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:Juvenile Nubian ibex (50822).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 09:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Ikan Kekek: It's small because as soon as I got closer, they ran off (I'm clumsier than they are in a rocky desert), and that's the longest focal length I had/have available to me (150mm, equivalent to 300mm full frame). — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, very small and the lighting not so good. A bit soft. 1/1600 sec/F5.6 not a good choice for a static scene. Charles (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If it were a situation when I could've used a tripod vs. freehandling at 150mm (equivalent to 300mm full frame) on rocky ground, I'd agree re: shutter. Perhaps I could've brought it down a little bit from 1/1600 and still be safe, but it was just shortly before I left the desert and the only time I saw kids together like this, nevermind close enough to photograph, so wanted to be safe because they were just so cute :). Maybe a noob move, meh. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me there's no to ways about it; it's not an FP for the reasons stated above.--Peulle (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support overall I was happy with the result of this one, though I understand why some would oppose given the size of it. I do wish I could've gotten closer without scaring them or for different conditions. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 06:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Podzemnik - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this very strong composition merits a feature because of the curves on land and the streaming clouds in the sky, though it also has nice details and a pleasant atmosphere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There is not really a subject ... sand? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice curve in the beach and a nice sky, but on the whole I think the bar is set quite high for FPs of nature shots like this one, so it would need to be even more extraordinary for me to go "wow". It looks nice, but also fairly ordinary.--Peulle (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand, but my contention is that the composition is far from ordinary. I'm not trying to convince you by saying that, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Streitberg Freibad 7023683.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 06:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • User:Ermell, what do you think? Is it oversaturated? I figured that that's how it actually looked, because of the light at that time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know, only a bad perception. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looking at a lawn in a photo is usually a good way of judging if it is oversaturated. The grass here is almost dull (compaired to the church nom below) so I don't see any signs of oversaturation. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You have seen this church: so, you know, saturation (in general) is not necessarily a problem for me. it's just a comment. What is your opinion, you voting for?--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On this forum. we can make observations and comments without voting. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. :) The combination of strong red and blue colours with intermittent whites, the composition with the mirror effect and the general curves of the subject are enough for me to overlook any smaller issues with depth, noise or saturation. I also think it's quite cool how the divider in the water is also red and white.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lincoln Cathedral Chapter House.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 12:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ET Amhara asv2018-02 img077 Lake Tana at Bahir Dar.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 11:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Drinks
  •   Info Glass of unfiltered tej (traditional Ethiopian honey wine) in an eating establishment at Lake Tana near Bahir Dar, Ethiopia ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 11:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Probably testy, but nothing exceptional. Yann (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. Tej is very good indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image title is not an accurate description of what it shows. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    The title shows its correct location and a seril number for my convenience. As long as we have titles like File:15-09-26-RalfR-WLC-0107.jpg, it's OK this way and a rename is neither desirable nor necessary. --A.Savin 11:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because we have one user who can't name his photos according to the proposed Commons:File naming doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow. If the main subject in a photo is tej, I think it's within reason that it should be a part of the file name, especially since this photo is chosen to represent that particular category and articles. --Cart (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The grass in the background, with an unidentifiable horizontal object, is not successful. And the top of the bottle, which is IMO the most interesting part of the image, is out of focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Privatrösterei Schröer, Kaffeebehälter -- 2018 -- 0529.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 10:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 10:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 10:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know it's an effect, but I feel like the DoF is a bit too shallow here; even the closest container is not entirely in focus.--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Musée L during civil twilight (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, DSCF4200).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 23:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bertha-von-Suttner-1906.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 22:58:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I chose it because it is used in a important number of articles and pages. Ezarateesteban 16:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That might make it a VI, but what's the argument for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Good photo without scratches, artifacts and another issues Ezarateesteban 19:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That reads like an argument for QI, if the photographer were a Commons user. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know it but I like if anyone evaluate the quality of this picture Ezarateesteban 22:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak suppoert I took some time deciding this one. On the one hand, Bertha von Suttner is a very important historical figure, so the legitimacy of the nomination is beyond question. It's also a photo from 1906 (read that again, nineteen oh-freakin' six, it's over 100 years old!), so I think we can forgive the overall lack of sharpness. I just wish the resolution was higher, and I'm also not sure about the quality of the restoration. It looks OK compared to the original, but.. hmmmm..... Well, it's borderline, and I may be a bit taken with it since I basically live and breathe history. If anyone else out there want to have something to compare it to, in order to find the standard set for historical FPs, here they are.