too much to be desired as I'm considering this to be a studio shot. From the camera's 36 MPx this only got 11 MPx, either from cropping or downscaling, my guess is the former because the pixel detail is pretty weak. Diffraction softness at f/29 is also to blame. Too much of the foreground is not in focus, I would have solved this with a second shot and combined the two. – LucasT 09:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'd be interested to know how big this caterpillar is, but it's sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality is good, composition is great Poco2 11:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support––Eatcha (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I remember this meeting made in a cabbage bought that morning. The caterpillar is much more beautiful than the butterfly. We only ate the cabbage ... Thanks to Boothsift for this nomination --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support So that's a cabbage? Looks like a broccoli sprig ... Anyway, such lovely colors. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Brumadinho, Minas Gerais (33198854048).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 18:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I agree, Arion is talented enough to be active and retired at the same time. --Boothsift 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I Google translated the Portuguese file description. This is what we're supposed to see: "Socioenvironmental catastrophe caused by the dam rupturing of the mining company Vale in Brumadinho (MG)". However, it just looks like a strip mine with some dirty water. And since there's nothing else making the picture special, I don't see how it's an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of what happened, but I think this is a VI candidate, not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain per the discussion at ANU and lack of apology and explanation from ArionEstar for his past behaviour. – LucasT 20:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request Hello guys, I ask you to vote here because it will be my last nomination for the time being… I am going to stay a few months out of this community, I think it suits as an apology... So, bye and be happy! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - An apology is "I apologize for doing x, understand why it was wrong and promise not to do it again because I will do a, b, and c to make sure I avoid it." Claiming you will stay away for a few months is (a) not credible right now and (b) in no way at all an apology. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • When you are silent, there is a consent. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This response is suspiciously reactionary and should have come way sooner to have any credibility. Per Ikan this is not an apology. You are just trying to weasel yourself away from consequences, act only if other people call you out, as always. I'm sick of this and will not engage any further. – LucasT 20:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No ArionEstar, no problems. By the way, careful words, again. If I were right, I would argue against this situation. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support nice light, quite good details for an aerial photo. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wie Christian Ferrer --Ralf Roletschek 21:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan--Boothsift 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 14:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Karelj (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --David290 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Antarctic Sound-2016-Brown Bluff–Leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx) 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2019 at 06:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Weak oppose Per above. Cmao20 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cmao20: I don't know how to fix that. Do you? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yann:, I think so. New version uploaded,   Support now. Cmao20 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote struck out as it is invalid--Boothsift 05:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 15:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of it is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. I think this is a very useful VI, but even the mouth is only moderately sharp, so definitely a good idea and a nice opportunistic photo, but not IMO an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Image:Aexion OpenCL 887744547 32K.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 18:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
  •   Info created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't like the composition or the way these colors are combined. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Aesthetically pleasing and useful due to the high resolution. – LucasT 19:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't quite wow me.--Peulle (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan, the color scheme is not pleasant for me even though I normally like Mandelbrot pics. Btw, the file is way too big for most uses since it can't be opened on many computers, please provide one or two downsized versions of it too. (Sidebar: I first saw this on my phone and I accidentally viewed it rotated 90 deg CW. What I got was an impression of a modernistic painting of a skinny model in gas mask and dirndl dress... Now I can't unsee it. :-) )--Cart (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan--BoothSift 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 05:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I actually like it. (Since when is having a high resolution a problem? User could always downscale it to size that suit them. Better than the other way round.) -- KTC (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the ZoomViewer isn't always working and people like me with not-so-powerful-computers can't open it. Large images like this usually have downsized versions of it to make it easier for viewing. Like the 'other versions' of this huge file. Sorry, I used bad wording, now corrected. --Cart (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportEatcha (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think the size is good reason to oppose. On the contrary, it is a good reason to support. However I don't like the colors here. It seems to be completely overexposed. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yann: My comment about size was not really part of the vote, only a comment that came out badly. I've said I'm sorry for that and corrected it. Part of an image's value is that it can be viewed by everyone, so these big files should also have smaller versions just like with this. --Cart (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A-wiki-guest-user, per the guidelines you need to provide a reason when opposing. – LucasT 05:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote stuck out --Boothsift 05:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Not really the most pleasing combinations of shapes or colors for Mandelbrot sets. The whites in particular are blinding. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Boletus reticulatus 2019 G04.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 06:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @A-wiki-guest-user: Please provide a reason for your oppose. --Boothsift 01:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Struck oppose as no reason was given. – Lucas 17:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Once you see the twig you can't unsee it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yakudza (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Main Rock in Pigeon Island National Park.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2019 at 03:49:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info All by AntanO -- AntanO 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AntanO 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't really get it. There are also technical issues such as lack of sharpness and oversaturation --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very wowing for me. Per Martin, the sharpness is lacking and there are other technical issues. This just isn't FP level for me, sorry--BoothSift 05:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thinking of it as an exercise in composition: I like the interplay of the rock and the cloud, although it feels a bit crammed over-all (probably due to how the rock is cut on the right). Unfortunately, the main subject itself does not look very interesting. --El Grafo (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 10:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. --Cart (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Millennium bug (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above, the oversaturation and slight unsharpness is too much of a problem. Cmao20 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo – LucasT 15:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversaturated sky (clouds should never have bluish fringes like that) and awkward composition (it is screaming to be a horizontal). Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I appreciate constructive criticisms. But, I looked at some of your images and I don't know your 'review' methods. I'd ask at your talk page. --AntanO 02:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You can always ask at COM:CRIT before nominating here, that is the place for such discussions. For knowing what some of the reviewer comments mean, please look at COM:PT which is also a page where you can get a lot of tips about more advanced photography. A good place to start with your photos is also COM:QIC. At QIC, you will get comments about and learn the technical requirements for photos here. Once you get a hang of that you can move on to FPC where the photos are also reviewed for artistic impression or what we for short call "wow". --Cart (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Boothsift 05:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


Statuksen poistoehdotuksetEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Oberbaumbrücke November 2013 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sterna fuscata.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:41:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Launching a sailboat 17 - Fitting the mast.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:16:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Sun
  •   Info You can see the rest of the launching operation on the file page. All by me -- Cart (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I could live with the large shadows since they accentuate the sun, but having so little of the boat itself visible is more of a detriment as there is the strong interaction with the tractor. Also several distracting elements (tire, some attachment block) further obscure. I don't like the hunched over poses of the workers. Ultimately I think this image doesn't showcase a special enough lighting situation involving the sun as I would expect in this category, I would have placed it under Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other land vehicles instead, for the tractor. A different category would for sure change my review, but I can't guarantee support. – Lucas 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am certanly open to suggestions about the category. In this case it's really difficult. It's in a series about the boat, but there is so little "boat" in this photo. 'Other land vehicles' is another option, but then again there are better photos of this truck. So I went with the most dominating thing in the photo: the Sun and the shadows it creates (take a look at other photos in the 'Sun' category). Pehaps a category "Shadows" would be most appropriate, but it doesn't exist (should we create it or is Natural phenomena/Other enough?). This is one of the strange things about FPC, that an interesting photo can be dismissed because it doesn't fit perfectly into a FP category. Looking at the 'Natural phenomena' category, there are several photos that have ended up there for this reason. --Cart (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me, the sun is in the wrong place.--Peulle (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 125-127 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 07:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main altar of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Taken in 2015, but still holds up as an FP today. I'd reduce the highlights a bit, and there is something - some kind of light streak - down in the centre by the altar that could be looked at.--Peulle (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit too ornately baroque for my taste, but clearly FP and beautiful on its own terms. Cmao20 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support though this specific variant of baroque is a bit too much even for me - and I'm really into baroque generally --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Mary Mammoth September 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 02:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lake Benmore, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Driftwood on the beach north of Kaikoura, Canterbury, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 01:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Domaine de Maizerets park, Québec city, Canadá 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 17:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Was ready to oppose at first, but the detail at full resolution is excellent. I still think it's a bit low on wow, but overall worth a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow mainly due to the overcast day, the random people and big empty lawn in the foreground. The right crop is unsatisfying, the brown gravel field should have been included fully. – Lucas 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