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment there's part of the border left at the bottom. I think the border should be either removed completely or not removed at all … --El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done borderline removed Ezarateesteban 11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly VI and useful, not good enough for FP, even for a picture from 1906. --Yann (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Basilica Santa Maria della Salute Dorsoduro Venezia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 14:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support and 7.--Peulle (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good at full size, and I'm sure you'll work on the perspective thing Peulle mentions. I might prefer for the building on the far right to be included in full, but that's hardly an important criterion for voting on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Such fine detail, and relaxing cool colors. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I do not really like the shift to the left --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Aerial photographs of The Fullerton Hotel of Singapore at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 04:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very attractive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for a tripod shoot with ISO 125 surprising noisy (look e.g. at the white fassade). Overall a good fotography that doesn't thrill me. Beside of this: this image was obviously not taken from a public approachable place so we have no panorama of freedom here and I question the rightfulness of this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Freedom of panorama in Singapore is  OK for 3D objects and all the buildings, see this category. The noise is normal for a night shot and the resolution is high enough, compare for example with this FP shot from the same roof -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I didn't say s.th. against the resolution. But the noise is not good, especially for such a camera like the 5D Mark IV. Read the definition of FoP carefully and you will see that this image doesn't fit in. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a definition for FoP, but an explanation. The location where this picture was taken from the observation deck of the Marina Bay Sands Hotel. The access to this point causes costs, is private ground of the hotel and therefore not a public place in the common definition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The existance of a category in Commons is not a valid proof. FoP means in many countries that your place, where you have taken the image, hast to be public. For sure you're able to show me the law of Singapure where this point is not relevant. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Singapore Copyright Act says in its Section 64 : "The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast". You may read Wikipedia to learn more about the freedom of panorama, or ask the Village pump. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Taxiarchos228: I think you are premising German FoP law here, which is indeed very restrictive. The relevant one, however, is COM:FOP#Singapore: there is no such limitation, that the camera location has to be as publicly accessible as the photographed building. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      Comment It is no aerial photo (not taken from an aircraft), I'm going to remove these categories now. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. And i don't see any problem with noise. Nice quality IMO. -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, noise is OK, and light is very well managed (that's the most important issue). Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sweet mangosteen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 04:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Concerning these raspberries and these blueberries I see a will for arrangement. This peaches are as boring as this candidate picture. I'm sorry, the image is a solide factual photography. But not outstanding in arrangement and has not an outstanding impact for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mut (Maut, Mout).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 02:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Maksimsokolov - uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Maksimsokolov}}|]] -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Possibly a QI, but not an FP because of distracting reflections on the left and a distracting message board on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Peulle (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Downtown Toronto in September 2018 (Early Sunday Morning, frontal view from a kayak).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 01:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Maksimsokolov - uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by [[User:{{subst: Maksimsokolov}}|]] -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have the sensation of being inundated by water, but I wasn't surprised when I saw that this is an iPhone pic - the quality is not good enough for FP and I think it would probably fail at QIC, too, though you could always try. Also, please try to find categories for your nominations. Look through the galleries at COM:FP and request help if you need it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong quality issues at the 100% view --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Looks good as a thumbnail, so with a proper camera, this could probably have been featured.--Peulle (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Nice view but a) we could do without the front of the kayak and b) we need a better camera. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de la Virgen María, Breslavia, Polonia, 2017-12-20, DD 17-19 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 21:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main nave of the Virgin Mary church, Wrocław, Poland. Poco2 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral IMO it could be FP, but there are two issues. At the left is more space than at the right. May it is correct. The other is the gap at the tile at the bottom. IMO the gap should horizontal. --XRay talk 10:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    XRay: I haven't undrestood your second comment but just uploaded a new version with a tilt correction and perspective/crop adjustments to improve symmetry Poco2 19:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    I just added a note. (In deutsch: Die Fuge der Fliesen am unteren Rand ist schief. In den Kirchen ist diese aber in der Regel gerade. Naja, von Ausnahmen abgesehen.) --XRay talk 04:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - This is surely a good photo, but it doesn't feel quite like an FP to me in this rich category, partly because it lacks the pinpoint sharpness of some of the greatest FPs in this class and also partly because this interior itself is not as lovely as others, what with the not so interesting windows in the apse and also the grayish feel of the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Brooms on an open market in Macedonia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 19:06:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Yolanda - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Interesting idea, and good for you for nominating something different, but for a couple of reasons it doesn't work. First, even given the fast shutter speed and slow ISO, the highlights at the top are still almost searing, and second, there are more broomheads than the image needs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose more or less per Daniel: Good idea, but not quite an FP in composition, nor in execution, as there is noise and CA in some of the shadows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Caldera de las Cañadas 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 15:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice and all, but I'm not sure I want to vote for it since it's quite similar to this picture; it's the same location and subject, just from a different position and with an additional rock. I'll think about it some more and get back to you.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Significantly different view, IMO, especially because of the effect of having that irregular standing rock in our faces. However, I don't know if we should support a third view including this rock if it's nominated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Info I have no further panoramas of this side, this will be the last nomination from there (therefore there will be no "third view"). I nominated this panorama, for we have a lot of pictures of the "Roque Cinchado" (the rock in the background) on Commons, but as far as I can see none of the nearby and also intersting "Torrotito". --Llez (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Peulle's comment makes sense but this view is better than the previous one, I think. Maybe cutting the fence pillar on the left could even improve. Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done Fence partly cropped, partly cloned out --Llez (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment the sky is replaced by a gradient? We see horizontal lines. This editing is valid?--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • +1 for that question. Even though normal clear blue skies can produce banding, especially when making panoramas where the info is sometimes compressed in the process, this one looks very uniform with the same color values across the horizontal plane. --Cart (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Yes, it is also my experience. In this case I tried to improve with several methods, and it is interesting, that in all cases the banding was not visible in photoshop, but if you open it with another program (like "Windows Fotoanzeige") or if you upload it to commons, a slight banding is visible. I think it depends on the processing by the viewing-programs. --Llez (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mount Stuart House horoscope room 2018-08-25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 12:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Large skipper (Ochlodes sylvanus) underside Sweden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 11:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nürnberg St. Lorenz Sakramentshaus 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 04:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info @Daniel Case: Well, it is a so-called sacrament house, a tower-like tabernacle of more than 20m height, fitted to the pillar of the church. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much that I don't know what it's a picture of, it's that there's so many competing verticals in the image as to sufficiently distract from the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very special work. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. High enzyclopedic value, very good technical work and nice to look at. What do you need more for a FP? The special ratio isn't a problem for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Wladyslaw. Yann (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hannover, die Marktkirche vanaf de Osterstrasse Dm IMG 4453 2018-07-01 09.56.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 17:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, yes I have already denoised the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Please look at the pedestrian zone near to the person. There you can see a very noisy area. For me to noisy to be a FP. Very pitty because I like this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I see what Wladyslaw is talking about, but I think it's a relatively minor issue in context and also like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark and the composition doesn't work well for me. I'm maybe too classical in my tastes, but the combination of a shoe shop with a church looks a bit awkward to start with. I don't like the white building on the right because it has no charm and the harsh contrasts are not aesthetic. Also the signs on the left are not very elegant, so this shop is not attractive. But the main problem remains this street which is the way where the eyes want to go, while it is too dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin. --The NMI User (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Basile, I have problems with the composition. My issue is not so much the darkness as that the signs up front conflict with the steeple in the back for recognition as the subject of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support even there are a few technical issues I like this view very much. The contrast between classical and modern (and maybe not so successful) architecture on both sides of the street is interessting. Also the contrast between the neon signs and the church is not a conflict but exciting and good in photographically sense. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support interessting composition --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Amrumer Windmühle (2018).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 14:28:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) female underside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 11:03:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vézoles lake riverbank trunk.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 10:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For who want that I fix a potential perspective issue, please read the description. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The light is strong but here it creates a special atmosphere, like in Salvador Dali's paintings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Maybe I'm at fault here, but this photo is just not interesting me much. I don't find it surreal either, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In Dali's paintings you often find such cut trunks with strong light and shadows like with these swans and elephants for example. There's something surrealist with these trees in the sand of a beach, as if they had grown up here. At least it's a surprising situation in a natural place. Some rocks, shells, or umbrellas would be more understandable, but these trunks having a sun bath in front of the sea remain mysterious enough to me to like it. Your feeling probably differs and is perfectly legitimate. Also the quality of this picture is excellent at full size, so good QI + wow factor = FP, but that's just my voice -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I understand how you could have been reminded of that painting. And definitely agreed that the technical quality of the photo is high, as usual for Christian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice touch. --Laitche (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Basile Morin: I'm sorry to end the mystery :) but I added to the description the probable reason for the presence of these trunks. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I wondered if that could be Land art, but it seems to be the unintentional result of both human and natural factors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the picture would be better with a tighter framing. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018L0765 - Saint-Malo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 07:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I haven't, I do either color version or b&w. I haven't both version for any photo. --Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very well, then. I might like a brighter sky, but really, per Christian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Peppers in water.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 17:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 15:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peulle (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Asymmetrical cut, obstructing signal traversed in the middle bottom, extreme distortion and blurred on the left bottom border --Photographer 01:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This photo, as with many I took that day, was taken with my Samyang 10mm ultra wide-angle lens. It has an angle-of-view of 109.6° which is as far as you can reasonably take a rectilinear lens. This photo was taken with the camera pointing slightly up, to bring in more ceiling and less boring concrete floor, and then corrected afterwards in Lightroom. Unlike with my stitched photos, I'm far more restricted about where to crop and the sharpness is not as good, though I think still quite acceptable. I tried to position the camera in the middle to get pleasing symmetrical results, but it isn't perfect. One problem is the sign, which you can see in File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 5.jpg (middle-left) and is bright red, white and yellow and very distracting if you saw that in the middle of the scene. I tried to position so it was edge-on and not catch the eye. It isn't the sort of sign I can just lift up and move out of the way, without getting arrested by the transport police :-). You can also see from that photo how the top of the ceiling in the photo has curved over towards me and is quite close. This will cause the wide-angle perspective distortion by magnifying, but I think here the straight lines of the roof don't look unpleasantly distorted. Other things like round windows and people tend to illustrate that distortion in a more uncomfortable manner. I agree it isn't a perfect photo and I'd have liked to have had the time to make a stitched panorama. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your rich explanation and, I understand what is your intention here, however, I think that this photo is not up to your previous work. I hope you can take my negative feedback as a stimulation to do better job (maybe in a combination of nodal ninja photos). Sincerely this place deserves a perfectionist work that you have accustomed us to appreciate and taste, with enormous size and majestic quality. Obviously my opinion about this photo is little shared, or simply people vote positively because we love you --Photographer 23:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Photographer, ha ha, I'm not sure about "love". I hope I've ruffled enough feathers with oppose votes and criticism that nobody should feel bad about giving me an oppose if warranted. I guess this is more similar to my fisheye photos than my stitched panorama photos. Or as a good photo of a great subject, rather than a great photo of a great subject, which would be ideal. I would love to go back and take a better shot but that's quite unlikely any time soon. I live 400 miles away, the weather is not always as good as this, and stations can be busy. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support a very strong symmetrical view may be classic but looks over time boring. A little bit asymmety brings the image alive. The other reasons for this picture are self-evident. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Félix, Torralba de Ribota, Zaragoza, España, 2018-04-04, DD 24-26 HDR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 11:42:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Exterior of the Castle of Valencay 24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2018 at 22:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

alternativeEdit

 

  •   Info So maybe this one is better? Tournasol7 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Much better, IMO, but too different to be an alternate. You could consider nominating that photo separately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree this version is too different to be presented as an alt, but it certainly has its chances as a new nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bridge of Jacques-Gabriel in Blois 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2018 at 23:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's easy to forget that because, without checking the image's metadata after reading your comment, I would not have known that. It explains the pinkish sky, yes, but the image as a whole is still kind of cooler than most cityscape-at-dusk images. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but the colours are not very impressive --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michiel. Good but not great photo - please try again in different light/clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. -- -donald- (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Statuksen poistoehdotuksetEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Juvenile Nubian ibex (50822).