  •   Info all by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit too bright and it could do with a slight restoration. Composition-wise, I don't think lamp shades as hats will ever be in fashion. --Cart (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I like his happy, youthful appearance, though I agree with Cart, especially on the composition. But how historically important is this particular portrait? It seems to be the best one we've got on Commons, and he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure. We do have this reproduction of a painting, too, but it's below the normal minimum size for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I would say it is unique and unmatched in EV. Gagarin's face was scarred when he fell jumping off a balcony while escaping from his wife who had caught him cheating in September 1961. In case you are not aware, he became the first human in space in April 1961. So this is the only photo likely to be available of how he looked pre-incident and best representation of his appearance while he was on his historic first mission to space. It may also be the best/only clear portrait of him we have in general because he died in 1968. I do not know how to clean up the scratches around his chin. If any one is good at that I would welcome it. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm very much aware of Gagarin's pioneering voyage in space, which is why I wrote that "he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The italics was not intended for you. The dates are more important to answering your question. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart as the lamp shade and chin shadow are serious photographical flaws and Commons FP are centered around photographic excellence. IMHO this fits far better with the goal of Wikipedia FP. – Lucas 21:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucasbosch, as this particular image doesn't appear to be that significant (he was the subject of lots of pictures, and this one doesn't stand out), and it's got the problems mentioned above. And I agree on en:WP:FP: "unmatched in EV" doesn't matter here as much as there. We can promote images passing COM:SCOPE even if they're not currently in use anywhere, while great educational value can't salvage a not-so-good photo. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, but quite sure it is a Wikipedia FP. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:BNSF GE Dash-9 C44-9W Kennewick - Wishram WA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  I'm not an expert on trains, but train tracks do have some banking in curves (some more than others) and some trains are also able to mechanically lean to the side. This photo at least shows the track banking for sure. – Lucas 20:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Baikal ice on sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 16:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District
  •   Info Lake Baikal in winter. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Please don't pixel-peep this to death. At that latitude in January you need high ISO at sunset since the ice is probably moving a bit with the waves. The big size of the file makes up for it. I wouldn't mind an English description though. --Cart (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Cart for the explanation on the circumstances. Often reviewers don't know why or even if certain settings were chosen. – LucasT 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Rather noisy, but very spectacular --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree that this is a very spectacular photo and overall worth a feature, but it is (understandably, as Cart explains) quite noisy, and even downsized to 5000px across some noise is still visible. It's not terrible though, so I still support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noisy but still good enough for FP --Boothsift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's spectacular, but I don't understand why we are not asking for it to be de-noised before we support a feature. It's already problematic at 250% and slightly at 200% of my 13-inch laptop screen. And in this case, I don't think the size of the photo is an argument for a feature, because it looks bad at full size and we probably shouldn't be looking at it at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan, FYI, zoom levels above 100 % usually denote zooming in further than the 1:1 pixel level, so picture pixels would actually get upscaled on your monitor. I'm sure you meant the opposite, being zoomed in a moderate amount, still above pixel level, approx. 50 % zoom or less. – LucasT 07:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you didn't read my remark carefully. I'm talking about percentages of the size of my 13-inch laptop screen, not percentages of the huge size of the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan, when you get noise at high ISO levels, de-noising will often ruin the photo. The de-noising programs can only merge and extrapolate the "missing" information so far. The result is often a smooth and plastic-looking photo since you lose all sharp edges and in most places the "noise grains" will bunch together and form artifacts instead. A photo like this will lose some of its crispness. Even a slight noise reduction would make it look over-processed or like taken with a cheap mobile. --Cart (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a pity. Do you think there could have been a way to get a little more sharpness and less noise when the photo was taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You could probably have taken it with that time and a lower ISO and added the light in post-processing; that would have made it less noisy but instead you would have lost bright colors and details in the ice. Or you could have sacrificed the DOF and made only the nearest ice sharp; that way you could do a less noisy photo. In some cases, everything is a compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan and others, this is a version of the photo downsized to "normal"/acceptable size with a bit of noise reduction (you can do NR on a high ISO photo if you downsize it first). It is nicer to look at when opening at full size, BUT in the process a lot of information is now lost. It has gone from 19.05 MB to 4.08 MB. Isn't it better to have the full original version? --Cart (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The original is much nicer to look at, the world has plenty of mushy noise-reduced images already. – Lucas 12:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, I just wanted to show how it would look since not all voters are used to how post-processing works. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the demonstration. I agree that the original is superior to the edited version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs denoising. At least selective denoising. Great lighting and compo but the noise is just too much. Poco2 14:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks providing me with my new desktop background!