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 09:20:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Ikan Kekek: It's small because as soon as I got closer, they ran off (I'm clumsier than they are in a rocky desert), and that's the longest focal length I had/have available to me (150mm, equivalent to 300mm full frame). — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, very small and the lighting not so good. A bit soft. 1/1600 sec/F5.6 not a good choice for a static scene. Charles (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If it were a situation when I could've used a tripod vs. freehandling at 150mm (equivalent to 300mm full frame) on rocky ground, I'd agree re: shutter. Perhaps I could've brought it down a little bit from 1/1600 and still be safe, but it was just shortly before I left the desert and the only time I saw kids together like this, nevermind close enough to photograph, so wanted to be safe because they were just so cute :). Maybe a noob move, meh. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me there's no to ways about it; it's not an FP for the reasons stated above.--Peulle (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support overall I was happy with the result of this one, though I understand why some would oppose given the size of it. I do wish I could've gotten closer without scaring them or for different conditions. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 06:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Podzemnik - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this very strong composition merits a feature because of the curves on land and the streaming clouds in the sky, though it also has nice details and a pleasant atmosphere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There is not really a subject ... sand? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice curve in the beach and a nice sky, but on the whole I think the bar is set quite high for FPs of nature shots like this one, so it would need to be even more extraordinary for me to go "wow". It looks nice, but also fairly ordinary.--Peulle (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand, but my contention is that the composition is far from ordinary. I'm not trying to convince you by saying that, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Streitberg Freibad 7023683.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2018 at 06:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • User:Ermell, what do you think? Is it oversaturated? I figured that that's how it actually looked, because of the light at that time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know, only a bad perception. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looking at a lawn in a photo is usually a good way of judging if it is oversaturated. The grass here is almost dull (compaired to the church nom below) so I don't see any signs of oversaturation. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You have seen this church: so, you know, saturation (in general) is not necessarily a problem for me. it's just a comment. What is your opinion, you voting for?--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On this forum. we can make observations and comments without voting. --Cart (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. :) The combination of strong red and blue colours with intermittent whites, the composition with the mirror effect and the general curves of the subject are enough for me to overlook any smaller issues with depth, noise or saturation. I also think it's quite cool how the divider in the water is also red and white.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Lincoln Cathedral Chapter House.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 12:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ET Amhara asv2018-02 img077 Lake Tana at Bahir Dar.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 11:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Drinks
  •   Info Glass of unfiltered tej (traditional Ethiopian honey wine) in an eating establishment at Lake Tana near Bahir Dar, Ethiopia ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 11:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Probably testy, but nothing exceptional. Yann (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. Tej is very good indeed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image title is not an accurate description of what it shows. --Cart (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    The title shows its correct location and a seril number for my convenience. As long as we have titles like File:15-09-26-RalfR-WLC-0107.jpg, it's OK this way and a rename is neither desirable nor necessary. --A.Savin 11:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because we have one user who can't name his photos according to the proposed Commons:File naming doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow. If the main subject in a photo is tej, I think it's within reason that it should be a part of the file name, especially since this photo is chosen to represent that particular category and articles. --Cart (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The grass in the background, with an unidentifiable horizontal object, is not successful. And the top of the bottle, which is IMO the most interesting part of the image, is out of focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Privatrösterei Schröer, Kaffeebehälter -- 2018 -- 0529.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2018 at 10:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 10:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 10:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know it's an effect, but I feel like the DoF is a bit too shallow here; even the closest container is not entirely in focus.--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Musée L during civil twilight (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, DSCF4200).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 23:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bertha-von-Suttner-1906.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 22:58:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I chose it because it is used in a important number of articles and pages. Ezarateesteban 16:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That might make it a VI, but what's the argument for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Good photo without scratches, artifacts and another issues Ezarateesteban 19:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That reads like an argument for QI, if the photographer were a Commons user. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know it but I like if anyone evaluate the quality of this picture Ezarateesteban 22:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak suppoert I took some time deciding this one. On the one hand, Bertha von Suttner is a very important historical figure, so the legitimacy of the nomination is beyond question. It's also a photo from 1906 (read that again, nineteen oh-freakin' six, it's over 100 years old!), so I think we can forgive the overall lack of sharpness. I just wish the resolution was higher, and I'm also not sure about the quality of the restoration. It looks OK compared to the original, but.. hmmmm..... Well, it's borderline, and I may be a bit taken with it since I basically live and breathe history. If anyone else out there want to have something to compare it to, in order to find the standard set for historical FPs, here they are.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment there's part of the border left at the bottom. I think the border should be either removed completely or not removed at all … --El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done borderline removed Ezarateesteban 11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly VI and useful, not good enough for FP, even for a picture from 1906. --Yann (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Basilica Santa Maria della Salute Dorsoduro Venezia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 14:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support and 7.--Peulle (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good at full size, and I'm sure you'll work on the perspective thing Peulle mentions. I might prefer for the building on the far right to be included in full, but that's hardly an important criterion for voting on this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Such fine detail, and relaxing cool colors. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I do not really like the shift to the left --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Aerial photographs of The Fullerton Hotel of Singapore at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 04:04:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very attractive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for a tripod shoot with ISO 125 surprising noisy (look e.g. at the white fassade). Overall a good fotography that doesn't thrill me. Beside of this: this image was obviously not taken from a public approachable place so we have no panorama of freedom here and I question the rightfulness of this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Freedom of panorama in Singapore is  OK for 3D objects and all the buildings, see this category. The noise is normal for a night shot and the resolution is high enough, compare for example with this FP shot from the same roof -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I didn't say s.th. against the resolution. But the noise is not good, especially for such a camera like the 5D Mark IV. Read the definition of FoP carefully and you will see that this image doesn't fit in. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a definition for FoP, but an explanation. The location where this picture was taken from the observation deck of the Marina Bay Sands Hotel. The access to this point causes costs, is private ground of the hotel and therefore not a public place in the common definition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The existance of a category in Commons is not a valid proof. FoP means in many countries that your place, where you have taken the image, hast to be public. For sure you're able to show me the law of Singapure where this point is not relevant. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Singapore Copyright Act says in its Section 64 : "The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast". You may read Wikipedia to learn more about the freedom of panorama, or ask the Village pump. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Taxiarchos228: I think you are premising German FoP law here, which is indeed very restrictive. The relevant one, however, is COM:FOP#Singapore: there is no such limitation, that the camera location has to be as publicly accessible as the photographed building. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      Comment It is no aerial photo (not taken from an aircraft), I'm going to remove these categories now. --A.Savin 11:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. And i don't see any problem with noise. Nice quality IMO. -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, noise is OK, and light is very well managed (that's the most important issue). Yann (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Sweet mangosteen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 04:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Concerning these raspberries and these blueberries I see a will for arrangement. This peaches are as boring as this candidate picture. I'm sorry, the image is a solide factual photography. But not outstanding in arrangement and has not an outstanding impact for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mut (Maut, Mout).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 02:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Maksimsokolov - uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Maksimsokolov}}|]] -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Possibly a QI, but not an FP because of distracting reflections on the left and a distracting message board on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Peulle (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Downtown Toronto in September 2018 (Early Sunday Morning, frontal view from a kayak).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2018 at 01:55:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by Maksimsokolov - uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by [[User:{{subst: Maksimsokolov}}|]] -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Maksimsokolov (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have the sensation of being inundated by water, but I wasn't surprised when I saw that this is an iPhone pic - the quality is not good enough for FP and I think it would probably fail at QIC, too, though you could always try. Also, please try to find categories for your nominations. Look through the galleries at COM:FP and request help if you need it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose strong quality issues at the 100% view --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Looks good as a thumbnail, so with a proper camera, this could probably have been featured.--Peulle (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Nice view but a) we could do without the front of the kayak and b) we need a better camera. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de la Virgen María, Breslavia, Polonia, 2017-12-20, DD 17-19 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 21:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Main nave of the Virgin Mary church, Wrocław, Poland. Poco2 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral IMO it could be FP, but there are two issues. At the left is more space than at the right. May it is correct. The other is the gap at the tile at the bottom. IMO the gap should horizontal. --XRay talk 10:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    XRay: I haven't undrestood your second comment but just uploaded a new version with a tilt correction and perspective/crop adjustments to improve symmetry Poco2 19:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