  •   Neutral Nice photo but somewhat overcooked. (1) Noise is not the issue here. Noise is the most overrated problem here on FPC ever. That said, I think at 38mm focal length an aperture of f/5.6 would have done it, too. Then it would have been possible to lower the ISO to 200 which would have reduced the noise significantly. However, it is always easy to critize such a photo sitting at home in front of your computer. On location you sometimes don't have the time to try different settings or you don't immediately see a flaw that can be seen on a computer screen. Additionally EXIF says that the exposure has been increased somewhat (+0.57) in postprocessing which may explain the amount of noise since the D800 IMO would normally not create so much noise at only ISO 800. (2) EXIF also says that the author increased clarity, vibrance and saturation which was for my taste somewhat too much, that's why I vote neutral here. --Code (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Bloemknoppen van Eryngium giganteum 'Miss Willmott's Ghost' 04-06-2019. (d.j.b). 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 15:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Petra Jordan BW 2009-11-10 12-33-49.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 12:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Jordan
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition, distracting tree covering up a large part of the subject, bad depth perception due to the light direction, distracting tourists. Low pixel detail and humongous CAs in the lower right. – LucasT 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good photo on the whole, but the tree is a bit distracting, and I agree about the CAs. I think we can probably do a bit better for such a commonly photographed monument. Cmao20 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Boring centered composition as Lucas notes, the tree is also fairly distracting IMO. --Boothsift 23:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - What other direction would be better for this motif than straight-on and centered? I'm confused by that criticism. I think that there are other factors at issue but not that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tree in front sort of spoils it for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not boring! I would not have expected trees in the dry area. It does not bother me at all to see this documented. The motive is worth seeing and the quality is very good. --Milseburg (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Riga Cathedral Nave, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quedlinburg CastleEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 10:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
  •   Info Quedlinburg Castle and Collegiate Church at early evening and the same view at dusk after sunset ----- all by me, --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose These are lovely but for FP of such a set there should have been at least a good attempt made to align the two images to each other, right know too much is changing position most noticeable on the sides. Sadly the focal lengths and dimensions are not uniform and the camera position was shifted vertically between the shots by a significant distance. These last two points are of lesser importance though. – LucasT 10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Overall, absolutely brilliant. Lucas is right that they could be aligned to each other a little bit better, but not enough to stop me supporting. Lovely, sharp, high-resolution photos of the castle from an excellent angle, and good to have a night and a day view. You could choose to denoise the sky a bit in the night photo, but again it's not a very serious issue for me. Cmao20 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the small difference. The human eye perceives things differently at day vs evening/night too. --Cart (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:עץ על אי מלח באמצע ים המלח.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 09:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Eranrez - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Quite an unusual image, but I'd feel happier if the sky were de-noised. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Interesting image but there are question-marks over the quality, especially the sky as Ikan points out but more generally there's a bit of colour noise. It also looks to me like there's a bit of barrel distortion, with the horizon visibly curving up at one end and down at the other. Cmao20 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very nice composition but the quality is not enough for such a small photo. A GoPro camera is not ideal for FPs. And as the description says, it's a tourist destination so not that hard to get to for someone with a fairly good camera. (I've been there myself but that was pre the tree.) --Cart (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 23:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Moving to   Support now after I had a better look--Boothsift 04:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and Cmao20 – LucasT 07:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I seldom see images as particular as this one here in FPC. Denoising would be good but the wow effect is compensating that. To be honest, I don't understand why this picture is not getting more support. Poco2 14:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Ok, I gave the file some TLC and removed some of the color noise and corrected the barrel distortion a bit, not all the way though since the shore curves slightly. Please revert this if you don't like it. 'Pinging' voters about the change: Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, Boothsift, Lucasbosch and Poco. Myself I'm changing to   Neutral after this. I hope Eranrez and Tomer T are ok with this, otherwise I apologize. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    Cart: Now that we're in the process to improve the image, don't you think that we should reduce the vignetting on the top left? I can give it a try if you like. Poco2 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Poco, I already did some vignetting adjustment in my edit, I think the gradient is due to natural light since it stayed after the correction and it follows the way the shadow of the tree points. I see such phenomena a lot in my photos taken on clear days over water. Let's leave it as it is now, I think it is acceptable. We should be as respectful as possible to the author. The dark sky matches the darker water on that side well. --Cart (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't know. I see the improvement, but the tree was sharper and bigger in the original, and the photo is still fairly noisy. I like the composition, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Like I said in the ice photo, you will always lose some sharpness with NR. That's the downside of it. --Cart (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, second and final edit from me. I reverted only the tree since it didn't go well with the NR as Ikan pointed out. Cart out. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you, Cart. I wish it were less noisy, but I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Célestin Nanteuil - Jules Massenet - Don César de Bazan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 00:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rhönschaf-Weidberg bei Kaltenwestheim HBP-2019-04-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 21:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

How do you do define the direction from where the light is coming, Ikan? I actually had the sun, for what was shining through some clouds, behind me. So I'd expect that the head is as lit as possible... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, the brightest thing in the picture is the sky, and the sheep's head is very dark indeed, and I don't mean just that it's black. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good, well-composed QI but I think it doesn't have the extra something special for FP. The light is all a little bit dull. Cmao20 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan --Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao20 – LucasT 07:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support the head of the animal is black and we cant change it --Wilfredor (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Praporec (v zime) 001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 19:21:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Milan Bališin - uploaded by Milan Bališin - nominated by Milan Bališin -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milan Bališin (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Interesting composition, maybe a bit too much in shadow, but on balance I think it works. Cmao20 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many trees and branches in the foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--Boothsift 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - the foreground in shadow contrasts nicely with the direct light on the mountain, making for a dynamic scene. I have no problem with the composition, which manages the chaotic forest environment quite well – see for example how the group of evergreens on the right balances out the cluster of tall trees on the left. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Being a slightly cluttered composition and with too many distractions it doesn't work for me. – LucasT 07:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Paisaje en Sutton, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 98-106 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2019 at 17:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the