    I just added a note. (In deutsch: Die Fuge der Fliesen am unteren Rand ist schief. In den Kirchen ist diese aber in der Regel gerade. Naja, von Ausnahmen abgesehen.) --XRay talk 04:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - This is surely a good photo, but it doesn't feel quite like an FP to me in this rich category, partly because it lacks the pinpoint sharpness of some of the greatest FPs in this class and also partly because this interior itself is not as lovely as others, what with the not so interesting windows in the apse and also the grayish feel of the light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Brooms on an open market in Macedonia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 19:06:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Yolanda - uploaded by Kiril Simeonovski - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Interesting idea, and good for you for nominating something different, but for a couple of reasons it doesn't work. First, even given the fast shutter speed and slow ISO, the highlights at the top are still almost searing, and second, there are more broomheads than the image needs. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose more or less per Daniel: Good idea, but not quite an FP in composition, nor in execution, as there is noise and CA in some of the shadows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Caldera de las Cañadas 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 15:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice and all, but I'm not sure I want to vote for it since it's quite similar to this picture; it's the same location and subject, just from a different position and with an additional rock. I'll think about it some more and get back to you.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Significantly different view, IMO, especially because of the effect of having that irregular standing rock in our faces. However, I don't know if we should support a third view including this rock if it's nominated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Info I have no further panoramas of this side, this will be the last nomination from there (therefore there will be no "third view"). I nominated this panorama, for we have a lot of pictures of the "Roque Cinchado" (the rock in the background) on Commons, but as far as I can see none of the nearby and also intersting "Torrotito". --Llez (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Peulle's comment makes sense but this view is better than the previous one, I think. Maybe cutting the fence pillar on the left could even improve. Nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done Fence partly cropped, partly cloned out --Llez (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment the sky is replaced by a gradient? We see horizontal lines. This editing is valid?--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • +1 for that question. Even though normal clear blue skies can produce banding, especially when making panoramas where the info is sometimes compressed in the process, this one looks very uniform with the same color values across the horizontal plane. --Cart (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Yes, it is also my experience. In this case I tried to improve with several methods, and it is interesting, that in all cases the banding was not visible in photoshop, but if you open it with another program (like "Windows Fotoanzeige") or if you upload it to commons, a slight banding is visible. I think it depends on the processing by the viewing-programs. --Llez (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mount Stuart House horoscope room 2018-08-25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 12:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Large skipper (Ochlodes sylvanus) underside Sweden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 11:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nürnberg St. Lorenz Sakramentshaus 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2018 at 04:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Info @Daniel Case: Well, it is a so-called sacrament house, a tower-like tabernacle of more than 20m height, fitted to the pillar of the church. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not so much that I don't know what it's a picture of, it's that there's so many competing verticals in the image as to sufficiently distract from the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very special work. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. High enzyclopedic value, very good technical work and nice to look at. What do you need more for a FP? The special ratio isn't a problem for me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Wladyslaw. Yann (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hannover, die Marktkirche vanaf de Osterstrasse Dm IMG 4453 2018-07-01 09.56.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 17:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, yes I have already denoised the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Please look at the pedestrian zone near to the person. There you can see a very noisy area. For me to noisy to be a FP. Very pitty because I like this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I see what Wladyslaw is talking about, but I think it's a relatively minor issue in context and also like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark and the composition doesn't work well for me. I'm maybe too classical in my tastes, but the combination of a shoe shop with a church looks a bit awkward to start with. I don't like the white building on the right because it has no charm and the harsh contrasts are not aesthetic. Also the signs on the left are not very elegant, so this shop is not attractive. But the main problem remains this street which is the way where the eyes want to go, while it is too dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin. --The NMI User (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Basile, I have problems with the composition. My issue is not so much the darkness as that the signs up front conflict with the steeple in the back for recognition as the subject of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support even there are a few technical issues I like this view very much. The contrast between classical and modern (and maybe not so successful) architecture on both sides of the street is interessting. Also the contrast between the neon signs and the church is not a conflict but exciting and good in photographically sense. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support interessting composition --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Amrumer Windmühle (2018).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 14:28:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) female underside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 11:03:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vézoles lake riverbank trunk.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 10:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For who want that I fix a potential perspective issue, please read the description. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The light is strong but here it creates a special atmosphere, like in Salvador Dali's paintings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Maybe I'm at fault here, but this photo is just not interesting me much. I don't find it surreal either, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In Dali's paintings you often find such cut trunks with strong light and shadows like with these swans and elephants for example. There's something surrealist with these trees in the sand of a beach, as if they had grown up here. At least it's a surprising situation in a natural place. Some rocks, shells, or umbrellas would be more understandable, but these trunks having a sun bath in front of the sea remain mysterious enough to me to like it. Your feeling probably differs and is perfectly legitimate. Also the quality of this picture is excellent at full size, so good QI + wow factor = FP, but that's just my voice -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I understand how you could have been reminded of that painting. And definitely agreed that the technical quality of the photo is high, as usual for Christian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice touch. --Laitche (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Basile Morin: I'm sorry to end the mystery :) but I added to the description the probable reason for the presence of these trunks. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I wondered if that could be Land art, but it seems to be the unintentional result of both human and natural factors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the picture would be better with a tighter framing. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018L0765 - Saint-Malo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2018 at 07:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I haven't, I do either color version or b&w. I haven't both version for any photo. --Myroslav Vydrak (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very well, then. I might like a brighter sky, but really, per Christian. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Peppers in water.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 17:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 15:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peulle (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice shot. Charles (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Asymmetrical cut, obstructing signal traversed in the middle bottom, extreme distortion and blurred on the left bottom border --Photographer 01:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This photo, as with many I took that day, was taken with my Samyang 10mm ultra wide-angle lens. It has an angle-of-view of 109.6° which is as far as you can reasonably take a rectilinear lens. This photo was taken with the camera pointing slightly up, to bring in more ceiling and less boring concrete floor, and then corrected afterwards in Lightroom. Unlike with my stitched photos, I'm far more restricted about where to crop and the sharpness is not as good, though I think still quite acceptable. I tried to position the camera in the middle to get pleasing symmetrical results, but it isn't perfect. One problem is the sign, which you can see in File:Wemyss Bay railway station concourse 2018-08-25 5.jpg (middle-left) and is bright red, white and yellow and very distracting if you saw that in the middle of the scene. I tried to position so it was edge-on and not catch the eye. It isn't the sort of sign I can just lift up and move out of the way, without getting arrested by the transport police :-). You can also see from that photo how the top of the ceiling in the photo has curved over towards me and is quite close. This will cause the wide-angle perspective distortion by magnifying, but I think here the straight lines of the roof don't look unpleasantly distorted. Other things like round windows and people tend to illustrate that distortion in a more uncomfortable manner. I agree it isn't a perfect photo and I'd have liked to have had the time to make a stitched panorama. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your rich explanation and, I understand what is your intention here, however, I think that this photo is not up to your previous work. I hope you can take my negative feedback as a stimulation to do better job (maybe in a combination of nodal ninja photos). Sincerely this place deserves a perfectionist work that you have accustomed us to appreciate and taste, with enormous size and majestic quality. Obviously my opinion about this photo is little shared, or simply people vote positively because we love you --Photographer 23:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The Photographer, ha ha, I'm not sure about "love". I hope I've ruffled enough feathers with oppose votes and criticism that nobody should feel bad about giving me an oppose if warranted. I guess this is more similar to my fisheye photos than my stitched panorama photos. Or as a good photo of a great subject, rather than a great photo of a great subject, which would be ideal. I would love to go back and take a better shot but that's quite unlikely any time soon. I live 400 miles away, the weather is not always as good as this, and stations can be busy. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support a very strong symmetrical view may be classic but looks over time boring. A little bit asymmety brings the image alive. The other reasons for this picture are self-evident. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Félix, Torralba de Ribota, Zaragoza, España, 2018-04-04, DD 24-26 HDR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2018 at 11:42:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Exterior of the Castle of Valencay 24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2018 at 22:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

alternativeEdit

 

  •   Info So maybe this one is better? Tournasol7 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Much better, IMO, but too different to be an alternate. You could consider nominating that photo separately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree this version is too different to be presented as an alt, but it certainly has its chances as a new nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bridge of Jacques-Gabriel in Blois 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2018 at 23:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's easy to forget that because, without checking the image's metadata after reading your comment, I would not have known that. It explains the pinkish sky, yes, but the image as a whole is still kind of cooler than most cityscape-at-dusk images. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but the colours are not very impressive --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michiel. Good but not great photo - please try again in different light/clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed. -- -donald- (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


Aikataulu viidentenä päivänä ehdotuksen lisäämisen jälkeenEdit

Sat 15 Sep → Thu 20 Sep
Sun 16 Sep → Fri 21 Sep
Mon 17 Sep → Sat 22 Sep
Tue 18 Sep → Sun 23 Sep
Wed 19 Sep → Mon 24 Sep
Thu 20 Sep → Tue 25 Sep

Aikataulu yhdeksäntenä päivänä ehdotuksen lisäämisen jälkeenEdit

Tue 11 Sep → Thu 20 Sep
Wed 12 Sep → Fri 21 Sep
Thu 13 Sep → Sat 22 Sep
Fri 14 Sep → Sun 23 Sep
Sat 15 Sep → Mon 24 Sep
Sun 16 Sep → Tue 25 Sep
Mon 17 Sep → Wed 26 Sep
Tue 18 Sep → Thu 27 Sep
Wed 19 Sep → Fri 28 Sep
Thu 20 Sep → Sat 29 Sep